/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200309.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 9, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 49 Headlines 500.COM LIMITED: Pomerantz Reminds of March 16 Deadline 616 FIRST AVENUE: SSC High Rise Sues Over $6 Million Unpaid Funds ACR TITLE GROUP: Lechowicz Trust Balks at Closing Service Fee ACTION TOWING: Rosenberg & Dorough Seek Proper Wages for Drivers AFFILIATE ASSET: Violates FDCPA in M.D. Florida, Nobles Suit Says AGAPE HOME: Solochek Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA B2B INDUSTRIAL: PT Metals Sues over Unwanted Fax Ads BEYOND MEAT: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action Lawsuit BP EXPLORATION: Court Strikes Untimely Expert Report in Williams BRRRN LLC: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA BYREDO USA INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Hedges Suit Alleges CANADA GOOSE: National Elevator Name Lead Plaintiff in Cheng Action CANADIAN COUNTY, OK: Faces Arndt Civil Rights Suit in W.D. Okla. CHEROKEE NATION HEALTH: Class Action Filed for Exposing Patients CHEVRON USA: Bradford Labor Suit Remanded to Calif. Superior Court CHICAGO, IL: Walker and Walawski Seek to Certify Class Action CHIEFTAIN COATING: Young Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime Pay CIOX HEALTH: 6th Cir. Upholds Summary Judgment Order in Faber CIRE TRUDON: Faces Hedges Suit in S.D.N.Y. Alleging ADA Violation CLIENT SERVICES: Faces Greifman FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York CLIENT SERVICES: Scipio Sues in New York Over Violation of FDCPA COATES FIELD: Underpays Agents, Cummings Suit Alleges CONAIR CORP: VanDerGinst Files Class Action Over Hair Dryers CREDIT VW CANADA: Court Refuses Suit Over Lease Transfer Fees D&JJ INC: Villanueva Sues Over Failure to Pay Workers Under FLSA DEVON'S JEWELERS: Begg Sues in N.D. California Over ADA Violation DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Matthews Civil Rights Suit Moved to D.D.C. DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Kimko Sues in E.D. New York Over FDCPA Breach ENERGEN RESOURCES: Court Certifies Narrowed Class in Anderson Suit ENHANCED RECOVERY: Zayika Class Certification Bid Stayed EQT CORP: Heaster Suit Seeks to Certify Landmen Class EVERGREEN PEST: Bender Sues in D. Colorado Over Violation of TCPA FAMILY DOLLAR: Martinez Civil Rights Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. FBCS INC: Lowe Sues in D. New Jersey Alleging Violation of FDCPA FLAGSHIP CREDIT: Court Denies Approval of $4MM Deal in Ward Action FLUOR CORPORATION: Union Asset Sues Over Decline in Share Price FOREST RIVER: Court Dismisses Failed Electrical Wiring Suit G & L ENTERPRISES: Underpays Exotic Dancers, Anthony Alleges GENERAL MOTORS: Crossovers Have Fuse Box Issue, Claims Class Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Szep Claims in Sloan Action Gets Dismissed GERON CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Shareholder Class Action GOTHIC CABINET: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation GRAND CANYON: Rosen Continues to Investigate Securities Claims GURBIR GREWAL: Greco Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action HAGYARD EQUINE: Counterclaims Sought in Radiograph Class Action HARVEST LANDSCAPE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Tellez Says HEALTH CARE: Class Settlement in Candelaria Gets Prelim. Approval HI-TECH PHARMA: Dietary Supplements Contain Toxins, Rosas Claims HOME DEPOT: Court Certified Settlement Class in Manopla Suit HOUSTON CIRCLE: Thomas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages HP INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action IC SYSTEM: Faces Werzberger FDCPA Class Suit in S.D. New York JELD-WEN HOLDING: Bronstein Notifies Shareholders of Class Action JELD-WEN HOLDING: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action JELD-WEN HOLDING: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Suit JELD-WEN HOLDING: Schall Law Alerts Investors to Class Action JOHN BALDWIN: Class Certification Bid Denied in Frazier Suit KELLOGG CO: Marotto Denied Class Certification in Pringles Action KENT STATE UNIVERSITY: Wiler Sues Alleging Gender Discrimination KINUM INC: Morgan Sues in N.D. Illinois Alleging FDCPA Violation LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Smith Pyramid Scheme Suit LOGIX FEDERAL: Faces Deronette Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection LUCKIN COFFEE: Pawar Law Group Announces Securities Class Action LUCKIN COFFEE: Scott+Scott Notifies Investors of Class Action MARATHON REFINING: Court Dismisses Wood Labor Suit W/Leave to Amend MARY ANN MORSE: App. Court Flips Dismissal of Ryan Class Action MCMC LLC: Mauthe Suit Seeks to Certify Class MICHAEL PAGE: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Jordan Suit MICHIGAN UNEMPLOYMENT: Mich. App. Upholds Dismissal of Bauserman MICROCHIP TECH: Court Certifies Employee Class in Schuman Suit MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Breckenridge FDCPA Suit in N.D. California MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Landrum Suit in Texas Over FDCPA Violation MIDWEST RECOVERY: Faces Worsham FDCPA Class Suit in Colorado MOTEL 6: $10M Settlement Over Guest Privacy Violations Approved MRS BPO LLC: Faces Mun Suit in S.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Kim Sues in E.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation NEST FRAGRANCES: Hedges Sues in New York Alleging ADA Violation NEW MEXICO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Young Alleges NEW YORK: Court Accepts Amended Complaint in Mitchell Inmates Suit OAK AND FORT: Faces Begg Suit in California Over Violation of ADA OPERA LTD: Scott+Scott Reminds of March 24 Plaintiff Bid Deadline PACIFIC SHOE: Violates Disabilities Act in California, Begg Says PARAMETRIC SOUND: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for May 18 PLACE FOR MOM: Class Certification in Pine Suit Partly Granted PROFESSIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Faces Lorenzo FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces Hamilton FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York PROVEN RX SALES: Faces Katz Consumer Class Suit in S.D. Florida PSA REALTY: Chavez Sues in E.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation REAL TIME: Faces Ventura Suit in New York Over Violation of FDCPA RIOT GAMES: New Legal Counsel Takes Over Class Action Lawsuit RIVER WAFFLES: Wilson Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages ROGER LEE HARMON: $5.2M Sale of Chase County Property Approved ROUND SKY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Eckstein Suit Claims S & C ELECTRIC: Stirmel Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA and WWPCL SAKS FIFTH AVENUE: LV, Gucci & Prada Accused of Illegal Conspiracy SANCHEZ OIL: Court Refuses to Compel Arbitration in Flynn Suit SASOL LTD: Bragar Eagel Alerts Investors to Class Action SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: $65MM 'Blackfish' Deals Gets Prelim. OK SEQWATER: Queensland Dam Operator to Appeal Class Action SHASTA BEVERAGES: Garcia Seeks to Certify Class SIOUX HONEY: Class Certification Bid in Tran Suit Granted in Part SIX FLAGS: Lieff Cabraser Notes of April 13 Filing Deadline SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Plagued by Maintenance Problems, Reveals Suit SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Action SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Pomerantz Alerts Shareholders to Class Action SVA HEALTHCARE: Navigators Has Until March 9 to Answer Questions TALLGRASS ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Lawsuit TARGET CORP: $8.2MM Settlement in Walters Suit Gets Prelim Approval TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces Evans FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: McCutchen Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Non-Stick Pans Defective, Partida et al. Claim TROPICANA MANUFACTURING: Falsely Markets Drinks, Willard Alleges TRULIEVE CORP: Pomerantz Woos Shareholders to Class Action UNITED STATES: $1.7MM Deal in Jones Veterans Suit Gets Final OK UNITED STATES: Education Dept. Urges Court to Toss Students Suit UNITED STATES: Faces Velesaca v. Homeland Security in S.D.N.Y. UNIVERSAL TRANS: Class Conditionally Certified in Sprague Suit USCB INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Rideau Suit Alleges VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for May 27 VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Court Strikes Schmitzes' Rep. Claims VERDI EQUITIES: Underpays Cooks, Benavides Suit Alleges VOLKSWAGEN AG: To Resume Talks Over German Class Action WAL-MART STORES: Faces Zamora Suit in Calif. Over Unpaid Wages WESTPAC BANKING: Byrne Hits Stock Drop Over Money Laundering Row WESTPAC BANKING: Zhang Law Files Class Action Lawsuit ********* 500.COM LIMITED: Pomerantz Reminds of March 16 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against 500.com Limited ("500.com" or the "Company") (NYSE: WBAI) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 20-cv-00806, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded 500.com securities between April 27, 2018 and December 31, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased 500.com securities during the class period, you have until March 16, 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 POMERANTZ LLP E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or Tel: 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. 500.com, through its subsidiaries, purports to provide online gaming services primarily in the People's Republic of China ("China") and Europe. 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) 500.com executives and consultants engaged in a bribery scheme with Japanese officials in an effort to gain favor in a bid to run an upcoming Japanese casino resort; (ii) consequently, 500.com was in violation of Japanese anti-bribery laws and its Code of Ethics; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On December 31, 2019, 500.com issued a press release announcing that a Special Investigation Committee was formed by the Board to investigate illegal money transfers and the role played by consultants following the arrest of one current consultant and two former consultants by the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office in Tokyo Japan. On this news, shares of 500.com fell $1.08 per share, or 12.56%, to close at $7.52 per share on January 2, 2020, the following trading day, damaging investors. 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. [GN] 616 FIRST AVENUE: SSC High Rise Sues Over $6 Million Unpaid Funds ----------------------------------------------------------------- SSC High Rise Construction Inc., individually, and as representatives of all trust beneficiaries similarly situated v. 616 FIRST AVENUE DEVELOPER LLC, JDS DEVELOPMENT GROUP LLC, JDS CONSTRUCTION GROUP LLC, MICHAEL STERN, and "John Doe One" through "John Doe Ten," and other Lien Holders unknown, Case No. 651367/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Feb. 28, 2020), is brought to seek judgment against the Defendants for all trust funds allegedly misappropriated or otherwise improperly diverted, which funds would have been paid for the outstanding balance of at least $6 million owed to the Plaintiff. SSC contracted with 616 First Avenue Developer LLC ("Owner"), JDS Development and JDS Construction (collectively, "Contractor Defendants"), to perform, among other things, foundation and superstructure concrete work on a construction project located at 626 First Avenue, in New York City (the "Project" or the "Property"). Owner is a single-purpose entity formed to hold an ownership interest in the Project. Owner, in turn, is owned and controlled by JDS Development and/or JDS Construction, which are alter-egos of Owner, who exercised dominion and control over the Project and SSC's work. SSC contends that the Contractor Defendants are jointly and severally liable to SSC for damages. The Project, also known as The American Copper Buildings, consists of a 761-unit dual tower rental project which includes a three-story skybridge that connects two buildings, one of which rises 41 stories, while the other, 48. The Project is the first copper skyscraper facade in New York. Indeed, the impressiveness of the Project cannot be understated and, notably, is touted by JDS Development on its Web site. The initial contract was with Owner, for the agreed-amount of $48,500,000. Additional sums became due to SSC for change order and additional work outside the scope of the original contract which was directed and agreed to by JDS Development and JDS Construction, totaling not less than $7,219,212.94. Despite SSC's performance of its work in a quality and workmanlike manner, in full compliance with the contract and change orders, Contractor Defendants have failed and refused to pay SSC for all of its work performed to date, leaving an outstanding balance of at least $6,699,837.72, says the complaint. SSC was a construction company specializing in concrete work for large-scale residential, mixed-use, and commercial properties. JDS Development is a real estate development, construction, and acquisition firm involved with residential, hospitality, and mixed-use projects in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian L. Gardner, Esq. Lauren M. Manduke, Esq. COLE SCHOTZ P.C. 1325 Sixth Avenue, 19th Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 752-8000 ACR TITLE GROUP: Lechowicz Trust Balks at Closing Service Fee ------------------------------------------------------------- CAROLYN SUE LECHOWICZ, REVOCABLE TRUST DATED JULY 31, 1993, BY AND THROUGH TRUSTEE THOMAS LECHOWICZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACR TITLE GROUP, LLLP, Defendant, Case No. 103392849 (Fla. Cir., Pinellas Cty., Feb. 17, 2020) is an action arising from closing fees improperly charged and collected by the Defendant from buyers of real estate transactions through the State of Florida. On December 11, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate purchase and sale contract with the owner of certain real estate located in Pinnellas County, Florida. The Plaintiff agreed to pay cash for the Seller's Property. According to the Contract, the owner's title policy premium, title search and title agent closing services were to only be charged to either the Buyer or Seller consistent with the terms and instructions of the Contract. The parties agreed that the Seller shall designate Closing Agent and pay for Owners's Policy and Charges. The Seller designated the Defendant to be the Closing Agent for the procurement of title insurance and to perform closing services in connection with the transaction. The Defendant accepted this designation and by doing so, agreed to supervice and carry out the closing in accordance with the terms of the Contract, including to only charge and collect fees from monies in escrow in accordance with the Contract. At closing, the Defendant presented a settlement disclosure statement a/k/a HUD Settlement Statement detailing the receipts and disbursements made on the Plaintiff's account, including the allocation of the Defendant's Closing Services Fee. The Settlement Statement, an authorized Closing Services Fee was charged to the Seller, but an unauthorized Closing Services Fee in the amount of $250 was improperly charged by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. ACR Title Group is a licensed title agency in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. EGGNATZ PASCUCCI 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33328 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 Facsimile: (954) 889-5913 E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com - and – Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Facsimile: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: seth@epllc.com - and – Richard B. Feinberg, Esq. FLORIDA LEGACY LAW, LLC 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 313 Clearwater, FL 33755 Telephone: (727) 231-6400 E-mail: ricfeinberg@hotmail.com ACTION TOWING: Rosenberg & Dorough Seek Proper Wages for Drivers ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALEX ROSENBERG and NATHAN DOROUGH, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ACTION TOWING,INC., and JOHN LAVO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-00494-VMC-SPF (M.D. Fla., March 3, 2020) alleges the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the full minimum wage and the time and one-half their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 per work week. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as tow truck drivers and performed related activities for Defendants in and around Hillsborough County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brianna A. Jordan, Esq. Morgan & Morgan, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Direct No. 813-393-5457 Facsimile: 813-393-5481 E-mail: bjordan@forthepeople.com AFFILIATE ASSET: Violates FDCPA in M.D. Florida, Nobles Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Affiliate Asset Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Tashawner Nobles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Affiliate Asset Solutions, LLC, Pendrick Capital Partners II, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 6:20-cv-00367 (M.D. Fla., March 2, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Affiliate Asset Solutions, LLC, is a debt collection agency located in Peachtree Corners, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com AGAPE HOME: Solochek Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Khani Solochek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AGAPE HOME HEALTH CARE LLC, and TRANAISE SCOTT, Case No. 2:20-cv-00346-WED (E.D. Wis., March 3, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Defendants have had a common policy and practice that fail to pay the Plaintiff and others at one and one half times their regular rates of pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek, the Plaintiff alleges. As a result, the Defendant has denied the Plaintiff of overtime pay, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff Solochek was formerly employed as a Personal Care Worker by Agape since March 3, 2017. Agape Home Health Care LLC is a home health care agency based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry A. Johnson, Esq. Summer H. Murshid, Esq. Timothy P. Maynard, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 222 East Erie Street, Suite 210 PO Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Phone: 414-271-8650 Facsimile: 414-271-8442 Email: ljohnson@hq-law.com smurshid@hq-law.com tmaynard@hq-law.com B2B INDUSTRIAL: PT Metals Sues over Unwanted Fax Ads ---------------------------------------------------- The case PT METALS, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. B2B INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00487 (N.D. Ohio, March 3, 2020) arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unauthorized and unwanted fax advertisements in an attempt to generate sales leads, and ultimately increase its revenues. According to the complaint, the Defendant's fax advertisements violate the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 and caused Plaintiff and members of the Classes to suffer actual harm, including the aggravation and nuisance of receiving such faxes, the loss of use of their fax machines during the receipt of such faxes, increased labor expenses, and the loss of any ink and paper used to print them. PT Metals LLC is a contract manufacturer and assembler of aluminum and other products. B2B Industrial Products LLC is an Illinois-based national company that sells and services industrial packaging equipment and supplies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam T. Savett, Esq. SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC 2764 Carole Lane Allentown, PA 18104 Telephone: (610) 621-4550 Facsimile: (610) 978-2970 E-mail: adam@savettlaw.com BEYOND MEAT: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Beyond Meat, Inc. (BYND). . Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. BYND Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/beyond-meat-inc-loss-form?prid=5495&wire=1 Beyond Meat, Inc. (BYND) BYND Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 2, 2019 - January 27, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : March 30, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/beyond-meat-inc-loss-form?prid=5495&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Beyond Meat, Inc. made materially 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. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Contact: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Web site: http://www.zlk.com/ [GN] BP EXPLORATION: Court Strikes Untimely Expert Report in Williams ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued an Order and Reason granting Defendants' Motion to Strike in the case captioned BENJAMIN JAMES WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., Defendants. Civil Action No. 18-9753. (E.D. La.) Before the Court is a Motion to Strike Diagnosing Physician's Expert Report and Trial Testimony for Failure to Comply with F.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(B) and Rec. Doc. No. 35, filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Company. Also before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Lack of Expert Medical Evidence of Diagnosis and Causation filed by Defendants. The case arises from Plaintiff's alleged exposure to harmful substances and chemicals after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Plaintiff alleges that during the Deepwater Horizon incident, he was employed by Shamrock Management, LLC and Environmental Safety & Health Consulting Services, LLC to perform response activities. During this work, he allegedly was exposed to oil, other hydrocarbons, and other substances released from the MC252 Well, Corexit EC9500, Corexit EC9527, and other dispersants and decontaminants. According to Plaintiff, he was diagnosed on July 17, 2014 with chronic damage to conjunctiva, chronic rhinosinusitis, and chronic contact dermatitis at the site of contact. On October 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO") action against Defendants, pursuant to the terms of the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA") in In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010 (commonly referred to as "MDL 2179"). Plaintiff alleges his diagnosed medical conditions complained of were legally and proximately caused by his exposure to the substances and chemicals during his response activity efforts. Pursuant to the District Court's initial Scheduling Order entered on March 15, 2019, Plaintiff's deadline to produce expert reports to defense counsel was October 11, 2019. On that date, Plaintiff disclosed Dr. Scott A. Haydel but characterized him as a treating, non-retained physician and did not produce an expert report authored by him. At Plaintiff's request, the Court extended Plaintiff's deadline to disclose Dr. Haydel's written expert report to November 11, 2019. Plaintiff provided the Original Report to Defendants on November 11, 2019. Then, two and one-half weeks later, without leave of Court, Plaintiff filed the Revised Report on November 27, 2019. Plaintiff did not move to extend his expert disclosure deadline beyond November 11, 2019. Now, in effect, Plaintiff is requesting the deadline be extended to November 27, 2019, when the Revised Report was provided. Rule 16(b) provides a schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent. Under Rule 16(b), Plaintiff as the movant has the burden of showing good cause. Plaintiff offers no explanation as to why he failed to timely comply with his expert report deadline, even though he has known his original expert report deadline for over eight months, since the original Scheduling Order was docketed on March 15, 2019, and he knew his extended report deadline, November 11, 2019, for two and one-half weeks before providing the Revised Report. Instead, Plaintiff simply attached the Revised Report to his opposition. As Defendants point out in their reply, Plaintiff hopes to dodge his obligation to meet this good cause standard by slipping a new expert report in as an exhibit to his opposition memorandum, but this sort of end run around the rules of civil procedure is inappropriate and is contrary to the Court's prior Order. The other Rule 16(b) factors likewise weigh against extending the deadline for providing the expert report. The importance of the Revised Report is low because, for the reasons explained, even if the Court extended the deadline for producing the Revised Report, the report would be excluded for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Defendants would be prejudiced if the Revised Report were admitted. Finally, Plaintiff has had more than sufficient time to comply with the Court's Scheduling Order but has failed to do so. The complaint was filed on October 19, 2018 and the Scheduling Order setting the trial for February 10, 2020 was issued on March 15, 2019. A continuance is not justified in the case, the Court opines. The Plaintiff has not met his burden of proof of showing good cause to extend his expert report deadline to November 27, 2019. The Revised Report is untimely. In sum, the District Court rules that Defendants' Motion to Strike and Motion for Summary Judgment are GRANTED. Judgment will be entered in favor of Defendants, BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Company, and against Plaintiff Benjamin Williams. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Order and Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/ufqvxlr from Leagle.com Benjamin James Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Howard L. Nations , Nations Law Firm, Albertus F. Wiesedeppe , Nations Law Firm, Alison Divine , Nations Law Firm, 9703 Richmond, Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77042, Frank Jacob D'Amico, Jr. , Frank J. D'Amico, Jr., APLC, 4608 Rye Street, Metairie, Louisiana 70006 & Gary L. Fuller , Nations Law Firm. 9703 Richmond, Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77042 BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company, Defendants, represented by Don Keller Haycraft - dkhaycraft@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Michael P. Cash - mcash@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore - cbwilmore@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Chauntelle Renee Wood - crwood@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Devin C. Reid - dcreid@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Jillian M. Marullo , Liskow & Lewis, Russell Keith Jarrett - rkjarrett@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis & Wade T. Howard - wthoward@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis. BRRRN LLC: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brrrn LLC. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, for herself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Brrrn LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01766 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Brrrn LLC operates classes, events, and other programs in a controlled cold-temperature environment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com BYREDO USA INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Hedges Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Byredo USA Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, for herself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Byredo USA Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01768 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Byredo is a European luxury brand founded in Stockholm in 2006 by Ben Gorham.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com CANADA GOOSE: National Elevator Name Lead Plaintiff in Cheng Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- National Elevator Industry Pension Fund has been named lead plaintiff in a stockholder class action complaint commenced against Canada Goose Holdings Inc. and certain of its current and former senior officials. The case is LI HONG CHENG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CANADA GOOSE HOLDINGS INC., DANI REISS, JONATHAN SINCLAIR, and JOHN BLACK, Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-8204 (VSB). (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff Li Hong Cheng commenced the securities fraud class action lawsuit against Canada Goose Holdings Inc., et al., alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act (Exchange Act), as well as U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5 promulgated pursuant to the Exchange Act. Movants National Elevator, Steven Hulaj, and Ricardo Cardoso each filed separate motions for their appointment as lead plaintiffs, and approval of lead counsel. In making the determination of which plaintiff has the greatest financial interest, courts consider four factors: (1) the number of shares purchased during the class period (2) the number of net shares purchased during the class period (3) the total net funds expended during the class period and (4) the approximate losses suffered. The Court finds that National Elevator is the most adequate plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i), and that the remaining movants have failed to rebut this presumption. Therefore, National Elevator is the appropriate lead plaintiff for the class action. Because movant National Elevator has the largest financial interest in the litigation, currently appears to fulfill the typicality and adequacy requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and is represented by counsel with substantial experience in securities class action litigation, National Elevator Industry Pension Fund's motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and for approval of its selection of lead counsel is granted, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York orders. The remaining movants' motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of lead counsel are denied. National Elevator is directed to file a second amended complaint without delay. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/r49jgdu from Leagle.com National Elevator Industry Pension Fund, Lead Plaintiff, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld - DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Li Hong Cheng, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II - ahood@pomlaw.com - Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman - jalieberman@pomlaw.com - Pomerantz LLP. Steven Hulaj, Movant, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman , Pomerantz LLP. Ricardo Cardoso, Movant, represented by William Scott Holleman - holleman@bespc.com - Johnson Fistel, LLP. CANADIAN COUNTY, OK: Faces Arndt Civil Rights Suit in W.D. Okla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hatfield, et al. The case is styled as David Arndt, as representative of all persons similarly situated v. Barbara Hatfield, individually and in her official capacity as Special District Judge for Canadian County, OK; Maria Hurst, individually and in her official capacity as Court Clerk for Canadian County, OK; Mike Hunter, individually, In his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma; Kevin Stitt, individually, In his official capacity as Governor for the State of Oklahoma; Charles McCall, individually, In his official capacity as Speaker of the House/Representative for district 22 for the state of Oklahoma; Greg Treat, individually, In his official capacity as President Pro Tempore/Senator for district 47 for the State of Oklahoma; Jon Echols, individually, In his official capacity as Majority Floor Leader/Representative for District 90 for the State of Oklahoma; Marilyn Stark, individually, In her official capacity as Representative for district 100 for the State of Oklahoma; Mark Lawson, individually, In his official capacity as Representative for district 30 for the State of Oklahoma; Kevin West, individually, In his official capacity as Representative for district 54 for the State of Oklahoma; Nathan Dahm, individually, In his official capacity as Senator for district 33; Justin Brown, individually, In his official capacity as Director of the Department of Human Services for the State of Oklahoma; Stacy Dillard, individually, In her official capacity as an attorney for the Department of Human Services for the state of Oklahoma; Angela Berry, individually, In her official capacity as an attorney for the Department of Human Services for the State of Oklahoma; Taylor Henderson, individually, In her official capacity as Director of Council on Judicial Complaints for the State of Oklahoma; David Halley, individually, In his official capacity as Attorney; Candice Shultz, individually, In her official capacity as Legal Secretary for David Halley; Jeramy Jarman, individually, In his official capacity as Attorney; Mark Hixson, individually, In his official capacity as Attorney; Denise Brewer, individually, In her official capacity as House Representative for District 71; Jack McCurdy, individually, In his official capacity as Elected Judge for Canadian County Oklahoma; Paul Hesse, individually, In his official capacity as Elected Judge for Canadian County Oklahoma; Bob Hughey, individually, In his official capacity as Elected Judge for Canadian County Oklahoma; Michael Fields, individually, In his official capacity as District Attorney for Canadian County Oklahoma; Justin Kemp, individually, In his official capacity as Assistant District Attorney for Canadian County Oklahoma; Tiffany Monte, individually, In her official capacity as Department of Human Services Child Welfare investigator; Shannon Mallam, individually, In her official capacity as Department of Human Services Child Welfare investigator; Carmen Flores , individually, In her official capacity as Deparment of Human Services Child Welfare Supervisor; Jason Davis, individually, In his official capacity as Department of Human Services Child Welfare Supervisor; Janet Peery, individually, In her official capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the YWCAOKC; Michael Figgins, individually, In his official capacity as Executive Director with Legal Aid Services of Oklahoma Inc.; Kim Garrett, individually, In her official capacity as CEO and Founder of Palomar; Case No. 5:20-cv-00181-R (W.D. Okla., Feb. 28, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights. Barbara "Bobbie" Hatfield (b. December 17, 1935) was a 2014 Democratic candidate for District 35 of the West Virginia House of Delegates. Hatfield is a former Democratic member of the West Virginia House of Delegates, representing District 30 from 1998 to 2012. The Plaintiff, of El Reno, Oklahoma, appears pro se.[BN] CHEROKEE NATION HEALTH: Class Action Filed for Exposing Patients ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kathryn Gilker, writing for 5 News, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Cherokee Nation W.W. Hastings Hospital by two patients who claim a nurse reused needles, syringes and vials from person to person, exposing them to a number of diseases including HIV. The class action lawsuit alleges a nurse at the hospital reused needles, syringes and vials on patients in 2018. The lawsuit says by violating the CDC protocols, the hospital possibly exposed patients to diseases like HIV and hepatitis. "We think there was as many as 200 people who were potentially affected," Attorney Fourth Scoufos, Esq. said. Scoufos represents two people who both were patients at the hospital during the time frame. "We think they delayed in contacting the patients and we think the hospital didn't take the appropriate steps to safeguard not only the patients' health but to properly inform and notify the patients," Scoufos said. The Department of Health and Human Services Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services investigated the hospital and found the nurse used the same needle and syringe on several different patients until the needle was dull, usually at the end of the day. Scoufos says one of his clients was called by the hospital saying they were doing some free health screenings, so she asked the hospital why. "It was not immediately disclosed to her that it was a result of a lack of protocol that the hospital staff followed and the other one I think heard about it through the grapevine and since then we've heard several other people found out about it the same way," Scoufos said. In a statement Cherokee Nation Chief of Staff, Todd Enlow said: "The Cherokee Nation is reviewing the filing and remains committed to providing quality health care for our tribal citizens and all our health services patients. Cherokee Nation Health Services made policy revisions that were met and approved by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 2018, including additional training and monitoring and reporting procedures. Cherokee Nation Health Services strives for a culture of transparency and encourages employees to speak up about concerns of patient safety and outcomes. The Cherokee Nation continues to advance its health system recently opening a new state-of-the-art outpatient health center, constructing a new OSU College of Osteopathic Medicine at Cherokee Nation medical school, adding more specialty services, employing a great workforce and reducing patient wait times." The nurse who didn't follow protocols was identified by The Cherokee Nation in 2018 as John Baker. He resigned from his position in May 2018. [GN] CHEVRON USA: Bradford Labor Suit Remanded to Calif. Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has ordered for the remand of the case, JOANN BRADFORD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHEVRON USA INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-04051-PJH. (N.D. Cal.) to the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa. In June 2019, Plaintiffs commenced the putative class action against Chevron in the California Superior Court, alleging four causes of action: (1) failure to pay reporting-time pay pursuant to Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 1-2001, (Wage Order 1-2001); (2) failure to pay all wages earned at termination pursuant to Labor Code Sections 200-203; (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements pursuant to Labor Code Sections 226-226.3; and (4) violation of Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq. All of plaintiffs' claims are based on their contention that Chevron failed to compensate certain employees for reporting-time relating to "standby shifts" and standby time. As such, the parties agree that the second, third, and fourth causes of action are derivative of the first cause of action, in that those claims seek penalties and other relief for Chevron's alleged failure to pay wages disputed under the first cause of action. In July 2019, Chevron removed the action to the California District Court. In August 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand the case. Chevron subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss. On review, the District Court finds that Plaintiffs' first cause of action is not preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). As defendant's removal was based solely on the argument that plaintiffs' first cause of action was preempted by the LMRA, Plaintiffs' motion to remand is GRANTED, the District Court rules. As such, the District Court does not reach defendant's motion to dismiss, which is TERMINATED by the recent order. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/vjojuha from Leagle.com Joann Bradford, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Liza Mosqueriola, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Jason Rohrbach, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated & Brian White, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jannah Vanessa Manansala - jmanansala@unioncounsel.net - Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld A Professional Corporation, Alexander S. Nazarov , Weinberg, Roger and Rosenfeld, 1001 Marina Village Pkwy, Ste 200, Alameda, CA 94501-6430 & Kristina L. Hillman - khillman@unioncounsel.net - Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld. Chevron USA Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas Roger Hart - douglas.hart@morganlewis.com - Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Marina Cristine Gruber - marina.gruber@morganlewis.com - Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. CHICAGO, IL: Walker and Walawski Seek to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- DANYETTA WALKER and JOSEPH WALAWSKI individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation, and UNITED ROAD TOWING, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-01379 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the case as a class action, on behalf of: "all vehicle owners who had their vehicle impounded and disposed of by the City of Chicago pursuant to Municipal Code of Chicago (MCC) section 9-100-120 (the Class)"; and "all vehicle owners who had their vehicle towed by or through the Department of Streets and Sanitation pursuant to Chapter 9-92 of the MCC that were disposed of by the City (Notice Class). 2. designating Danyetta Walker and Joseph Walawski as class representatives; and 3. appointing Myron M. Cherry, Jacie C. Zolna, and Benjamin R. Swetland as class counsel. The Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge the constitutionality of a City ordinance allowing it to take and dispose of vehicles for an owner's failure to pay traffic tickets without providing any form of compensation to the owner, or even a hearing to determine fair compensation for the taking of the vehicle. The primary issue in this suit is whether the procedures set forth in the MCC authorizing the taking of vehicles without compensation violates the Takings Clause of the United States and Illinois Constitutions. Chicago, on Lake Michigan in Illinois, is among the largest cities in the U.S. United Road provides vehicle towing services. The Company offers towing, recovery, impound, storage, and incidence and vehicle management solutions.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Classes are: Myron M. Cherry, Esq. Jacie C. Zolna, Esq. Benjamin R. Swetland, Esq. Jeremiah Nixon, Esq. Jessica C. Chavin, Esq. MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES LLC 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372-2100 E-mail: mcherry@cherry-law.com jzolna@cherry-law.com bswetland@cherry-law.com jnixon@cherry-law.com jchavin@cherry-law.com CHIEFTAIN COATING: Young Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Collette Young and Henry Bennett, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees v. CHIEFTAIN COATING, LLC, BURKARD INDUSTRIES, INC. and JOHN "JAY" BURKARD, jointly and severally, Case No. 2:20-cv-10520-DPH-RSW (E.D. Mich., Feb. 28, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a common policy and/or practice of requiring their production employees to regularly work before, during, and after their scheduled shifts without pay. The unpaid work was compensable and amounted to overtime because the time was in addition to the production employees' full-time schedules (i.e., 40 hours per week). The Defendants also failed to pay the production employees their correct overtime rate under the FLSA's regular rate calculation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly production worker in Clinton Township, Michigan. The Defendants offer metal finishing services to their customers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. Thomas J. Cedoz, Esq. KREIS ENDERLE, P.C. 8225 Moorsbridge P.O. Box 4010 Kalamazoo, MI 49003-4010 Phone: (269) 324-3000 Facsimile: (269) 324-3010 Email: jyoung@kehb.com tcedoz@kehb.com CIOX HEALTH: 6th Cir. Upholds Summary Judgment Order in Faber ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a district court order granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned RICHARD FABER and JENNIFER MONROE, Individually and also on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CIOX HEALTH, LLC, d/b/a HealthPort Technologies, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 18-5896, (6th Cir.). Ciox is a large medical-records provider. It doesn't provide any healthcare services of its own, but it contracts with those who do. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") subjects Ciox to Department of Health and Human Service regulations, which include fee-limit provisions. The Tennessee state also has layered on additional rules that govern patients' access to medical records, which include the Tennessee Medical Records Act of 1974 ("TMRA"). The named Plaintiffs worked with law firms to request their medical records from two Tennessee hospitals, and both hospitals contracted with Ciox to provide patients their medical records. It was Ciox who serviced Plaintiffs' requests, and it was Ciox who charged them for their records. Plaintiffs would eventually file the class action, with allegations that Ciox charged them more than what HIPAA's implementing regulations and the TMRA allow. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs' TMRA claim for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs later moved to certify a class of "persons who requested their medical records from medical providers and were subsequently overcharged for their medical records by Defendant Ciox." Plaintiffs and Ciox filed cross motions for summary judgment about three months later. And the district court eventually granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Just two weeks later, the district court granted Ciox's summary judgment motion. Plaintiffs now appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment to Ciox. On review, the Sixth Circuit notes that all of Plaintiffs' common-law claims suffer from the same fundamental defect: Tennessee common law is no substitute for the private right of action that Congress refused to create in HIPAA. That unavoidable conclusion has consequences. Here, it means that Plaintiffs cannot prove every element of their claims. The Sixth Circuit adds that Plaintiffs' negligence and negligence per se claims fail right out of the gate for the same reason: Plaintiffs cannot establish that Ciox owed Plaintiffs a duty to not overcharge for medical records. That is because no such duty exists under Tennessee's common law. As a result, each of Plaintiffs' attempts to locate that duty leads to a predictable dead end. Plaintiffs next point to Ciox's answer to their complaint. There, Ciox allegedly admitted that it owed a duty to patients, including Plaintiffs and Class members, to comply with federal law and regulations including HIPAA and the HITECH Act. But surely Ciox's pleadings are not authoritative pronouncements of Tennessee law, the Sixth Circuit points out. And besides, a quick look at the record confirms that Plaintiffs' claim is misleading. Ciox only admitted that it had a duty to comply with the law. That, of course, tells us nothing about whether Ciox owed Plaintiffs the type of common-law duty at issue here. Plaintiffs also misplace their reliance on cases suggesting that statutes may inform the standard of care of an ordinary negligence claim, the Sixth Circuit continues. This, of course, is one possible use for statutory standards short of deeming such violations negligence per se. But the problem for Plaintiffs is that the issue is not whether statutes can inform what it means to breach a hypothetical duty. The issue is whether such a duty exists under Tennessee common law in the first place. And here it does not. The same goes for Plaintiffs' negligence per se claim, the Sixth Circuit says. That aptly named doctrine permits a court to treat a statutory violation as a per se breach of the standard of care. But it does not permit a court to recognize new common-law duties that could not support an ordinary negligence claim. In other words: The negligence per se doctrine does not create a new cause of action. Rather, it is a form of ordinary negligence that enables the courts to use a penal statute to define a reasonably prudent person's standard of care. So too here, the Appellate Court says. Plaintiffs can't prove the existence of any common-law duty that could support their negligence claims. So their negligence claims fail, the Appellate Court finds. As for quasi-contract claims, Plaintiffs' claims based on implied-in-law contract and unjust enrichment fail for largely the same reasons, the Sixth Circuit notes. In Tennessee, these claims are essentially the same. They refer to those situations when, based on justice and equity, the law will imply a contractual relationship without a legal contract. Essentially, Plaintiffs ask the Appellate Court to hold that Ciox owes Plaintiffs a quasi-contractual duty to not charge them more for their medical records than HIPAA permits. They ask the Appellate Court for this because, of course, the parties never entered into a legal contract to that effect. But Plaintiffs cite no authority remotely suggesting that justice and equity under Tennessee common law so requires. Nor has the Appellate Court found any. And the one case on which they substantially rely is inapposite. So Plaintiffs' quasi-contract claims also fail, the Sixth Circuit opines. As to the Plaintiffs' Tennessee Medical Records Act (TMRA) claim, it flounders for a different reason, the Sixth Circuit opines. As relevant, the TMRA is unlike HIPAA in two ways, one good for Plaintiffs, one bad, indeed, fatal for them. The good: The TMRA appears to authorize a private cause of action. At least the parties don't dispute that it does. The bad: The TMRA's fee limits unambiguously do not apply to medical-records providers like Ciox. The TMRA's fee limits are clear: They apply exclusively to hospitals. In sum, the Sixth Circuit upholds the district court's decision in favor of the Defendant with respect to the named Plaintiffs. A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's December 5, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/r4br629 from Leagle.com ARGUED: Kevin McCormack - kmccormack@bbfpc.com - BALLIN, BALLIN & FISHMAN, P.C., Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellants. Jay P. Lefkowitz - lefkowitz@kirkland.com -P.C., KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP, New York, New York, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Kevin McCormack , BALLIN, BALLIN & FISHMAN, P.C., Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellants. Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C., KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP, New York, New York, Garry K. Grooms - ggrooms@burr.com - BURR & FORMAN LLP, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee. CIRE TRUDON: Faces Hedges Suit in S.D.N.Y. Alleging ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cire Trudon Usa, Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, for herself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Cire Trudon Usa, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01771 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cire Trudon is a French candlemaker and a wax-producing factory.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com CLIENT SERVICES: Faces Greifman FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc. The case is styled as Shlomo Greifman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00700 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Client Services, Inc. offers collection services. The Company provides accounts receivable management, debt collection services, and customer care solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com CLIENT SERVICES: Scipio Sues in New York Over Violation of FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc. The case is styled as Beverley S. Scipio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01775 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Client Services, Inc. offers collection services. The Company provides accounts receivable management, debt collection services, and customer care solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com COATES FIELD: Underpays Agents, Cummings Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN CUMMINGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COATES FIELD SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case 5:20-cv-00133-HE (W.D. Okla., Feb. 17, 2020) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Cummings was employed by the Defendant as agent. Coates Field Service, Inc. provides comprehensive project management, including route selection, title searches, survey and mapping, appraisal, negotiation, relocation, and damage settlement. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Carl A. Fitz, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjoseph@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com cfitz@mybackwages.com - and - Richard Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com CONAIR CORP: VanDerGinst Files Class Action Over Hair Dryers ------------------------------------------------------------ Quad-City Times reports that VanDerGinst Law, P.C. has filed a class action lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court against Conair Corp., seeking damages for injuries sustained while using its Conair Infiniti Pro Hair Styler, Series 259Y. The lawsuit, through attorney Michelle N. Schneiderheinze, says Conair Corp. was aware of defects in the product causing it to spark and/or catch fire, and that it failed to warn users of the defect or the potential for injury. The plaintiffs, Emily Hergert, of Sherrard, and Julie McClanahan, of Atkinson, allege they were injured using the product. "While using the hair dryer for its intended purpose, our clients experienced substantially similar incidents/injuries. Both were blow drying their hair, the dryer started to spark and it caused a burn to both of their forearms," the law firm says on its website. The suit says the dryers malfunctioned even though they were equipped with safety plugs designed to recognize a change in the electrical current. In each case, the plugs did not prevent the dryer from sparking and causing injury. The complaint maintains Conair knew about the defects, which posed a safety hazard, but concealed that information "to make a profit, to maintain an edge over its competitors and to place consumers under the false belief that the products were safe." Hergert and McClanahan "individually and on behalf of the class" ask for judgment against Conair in an excess of $50,000 plus costs of the suit, and ask for a jury trial. Other people who have been injured by the Conair Infiniti Pro Hair Stylers, Series 259Y, also may be entitled to compensation. [GN] CREDIT VW CANADA: Court Refuses Suit Over Lease Transfer Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Catherine Martin of McCarthy Tetrault LLP wrote in Mondaq.com that on February 7, 2020, the Quebec Superior Court in Benjamin v. Credit VW Canada Inc. et al, 2020 QCCS 392. dismissed an application to authorize a class action filed against several vehicle lease financing companies for the charging of lease transfer fees. This decision highlights the importance of the requirement for a class representative to demonstrate a valid claim against at least one of the named Defendants. Background Applicant, Mr. Adam Charles Benjamin, sought authorization to institute a class action against the Defendant companies for (i) not disclosing the existence of an assignment fee in their vehicle leasing contracts, allegedly violating s. 12 of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and (ii) for charging unreasonable amounts for said fee, allegedly violating s. 1872 of the Civil Code of Quebec (CCQ). The class action was originally filed against 10 companies, but two of the named Defendants had settled prior to the authorization hearing. The proposed class consisted of a General Group and a Consumer Sub-Group. On behalf of the members of the General Group, Applicant was claiming reimbursement of the portion of the transfer fees that exceeded the reasonable expenses resulting from the assignment. On behalf of the Consumer Sub-Group, Applicant was claiming reimbursement of the transfer fees that were undisclosed in the original lease agreement. Applicant was additionally claiming punitive damages of 2 million dollars to be paid to the Consumer Sub-Group by Defendants who violated the CPA. It is worth noting that the case was not identical as against all Defendants. For example, the claim pertaining to s. 12 CPA was invoked against some Defendants but not all, given that certain Defendants disclosed the transfer fee in the original lease agreement, while others only disclosed it in the lease transfer agreement. Decision The Superior Court (per Justice Pierre-C. Gagnon) refused to authorize the class action on the basis that Applicant failed to demonstrate a valid cause of action against any of the Defendants, thus failing to satisfy the requirement at s. 575(2) of the Quebec Civil Code of Procedure (CCP) which provides that the facts alleged must appear to justify the conclusions sought. With regard to the claim on behalf of the Consumer Sub-Group, s. 12 CPA provides that no costs may be claimed from a consumer unless the amount is precisely indicated in the contract. However, since the original lease agreement is a separate contract from the lease transfer agreement, Justice Gagnon concluded that the non-disclosure of the transfer fees in the original lease agreement did not violate s. 12 CPA, given that all parties to the lease transfer agreement were aware of the transfer fees at the time of the conclusion of that contract. With regard to the claim on behalf of the General Group, s. 1872 CCQ provides that a lessor who consents to the assignment of the lease may not exact any payment other than the reimbursement of any reasonable expenses resulting from the assignment. Justice Gagnon agreed with Defendants that this provision is not of "public order", meaning that it is not obligatory and the parties can stipulate terms and conditions that derogate from what is provided by this provision, so long as these terms are not abusive pursuant to s. 1437 CCQ. In the Applicant's personal case, he contracted with Defendant Canadian Road Management Company (Ford Credit) and was charged $450 (before tax) in transfer fees as assignee of the lease. He claimed that this amount was abusive. However, in a Settlement Agreement concluded with another named Defendant (SCI Lease Corp.), the Applicant agreed that fees of $500 represented the reasonable expenses that SCI incurs for a lease transfer. Justice Gagnon concluded that, by signing this Settlement Agreement, Applicant effectively waived his right to claim that a $500 transfer fee is abusive. Given that the Applicant paid less than $500 in transfer fees in his own case, Justice Gagnon reasoned that he failed to demonstrate a valid cause of action against Ford Credit or that he was even a member of the proposed Group. As there was no other proposed representative that had a cause of action against one of the Defendants, Justice Gagnon concluded that Applicant failed to satisfy the requirement of s. 575(2) CCP. Comments This decision illustrates the requirement for a class representative to demonstrate a valid claim against at least one of the named Defendants. It also serves as a reminder that the substitution of a class representative can only occur after the class action has been authorized, under s. 589 CCP. Finally, it is interesting to note the judge's reliance on a Settlement Agreement that was concluded with one of the Defendants prior to the authorization hearing. The judge's reasoning here may serve as a warning to other plaintiffs that the positions they take, even for settlement purposes, may have effects beyond their intended purpose. [GN] D&JJ INC: Villanueva Sues Over Failure to Pay Workers Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Villanueva, Jose Fidel Moreno, Jose Joaquin Moreno, Ricardo Villalobos, Alcides Alvarenga, Oscar Castro, Cesar Manuel Albarenga, Emerson Fernando Garcia, Gerson Amaya, Hugo Rodriguez, Juan Antonio Constanza, Norwin Soza, Samuel Edinilson Angulo, and Samuel V. Angulo, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. D&JJ INC.; CR CALDERON CONSTRUCTION INC; COSTELLO CONSTRUCTION OF MARYLAND, INC.; COSTELLO CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED, Case No. 8:20-cv-00556-CBD (D. Md., Feb. 28, 2020), is brought against the Defendants seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, the Maryland Prevailing Wage Statute, the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, and the Maryland Workplace Fraud Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have perpetrated a more than year-long scheme to deprive workers constructing the new Catonsville Courthouse of their lawfully owed wages. By failing to pay workers in accordance with the law, employers deny employees their lawful wages and benefits while simultaneously underfunding social insurance programs like Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation. The Defendants have engaged in such conduct, the effect of which is to deny employees on their construction site their lawfully owed wages and benefits, in violation of federal and Maryland wage and misclassification laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants and performed construction work. D&JJ Inc. is a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew K Handley, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH ANDERSON 777 6th Street, NW, Eleventh Floor Washington, DC 20001 Email: mhandey@hfajustice.com - and - Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq. THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM 1100 N Glebe Rd., Suite 1010 Arlington, VA 22201 Phone: (703) 665-9529 Email: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com DEVON'S JEWELERS: Begg Sues in N.D. California Over ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Devon's Jewelers. The case is styled Bruce Begg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Devon's Jewelers, Case No. 3:20-cv-01514-WHO (N.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2020). The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. DeVons Jewelers is a multi-generational family tradition of fine jewelry started by the Merksamer family in 1929 in Sacramento, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan A Stieglitz, Esq. 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 750 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: (323) 979-2063 Fax: (323) 488-6748 Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Matthews Civil Rights Suit Moved to D.D.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Teresa Matthews, Reginald Matthews, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MURIEL BOWSER, Case No. 20ca000284B, was removed from the Superior Court for the District of Columbia to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Feb. 28, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00595 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights. Washington, DC, the U.S. capital, is a compact city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Honey C. Morton, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 441 4th Street, NW, Suite 630 South Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 724-6591 Fax: (202) 741-5908 Email: honey.morton@dc.gov DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Kimko Sues in E.D. New York Over FDCPA Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Mung Kimko, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, LVNV Funding, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01109 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, is a full-service collection agency based in South Carolina. Dynamic Recovery is experienced in collecting late-stage debt for small, medium, and high-volume businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com csanders@barshaysanders.com ENERGEN RESOURCES: Court Certifies Narrowed Class in Anderson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chief Judge William Johnson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs' Narrowed Motion for Class Certification in the case THE ANDERSON LIVING TRUST f/k/a THE JAMES H. ANDERSON LIVING TRUST, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ENERGEN RESOURCES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-00909 WJ/CG, (D.N.M.). Plaintiffs are four trusts owning royalty interests in oil and gas wells that filed a putative class action complaint against Defendant Energen Resources Corporation. Energen is the owner and operator of oil and gas wells in the San Juan Basin, located in Northwestern New Mexico and Southern Colorado. Plaintiffs allege that Energen was systematically underpaying royalties due them from the production of oil and gas from the wells in which they own royalty interests. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court's rulings granting summary judgment to Defendant on claims asserted by two of the Plaintiffs, but remanded certain claims asserted by the Neely-Robertson Revocable Family Trust which owns royalty interests in New Mexico oil and gas wells, and the Tatum Living Trust which owns royalty interests in wells located in Colorado. Plaintiffs now seek to certify a much different class than they originally proposed. Plaintiffs no longer seek to certify a class consisting of all Colorado and New Mexico royalty owners and instead restrict the proposed class to the Tatum Trust ("Trust") and only Colorado royalty owners with interests in the 153 leases at issue in the case. Also, Plaintiff seeks class certification based on a single underpayment theory, namely that Energen failed to pay additional royalties on gas used as fuel and that Energen breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to disclose all deductions related to those royalties. Plaintiffs define the putative class as: All persons or entities who own non-cost bearing interests that are subject to the Class oil and gas leases productive of natural gas and other hydrocarbons in the State of Colorado, which were previously owned in whole or in part by Energen and its predecessors by name change, conveyance or acquisition. Southland Royalty Company LLC now owns the leases. Upon deliberation, the District Court finds and concludes that Plaintiffs have met their burden for the prerequisites under Rule 23(a) for numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy. The Court also finds and concludes that Plaintiffs have shown that the common questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and that resolution of the issues in this case in a class is superior to determining liability and computing alleged damages requires an analysis of royalties paid to each owner, each month, for each well. Finally, the Court finds and concludes that the members of the proposed class are readily ascertainable. Accordingly, the District Court orders that Plaintiffs' Narrowed Motion for Class Certification is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/r4jdfpf from Leagle.com Anderson Living Trust, formerly known as James H. Anderson Living Trust, Pritchett Living Trust, Neely-Robertson Revocable Family Trust & The Tatum Living Trust, Plaintiffs, represented by Bradley D. Brickell , Brickell & Associates, PC, 1014 24th Avenue Nw # 100, Norman, OK 73069, pro hac vice, Brian K. Branch , The Law Office of Brian K. Branch & Turner W. Branch , Branch Law Firm. 715 Marwuette NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 Energen Resources Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bradford C. Berge – bberge@hollandhart.com - Holland & Hart LLP & Christopher A. Chrisman – cachrisman@hollandhart.com - Holland & Hart LLP, pro hac vice. ENHANCED RECOVERY: Zayika Class Certification Bid Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as IRYNA ZAYIKA, the Plaintiff v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY LLC, ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00225-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on her motion for class certification. On Feb. 13, 2020, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint and at the same time, filed what the court commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification. By this motion, the plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on that motion. In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court suggested that class‐action plaintiffs "move to certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation." Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco. Enhanced Recovery provides debt collection and asset recovery and reporting services.[CC] EQT CORP: Heaster Suit Seeks to Certify Landmen Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as ADAM HEASTER, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. EQT CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-01463-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional certification of and authorizing notice to be sent to: "all Landmen employed by, or working on behalf of, EQT who were classified as independent contractors and paid a day rate with no overtime at any time in the past 3 years"; 2. approving the Notice and Consent forms; 3. authorizing the mailing and emailing of notice, along with a reminder notice; 4. authorizing Class Counsel to contact the Putative Class Members by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice and Consent forms return undeliverable; 5. directing EQT to produce to Class Counsel the contact information for each of the Putative Class Members within 10 days from the Court's order; and 6. authorizing 60-day notice period for the Putative Class Members to join the case. EQT bills itself as "the largest producer of natural gas in the United States." In order to complete its business objectives, EQT employs Landmen work with land and mineral rights owners to facilitate contracts and lease agreements. EQT classifies these Landmen, including Heaster and the Putative Class Members, as independent contractors. The Landmen are paid a day rate with no overtime.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Taylor A. Jones, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com tjones@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST PC 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: 412-766-1455 Facsimile: 412-766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com EVERGREEN PEST: Bender Sues in D. Colorado Over Violation of TCPA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evergreen Pest Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Kyle A. Bender, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Evergreen Pest Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00569 (D. Colo., Feb. 28, 2020). The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Evergreen Pest Solutions, LLC offers residential and commercial pest control services, termite control, and inspection reports.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander James Taylor, Esq. Marwan Rocco Daher, Esq. Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com FAMILY DOLLAR: Martinez Civil Rights Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marisa Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Case No. 20STCV03676, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 2, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02030 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. operates as a national discount store. The Company offers merchandise that includes consumables, apparel, accessories, seasonal, electronics, and home products. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Elisabeth Forsberg Whittemore JACKSON LEWIS PC 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-1360 Fax: (949) 885-1380 Email: elisabeth.whittemore@jacksonlewis.com FBCS INC: Lowe Sues in D. New Jersey Alleging Violation of FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FBCS, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Barbara Lowe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FBCS, Inc., LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02268 (D.N.J., March 2, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Federal Bond And Collection Service, Inc. (FBCS) provides collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com FLAGSHIP CREDIT: Court Denies Approval of $4MM Deal in Ward Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Buckley LLP wrote in InfoBytesBlog that on Feb. 14, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the approval of a proposed $4 million class action settlement in a TCPA case based on a "confluence of a number of negative factors," including that the court believed the defendant - a subprime auto lender - would be able to withstand a significantly higher judgement to compensate consumers allegedly harmed by its use of an automatic telephone dialing system. The complaint alleged that the defendant allegedly placed automated and prerecorded phone calls to class members on their cellphones in violation of the TCPA. In 2018, the parties reached a preliminary settlement that would give each of the 67,255 class members who opted into the settlement roughly $35. In denying the approval, the court cited three primary concerns with the proposed settlement: "first, the lack of information available to counsel to inform their view and advise the class of the strengths and weaknesses of the case given the early posture in which the parties reached agreement; second, the emphasis on [the defendant's] inability to pay more than $4 million when no underlying financial information was provided to the class members, compounded by the [c]ourt's belief, after in camera review of the financials, that this statement is inaccurate; and third, the [c]ourt's skepticism that $4 million is a fair settlement in this case, given that it will result in a de minimis per claimant recovery of $35.30." Arguing that "de minimis class action recoveries, such as TCPA recoveries, may not be worth the costs they impose on our judicial system," the court also noted that the TCPA provides for a private right of action and statutory damages of $500 for each violation (or actual monetary loss - whichever is greater), and does not impose a cap on statutory damages in class actions. Moreover, the court argued that the $35.30 that each class member would receive would likely not even cover the cell phone bill for one class member for one month and is, among other things, "simply trivial in light of a possible recovery of $500." The case is Ward v. Flagship Credit Acceptance LLC, Case No. 17-2069 (E.D. Pa.). [GN] FLUOR CORPORATION: Union Asset Sues Over Decline in Share Price --------------------------------------------------------------- Union Asset Management Holding AG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FLUOR CORPORATION, DAVID T. SEATON, CARLOS M. HERNANDEZ, BRUCE A. STANSKI, D. MICHAEL STEUERT, and ROBIN K. CHOPRA, Case No. 3:20-cv-00518-B (N.D. Tex., Feb. 28, 2020), is brought on behalf of investors to recover damages resulting from the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common stock. The lawsuit is brought against Fluor and certain of the Company's former and current senior executives under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all investors, who purchased or otherwise acquired Fluor common stock between November 2, 2017, and February 14, 2020, inclusive. According to the complaint, the Defendants inflated Fluor's revenue and earnings by improperly recognizing revenue on 16 separate projects. Once awarded a contract to perform work on a project, Fluor would routinely submit "change forms" to its clients in which Fluor would request additional funds to cover the Company's cost overruns that resulted from "unforeseen circumstances," funds which the client was not contractually obligated to pay. When Fluor determined, through its own assessment, that it was "likely" that the client would accept their change order, Fluor would book the additional revenue. The Plaintiff contends that this was contrary to Defendants' assurances to investors that the Company would only recognize revenue from its submission of these change orders if it determined that "recovery of incurred costs is probable and the amounts can be reliably estimated." The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants had been secretly utilizing change orders, among other tactics, to improperly inflate the Company's revenue and earnings by recognizing additional revenue on its contracts despite having no reasonable basis to do so. On May 2, 2019, before the markets had opened, Fluor disclosed to investors that its Chief Executive Officer David T. Seaton had left the Company, effective immediately, and would be replaced by interim CEO and Chief Legal Officer Carlos M. Hernandez. In addition, Fluor significantly reduced its earnings guidance, and disclosed that the Company was taking over $100 million in charges. On this news, Fluor's share price fell $9.43 per share, or 24%, closing at $29.72 per share on May 2, 2019. On February 18, 2020, before the markets opened, the Company revealed that the Securities and Exchange Commission was investigating Fluor's past accounting and financial reporting, and had requested additional information related to the 2Q 2019 Projects. On this news, Fluor's share price fell $4.75 per share, over 24%, closing at $14.79 per share on February 18, 2020. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, which caused the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common stock, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a German asset manager for retail and institutional clients, who acquired Fluor common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Fluor operates, through its subsidiaries, as a global engineering, procurement, construction, and maintenance company that designs, builds and maintains energy and gas facilities for both public and private clients across the globe.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lewis T. LeClair, Esq. McKOOL SMITH PC 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 978-4000 Fax: (214) 978-4044 Email: lleclair@mckoolsmith.com - and - Gerald H. Silk, Esq. Mark Lebovitch, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 554-1400 Email: jerry@blbglaw.com markl@blbglaw.com avi@blbglaw.com FOREST RIVER: Court Dismisses Failed Electrical Wiring Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned ANGIE & LARRY SPARKS, Plaintiffs, v. FOREST RIVER, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-00110-P. (N.D. Tex.). The Sparkses allege in their First Amended Complaint that they purchased a faulty 2016 Sierra by Forest River 5th Wheel Travel Trailer (Travel Trailer) from Forest River for tens of thousands of dollars. The Sparkses claim that Forest River failed to properly design and install the electrical wiring for the electric fireplace in the Travel Trailer. Defendant Forest River, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. On review, the Court finds that the Sparkses failed to sufficiently plead the elements of, or legal conditions for, any cause of action against Forest River. To the contrary, the Sparkses have adopted what can be described as a shot-gun approach, reciting pages of facts combined with cryptic legalese only serving to confuse the reader. Although the Sparkses' First Amended Complaint contains vague citations to several claims, it is replete with bald, disjointed assertions, the Court says. Here, the Court cannot determine the nature of the claims asserted in the Sparkses' First Amended Complaint without resorting to improper speculation. Indeed, the confusing nature of the Sparkses' First Amended Complaint is highlighted by the fact that Forest River is required to impermissibly speculate as to the nature of the Sparkses' causes of action, handicapping Forest River and unfairly frustrating its ability to defend itself in the lawsuit. Thus, the Court rules that Forest River's Motion to Dismiss is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/r7fxnht from Leagle.com. Angie Sparks & Larry Sparks, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Ray Lewis, PO Box 2759, Keller, Texas 76244 & Gary N. Schepps -legal@schepps.net - Schepps Law Offices. Forest River Inc, Defendant, represented by Craig D. Dillard - cdillard@foley.com - Foley & Lardner LLP, Jason Paul Sharp- jsharp@foley.com - Foley Gardere, Robert Patrick Arthur - rarthur@foley.com - Foley Gardere / Foley & Lardner LLP & Sara Ann Brown - sabrown@foley.com - Foley Gardere. G & L ENTERPRISES: Underpays Exotic Dancers, Anthony Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ MARSHA ANTHONY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. G & L ENTERPRISES OF HURLEY, LLC d/b/a Full Moon Saloon; ALICAT ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a Full Moon Saloon; and CRAIG D. LINDQUIST, Defendants, Case: 3:20-cv-00140 (W.D. Wis., Feb. 17, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime premium compensation for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Anthony was employed by the Defendants as exotic dancer. G & L Enterprises Of Hurley, LLC d/b/a Full Moon Saloon operates a gentleman's club featuring female exotic dancers in Hurley, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry A. Johnson, Esq. Summer H. Murshid, Esq. Timothy P. Maynard,Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 222 East Erie, Suite 210 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Telephone: (414) 271-8650 Facsimile: (414) 271-8442 E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com smurshid@hq-law.com tmaynard@hq-law.com GENERAL MOTORS: Crossovers Have Fuse Box Issue, Claims Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sam McEachern, writing for GM Authority, reports that a new class-action lawsuit filed against General Motors claims certain crossover models manufactured by the automaker have a fuse box issue that can lead to powertrain and electrical malfunctions. The suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, was brought forth by California plaintiff Rebecca Casey, who purchased a used 2014 Buick Enclave in December of 2016 with just over 70,000 miles on the odometer. Casey started experiencing problems with the vehicle in April of 2018 and brought it back to the dealership for repairs with a little over 89,000 miles on the clock. Casey's vehicle had the stability and traction warning lights illuminated, while the trip computer showed a warning for reduced power. Technicians discovered an error code and also noticed the fuse block ignition bus had come loose. They reinstalled the bus and charged Casey for the repairs, but she returned a few months later due to the engine light going on and off and warning messages over the traction control and reduced power. The technicians then replaced the ignition bus completely, having deemed it defective, and charged Casey for the repairs again. The class-action lawsuit claims the fuse blocks in the 2013-2017 Buick Enclave and other related GM crossovers are defective and can disrupt the distribution of electricity throughout the vehicle, preventing the vehicle from starting or cause it to stall while in motion. This is caused by one of the relay terminals coming loose, a problem that can then be exacerbated by engine vibrations. As the terminal moves around, it can cause intermittent or unpredictable electrical failures. The suit also says that certain metal prongs used in the terminals must be sufficiently tightened in order to prevent the problem. In addition to the Enclave, the 2013-2017 Chevrolet Traverse, 2013-2016 GMC Acadia and 2017 GMC Acadia Limited are also affected by this problem, the suit claims. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Szep Claims in Sloan Action Gets Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has entered an order dismissing Szep's claims in the case captioned MONTEVILLE SLOAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-07244-EMC. (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs allege that Defendant General Motors (GM) knowingly manufactured and sold a car engine with inherent defects that caused excessive oil consumption and engine damage. The defects affect 2010 to 2014 model-year GM vehicles. Based on those allegations, Plaintiffs assert claims under various state consumer-protection and fraud statutes on behalf of a nationwide class as well as twenty-nine statewide classes. Plaintiffs all "purchased or leased one or more model year 2010-2013 GM vehicles fitted with GM's defective Generation IV 5.3 Liter V8 Vortec 5300 engines." Plaintiffs first filed their complaint in December 2016. They have amended their complaint several times since then. On July 2, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint, and Defendant subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Szep's Claims in the Fifth Amended Complaint. Defendants move to dismiss the claims of Ohio class representative Plaintiff Szep for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Under Rule 12(b)(2), a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction. On the other hand, for specific jurisdiction to exist, the defendant's suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State. Three requirements must be met: (1) the defendant must either purposefully direct his activities toward the forum or purposefully avail himself of the privileges of conducting activities in the forum (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant's forum-related activities and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e., it must be reasonable. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs broadly assert that the District Court has (specific) personal jurisdiction over GM because GM has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in the State of California by advertising and selling its manufactured vehicles (including the Class Vehicles) within the State of California. Additionally, GM has maintained systematic and continuous business contacts with the State of California and is registered to conduct business in California. While these allegations may establish jurisdiction over claims asserted by California resident plaintiffs, GM's advertisements, sales, and commercial conduct in California may not suffice to furnish personal jurisdiction over out-of-state plaintiffs such as Plaintiff Szep of Ohio. The Complaint does not allege that Mr. Szep purchased his car in California, was injured in California, or otherwise had any connection to GM's activities in California. To the contrary, the Complaint merely notes that Mr. Szep is a resident of Mayfield, Ohio, who purchased his Silverado from Tim Lallie Chevrolet in Bedford Heights, Ohio. In light of these facts, Plaintiffs appear to concede that there is no independent relationship between Plaintiff Szep's Ohio state law claims and the State of California. * Existence of Federal Question Jurisdiction In its previous Order, the District Court exercised pendent personal jurisdiction over other non-California plaintiffs' claims. In reaching that conclusion, the District Court examined the Supreme Court's reasoning in Bristol-Myers and concluded (as courts both before and after the Court's prior order have done2 that a categorical extension of the case's holding to federal courts was not warranted. It has since become clear that there is no federal question furnishing federal question jurisdiction as it relates to Plaintiff Szep's claims. For one thing, federal question jurisdiction is not pled by Plaintiffs. In addition, while claims brought under the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act confer federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff Szep has no viable Magnuson Moss Warranty Act Claim. The Court previously dismissed the express warranty claims of the Ohio Plaintiffs one possible basis for the MMWA claims and Plaintiff Szep has included those express warranty claims only for the purpose of preserving them for appeal. In addition, the Court previously dismissed the implied warranty claims of the Ohio Plaintiffs (the other possible basis for the MMWA claims) and because Plaintiff Szep pleads an identical implied warranty claim here, that claim likewise does not furnish a basis for a viable MMWA claim. Thus, lacking any viable warranty claim, Plaintiff Szep has no viable MMWA claim. * Application of Bristol-Myers in the Context of Diversity Jurisdiction The fact that this case is brought as a putative class action extending across numerous states does not appear to be an accepted basis for distinguishing Bristol-Myers, the District Court opines. The overwhelming majority of federal courts have held that Bristol-Myers applies to claims brought by named plaintiffs in class actions. Whether Bristol-Myers applies to federal class actions is an open question. However, Plaintiffs identify no authority where a court has determined that Bristol-Myers does not apply to a named plaintiff seeking to represent a statewide class of non-forum residents proceeding under non-forum law. To be sure, as cases cited by Plaintiffs have held, the question concerning a district court's jurisdiction as it pertains to unnamed plaintiffs in class actions is different from the issue of jurisdiction over named plaintiffs in class actions. But this is not the issue in this motion. Accordingly, Bristol-Myers applies to federal courts sitting in diversity, and thus, pendent personal jurisdiction does not apply to GM as it relates to the claims of Plaintiff Szep. As a result, the District Court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Szep's Claims in the Fifth Amended Complaint. Because the Court finds that it lacks personal jurisdiction over GM as to Plaintiff Szep's claims, it does not reach the other arguments advanced by Defendant as to why those claims should be dismissed. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/uqy8gen from Leagle.com Monteville Sloan, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Raul Siqueiros, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Thomas Shorter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Gabriel Del Valle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & John Graziano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Lori Erin Andrus - lori@andrusanderson.com - Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt – alevitt@dicellolevitt.com - DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, Amy E. Keller – akeller@dicellolevitt.com- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, pro hac vice, Andrew E. Brashier , Beasley Allen, PC 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL, 36104, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia - Anthony@aglawinc.com - AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II , Beasley Allen, PC, 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL, 36104, pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri - dferri@dicellolevitt.com - DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Eric J. Haag - ehaag@wiscinjurylawyers.com - Atterbury Kammer Haag S.C., pro hac vice, H. Clay Barnett, III , Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles, P.C., 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL, 36104, pro hac vice General Motors LLC, Defendant, represented by Joseph John Ybarra- Joseph.Ybarra@hygmlaw.com - Huang Ybarra Gelberg & May LLP, Kathleen Taylor Sooy - ksooy@crowell.com - Crowell & Moring LLP, pro hac vice, April Nelson Ross - aross@crowell.com - Crowell & Moring LLP, pro hac vice & Gregory Richard Oxford - goxford@icclawfirm.com - Isaacs Clouse Crose & Oxford LLP. GERON CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Shareholder Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Geron Corporation (GERN). Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. GERN Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/geron-corporation-et-al-loss-form?prid=5495&wire=1 Geron Corporation (GERN) GERN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 19, 2018 - September 26, 2018 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : March 23, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/geron-corporation-et-al-loss-form?prid=5495&wire=1 The filed complaint alleges that defendants misled investors regarding a drug called imetelstat, which was intended to treat certain cancers that occur in bone marrow. Specifically, defendants misled investors about the results of a clinical drug study of imetelstat called IMbark. That study was designed to ascertain whether imetelstat helped patients with a cancer called myelofibrosis. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Contact: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Web site: http://www.zlk.com/[GN] GOTHIC CABINET: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gothic Cabinet Craft Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, for herself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. Gothic Cabinet Craft Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01767 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gothic Furniture manufactures wood furniture since 1969.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com GRAND CANYON: Rosen Continues to Investigate Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOPE) resulting from allegations that Grand Canyon may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. On January 28, 2020, the investment analyst Citron Research ("Citron") issued a report on Grand Canyon entitled "GCE, the Educational Enron." The Citron report alleged that Grand Canyon was improperly using a "captive, non-reporting subsidiary to hide its liabilities," thereby "artificially inflat[ing] the [company's] stock price." On this news, Grand Canyon's stock price fell sharply during intraday trading on January 28, 2020. Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover losses suffered by Grand Canyon's investors. If you purchased shares of Grand Canyon, please visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1761.htmlto join the class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim Rosen Law Firm Toll free: 866-767-3653 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com Web site: www.rosenlegal.com [GN] GURBIR GREWAL: Greco Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as David M. Greco, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Gurbir S. Grewal, New Jersey Attorney General, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-19145-BRM-TJB (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an Order: 1. certifying the matter as a "Rule 23(b)(3) Class Action" and specifically defining the "Certified Class"; 2. appointing David Greco as Class Representatives; 3. appointing Albert J. Rescinio, Esq. of Ocean Township (Monmouth County), New Jersey, as Lead Class Counsel; 4. approving initial proposed Class Notices; 5. approving initial proposed "Plan of Providing Notice"; and 6. commencing Notice of the pendency of the Class Action. Gurbir Singh Grewal is the sixty-first Attorney General of the State of New Jersey. Appointed by Governor of New Jersey Phil Murphy, he was confirmed by the New Jersey Senate on January 16, 2018.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Albert J. Rescinio, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALBERT J. RESCINIO, L.L.C. 1500 Allaire Avenue - Unit No. 101 Ocean Township, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 531-2005 Telefax: (732) 531-8009 Attorneys for Gurbir S. Grewal are: Robert McGuire, Esq. Simone Frey, Esq. Bryan Lucas, Esq. OFFICE OF THE NEW JERSEY ATTORNEY GENERAL R.J. Hughes Justice Complex Trenton, NJ 08625 Attorney for Defendants Jared M. Maples and New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness is: Bryan Lucas, Esq. OFFICE OF THE NEW JERSEY ATTORNEY GENERAL R.J. Hughes Justice Complex Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Attorney for Camden County Prosecutor's Office, Jill S. Mayer and Nevan Soumails is: Howard L. Goldberg, Esq. FIRST ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL OFFICE OF THE CAMDEN COUNTY COUNSEL Courthouse - 14 th Floor 520 Market Street Camden, NJ 08102 Attorneys for Gloucester Township Police Department, Bernard John Dougherty, Nicholas C. Aumendo, Donald B. Gansky, William Daniel Rapp and Brian Anthony Turch are: Vincent P. Sarubbim Esq. Daniel DeFiglio, Esq. ARCHER & GREINER, P.C. 33 East Euclid Avenue Haddonfield, NJ 08033 HAGYARD EQUINE: Counterclaims Sought in Radiograph Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Mitchell, writing for Blood Horse, reports that a Feb. 11, 2020 deposition of Tom Swearingen, an owner/trainer who filed a class-action suit against four veterinarians for modifying dates on sale horse radiographs submitted to the Keeneland repository, has opened the door for those vets to file a counterclaim. The motion for a counterclaim was filed Feb. 14 by Drs. Robert Hunt, Michael Hore, Michael Spirito, and Dwayne Rodgerson, who are all partners with Hagyard Equine Medical Institute. Whether the countersuit can be pursued will be determined at a hearing before Fayette County (Ky.) Circuit Court Judge Julie Goodman. Adding a claim to an ongoing lawsuit requires getting permission from a judge, according to Tom Miller, an attorney with Miller, Griffin & Marks, which is representing Hunt. "Typically, the courts are lenient on allowing it if there is new information available. We believe there is new information," Miller said. New information came to light during Swearingen's deposition in which he confirmed that most of the claims he made in his class-action suit, filed just over a year ago, were not true. The four vets named in the lawsuit self-reported to the Kentucky Board of Veterinary Examiners that they modified the dates on radiographs submitted to the Keeneland repository. Radiographs offered at sales through a repository provide the benefit of central information, eliminating the need to run numerous radiographs and endoscopic exams of horses during a sale session. Keeneland provides the information for free. Keeneland's repository rules for the September Yearling Sale require submitted radiographs to be taken within 21 days of the date a horse is to be auctioned. For its mixed sales in November and January, the requirement is within 15 days of when a horse is to be sold. The class-action suit alleges the practice of modifying dates went back to 2006 and impacted thousands of buyers. It said Hagyard submitted about 50% of the repository radiographs at the Keeneland sales during this time and, of those, up to 10% had the date "intentionally and fraudulently altered." The lawsuit contends the veterinarians involved deleted or destroyed the original digital radiograph files from the mobile radiograph machines. "Collectively, the actions of the defendants have resulted in the submission of tens of thousands of fraudulent radiographs to the repository where buyers like the plaintiff, relying on the alleged integrity of the repository and reasonable belief that the rules were being followed, acted and bid with the confidence Keeneland sought to inspire, as reflected by the substantial prices commanded by a process which was believed 'lower risk' by virtue of the repository," the suit reads. "In fact, beneath the surface, that was clearly not the case, and the repository engendered nothing more than false confidence as a result of the defendants' actions." During Swearingen's deposition, however, the horseman said he never reviewed any radiographs in the repository or asked a veterinarian to review them on his behalf before he purchased a horse at Keeneland. Attorneys Mason Miller and William Rambicure, with Miller Edwards Rambicure, are representing Swearingen. [GN] HARVEST LANDSCAPE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Tellez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gerardo Tellez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HARVEST LANDSCAPE ENTERPRISES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-00438 (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., March 3, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay all wages due, including regular and overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants also failed to provide meal periods or premium compensation in lieu thereof, to provide rest periods or premium compensation in lieu thereof, to provide accurate itemized wage statements, to pay wages due upon termination of employment, and to indemnify for expenditures or losses in discharge of duties. The Plaintiff says that he was entitled to timely, uninterrupted, 30-minute meal periods with the 5 hours worked. However, he alleges, these breaks were either not provided, were interrupted, or were provided late. He notes that he could not take any duty-free breaks lasting 10 minutes, in violation of the Labor Code and the IWC Wage Orders, due to the Defendants' uniform practice of denying and/or interrupting these breaks. The Plaintiff also alleges that he was not reimbursed for the use of his personal cell phones. He adds that he was obligated to use his personal vehicle to transport tools and supplies from Defendants' office to the location of work sites, but he was not reimbursed for expenses incurred. Mr. Tellez began his employment with the Defendants in April 2018, as maintenance worker and was terminated on November 8, 2018. The Defendant provides landscape services to clients throughout southern California with over seven locations in California, including Orange County.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. John A. Young, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: (562) 590-5550 HEALTH CARE: Class Settlement in Candelaria Gets Prelim. Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement in the case captioned NORA CANDELARIA, KIMANI SINGLETON and all others similarly situated under 29 USC Sec. 216(b), Plaintiffs, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, Defendant. Case No. 2:17-cv-404-KG-SMV. (D.N.M.) The class action complaint alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court find the proposed settlement in the class action as fair, reasonable and adequate pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For purposes of settlement, the Settlement Class includes the 597 individuals. The Settlement Class is comprised of individuals who worked in New Mexico (New Mexico Class), individuals who worked in Illinois (Illinois Class) and individuals who worked in states other than New Mexico and Illinois (FLSA Class). The Settlement Class is comprised of individuals who worked at some point between April 3, 2014, and the present. The FLSA Class is limited to individuals working between April 3, 2015, and the present. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ue4y4cl from Leagle.com Nora Candelaria, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b), Kimani Singleton, Arthur Santoyo, Debra Hollins, Yvette Buckhaulter, Karen D Davis, Niteria McIntosh, Cynthia M Medley, Keitta Smith, Idi Edem, Mari Gabbert, Janice Tucker, Fausat Osiade & Bobbie S Drodwell, Plaintiffs, represented by Jack L. Siegel - jack@siegellawgroup.biz - Siegel Law Group PLLC, Jesse Hamilton Forester , Forester Haynie PLLC,1701 N. Market St. #210, Dallas, Texas, 75202, Travis Andrew Gasper , Lee & Braziel, LLP & J. Derek Braziel , Lee & Braziel LLP, 1801 N Lamar St Ste 325,Dallas, TX, 75202-1732 Sabrina Powell & Charlene Gabaldon, Plaintiffs, represented by J. Derek Braziel , Lee & Braziel LLP, Jack L. Siegel , Siegel Law Group PLLC & Travis Andrew Gasper , Lee & Braziel, LLP. Health Care Service Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam J. Weiner , Reed Smith, LLP, Mark D. Temple , Reed Smith LLP,10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor, Chicago, IL 60606- 7507 & Randy S. Bartell , Montgomery & Andrews, P.A., 325 Paseo de Peralta, Santa Fe, NM 87501 HI-TECH PHARMA: Dietary Supplements Contain Toxins, Rosas Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- CRISTIAN ROSAS; RALPH MILAN; and TANNER AYOOB, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., d/b/a APS NUTRITION, Defendant, Case 8:20-cv-00433 (C.D. Cal., March 3, 2020) alleges that the Defendant engaged in false and misleading promotion of its purportedly consumable dietary supplement products. The complaint asserts that the products contained either DMAA, DMHA or Methylsynephrine which are considered by the Food and Drug Administration as dangerous ingredients not safe or approved for human consumption. The misrepresentations that Defendant made regarding the ingredients in its products caused each of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated California consumers to purchase and ingest substances that the FDA considers nonconsumable. According to FDA.gov, DMAA (1,3-dimethylamylamine) is an amphetamine derivative that has been marketed in sports performance and weight loss products, many of which are sold as dietary supplements. DMAA is not a dietary ingredient, and DMAA-containing products marketed as dietary supplements are illegal and their marketing violates the law. DMHA is a DMAA-like stimulant. Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. manufactures and/or distributes various products, including purportedly consumable consumer packaged goods and purportedly dietary supplements. The Company conducts business through Internet sales and wide retail distribution at numerous stores within the United States, including California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Nick Barthel, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com nicholas@kazlg.com – and - Yana Hart, Esq. David James Mcglothlin, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S, Ste 101 San Diego, CA 92626 Email: yana@kazlg.com david@kazlg.com HOME DEPOT: Court Certified Settlement Class in Manopla Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as AARON MANOPLA and EVELYN MANOPLA, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated V. HOME DEPOT USA, INC., ATLANTIC WATER PRODUCTS and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-01120-PGS-TJB (D.N.J.), Hon. Judge Peter G. Sheridan entered an order: 1. certifying Settlement Class of: "all persons or entities within the United States who received any telephone calls from or on behalf of Defendants or their agents and/or employees made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or with an artificial or prerecorded voice between October 16, 2013 and June 1, 2015." Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Judge to whom this Action is assigned and any member of the Judge's staff and immediate family, as well as all persons who are validly excluded from the Settlement Class. 2. approving class action settlement; 3. approving Settlement Notice Plan; and 4. setting Final Approval Hearing for Settlement. The class action settlement provides that: -- Settlement Class Members were advised in the Class Notice approved by the Court that Class Counsel intended to apply for an award of attorneys' fees in an amount of up to 35% of the Cash Settlement Fund plus expenses incurred in the prosecution of this litigation up to a maximum of $50,000, to be paid from the Cash Settlement Fund; -- Class Counsel are hereby awarded $1,522,500 from the balance of the Cash Settlement Fund as their fee award; -- Class Counsel are also awarded $30,824.70 from the balance of the Cash Settlement Fund as reimbursement of out of pocket expenses; and -- payment of a service award in the amount of $7,500 to each Settlement Class Representative ($15,000 in total).[CC] HOUSTON CIRCLE: Thomas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Quachea Thomas, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. HOUSTON CIRCLE OF HOPE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00769 (S.D. Tex., March 3, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages the Defendant owes to the Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the Defendant has overtime problems. The most obvious is that the Defendant pays hours it counts as worked at the same hourly rate, even when they exceed 40 in a workweek. The Defendant refuses to pay anything for other compensable hours worked, including travel time and time doing paperwork. Plaintiff Quachea Thomas was employed by the Defendant as a "Rehab Clinician." HCHS is a for-profit corporation based in Houston, Texas, that provides mental health rehabilitative services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com HP INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that the firm has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit against HP Inc. (NYSE: HPQ) ("HP") on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired HP common stock between February 23, 2017 and October 3, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action, captioned Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. HP Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01260, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired HP common stock during the Class Period may, no later than April 20, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please visit www.ktmc.com/new-cases/hp-inc. Click here to view a copy of the filed complaint. HP is a global provider of personal computers, printers and related supplies, solutions, and services. HP conducts its business primarily through two segments: Personal Systems and Printing. HP's Printing segment includes the Supplies business unit which comprises consumable products, including ink and laser cartridges, for recurring use in consumer and commercial printing hardware. The Supplies business has been a significant revenue driver for HP. Prior to the Class Period, on June 21, 2016, HP reported that its Supplies business was facing numerous challenges. As a result, HP announced a one-time investment of $450 million to buy back supplies from its channel partners to better align supplies inventory levels with demand, with the goal of stabilizing supplies revenue by the end of fiscal 2017. HP also announced the fundamental shift in its Supplies business from a push strategy to a pull strategy, which involves aligning channel supplies inventory levels with current demand and marketing efforts to drive print relevancy and strengthen HP's Supplies brand value. The Class Period commences on February 23, 2017, the next trading day after HP issued a press release after the close of market on February 22, 2017, which it also filed with the SEC on a Form 8-K, announcing its financial results for the first quarter of fiscal 2017. At the start of the Class Period, HP assured investors that its new approach of managing and aligning demand and inventory in its Supplies business would avert the types of problems that necessitated the $450 million buy-back. The centerpiece of this new approach was focused on what HP called its "four-box model." For several years, HP measured its Supplies business through this model, which focuses on the four key drivers of revenue growth: in-store base, usage, market share, and price. HP's four-box model became the primary focus of HP and its investors because HP assured investors that its use of the four-box model enabled it to accurately assess demand for products in its Supplies business and manage the inventory placed in its sales and distribution channels. Throughout the Class Period, HP emphasized the four-box model as an accurate, reliable tool to determine demand and revenue in the Supplies business, and reassured investors that, based on the four-box model, HP had a "clear line of sight to supply stabilization." Defendants repeatedly highlighted the reliability of HP's four-box model and the revenue growth of the Supplies business, touting their "continued confidence in the predictive value of the four box model" and stating that HP's "Supplies revenue is in line with the expectations that we set, and that our 4-box model continues to drive predictability." The truth began to emerge on February 27, 2019, after the close of trading, when HP reported that total Supplies revenue was down 3%, with a 9% decline in HP's Europe, the Middle East, and Africa ("EMEA") market, for the first quarter of fiscal year 2019. On an earnings call held that day, HP management attributed the shortfall to weaker than predicted demand from commercial customers in EMEA driven by an increase in online sales, where HP had a lower market share and faced more competition from cheaper third-party alternatives than in the U.S. HP, however, admitted to a larger problem with its four-box model: it had been using incorrect data concerning inventory, market share, and pricing assumptions. Thus, contrary to its previous statements, HP in fact had limited "visibility into the downstream channel ecosystem." As a result, HP had too much inventory in its Supplies channel network that was not selling through. HP also revealed that it lacked telemetry data - data provided automatically by remote units, such as printers that have been sold to customers, which apprise HP about the level of usage and need for new toner - to determine reliable market share assumptions for its Supplies business. Following this news, HP's stock price declined from $23.85 per share to $19.73 per share, or over 17%, on high trading volume. Then, on August 22, 2019, after the market closed, HP announced in a press release, also filed on a Form 8-K with the SEC, that Dion J. Weisler ("Weisler"), HP's President and Chief Executive Officer, would step down at the end of October 2019. HP also announced disappointing earnings results for the third quarter of fiscal year 2019, with Supplies revenue down 7% year-over-year. Management also revised Supplies revenue guidance even further down, to 4% or 5% down for fiscal year 2019 from previous guidance of 3%. Following this news, the price of HP's stock dropped nearly 6%, from $18.93 per share to $17.81 per share, on unusually high trading volume. Finally, on October 3, 2019, after the market closed, HP announced that it was "departing from the purely transactional Supplies-centric business model" and transitioning to a hardware-driven business. The new business model gives customers the choice between a discounted HP printer that can only function with HP Supplies or a higher-priced HP printer with the option to choose third-party cartridges. Under the new business model, HP would abandon its use of the four-box model as HP de-emphasized Supplies revenue and instead would focus on "the key metrics [of] service growth and operating profit dollars, which better reflect[] the system profitability." HP also announced mass layoffs as part of a major company restructuring, in which it expects to cut between 7,000 to 9,000 positions, or up to 16% of its global workforce, over three years. Following this news, the price of HP's stock dropped from $18.40 per share to $16.64 per share, or nearly 10%, on unusually high trading volume. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants knew that the four-box model was severely deficient and not a strong predictor of Supplies demand and outcomes, because HP lacked telemetry data from its commercial printers and had to use unreliable and stagnant market share data to develop assumptions for the four-box model. The complaint also alleges that the defendants knew the lack of telemetry data for commercial printing was a critical shortcoming of the four-box model because HP possessed telemetry data on its personal printing side and knew it was a necessary element for an accurate understanding of the Supplies channel. As a result, the Supplies inventory in HP's channel exceeded demand by at least $100 million and HP's Supplies revenue growth was grossly inflated. If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (844) 887-9500 or (610) 667–7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com. HP investors may, no later than April 20, 2020, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if they so choose. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. An investor's ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Communicating with any counsel is not necessary to participate or share in any recovery achieved in this case. Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff through counsel of his/her choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an inactive class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, visit www.ktmc.com. Contact: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Tel: (844) 887-9500 (610) 667-7706 E-mail: info@ktmc.com [GN] IC SYSTEM: Faces Werzberger FDCPA Class Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against IC System, Inc. The case is styled as Abraham Werzberger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No. 7:20-cv-01778 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. IC System is an accounts receivable management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com JELD-WEN HOLDING: Bronstein Notifies Shareholders of Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. (JELD) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased JELD-WEN securities between January 26, 2017 and October 15, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/jeld. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Jeld-Wen products, including doors, compete against other manufacturers on price, and described the market in which the Company sells its doors as "highly competitive"; and (2) Jeld-Wen's strong margins and anticipated margin growth were attributed to legitimate business factors, such as "making strategic pricing decisions based on an analysis of customer and product level profitability" and increasing its emphasis on "pricing optimization"; (3) these and similar statements made by defendants during the Class Period were false and misleading because defendants knew that Jeld-Wen was engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy with another door manufacturer to artificially increase or maintain prices of interior molded doors; and (4) consequently, Jeld-Wen common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/jeld or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in JELD-WEN you have until April 20, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Contact: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein Yael Hurwitz Tel: 212-697-6484 E-mail: info@bgandg.com [GN] JELD-WEN HOLDING: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Jeld-Wen Holding, Inc. (NYSE: JELD) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Jeld-Wen between January 26, 2017 and October 15, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Jeld-Wen investors under the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that Defendants repeatedly attributed its strong margins and anticipated margin growth to legitimate business factors, such as "strategic pricing decisions" and an increased emphasis on "pricing optimization." These and similar statements made by Defendants during the Class Period were false and misleading because Defendants knew that Jeld-Wen was engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy. As a result of Defendants' misrepresentations, shares of Jeld-Wen's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. On February 15, 2018, a jury in a lawsuit brought by one of Jeld-Wen's customers, Steves and Sons, Inc., found that Jeld-Wen violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring with Masonite to manipulate the price of door skins and awarded Steves over $58 million in damages, which, when trebled, totaled more than $175 million. However, Defendants continued to conceal the true extent of Jeld-Wen's misconduct and the financial impact it had on the Company's business, including by continuing to assure investors that it participated in a highly competitive market. Then, on August 7, 2018, J.P. Morgan slashed estimates for Jeld-Wen's earnings in 2018 and 2019 and lowered its price target for Jeld-Wen's stock based, in part, on liability from the "ongoing Steves and Sons litigation." Months later, on October 5, 2018, the court in the Steves litigation ruled that, as part of the resolution of that case, Jeld-Wen would be required to divest one of its door skin manufacturing facilities. Then, on October 15, 2018, Jeld-Wen announced that it would take a $76.5 million charge related to the Steves litigation. That same day, the Company also announced the sudden resignation of its CFO, defendant L. Brooks Mallard. As a result of these disclosures, the price of Jeld-Wen's common stock declined precipitously. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Spirit during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the April 20, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON Tel: (212) 983-1300 E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com [GN] JELD-WEN HOLDING: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. (NYSE: JELD) between January 26, 2017 and October 15, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for JELD-WEN investors under the federal securities laws. To join the JELD-WEN class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1783.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. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud and made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, regarding the Company's business, operations, growth prospects, and competitive positioning. Specifically, defendants stated that: (1) Jeld-Wen products, including doors, compete against other manufacturers on price, and described the market in which the Company sells its doors as "highly competitive"; and (2) Jeld-Wen's strong margins and anticipated margin growth were attributed to legitimate business factors, such as "making strategic pricing decisions based on an analysis of customer and product level profitability" and increasing its emphasis on "pricing optimization." These and similar statements made by defendants during the Class Period were false and misleading because defendants knew that Jeld-Wen was engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy with another door manufacturer to artificially increase or maintain prices of interior molded doors. As a result of defendants' misrepresentations, shares of Jeld-Wen's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. On October 15, 2018, after the market closed, Jeld-Wen announced that the Company expected its third quarter 2018 financial results to include a $76.5 million charge related to an ongoing litigation regarding Jeld-Wen's anticompetitive behavior. The Company also announced the resignation of its CFO, Brooks Mallard. In response to these disclosures, Jeld-Wen's stock price declined from $21.31 per share to $17.28 per share, on high trading volume, a decline of 19%. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 20, 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-1783.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 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/[GN] JELD-WEN HOLDING: Schall Law Alerts Investors to Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. (NYSE: JELD) for violations of Sec. 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 January 26, 2017 and October 15, 2018, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are encouraged to contact the firm before April 20, 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. JELD-WEN enjoyed strong margins and growth which it claimed were based on "making strategic pricing decisions based on an analysis of customer and product level profitability" and developing "pricing optimization." In fact, the Company was engaged in a price-fixing scheme with a competitor to artificially inflate pricing and margin. On October 15, 2018, the Company's CFO resigned as the anticompetitive behavior became public. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about JELD-WEN, 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. Contacts The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 Cell: 424-303-1964 E-mail: info@schallfirm.com [GN] JOHN BALDWIN: Class Certification Bid Denied in Frazier Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as Robin Frazier, et al. v. John Baldwin, Case No. 1:18-cv-01991 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on Feb. 20, 2020, a status hearing was held and is continued to April 1, 2020 at 9:15 a.m. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied without prejudice.[CC] KELLOGG CO: Marotto Denied Class Certification in Pringles Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned MATTHEW MAROTTO on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. KELLOGG COMPANY, KELLOGG USA INC., KELLOGG SALES COMPANY, PRINGLES LLC, and PRINGLES MANUFACTURING CO., Defendants, Case No. 18 Civ. 3545 (AKH). (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff Matthew Marotto, a chef with training in molecular gastronomy, filed the action in April 2018 against Defendants Kellogg Company, Kellogg USA Inc., Kellogg Sales Company, Pringles, LLC, and Pringles Manufacturing Co., alleging that Defendants, makers and marketers of Pringles Salt and Vinegar crisps (Pringles), label Pringles packaging in a way that misled Marotto and other New York consumers into wrongly believing that Pringles contain no artificial ingredients. Plaintiff now moves to certify a class of all persons who bought Pringles in New York on or after April 1, 2012. The Court notes that Marotto's arguments for typicality and adequacy are, at best, dubious. For instance, common sense alone makes clear that a professional pastry chef, with years of training in molecular gastronomy at an elite culinary school, for whom in his own words price is of no concern when grocery shopping, and is so averse to the purchase of packaged food that he makes his own rigatoni, is neither the typical Pringles purchaser nor typical in his zealous avoidance of artificial ingredients. Adequacy is an even more awkward fit, the Court cites, given Marotto's testimony that, after consuming Pringles more or less continuously since his childhood, he was first told that Pringles contain artificial ingredients by his wife, an attorney at one of the law firms seeking to represent the putative class. When asked how she became aware of Pringles using artificial flavors, Marotto answered, "I assume she found out through work or something." Whatever the true reason for the genesis of the lawsuit, Marotto would without a doubt be uniquely susceptible to questions as to whether this suit is brought for his own benefit, or for that of his wife's firm. However, the Court need not address those arguments, because Marotto has plainly failed to satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). First, while common issues may predominate if a product and its labeling remain constant and are uniform between customers, this is not so when it is not demonstrated that all members of the class saw the same advertisements and not all the advertisements contained the alleged misrepresentations. Second, the individualized inquiry into the extent to which if at all individual consumers were motivated by the No Artificial Flavors label to purchase Pringles, and/or to pay a premium price for Pringles, precludes a finding of predominance. This is not a matter of damages implicating individual determinations as noted already. If the proposed class were certified, the Court would need to engage in fact-finding as to the inner workings of, at least, tens of thousands and likely more of consumers' minds. And ultimately, the Court would need some meaningful way of determining the interplay between the weight a class member placed on the No Artificial Flavors label and harm to that class member. Such a process would be as individualized as it is nonsensical. All the more so because Plaintiff has of yet offered no evidence that a price premium actually existed. In short, predominance is wholly lacking here, the Court opines. Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied, the Court rules A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/up8t24k from Leagle.com Matthew Marotto, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by John Kerry Weston , Sacks Weston Petrelli Diamond & Millstein LLC, 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA 19103 & Alexander Gabriel Cabeceiras , Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC, 1 Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 4905, New York, NY 10119 Kellogg Company, Kellogg USA Inc., Kellogg Sales Company, Pringles LLC & Pringles Manufacturing Co., Defendants, represented by Dean N. Panos - dpanos@jenner.com - Jenner & Block, pro hac vice, Alexander Smith - asmith@jenner.com - Jenner & Block LLP & Elizabeth Austin Edmondson - eedmondson@jenner.com - Jenner & Block LLP. KENT STATE UNIVERSITY: Wiler Sues Alleging Gender Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen Wiler, individually and on behalf of similarly situated female coaches, administrators and academics challenging pay equity v. KENT STATE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 5:20-cv-00490 (N.D. Ohio, March 3, 2020), seeks to recover damages for pay discrimination and to prevent pay discrimination for women currently employed at KSU in the role of coach, administrator or academic. The Defendant created intolerable working conditions for the Plaintiff by failing to remedy her pay discrimination complaints despite notice of her discriminatory pay forcing her constructive discharge, the Plaintiff alleges. She avers that the Defendant had actual knowledge of pay inequality based on gender across campus at the time the Defendant created intolerable working conditions for her. According to the complaint, KSU has discriminated against the Plaintiff on the basis of gender by paying wages at a rate less than the rate paid to male employees for equal work on jobs, the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. The purpose of this action is to redress the Plaintiff's rights under Title VII, Title IX and the Equal Pay Act (EPA) as well as the Ohio Equal Pay Law (EPL) prohibiting gender and pay discrimination, says the complaint. Plaintiff Kathleen Wiler was hired by KSU in 2006 to be the Head Coach of the Women's Field Hockey Team. Kent State University is an educational institution receiving federal financial assistance and organized under the laws of the state of Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Newkirk, Esq. Beatriz Mate-Kodjo, Esq. NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN, P.L.C. 521 E. Locust Street, Suite 300 Des Moines, IA 50309 Phone: 515-883-2000 Fax: 515-883-2004 Email: tnewkirk@newkirklaw.com Bmate-kodjo@newkirklaw.com - and - Karen C. Lefton, Esq. THE LEFTON GROUP, LLC 3480 West Market Street, Suite 304 Akron, OH 44333 Phone: 330-864-2003 Email: karen@theleftongroup.com KINUM INC: Morgan Sues in N.D. Illinois Alleging FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kinum, Inc. The case is styled as Amy Morgan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kinum, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01484 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 28, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Kinum is a collections company. Kinum collects past due accounts for its client base while maintaining good customer and client relations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander James Taylor, Esq. Marwan Rocco Daher, Esq. Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq. James C. Vlahakis, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Smith Pyramid Scheme Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David Nuffer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah issued a Memorandum Decision and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned BRIAN SMITH, individually, MICHAEL ILARDO, individually, Plaintiffs, v. LIFEVANTAGE CORPORATION, a corporation; and DARREN JENSEN, an individual, Defendants. Case No. 2:18-cv-00621 DN PMW. (D. Utah). The Complaint alleges securities fraud, sale of an unregistered security, antitrust violations, and unjust enrichment. These claims stem from Plaintiffs' involvement as Distributors of LifeVantage products. Plaintiffs allege that they lost money by joining LifeVantage. Plaintiffs' central allegation is that LifeVantage is an illegal pyramid scheme rather than a legitimate multi-level marketing (MLM) business. Specifically, Plaintiffs bring the following causes of action against the Defendants: (i) Violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act And Rule 10b-5; (ii) Violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 771(a)(1) and (2); (iii) Violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Sections 4 of the Clayton Act; and (iv) Unjust Enrichment. Defendants request dismissal of all of the causes of action in the Complaint. Defendants argues that Plaintiffs have not pleaded fraud with the exacting degree of particularity demanded by Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"). Defendants also argue that Distributorship agreements are not required to be registered as securities. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim for antitrust violations or unjust enrichment. On review, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to state a Securities Exchange Act 10(b) Rule 10b-5 Claim. A distributorship in LifeVantage qualifies as a security. Investment in the Plan, where profit comes if not solely, at least predominantly from the efforts of others, namely of the downline members, falls under the definition of an investment contract governed by securities laws. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that the LifeVantage MLM structure constitutes a pyramid scheme. Investment in a pyramid scheme is itself a security. This allegation is key to Plaintiffs' 10b-5 claim. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and its associated Rule 10b-5. Section 10(b) forbids the use of any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance that would violate any such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe. The Court opines that Plaintiffs have alleged enough plausible facts in their Complaint to state a claim for scheme liability under Rule 10b-5. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants structured their purported MLM as a pyramid scheme. As part of the scheme, recruited Distributors paid for the right to receive compensation that was dependent on the recruitment of additional participants in the scheme rather than on legitimate retail sales. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants hired professional marketers to pose as success stories to convince potential recruits that they could attain great financial rewards that were, in reality, highly unlikely. Plaintiffs have also sufficiently allege scienter, the Court adds. At the motion to dismiss stage, it is enough that, seen in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the allegation that Defendants acted with scienter is at least as plausible as the competing inferences. Therefore, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to count one of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint would be inappropriate. Of course, whether respondents can ultimately prove their allegations and establish scienter is an altogether different question. At this stage, there is no indication of what a final decision on the merits would be. However, the Court opines, Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for sale of unlicensed securities under 15 U.S.C. Section 771. To support their allegation, Plaintiffs offer the legal conclusion that the Compensation Plan given by LifeVantage to its recruited Distributors is a prospectus within the meaning of Section 12(2). But no other facts are alleged to support this conclusory assertion. Assertions devoid of factual allegations that are nothing more than conclusory are disregarded. Plaintiffs also fail to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for antritrust violations, the Court opines. Futhermore, Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for unjust enrichment, the Court finds. Plaintiffs simply allege that Defendants derived financial benefits from Plaintiffs and the putative class members. Instead of alleging the elements of an unjust enrichment claim, Plaintiffs offer in a conclusory manner that it would be unjust to permit these Defendants to retain these ill-gotten gains. In sum, the Court order that the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED in part as to the Securities Act Rule 10b-5 claim and GRANTED in part as to the Sections 12(1) and (2) claim, the antitrust claim, and the unjust enrichment claim. These claims are dismissed but Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend complaint without delay. A full-text copy of the District Court December 5, 2019 Memorandum Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/thyry74 from Leagle.com Brian Smith, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated & Michael Ilardo, Plaintiffs, represented by Amy L. Marino - amy@marinopllc.com - MARINO LAW PLLC, Andrew J. Kochanowski - akochanowski@sommerspc.com - SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC, pro hac vice, J. Benjamin King – bking@rctlegal.com - REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP, pro hac vice, Lance C. Young - lyoung@sommerspc.com - SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC, pro hac vice, R. Adam Swick – aswick@rctlegal.com - REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP, pro hac vice & Steven A. Christensen - steven@christensenyounglaw.com - CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES PLLC. Lifevantage Corporation & Darren Jensen, Defendants, represented by Bradley D. Ryynanen – bryynanen@winston.com - WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, pro hac vice, David C. Reymann- dreymann@parrbrown.com - PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, pro hac vice, Jeffrey J. Hunt - jhunt@parrbrown.com - PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, John C.C. Sanders, Jr. - jsanders@winston.com - WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, pro hac vice, Rex A. Mann rmann@winston.com - WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, pro hac vice, Robert S. Clark - rclark@parrbrown.com - PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, Thomas M. Melsheimer - tmelsheimer@winston.com - WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, pro hac vice, Bryan S. Johansen -bjohansen@parrbrown.com - PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS & Katrina G. Eash - keash@winston.com - WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, pro hac vice. LOGIX FEDERAL: Faces Deronette Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wilson Deronette and Darling Juste-Deronette, Individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated v. LOGIX FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 20-0209 (Mass. Cmmw., March 2, 2020), arises from the alleged unlawful debt collection and car repossession practices of the Defendant. On June 22, 2016, Mr. and Mrs. Deronette entered into a consumer credit transaction with Logix to refinance the Deronettes' vehicle, a 2014 Chevrolet Suburban. The vehicle serves as collateral for the Loan Agreement, and the Loan Agreement provides for a security interest in the vehicle in favor of Logix. After repossessing a vehicle, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) requires a lender to send a post-repossession notice containing "a description of any liability for a deficiency of the person to which the notification is sent." On September 13, 2019, Logix sent the Plaintiffs a notice advising them of the repossession and of Logix's intent to sell the Vehicle. According to the complaint, the Repossession Notice erroneously states that, should Logix sell the vehicle, the Plaintiffs would be liable for their loan balance minus the sale price of the vehicle. Massachusetts law, however, requires that consumers be given explicit notice that the fair market value of the vehicle, not the sale price, will be deducted from the amount they would owe on their loans after the sale of their vehicle, the Plaintiffs assert. After repossessing the Plaintiffs' vehicle, Logix sent them form post-repossession notices that failed to include key provisions required by law, the Plaintiffs allege. They contend that Logix's failure to provide consumers with all appropriate repossession notices and information required by Massachusetts law gives rise to statutory and other damages. Plaintiffs Wilson Deronette and Darling Juste-Deronette reside in Brockton, Massachusetts. Logix is a credit lender that enters into consumer loans, including auto loans, to customers nationwide, including in Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raven Moeslinger, Esq. Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. Colin D. Creager, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C. 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 338-9400 Email: rm@mass-legal.com LUCKIN COFFEE: Pawar Law Group Announces Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Luckin Coffee Inc. (NASDAQ: LK) from November 19, 2019 through January 31, 2020, inclusive (the ''Class Period''). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Luckin Coffee Inc. investors under the federal securities laws. To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free at 888-589-9804 or email for information on the class action. 66 According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) certain of Luckin''s financial performance metrics, including per-store per-day sales, net selling price per item, advertising expenses, and revenue contribution from ''other products'' were inflated; (2) Luckin''s financial results thus overstated the Company''s financial health and were consequently unreliable; 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 April 13, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world. Contact: Vik Pawar, Esq. Pawar Law Group 20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (917) 261-2277 Fax: (212) 571-0938 [GN] LUCKIN COFFEE: Scott+Scott Notifies Investors of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, a national securities and consumer rights litigation firm, is notifying investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Luckin Coffee Inc. (NASDAQ: LK) and other defendants related to alleged violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased Luckin Coffee American Depository Shares ("ADSs") between November 13, 2019 and January 31, 2020, inclusive, you are encouraged to contact Scott+Scott attorney Jonathan Zimmerman for additional information at (888) 398-9312 or jzimmerman@scott-scott.com. Luckin Coffee is a China-based, technology-driven coffee store company. The lawsuit alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business, operational, and compliance policies, including: (i) certain of Luckin's financial performance metrics, including per-store per-day sales, net selling price per item, advertising expenses, and revenue contribution from "other products" were inflated; and (ii) Luckin's financial results thus overstated the Company's financial health and were unreliable. On January 31, 2020, Muddy Waters Research published a report alleging that Luckin Coffee had fabricated certain of the Company's financial performance metrics, beginning in the third quarter of 2019. The Muddy Waters report asserted that Luckin Coffee inflated its per-store per-day sales figures, citing a review of thousands of hours of store video, and that Luckin Coffee significantly inflated its net selling price per item. On this news, the price of Luckin Coffee ADSs fell $3.91 per share - 10.74% - to close at $32.49 per share on January 31, 2020. What You Can Do If you purchased Luckin Coffee ADSs between November 13, 2019 and January 31, 2020, inclusive, you are encouraged to contact attorney Jonathan Zimmerman at (888) 398-9312 or jzimmerman@scott-scott.com. The lead plaintiff deadline is April 13, 2020. Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio. [GN] MARATHON REFINING: Court Dismisses Wood Labor Suit W/Leave to Amend ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Yvonne Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned JANICE WOOD, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. MARATHON REFINING LOGISTICS SERVICE LLC, Defendant. Case No. 19-cv-04287-YGR. (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Janice Wood, Anthony Alfaro, and Aaron Dietrich commenced the putative class action against defendant Marathon Refining Logistics Services LLC, alleging that defendant's standby shift practices violate the reporting time pay provisions of Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order 1-2001. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that (i) plaintiffs' claims are preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and (ii) plaintiffs fail to state a claim for reporting time pay. To determine whether a claim is preempted by LMRA section 301, the Court must first consider whether the asserted cause of action involves a right conferred upon an employee by virtue of state law, not by a CBA. Here, the first prong of the preemption test is straightforward, that is, plaintiffs' claims involve a right conferred by California law, not the CBAs. Defendant argues that plaintiffs' claims nevertheless are preempted because they are substantially dependent on the terms of at least two heavily-negotiated CBAs between defendant and the United Steel Workers union, and related guidelines and shop practice, which purportedly govern the putative class members' terms and conditions of employment. To determine whether a state law right is substantially dependent on the terms of a CBA, the Court must decide whether the claim can be resolved by looking to versus interpreting the CBA. Plaintiffs' claims center around defendant's standby shift system. The complaint addresses some aspects of the system, including that operators had 3.5 hours to arrive at the refinery when receiving a call, maintenance workers had 30 minutes to respond to a call and 2 hours after that to arrive at the refinery, and employees were subject to discipline for failing to meet these requirements. The complaint, however, omits certain material facts, at least some of which are addressed in the CBAs and related guidelines. Plaintiffs concede that if the LMRA preempts their claims, the claims must be dismissed for failure to exhaust the grievance and arbitration procedures in the CBAs. Thus, because section 301 preempts plaintiffs' claims, they are dismissed. However, the Court does not have sufficient information to determine whether plaintiffs may be able to amend their complaint to avoid preemption, that is, in such a way that the Court would not need to interpret the CBAs or guidelines to resolve the claims. The Court thus dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims with leave to amend. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/waltu6m from Leagle.com JANICE WOOD, ANTHONY ALFARO & AARON DIETRICH, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexander S. Nazarov , Weinberg, Roger and Rosenfeld, 1001 Marina Village Pkwy, Ste 200, Alameda, CA 94501-6430, Jannah Vanessa Manansala - jmanansala@unioncounsel.net - Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld A Professional Corporation & Kristina L. Hillman -khillman@unioncounsel.net - Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld. MARATHON REFINING LOGISTICS SERVICE LLC, Defendant, represented by Mary Deanna Manesis - mmanesis@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Michael Warner Kopp -mkopp@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw LLP, William J. Dritsas - wdritsas@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Timothy Michael Rusche - trusche@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw LLP. MARY ANN MORSE: App. Court Flips Dismissal of Ryan Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex, issued an Opinion reversing the Superior Court judgment granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned JAMES M. RYAN, executor, vs. MARY ANN MORSE HEALTHCARE CORP, SJC-12708, (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex). In 2013, Julia Ryan entered into an agreement with Mary Ann Morse Healthcare Corp., doing business as Heritage at Framingham (Heritage), to lease an apartment in the defendant's assisted living residences (ALR) in Framingham. Ryan's rent was $4,000 per month. Prior to occupancy, Heritage required her to pay the first and last month's rent. In addition to the rental fees, Heritage also charged Ryan a nonrefundable, one-time "community fee" of $2,800. According to the residency agreement, the community fee was "intended to cover upfront staff administrative costs, the Resident's initial service coordination plan and move-in assistance, and establish a replacement reserve for building improvements." In 2016, James Ryan, the executor of Julia Ryan's estate, commenced the putative class action, alleging that Heritage violated G. L. c. 186, Section 15B, and G. L. c. 93A by charging new residents the community fee. Heritage moved to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint, claiming that, as an ALR, it was not subject to the security deposit statute. On March 5, 2018, a judge in the Superior Court granted the motion, concluding that the Legislature did not intend for ALRs to be subject to the security deposit statute. The plaintiff appealed. * Ambiguity of the ALR statute The extent to which the Legislature intended to provide ALR residents with the protections afforded by other statutes is not readily apparent from the plain language of the ALR statute. The statute repeatedly makes reference to the fact that ALRs are subject to other applicable laws and regulations. For example, G. L. c. 19D, Section16, requires ALRs to meet the requirements of all applicable federal and state laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, the state sanitary code, state building and fire safety codes and regulations, and laws and regulations governing handicapped accessibility. Despite these references, the ALR statute does not identify which laws or regulations regarding consumer protection and protection from abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation of the elderly and disabled are applicable to ALRs. Nor does the statute expressly address whether G. L. c. 186, Section 15B, is applicable. The Appellate Court notes that in the present case, each party urges us to draw inferences selectively from the ALR statute's ambiguity. The plaintiff relies on the language in the ALR statute generally incorporating applicable consumer protection laws. The defendant contends that the Legislature's explicit reference to G. L. c. 186 with regard to evictions implies that the Legislature did not intend for G. L. c. 186 to otherwise apply. Neither proffered explanation is wholly satisfactory, as each relies on selective readings of the statutory language, the Appellate Court opines. * Harmonizing the ALR statute with preexisting law To resolve the ambiguity, the Appellate Court looks at the statute holistically to determine its intent. The Appellate Court concludes that when the two statutes at issue here are read holistically, they can be harmonized as follows: the security deposit law was meant to be incorporated by the ALR statute to the extent that it is applicable to ALRs, but ALRs may also charge additional upfront fees for the distinct services that such facilities provide that are not applicable to ordinary landlord-tenant relationships. The ALR statute requires ALRs to include a provision within their residency agreements to comply with applicable federal and state laws and regulations regarding consumer protection and protection from abuse, neglect and financial exploitation of the elderly and disabled. The Appellate Court concludes that the security deposit statute, G. L. c. 186, Section 15B, is an applicable consumer protection law, at least to the extent that ALRs resemble a traditional landlord-tenant relationship. As the Appellate Court had previously recognized, tenant protections are firmly rooted within the Commonwealth's consumer protection laws. This is so because residential tenants generally inhabit an inferior bargaining position relative to their landlords, and the Legislature has enacted laws such as the security deposit statute out of concern for their welfare. Such protections are particularly significant for elderly tenants, who are among the most needy and vulnerable segments of our population. In sum, the Appellate Court concludes that the security deposit statute is a consumer protection law applicable to ALRs to the extent that ALRs resemble an ordinary landlord-tenant relationship. This is, however, not the end of our analysis. The Appellate Court must now considers the services that ALR facilities provide that are not applicable to ordinary landlord-tenant relationships, and determine whether ALR facilities may impose upfront fees for such services. The Appellate Court concludes that they may. * Inapplicability of security deposit statute to distinct ALR services In the present case, the Appellate Court focuses on substance, not semantics. To be sure, the ALR statute uses terms different from the traditional language of tenancy, employing the term resident rather than tenant and residency agreement rather than lease. Indeed, while normal residential leaseholds do not contemplate, and certainly do not mandate, the provision of elderly assistance services, ALR residencies are premised upon them. The provision of elderly assistance services is the means by which the Legislature contemplated that ALRs would allow the elderly to age in place in a residential setting, without prematurely moving to a nursing home. Because the provision of services is at the core of what an ALR does for its residents, it is crucial that the services be tailored for each individual resident, and that the ALR have the ability to appropriately furnish such services. An ALR would not be able to adequately provide for the health, safety, and welfare of residents in accordance with the ALR statute's purpose if it admitted an individual that the ALR was ill equipped to care for. Thus, a prospective ALR resident must also undergo an initial screening and assessment to determine whether the ALR is adequately suited to the prospective resident's particular needs. This constitutes one of the other most significant distinctions between ALR residencies and residential leases and has specific implications for the applicability of the security deposit statute. Regular residential landlords are not mandated by statute or regulation to conduct the kind of assessment that ALRs are so mandated to conduct. Thus, while landlords are strictly prohibited from imposing upfront charges that exceed those specifically enumerated in the security deposit statute, such a prohibition is incongruous in the context of an ALR, which is mandated to spend additional resources on initial resident assessments. In summary, the Appellate Court concludes that the significant differences between ALRs and residential landlords, combined with the explicit language of the statute and the EOEA's interpretation thereof, indicate a legislative intent to allow ALRs to charge incoming residents initial fees that correspond to initial ALR-specific services inapplicable to ordinary landlord-tenant relationships, without violating the security deposit statute. * Permissibility of the community fee To be permissible, the purpose and the use of the community fee must correspond to either the on-boarding services enumerated in G. L. c. 19D, Section 13, or other services designed specifically for ALRs. In other words, the permissibility of the community fee will hinge on a determination of (1) the actual purpose and use of the fee, and (2) whether such purpose and use are for distinctive ALR-specific services, rather than general maintenance or other aspects of a generic residential tenancy. The plaintiff's complaint does not specify whether the community fee was used to charge solely for initial assessment services distinctive to the ALR. In the instant case, however, the residency agreement indicates that the community fee is not limited to providing initial ALR-specific services. The last category, which refers to establishing a replacement reserve for building improvements, appears much more open ended and potentially problematic. It is unclear from the language in the residency agreement whether, and to what extent, this building reserve fund was used toward ALR-specific services, rather than generic building maintenance. If this fee were just a generic building maintenance fee, imposed and used in the ordinary course, with no particular connection to structures, services, or requirements distinct to ALRs, it would fall afoul of the security deposit prohibitions applicable to the landlord-tenant relationship. Given the breadth of the language in the plaintiff's residency agreement, and the uncertainty with which it applies, the motion to dismiss should not have been allowed, the Appellate Court opines. At a minimum, factual development of the purpose and use of the building maintenance fee was required. The Appellate Court thus reverses the allowance of the defendant's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Court remands the matter to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's December 5, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/udljnft from Leagle.com Joshua N. Garick , Law Offices of Joshua N. Garick, P.C., 100 TradeCenter, Suite G-700, Woburn, MA, 01801, ( Matthew T. LaMothe - mlamothe@forrestlamothe.com - also present) for the plaintiff. AiVi Nguyen , anguyen@bowditch.com - for the defendant. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Joseph M. Desmond - jdesmond@morrisonmahoney.com - & Justin L. Amos , 250 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02210, for Massachusetts Assisted Living Association. Lillian Glickman, pro se. Elizabeth A. Aniskevich , Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, 1100 New York Avenue North West, Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20005 & Susan A. Silverstein , The Law Offices of Susan Silverman, 734 Central Ave Ste 200, Highland Park, IL, 60035-3253, of the District of Columbia, Richard M.W. Bauer , 197 Friend StreetBoston, MA 02114, Liane Zeitz , Pathway Law LLC, 385 Concord Avenue, Suite 103, Belmont, MA, 02478 & Rebecca J. Benson , Margolis & Bloom, 535 Boylston Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA, 02116-3720, for AARP & others. MCMC LLC: Mauthe Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MCMC, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-01901-EGS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons sent one or more faxes from MCMC about IAIME programs or meetings from May 7, 2014, through May 7, 2018"; or "all persons sent one or more of the following four faxes from MCMC: (1) a fax sent December 22-24, 2016, and stating, "Register Today and Save $100 Off by Entering Code MCMC" for IAIME's "Annual Scientific Meeting" in Austin, Texas on January 11-14, 2017; (2) a fax sent April 17-19, 2017, about an IAIME training workshop in Rosemont, Illinois from June 2-4, 2017, and stating "MCMC Partners With IAIME on CME Education"; (3) a fax sent July 11-13, 2017, about "IAIME's Pass the Texas DD Exam Prep Course" in Dallas, Texas on August 5, 2017; or (4) a fax sent December 18-19, 2017, and stating, "Be sure to Visit Laura at the MCMC Booth!" in Championsgate, Florida from January 10-13, 2018"; 2. appointing Dr. Mauthe as the class representative; and 3. appointing Dr. Mauthe's attorneys, Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Shenkan, Esq. SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS , LLC P.O. Box 7255 New Castle, PA 16107 Telephone: (248) 562-1320 Facsimile: (888) 769-1774 E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com - and - Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Tod A. Lewis, Esq. Molly E. Stemper, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 Facsimile: (312) 658-5555 E-mail: service@classlawyers.com MICHAEL PAGE: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Jordan Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Daniel Jordan v. Michael Page International, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:18-cv-01328-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James V. Selna entered an order: 1. granting Jordan's motion to certify a Settlement Class consisting of; "all non-exempt employees within the State of California who are or were employed by Defendant in the State of California during the Settlement Period relating to any and all facts and claims asserted in the Litigation or any other claims that could have been asserted in the Litigation based on the facts alleged, including but not limited to meal and rest breaks; minimum wages, overtime, and double time wages; any and all theories for or related to "off the clock work," wage statement violations, separation pay violations, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to timely page wages, including wages "due and payable twice monthly," unfair business practices," and PAGA, based on the alleged California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act violations"; 2. granting preliminary approval of proposed settlement; 3. directing dissemination of notice to the Class pursuant to the proposed notice plan; 4. appointing ILYM Group, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator for the dissemination of notice; and 5. directing Class Counsel to file a motion for final settlement approval within 45 days of the Response Deadline. The Court finds that common factual and legal issues predominate over individual questions and that a class action is a superior method to resolve the class claims. The Court has also found commonality. Jordan's claims are based upon a common course of conduct by Defendants with respect to every member of the Class: the alleged underpayment of wages and non-provision of breaks. Accordingly, common issues predominate over any potential individual ones because liability and damages can be resolved for all Class Members using the same evidence. Thus, the Court finds that the predominance requirement has been met. Settlement Amount and Injunctive Relief: The Defendants agree to pay $150,000 (Total Settlement Amount) in consideration for the settlement and the release of claims, and from which all: Net Settlement Payments, attorneys' fees and costs, administrative costs, enhancement award to Jordan, statutory penalties, interest, and PAGA penalties shall be paid. Attorneys' Fees and Costs Class Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees not to exceed 33% of the Total Settlement Amount, i.e. $50,000, and for reimbursement of reasonable costs and expenses in an amount not to exceed $15,000. Administrative Expenses and Service Awards Subject to Court approval, the Parties have agreed on ILYM Group, Inc. to administer the settlement in this action (Settlement Administrator). The Settlement Administrator has provided an estimate that their fees and expenses for administration will not exceed $10,000. Jordan will apply for Court approval of a service payments not to exceed $7,500 in consideration of his service as Class Representative. Michael Page provides employment services. The company offers professional recruitment consultancies to place employees in permanent, contract, temporary and interim positions.[CC] MICHIGAN UNEMPLOYMENT: Mich. App. Upholds Dismissal of Bauserman ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Michigan issued an Opinion affirming the May 10, 2016 Opinion and Order of the Court of Claims denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned GRANT BAUSERMAN, KARL WILLIAMS and TEDDY BROE, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 333181, (Mich. App.). Plaintiffs are former recipients of unemployment compensation benefits who allege that the Agency unlawfully seized their property without affording due process of law. Plaintiff Bauserman received unemployment compensation from October 2013 through March 2014. In October 2014, the Agency sent Bauserman and his former employer, Eaton Aeroquip, a questionnaire regarding suspected unreported earnings that Bauserman received while he was receiving unemployment compensation. Both Bauserman and Eaton responded that Bauserman had not worked for Eaton at the time. On December 3, 2014, the Agency sent Bauserman two notices of redetermination, one claiming that he had received unemployment compensation for which he was ineligible and the other claiming that he had intentionally misled the Agency or concealed information from it to obtain compensation for which he was not eligible. As a result, the Agency informed Bauserman that he owed $19,910 in overpayments, penalties, and interest. The next day, Bauserman submitted an online appeal through the Agency's website regarding its assertion that he had committed fraud, but did not submit a separate appeal regarding the Agency's determination that he had received compensation for which he was not eligible. From January 2015 through June 2015, the Agency sent Bauserman multiple notices stating the amount he owed to the Agency, informing him of missed payments on his debt, and raising the possibility that his wages would be garnished or his tax refunds seized. One of these communications consisted of a notice of intent to reduce/withhold federal income tax refund. Around this same time, Bauserman sent multiple letters to the Agency attempting to explain the situation, two of which included an attached letter from Eaton explaining that Bauserman received one payment in 2014 for work performed in 2013 but was not employed by Eaton during the time he was receiving unemployment compensation. Finally, on June 16, 2015, the Agency intercepted Bauserman's state and federal income tax refunds. On Sept. 9, 2015, Bauserman filed a putative class action against the Agency in the Court of Claims, alleging that the Agency had deprived him of his property without providing due process of law. More specifically, he alleged that Michigan's unemployment fraud detection, collection, and seizure practices fail to comply with minimum due process requirements. On October 19, 2015, Bauserman filed an amended complaint, which added Teddy Broe and Karl Williams as named plaintiffs to the class action. The Court of Claims issued a lengthy written opinion and order denying the Agency's motion to dismiss on May 10, 2016. On remand, the Michigan Appeals Court now reviews the Court of Claims' decision regarding plaintiffs' claims alleging constitutional torts. At issue here is whether plaintiffs alleged cognizable constitutional tort claims allowing them to recover monetary damages arising from the alleged state due process violations they incurred as a result of the Agency's actions. On appeal, the Agency initially contends that plaintiffs have not established that the Agency acted pursuant to a state policy or custom that mandated the alleged unlawful actions. The Agency further argues that plaintiffs are precluded from recovering damages for the alleged constitutional violations because the administrative review process for issues with unemployment benefits set forth in the MES Act provides an adequate remedy for plaintiffs to address these alleged constitutional violations. More specifically, the Agency asserts that the administrative process provides an adequate procedure for reviewing plaintiffs' constitutional claims because administrative decisions pertaining to unemployment benefits are subject to review by the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission (MCAC), the circuit court and the appellate courts of this state. In response, plaintiffs assert that the present case is an appropriate one for the Appellate Court to infer a remedy for monetary damages arising from the violations of the state constitution that plaintiffs incurred. Specifically, plaintiffs counter the Agency's assertion that they have an adequate remedy by pursuing the administrative process set forth in the MES Act to adjudicate their constitutional claims, particularly because that administrative process is procedurally flawed, resulting in claimants being denied rudimentary due process. Plaintiffs further claim that the administrative process is not the appropriate forum to address the substance of the constitutional claims at issue here. Addressing other potential alternate avenues for redress, plaintiffs also point out that they cannot sue the Agency in federal or state court under 42 USC 1983. The state may only be held responsible for an alleged violation of the state constitution "where the state's liability would, but for the Eleventh Amendment, render it liable under the standard for local governments as set forth in 42 USC 1983 and articulated in Monell v New York City Dep't of Social Servs, 436 U.S. 658; 98 S.Ct. 2018; 56 L Ed 2d 611 (1978). In this case, plaintiffs have alleged that the Agency systemically, and by way of concerted and coordinated actions, unlawfully intercepted their state and federal tax refunds, garnished their wages, and forced plaintiffs to repay unemployment benefits that they had lawfully received. The first amended complaint further alleges that the Agency, in violation of state law, imposes penalties on individuals in receipt of unemployment benefits and collects interest also not authorized by state law. These allegations, if established to be true and correct, certainly demonstrate that plaintiffs' rights to due process as guarded by Const 1963, art 1, Section 17 were violated, and that the alleged violations arose from actions taken by state actors pursuant to governmental policy. Accordingly, the Appellate Court rejects the Agency's assertion that plaintiffs' claims in this regard are legally deficient, given that the allegations plaintiffs advance, if proven to be correct, amply demonstrate that plaintiffs' constitutional rights were violated as a result of the Agency's use of its policy or custom in administering the unemployment benefit system. Because plaintiffs allege that the Agency violated Const 1963, art 1, Section 17 in seizing their property without providing them with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, given the existence and clarity of the alleged constitutional violation itself, the Appellate Court concludes that the first factor weighs in favor of judicially inferring a remedy for monetary damages. The second and third factors address the degree of specificity of the constitutional protection as well as if there is support for a judicially inferred damage remedy in the text, history and previous interpretations of Const 1963, art 1, Section 17. Plaintiffs allege that they were deprived of their property in violation of Const 1963, art 1, Section 17, and even though due process is flexible and the procedural protections that it offers may vary depending on the circumstances, the Due Process Clause secures an absolute right to an opportunity for a meaningful hearing and an opportunity to be heard before individuals are deprived of their property. Additionally, with regard to the third factor, concerning whether support for a judicially inferred remedy exists in the text of Const 1963, art 1, Section 17, the Appellate Court observes that unlike Const 1963, art 1, Section 2, the plain language of Const 1963, art 1, Section 17 does not leave the implementation of a private cause of action to the Legislature. As noted, the Agency focuses its argument on the fourth factor at issue, that being whether plaintiffs have another remedy available to them. Specifically, the Agency contends that plaintiffs have an alternate remedy available to them because they can seek redress through the administrative system established by the MES Act. The MES Act provides for the payment of unemployment benefits, MCL 421.27, a person's eligibility to receive unemployment benefits, MCL 421.28, criteria for disqualification for benefits, MCL 421.29, the procedures governing determinations of unemployment benefits, MCL 421.32, as well as review of determinations leading to a redetermination of benefits, MCL 421.32a. Challenges to unemployment benefit redeterminations are referred to the Michigan administrative hearing system for assignment to an administrative law judge. MCL 421.33. If a case is transferred to an administrative law judge, all matters pertinent to the claimant's benefit rights under this act shall be referred to the administrative law judge. The Appellate Court's review of this legislative scheme leads to the conclusion that while the administrative process established by the MES Act allows for the review of the Agency's decisions with respect to the award or disqualification of unemployment benefits, or pertaining to its imposition of penalty and interest, it does not provide an avenue for plaintiffs to seek redress in the form of monetary relief for the alleged violation of their due process rights protected by the state constitution. In sum, because of the factual and procedural backdrop of the case, the Appellate Court disagrees with the Agency that the existing administrative process as set forth in the MES Act, including the judicial review provided by the courts of this state, provides plaintiffs with a remedy to pursue their constitutional claims in the case. The Appellate Court therefore agrees with the Court of Claims' determination that summary disposition was not warranted. The opinion and order of the Court of Claims denying the Agency's motion to dismiss is affirmed, the Appellate Court rules. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's December 5, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/sxqg5gr from Leagle.com KEVIN M. CARLSON , Kevin M. Carlson PLLC, Po Box 6028, Plymouth, MI, 48170-0028, for GRANT BAUSERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee. DEBBIE K. TAYLOR , Saurbier & Siegan PC, 400 Maple Park Boulevard, Saint Clair Shores, MI, 48081, for UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendant-Appellant. MICROCHIP TECH: Court Certifies Employee Class in Schuman Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as PETER SCHUMAN, et al. v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-05544-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order on Feb. 24, 2020: 1. granting a motion to certify a class consisting of: "all former U.S.-based employees of defendant Atmel Corporation who were employed as of the April 4, 2016 closing date of the Atmel-Microchip merger and who were terminated by defendant Microchip Technology Incorporated without cause between April 4, 2016 and March 19, 2017"; 2. scheduling a case management conference for March 17, 2020, at 2:00 p.m.; and 3. directing the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint case management statement by March 10, 15 2020. The joint statement should include a proposed schedule through trial. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs contend that a class action is superior because pursuing individual actions would be cost-prohibitive, this is the proper forum, and resolving liability and determining individualized damages will be manageable as discussed in the predominance discussion above. Rather than respond to these individual arguments, Defendants again emphasize that their defense to liability will turn on the releases, and this action will require mini-trials into the validity of these releases. The Court disagrees, and reiterates that Defendants' concern is based on the faulty premise that Plaintiffs have no evidence that Defendants made any common communications to induce class members into signing these releases. Defendants may contest the nature of these communications and the weight of Plaintiffs' evidence even on a classwide basis. The Court finds that certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is appropriate as to Plaintiffs' claim for denial of benefits. Having already found that class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) for Plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty, the Court finds in the alternative that certification is also appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3)." Microchip Technology is an American publicly-listed corporation that is a manufacturer of microcontroller, mixed-signal, analog and Flash-IP integrated circuits.[CC] MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Breckenridge FDCPA Suit in N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is styled as Wayne Breckenridge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-01528 (N.D. Cal., March 2, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a licensed debt collector founded in 1953. The Company's line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Landrum Suit in Texas Over FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is styled as Judy L. Landrum, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-00728 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 28, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a licensed debt collector founded in 1953. The Company's line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan Charles Volheim, Esq. Taxiarchis Hatzidimitriadis, Esq. James Constantine Vlahakis, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Email: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com thatz@sulaimanlaw.com jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com MIDWEST RECOVERY: Faces Worsham FDCPA Class Suit in Colorado ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midwest Recovery Systems LLC. The case is styled as Tracy L. Worsham, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midwest Recovery Systems LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00561 (D. Colo., Feb. 28, 2020). The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midwest Recovery Systems is a diverse financial institution consisting of everything from accounts receivable management to call center services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com MOTEL 6: $10M Settlement Over Guest Privacy Violations Approved --------------------------------------------------------------- The Republic, in Arizona, reports that a federal judge gave final approval for the settlement of a national class-action lawsuit involving Motel 6 employees disclosing guests' personal information to federal immigration agents. The roughly 2,000 members of the class will receive a part of the $10 million settlement, with payouts ranging from $75 to $200,000, according to a press release from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. "We are grateful that Motel 6 will change practices and is compensating those harmed," Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF president and general counsel, said in the statement. "The substantial settlement should stand as a warning to all other proprietors not to engage in similar conduct." Motel 6 also must abide by a three-year decree on guest privacy, the release stated. A lawsuit was filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the Ortega Law Firm in 2018 claiming Motel 6 staff members were giving guest information to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement without having evidence on their legal status. "The suit alleged that providing guests' personal information to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents without a warrant violated federal and state civil rights and privacy laws, including those barring discrimination based on national origin, and those protecting against unreasonable searches and breaches of privacy," according to the press release. That came after a report from Phoenix New Times that motel staff reported Latino guests to ICE despite lacking evidence about their legal status. [GN] MRS BPO LLC: Faces Mun Suit in S.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The case is styled as Hi Chul Mun, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MRS BPO, LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-01777 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. MRS BPO, LLC, a debt collection agency, provides accounts receivables solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Kim Sues in E.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit, Inc. The case is styled as Young Ae Kim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-01107-ENV-AKT (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020). The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Nationwide Credit, Inc., a collection agency, provides customer relationship and accounts receivable management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. David M. Barshay, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com dbarshay@barshaysanders.com NEST FRAGRANCES: Hedges Sues in New York Alleging ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nest Fragrances, LLC. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, for herself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Nest Fragrances, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01769 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Nest Fragrances LLC offers beauty and aroma services. The Company's line of business includes selling candles and new fragrances, including bamboo, black fig, blue garden, mahogany, orange blossom and pink jasmine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com NEW MEXICO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Young Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tyrone Young and Adam Koontz, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. New Mexico Children, Youth & Families Department, and The State of New Mexico, Case No. 1:20-cv-00179 (D.N.M., March 2, 2020), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Statutes for the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs all earned overtime wages. The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiffs and all other non-exempt Juvenile Corrections Officer Supervisors at a rate equal to one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for time spent working in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed as Juvenile Corrections Officer Supervisors by the Defendants. The Defendants own and operate a collection of juvenile detention facilities throughout New Mexico.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Simon, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON 6000 Freedom Square Dr. Independence, OH 44131 Phone: (216) 525-8890 Fax: (216) 642-5814 Email: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com - and – Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Phone: (480) 382-5176 Fax: (480) 304-3805 Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com chris@bendaulaw.com NEW YORK: Court Accepts Amended Complaint in Mitchell Inmates Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Mae D'Agostino of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York has accepted the amended complaint in DONTIE S. MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, et. al., Defendants, Case No. 9:19-CV-0718 (MAD/ML), (N.D.N.Y.) as the operative pleading. Pro se plaintiff Dontie S. Mitchell commenced the action, asserting claims arising out of his confinement in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). In July 2019, the District Court dismissed the following claims, without prejudice: (1) First Amendment Free Exercise and RLUIPA claims related to Plaintiff's religious freedom; (2) First Amendment claims related to the right to petition; (3) First Amendment retaliation claims; and (4) claims related to the unwritten social media ban. In the July Order, the Court also denied Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctive relief and for the appointment of counsel. Currently before the Court are the following motions: (1) Plaintiff's motion to file an Amended Complaint, as of right; (2) Plaintiff's third motion for counsel; (3) Plaintiff's motion to reconsider a August 2019 Order denying Plaintiff's motion to reconsider a portion of the July 2019 Order; (4) Plaintiff's motion for depositions and the appointment of an expert; and (5) Plaintiff's renewed motion for a temporary restraining order. Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief and for the appointment of counsel, but take no position on the remaining motions. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff realleges the following previously dismissed claims against Anthony Annucci, Jeff McKoy, Christopher Miller, David Barringer, and Elmi: (1) "class action" allegations; (2) First Amendment Free Exercise and RLUIPA claims related to Plaintiff's religious freedom; (3) First Amendment claims related to the right to petition; (4) First Amendment retaliation claims; and (5) claims related to the unwritten social media ban. Plaintiff also asserts claims against new defendants: Deputy Superintendent of Programs at Great Meadow C.F., Phil Melecio and Sergeant Reynold. The Amended Complaint includes no new factual allegations against Defendants and the allegations are substantially the same as those in the Complaint reviewed in the July Order, the Court opines. * Freedom of Association In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff includes new First Amendment freedom of association claims against Melecio. . . The Complaint does not contain any facts related to when Melecio was employed at Great Meadow C.F. or any other facts connecting Melecio to Plaintiff and his request to form the UFD. As presently constituted, the facts in the Amended Complaint do not plausibly suggest that Melecio was personally involved in any alleged constitutional deprivation. Accordingly, Plaintiff's First Amendment claims against Melecio are dismissed for failure to state a claim. * First Amendment Religious Claims, RLUIPA claims, and Right to Petition Upon review, and as discussed at length in the July Order, the Court concluded that Plaintiff's First Amendment religious claims and RLUIPA claims did not survive initial review because (i) the Complaint alleged no facts which would allow the Court to determine that Plaintiff's inability to proselytize about Shetaut Neter placed a substantial burden on his religion; and (ii) Plaintiff failed to plead facts suggesting that he sought to maintain his long hair in braids as part of his religious expression or beliefs. The Court also dismissed Plaintiff's First Amendment freedom of petition claims because inmates do not have a constitutional right to access an internal grievance process or procedure. Upon review of the Amended Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to remedy the pleading deficiencies identified in the July Order. * Retaliation Claims In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff realleges his retaliation claims against Miller, Barringer, Elmi, and Annucci without any additional factual allegations. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the July Order, the retaliation claims against the Defendants are dismissed. * "Unwritten" Social Media Ban Despite being given an opportunity to amend, the claims related to an unwritten social media ban are insufficiently pled. Plaintiff has not pled facts suggesting that any of the named Defendants were personally involved in the decision to confiscate Facebook materials in 2016 and 2017 or decisions related to his grievance about social media. Indeed, Plaintiff has not alleged when he filed a grievance related to the ban or where it was filed. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims related to the unwritten social media ban are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. * Requests for Relief The original Complaint and Amended Complaint contain the same requests for relief. For the reasons set forth in the July Order, Plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief and monetary damages for claims related to the Free Exercise Clause, RLUIPA, the right to petition and retaliation are dismissed. At this juncture, Plaintiff may proceed with his request for injunctive relief as it pertains to his First Amendment freedom of association claim. * Class Action Claims In the July Order, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to certify a class. With the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims on his behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated. It is well settled that a class action cannot be maintained by a pro se litigant since non-attorneys may not represent anyone other than themselves. Since the named plaintiff is not an attorney, he cannot bring claims on behalf of other litigants or prisoners. In sum, the Court makes these rulings: (a) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint is DENIED as moot; (b) The Amended Complaint is accepted for filing and is deemed the operative pleading; (c) The Clerk of the Court shall create a separate docket entry for the Amended Complaint and amend the docket to include Melecio and Reynold as defendants herein; (d) The following claims are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted: (1) First Amendment Free Exercise and RLUIPA claims related to Plaintiff's religious freedom; (2) First Amendment claims related to the right to petition; (3) First Amendment retaliation claims; (4) claims related to the "unwritten" social media ban; and (5) claims against Melecio; (e) Plaintiff's First Amendment freedom of association claims against Annucci, Miller, McKoy, and Barringer survive the Court's sua sponte review under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A(b) and require a response; (f) Melecio and Reynold are DISMISSED as defendants; (g) A response to the Amended Complaint may be filed by the remaining defendants, or counsel, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (h) Plaintiff's motion for counsel is DENIED; (i) Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the August Order is DENIED; (j) Plaintiff's motion for depositions and for the appointment of an expert is DENIED; and (k) Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief is DENIED. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/rndkjks from Leagle.com Dontie S. Mitchell, Plaintiff, pro se. Anthony J. Annucci, Acting Commissioner, sued in their individual and/or official capacities, Jeff McKoy, Deputy Commissioner, sued in their individual and/or official capacities, Christopher Miller, Superintendent, sued in their individual and/or official capacities & David Barringer, Deputy Superintendent, sued in their individual and/or official capacities, Defendants, represented by Helena O. Pederson , New York State Attorney General. OAK AND FORT: Faces Begg Suit in California Over Violation of ADA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oak And Fort Enterprise (U.S.), Inc. The case is styled Bruce Begg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Oak And Fort Enterprise (U.S.), Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-01516-DMR (C.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. OAK + FORT is a fashion brand that provides every day essentials with a modern minimalist approach.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq. 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 750 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: (323) 979-2063 Fax: (323) 488-6748 Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com OPERA LTD: Scott+Scott Reminds of March 24 Plaintiff Bid Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, a national securities and consumer rights litigation firm, is reminding investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Opera Limited (NASDAQ: OPRA), and other defendants, related to alleged violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased Opera American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between July 27, 2018 and January 15, 2020, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe Pettigrew for additional information at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The deadline for lead plaintiff motions is March 24, 2020. Opera provides web browser applications and has also increased its fintech business, providing mobile loan and financing applications marketed to Kenya, Nigeria, and India, and offered on Google's Play Store marketplace. The lawsuit alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Opera's business, operational, and compliance policies; specifically, that (i) Opera's sustainable growth and market opportunity for its browser applications was significantly overstated; (ii) Defendants' funded, owned, or otherwise controlled loan services applications and/or businesses relied on predatory lending practices; and (iii) the foregoing, once revealed, were reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on Opera's financial prospects. On January 16, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report asserting, among other things, that Opera was involved in "predatory short-term loans in Africa and India, deploying deceptive 'bait and switch' tactics to lure in borrowers and charging egregious interest rates" and that Opera's lending business applications were "in black and white violation of numerous Google rules" aimed at "curtail[ing] predatory lending." On this news, the price of Opera ADSs fell $1.69 per share, or 18.7%, to close at $7.33 per share on January 16, 2020. If you purchased Opera ADSs between July 27, 2018 and January 15, 2020, inclusive, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio. Contact: Joe Pettigrew Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 230 Park Ave, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169 Tel: (844) 818-6982 E-mail: jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN] PACIFIC SHOE: Violates Disabilities Act in California, Begg Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Shoe Corporation. The case is styled Bruce Begg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Pacific Shoe Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-01515-JCS (C.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pacific Shoe Corporation was founded in 1990. The company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of footwear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan A Stieglitz, Esq. 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 750 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: (323) 979-2063 Fax: (323) 488-6748 Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com PARAMETRIC SOUND: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for May 18 ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP notified of the settlement fairness hearing in the Parametric Shareholders Litigation. The Summary Notice is for ALL PERSONS AND/OR ENTITIES THAT HELD SHARES OF PARAMETRIC SOUND CORPORATION ("PARAMETRIC") COMMON STOCK ON JANUARY 15, 2014, AT THE TIME PARAMETRIC ISSUED SHARES IN THE MERGER PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER, WHETHER BENEFICIALLY OR OF RECORD, INCLUDING THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, HEIRS, SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST, TRANSFEREES, AND ASSIGNEES OF ALL SUCH FOREGOING HOLDERS, BUT EXCLUDING DEFENDANTS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF PARAMETRIC AS OF JANUARY 15, 2014, AND THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, HEIRS, SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST, TRANSFEREES, AND ASSIGNEES. Interested parties are notified that pursuant to an Order of the Eighth Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada, Clark County, a hearing will be held on May 18, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Elizabeth Gonzalez of the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada, 200 Lewis Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada, Courtroom 3E, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the Litigation for $9,650,000.00 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the Court dismissing the Litigation with prejudice and releasing the Released Claims and the Settled Defendants' Released Claims; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation for the Net Settlement Fund is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; (4) whether the application of Co-Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; and (5) whether any application for reimbursement of time and expenses by Plaintiffs should be approved. IF YOU HELD SHARES OF PARAMETRIC COMMON STOCK ON JANUARY 15, 2014, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION, INCLUDING THE RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS YOU MAY POSSESS RELATING TO YOUR OWNERSHIP OF PARAMETRIC COMMON STOCK. Documents may be obtained by writing to Parametric Settlement, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 43342, Providence, RI 02940-3342, or on the Internet at www.ParametricShareholderLitigation.com. If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by mail (postmarked no later than June 3, 2020), or online at www.ParametricShareholderLitigation.com no later than June 3, 2020, establishing that you are entitled to a recovery. If you held shares of Parametric common stock on January 15, 2014 and you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than May 4, 2020, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above. All members of the Class who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement. If there are objections, the Court has ruled that it will conduct a hearing on that particular objection within three (3) days of when the objection is filed. Any such objector shall have an additional five (5) days after the relevant objection hearing to submit a request for exclusion. Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or Co-Lead Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses, must be received by each of the following recipients no later than May 4, 2020: The case is In re PARAMETRIC SOUND CORPORATION SHAREHOLDERS' LITIGATION, Lead Case No. A-13-686890-B, Dept. No. XI (Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada). Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs: David Knotts ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Defendants' Counsel: John P. Stigi III SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Clark County, Nevada 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Joshua D. N. Hess DECHERT LLP 1900 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1110 PLACE FOR MOM: Class Certification in Pine Suit Partly Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, issued an Order granting in part and deffering in part Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned KEVIN PINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. A PLACE FOR MOM, INC., Defendant, Case No. C17-1826 TSZ. (W.D. Wash.). Under the action, plaintiff Kevin Pine alleged on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated that defendant A Place for Mom, Inc. had violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Since then, the parties have engaged in further negotiations in an effort to address the concerns raised by the Court. They ultimately reached a proposed settlement, which seeks of a plan to resolve the class claims through defendant's payment in three installments of $6,000,000, and the distribution of the net proceeds (i.e., the balance remaining after deducting attorney's fees, litigation expenses, administration costs, and incentive awards) to class members on a pro rata basis. Under the current proposed Settlement, in response to the Court's reluctance to approve an "opt in" system of distributing settlement proceeds, the parties propose to segregate the class into two groups, which are essentially subclasses, only one of which would be required to "opt in." The parties have labeled the subsets as "Locate" and "Non-Locate." The designations "Locate" and "Non-Locate" bear no correlation to the features of the subclasses, but rather correspond to the actions of the proposed settlement administrator. Defendant has the same information about all Locate and Non-Locate subclass members, i.e., names, cellular phone numbers, and email addresses. For Locate subclass members, the settlement administrator will be tasked with using its "best efforts" and the data provided by defendant to determine a mailing address or, in other words, to locate the individuals, and to send notices about the settlement to them via U.S. mail. On the other hand, for Non-Locate subclass members, the settlement administrator need not attempt to find a physical location, and may correspond with such individuals via email. According to the Amended Settlement Agreement, the only difference between the Locate and Non-Locate subclasses is whether defendant concedes on the issue of consent. Defendant does not dispute that Locate subclass members did not consent to receiving calls from defendant or its agents. As to Non-Locate subclass members, defendant is either unable or unwilling to agree on an absence of consent to receiving calls. Thus, the parties propose to require that members of the Non-Locate subclass return a claim form verifying that they did not consent to receiving calls from defendant before they can receive any benefit from the settlement. In contrast, under the terms of the proposed settlement, monetary awards would be automatically sent to Locate subclass members who do not exclude themselves from the class or opt to donate their funds to the Fisher Center for Alzheimer's Research Foundation. The parties indicate that the Locate subclass has at least 56,000 members. They have not provided any estimate concerning the number of members in the Non-Locate subclass. Although the parties contemplate that class members cannot receive a share of the settlement funds if they consented to the calls at issue, they have not included lack of consent as a prerequisite in defining the class. The parties' proposed definition of the class is therefore overbroad. For the sake of consistency with the terms of the proposed settlement and with the requirements of the TCPA, the class definition must be revised. The Court cannot, however, at this time, certify the two subclasses proposed by the parties. The parties have not provided any estimates concerning the number of individuals in the Non-Locate subclass or the expected rate at which claim forms might be returned by such subclass members. Without this information, the Court cannot calculate the potential pro rata shares to be paid from the settlement fund and class members cannot assess whether they should object to the settlement. Notwithstanding some issues, the Court approves portions of the parties' agreement and orders that: (1) Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is GRANTED in part, DEFERRED in part, and RENOTED to January 31, 2020. (2) The Court hereby CERTIFIES for settlement purposes the following Class: "All persons within the United States who, between August 7, 2013, and August 15, 2019, received, without their consent, a non-emergency call, from defendant A Place for Mom, Inc. or any party acting on defendant's behalf, to a cellular telephone." The parties are given the chance to object to the class definition and seek amendment or decertification. (3) Kevin Pine is appointed as Class Representative; and the firms of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; Kozonis & Klinger, Ltd.; Hussin Law Firm; and Frank Freed Subit & Thomas LLP are appointed as class counsel. (4) Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC is appointed as settlement administrator. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wefywqu from Leagle.com Kevin Pine, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M. Hutchinson - dhutchinson@lchb.com - LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, pro hac vice, Gary Michael Klinger - gklinger@kozonislaw.com - KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD., pro hac vice, Jonathan D. Selbin - jselbin@lchb.com - LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, pro hac vice & Michael C. Subit , FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS, 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200, Seattle, WA 98104-1729 A Place For Mom Inc, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Debra Rae Bernard – DBernard@perkinscoie.com - PERKINS COIE, pro hac vice, James G. Snell - JSnell@perkinscoie.com - PERKINS COIE LLP, pro hac vice, James F. Williams – Jwilliams@perkinscoie.com -PERKINS COIE & Nicola Menaldo – Nmenaldo@perkinscoie.com - PERKINS COIE. PROFESSIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Faces Lorenzo FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Adjustment Corp. of S.W. FL., Inc. The case is styled as Lubena Lorenzo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Professional Adjustment Corp. of S.W. FL., Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00141-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., March 2, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Professional Adjustment Bureau of Southwest Florida, Inc. is a debt collection company located in Fort Myers, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces Hamilton FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Ekima Hamilton, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00223-FJS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020). The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. provides receivable collection and management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com PROVEN RX SALES: Faces Katz Consumer Class Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Proven RX Sales LLC. The case is styled as Bruce Katz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Proven RX Sales LLC, Case No. 0:20-cv-60464-RS (S.D. Fla., March 2, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit for unauthorized publication or use of communications. Proven Rx Sales is a pharmaceutical platform that provides an amazon style shopping to independent pharmacies and physicians.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue Tampa, FL 33602, Suite 300 Phone: (813) 337-7992 Fax: (813) 229-8712 Email: bhill@wfclaw.com PSA REALTY: Chavez Sues in E.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PSA Realty Corp. The case is styled as Kenneth T. Chavez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PSA Realty Corp. doing business as: La Quinta Inn Queens, Case No. 1:20-cv-01131 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 29, 2020). The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Psa Realty Corp is a hospitality company based in Long Island City, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Segal, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C. 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 415-0100 Fax: (516) 706-6631 Email: msegal@segallegal.com REAL TIME: Faces Ventura Suit in New York Over Violation of FDCPA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Real Time Resolutions, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Ventura, on behalf of himself individually and all others similarly situated v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01132 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 29, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Real Time Resolutions, Inc. ("RTR") is a full-service loan servicing and recovery company specializing in mortgage, auto, student, credit card, and other consumer loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq. FAGENSON & PUGLISI 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 704 New York, NY 10123 Phone: (212) 268-2128 Fax: (212) 268-2127 Email: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com RIOT GAMES: New Legal Counsel Takes Over Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Haydn Taylor, writing for Games Industry, reports that representatives of a class action lawsuit against Riot Games have hired new legal counsel and withdrawn their motion for a $10 million settlement. The move comes after it was revealed last month that the 1,000 class members may actually be entitled to $400 million. Two California state agencies suggested the on-going gender discrimination lawsuit against Riot Games had been mishandled by the plantiffs' legal representation, Rosen & Saba. Together, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) made a case against the settlement, finding issue with the final figure of $10 million and suggesting that Riot Games had colluded with Rosen & Saba. A judge was scheduled to rule on the validity of this intervention earlier this month, but the hearing has been pushed back to an unconfirmed date. Despite this, class action representatives Melanie McCracken, Jessica Negron, and Gabriela Downie have found new legal counsel with women's rights attorney Genie Harrison. Harrison, who is known for bringing cases against the Weinstein Company in the wake of #MeToo, is joined by plaintiffs' employment lawyer Joseph Lovretovich. Harrison and Lovretovich are now seeking expert analysis on the alleged discrimination to find an appropriate settlement figure. "These brave women spoke out against gender inequality and sexism, and I want to make sure they are fairly compensated," says Harrison. "Our well-qualified statisticians are already analysing pay data. We intend to recover the compensation due to the women of Riot Games and achieve institutional reform, in order to level the playing field for women." Following the DFEH and DLSE intervention, a Riot Games spokesperson described the $400 million figure as "clickbait." Update, February 24, 2020: In a statement responding to the news, a Riot Games spokesperson told GamesIndustry.biz the League of Legends developer was committed to finding a fair outcome for all parties, one that is "justified by the underlying facts." "We understand that the plaintiffs' new counsel needs adequate time to review the proposed settlement agreement and we respect that," said the spokesperson. "That said, the analysis and discussions which led to the earlier proposed settlement were comprehensive and thorough, and we believe that the proposal was fair and adequate under the circumstances." Riot also described the $400 million figure proposed by the DFEH as "outrageous," and said that any arguments put forward in favour of sum "can simply not be made in good faith." "While we have acknowledged that there is work that we needed to do to better live up to our values, we have also made clear to our employees that we will defend ourselves against false narratives and unfair claims that do nothing to remedy any hardships of actual class members," they added. The new counsel can be reached at: Genie Harrison Law Firm 523 W. 6th Street Suite 707 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Phone: (213) 805-5301 Fax: (213) 805-5306 [GN] RIVER WAFFLES: Wilson Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Merinda Wilson, Individually, and on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated current and former employees v. RIVER WAFFLES, LLC d/b/a Waffle House, a Georgia Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-02144-TLP-dkv (W.D. Tenn., Feb. 28, 2020), is brought against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation and other damages owed to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asserts that she typically worked between 40 to 50 hours per work week; however, the Defendant had a common plan and practice of failing to compensate her the applicable FLSA overtime rate of pay for all hours over 40 per week. In addition, the Defendant had a common practice of failing to compensate the Plaintiff the difference between their sub-minimum wages and $7.25 per hour, as required by the FLSA. As a result, not only did the Plaintiff and other workers frequently earn far less than the FLSA required $7.25 hourly rate of pay, they were obliged to pay taxes on tips they did not receive, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as server at its Waffle House restaurant. River Waffles is a franchisee of Waffle House restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. B. Alan Matthews, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com amatthews@jsyc.com ROGER LEE HARMON: $5.2M Sale of Chase County Property Approved -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Thomas L. Saladino of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska authorized Roger Lee Harmon's sale of real property and irrigation equipment to Stromberger Farms, Inc. for $5.2 million, free and clear of all liens, taxes and encumbrances. The real property is legally described as: a. Tract 1 - Township 5 North, Range 40 West of the 6th P.M., Chase County, Nebraska, Section 15: SE ¼; together with a Zimmatic pivot, electric motor, control panel, liquid fertilizer tank, underground wiring and well; b. Tract 2 - Township 6 North, Range 40 West of the 6th P.M., Chase County, Nebraska, Section 26: NW ¼; together with a Reinke pivot, electric motor, control panel, liquid fertilizer tank, underground wiring and well; c. Tract 3 - Township 6 North, Range 40 West of the 6th P.M., Chase County, Nebraska, Section 26: NE ¼; together with a Reinke pivot, electric motor, control panel, liquid fertilizer tank, underground wiring and well; d. Tract 4 - Township 7 North, Range 40 West of the 6th P.M., Chase County, Nebraska, Section 31: SW ¼; together with a Reinke pivot, electric motor, control panel, liquid fertilizer tank, underground wiring and well; e. Tract 5 - Township 6 North, Range 40 West of the 6th P.M., Chase County, Nebraska, Section 6: NW ¼; together with a Reinke pivot, electric motor, control panel, liquid fertilizer tank, underground wiring and well; f. Tract 6 - Township 6 North, Range 40 West of the 6th P.M., Chase County, Nebraska, Section 6: SW ¼; together with a Reinke pivot, electric motor, control panel, liquid fertilizer tank, underground wiring and well; g. Tract 7 - Township 7 North, Range 41 West of the 6th P.M., Chase County, Nebraska, Section 25: SE ¼; together with a Reinke pivot, electric motor, control panel, liquid fertilizer tank, underground wiring and well; h. Tract 8 - Township 6 North, Range 41 West of the 6th P.M., Chase County, Nebraska, Section 1: NE ¼; together with a Reinke pivot, electric motor, control panel, liquid fertilizer tank, underground wiring and well. The sale is free and clear of liens, taxes and encumbrances pursuant to the terms of the Agricultural Real Estate Sale Agreement. The closing agent will pay the following from the proceeds of the sale: first, to closing costs; second, to pay all real estate, personal property, and occupational taxes related to the Property; and third, to pay all of the remaining balance to the Secured Creditor, Rabo Agrifinance, now known as Rabo Agrifinance, LLC, to be applied to the indebtedness owed to such Secured Creditor by the Debtor: first to the default interest at the rate of 8% per annum accrued between Nov. 1, 2018 and Jan. 21, 2020; second to accrued interest at the contract rate of 3.92% to Nov. 1, 2018, third to accrued interest from Jan. 21, 2020 to the date of closing at the rate of 6% per annum, and fourth to principal. The Debtor is authorized to convey the title to the Property to the Purchaser by Warranty Deed and Bill of Sale free and clear of all liens, taxes and encumbrances. Roger Lee Harmon sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. D. Neb. Case No. 19-40903) on May 24, 2019. The Debtor tapped Wayne E. Griffin, Esq., at Wayne E. Griffin Law Office. ROUND SKY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Eckstein Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- CAMERON ECKSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROUND SKY, INC. dba CASHADVANCEUSA.NET; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case 3:20-cv-00294-GPC-AHG (S.D. Cal., Feb. 17, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Round Sky, Inc. is an online marketing company for online publishers and lenders. [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 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com S & C ELECTRIC: Stirmel Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA and WWPCL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lee Stirmel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. S & C ELECTRIC COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00347-LA (E.D. Wis., March 3, 2020), is brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws to obtain relief for unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid agreed upon wages. The Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate the Plaintiff for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a Technician working at its Franklin, Wisconsin manufacturing facility. The Defendant owned, operated, and managed engineering offices and manufacturing facilities in the States of California, Florida, Illinois, Washington, and Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com SAKS FIFTH AVENUE: LV, Gucci & Prada Accused of Illegal Conspiracy ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fashion Law reports that Louis Vuitton, Fendi, Loro Piana, Gucci, Prada, Brunello Cucinelli, and Saks Fifth Avenue are named in a proposed class-action lawsuit by three former Saks Fifth Avenue employees. The proposed lawsuit cites violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, a federal statute from 1890 prohibiting activities that restrict interstate commerce and competition in the marketplace, and accuses the brands of engaging in an "illegal conspiracy" to "suppress the total compensation of their employees." The former Saks Luxury employees claim that if they were to seek employment with one of the luxury brands named in the lawsuit, the brand would require that they "resign from Saks and wait six months before [it would] be allowed to hire the Luxury Retail Employee." As a result of these alleged agreements, the plaintiffs claim they were prevented from advancing their careers. The plaintiffs then assert that these alleged practices not only stand in the way of "a properly functioning and lawfully competitive labor market," but that they are helping to fix the wages earned by employees "at artificially low levels." The Fashion Law explains this is because even just the threat of lateral hiring by competing companies "forces employers to reactively increase compensation," "enhance the terms of [their] commission agreements," and/or "matching [any other] compensation terms" in order to retain employees that are likely to join a competitor. The three plaintiffs are currently seeking certification of their class action to allow others in similar situations - potentially "all persons in the United States employed by at least one of Defendants at any time from September 30, 2015 until the effects of the defendants' conduct ceases" — to join the lawsuit and any ultimate settlement (if there is one), while also seeking a jury trial and monetary damages. [GN] SANCHEZ OIL: Court Refuses to Compel Arbitration in Flynn Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned MARK FLYNN, WILLIAM HOWELL, WILLIAM RYAN MOORE, Plaintiffs, v. SANCHEZ OIL & GAS CORPORATION, Defendant, CAse No. SA-19-CV-00867-JKP. (W.D. Tex.). The putative collective action was filed by Plaintiff Mark Flynn on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Flynn alleges that he formerly worked as a Lease Operator for Defendant Sanchez Oil & Gas Corporation and was paid a day-rate with no overtime compensation. Sanchez Oil's Motion to Compel argues that it is a third-party beneficiary of an arbitration agreement between Flynn and Cypress Energy Management-TIR, LLC (Cypress-TIR), the staffing company that provided Flynn to work for Sanchez. The record before the Court reflects that Flynn entered into an Employment Agreement with Cypress-TIR on July 21, 2017, which contains an arbitration clause. Sanchez concedes it was not a party to the Employment Agreement between Cypress-TIR and Flynn. Sanchez nonetheless maintains it is entitled to enforce the arbitration agreement as a third-party beneficiary and that this case should be dismissed. Alternatively, Sanchez argues that Flynn is prohibited from avoiding his obligation to arbitrate by direct-benefits estoppel. The Court disagrees with both of Sanchez's contentions. Sanchez's motion to compel arbitration is denied because Sanchez has not convinced the Court that Flynn and Cypress-TIR intended to make Sanchez a beneficiary of their arbitration agreement. Although Flynn indisputably entered an arbitration agreement with Cypress-TIR, he did not enter one with Sanchez, and nothing in the language of his agreement with Cypress-TIR evinces the parties' intent to extend the agreement to arbitrate to Cypress-TIR's customers generally or Sanchez specifically. Finally, Flynn's lawsuit is not barred by the doctrine of direct-benefits estoppel. Sanchez is not a third-party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement, the Court opines. Although there is a strong presumption favoring arbitration, the presumption arises only after the party seeking to compel arbitration proves that a valid arbitration agreement exists. Hence, the party moving to compel arbitration bears the initial burden of proving the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate. Once the moving party has met its initial burden, the burden shifts to the party resisting arbitration to assert a reason that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable. The parties agree that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), applies to the arbitration agreement at issue. Section 2 of the FAA provides that written arbitration agreements shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. The Court is not persuaded by Sanchez's argument that the Employment Agreement's references to customer in another portion of the contract establishes the parties' intent to arbitrate employee claims against customers. The only references to customer in Flynn's Employment Agreement are that Flynn's employment was to be performed for a designated customer and maintaining a good working relationship with the customer is critical to the company's success and the employee's opportunity for employment. Such language may demonstrate that Sanchez is an incidental beneficiary of the parties' contract but not that the parties intended to grant Sanchez the right to enforce Cypress-TIR's various agreements with its employees. In other words, it was one reason not the sole or dispositive reason that supported the court's decision to confer third-party beneficiary status on the customer. Neither court suggested that indemnification agreements between employer and customer unaccompanied by any language in the arbitration agreement between employer and employee referencing third parties would allow a court to infer an agreement by the employee to arbitrate claims against the customer. Here, there is no evidence that the primary parties contemplated that the third party would be vested with the right to sue for enforcement of the contract, and all presumptions run against affording Sanchez this right. In sum, Sanchez has not established it is a third-party beneficiary with authority to enforce the arbitration agreement at issue, the Court opines. Sanchez contends that Flynn's lawsuit is barred by the Texas doctrine of direct-benefits estoppel. The Court disagrees. Direct benefits estoppel applies when the claim depends on the contract's existence and would be unable to stand independently without the contract. Flynn's claims are statutory and arise under the FLSA, a federal law, and not the contract. Moreover, whether Sanchez was Flynn's employer under the FLSA and whether Flynn is ultimately entitled to overtime compensation as an employee under the FLSA does not depend on the terms of Flynn's employment agreement. Rather it turns on the economic realities of Flynn's relationship with Sanchez. To be sure, the parties may point to the Employment Agreement as evidence relevant to their competing theories of the nature of Flynn's relationships with Sanchez and with Cypress-TIR. But ultimately, no matter what was promised or documented, what will be dispositive under the FLSA will be how the parties in reality behaved. Flynn's FLSA claims against Sanchez relate to the contract" with Cypress-TIR but do not arise from it. Direct-benefits estoppel does not apply to bar Flynn from filing the lawsuit in federal court. Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/us6ohtg from Leagle.com Mark Flynn, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Dunlap - adunlap@mybackwages.com -, Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, Julianne C. Lomax - JLomax@mbwages.com - Josephson Dunlap LLP, pro hac vice, Richard J. Burch , Bruckner Burch PLLC, 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500, Houston, TX 77046, Richard M. Schreiber - rschreiber@mybackwages.com - Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, William R. Liles - wliles@mbwages.com - Josephson Dunlap & Michael A. Josephson - mjosephson@mybackwages.com - Josephson Dunlap Law Firm. William Howell & William Ryan Moore, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew W. Dunlap , Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, Julianne C. Lomax , Josephson Dunlap LLP, pro hac vice, Richard J. Burch , Bruckner Burch PLLC, Richard M. Schreiber , Josephson Dunlap Law Firm & Michael A. Josephson , Josephson Dunlap Law Firm. Sanchez Oil & Gas Corporation, Defendant, represented by Laura E. O'Donnell - laura.odonnell@haynesboone.com - Haynes and Boone, L.L.P. & Paloma Ahmadi - paloma.ahmadi@haynesboone.com - Haynes and Boone LLP. SASOL LTD: Bragar Eagel Alerts Investors to Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased Sasol Limited (NYSE: SSL) securities between March 10, 2015 and January 13, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until April 6, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On October 27, 2014, Sasol announced the construction of a of an $8.1 billion ethane cracker and derivatives complex in Lake Charles, Louisiana, dubbed the Lake Charles Chemicals Project ("LCCP"). According to the Company, the LCCP includes seven manufacturing units, some of which are in continued development, including the low-density polyethylene ("LDPE") facility and Ziegler alcohol, ethoxylates and Guerbet alcohol facilities, among others. On June 6, 2016, Sasol reported "that the expected total capital expenditure for the [LCCP] could increase up to US$11 billion, including site infrastructure and utility improvements"; a slower rate of capital "resulted in an extended project schedule and contributed to further project cost increases"; "[t]he expected returns for the project have reduced due to changes in long-term price assumptions and the higher capital estimates"; and "[t]he increase in the estimated LCCP capital cost and extended schedule will reduce the expected project returns by approximately the same amount as the Company's lower long-term price assumptions." Following these disclosures, Sasol's share price fell $3.53 per share, or 10.99%, to close at $28.60 per share on June 6, 2016. On May 22, 2019, Sasol disclosed that "the cost estimate for the LCCP has been revised to a range of $12,6 to $12,9 billion which includes a contingency of $300 million." Sasol cited a $530 million change in the project's cost forecast because of a "[c]orrection for duplication of investment allowances of approximately $230 million"; a "[c]orrection for certain contracts and variation orders managed by Sasol, outside the primary engineering, procurement and construction contract, of approximately $180 million"; and forecast improvements that were "not expected to be realised and adjustments for potential insurance claims and procurement back-charges of approximately $120 million." Following these disclosures, Sasol's share price fell $4.50 per share, or 14.93%, to close at $25.64 per share on May 22, 2019. Later, on August 16, 2019, Sasol issued a press release disclosing that it was delaying the announcement of its 2019 financial results because of "possible LCCP control weaknesses." On this news, Sasol's share price fell $0.74 per share, or 4.02%, to close at $17.67 per share on August 16, 2019. Then, on October 28, 2019, Sasol disclosed that its review of the LCCP control weaknesses had brought to light "errors, omissions, and inaccuracies in the [LCCP] cost estimate," and a number of unethical and improper reporting activities that took place at the highest level of management. Sasol also announced the resignation of, inter alia, its Joint Presidents and Chief Executive Officers ("CEOs"), effective November 1, 2019, and Senior Vice Presidents and others previously in charge of the LCCP. Finally, on January 14, 2020, Sasol issued a press release confirming that on January 13, 2020, the Company "experienced an explosion and fire at its LCCP low-density polyethylene (LDPE) unit." Sasol stated that "[t]he unit was in the final stages of commissioning and startup when the incident occurred" and "has been shut down and an investigation is underway to determine the cause of the incident, the extent of the damage and resulting impact on the LDPE unit's [beneficial operation] schedule." Following these disclosures, Sasol's share price fell $1.70 per share, or 7.84%, over the following two trading days, to close at $19.99 per share on January 15, 2020. The Complaint, filed on February 5, 2020, 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) Sasol had conducted insufficient due diligence into, and failed to account for multiple issues with, the LCCP, as well as the true cost of the project; (ii) construction and operation of the LCCP was consequently plagued by control weaknesses, delays, rising costs, and technical issues; (iii) these issues were exacerbated by Sasol's top-level management, who engaged in improper and unethical behavior with respect to financial reporting for the LCCP and the project's oversight; (iv) all the foregoing was reasonably likely to render the LCCP significantly more expensive than disclosed and negatively impact the Company's financial results; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased Sasol securities during the Class Period, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Melissa Fortunato or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (646) 860-9156, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Contact: Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Tel: (646) 860-9156 E-mail: investigations@bespc.com fortunato@bespc.com walker@bespc.com Website: www.bespc.com [GN] SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: $65MM 'Blackfish' Deals Gets Prelim. OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Law 360 reports that a California judge has preliminarily approved SeaWorld Entertainment Inc.'s $65 million settlement of a securities class action related to the controversial 2013 documentary "Blackfish", saying he will likely give his final approval of the deal because it is fair and reasonable. U.S. District Jude Michael Anello set a July 22, 2020 date for a settlement hearing. SeaWorld Entertainment on Feb. 11, 2020, disclosed that a settlement has been entered in the class action suit entitled, Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (AGS). The proposed settlement, which is subject to certain conditions, including court approval, requires the Company to pay $65.0 million for claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as the costs of administration and legal fees and expenses. The proposed settlement does not include or constitute an admission, concession, or finding of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing by the Company or any defendant. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a theme park and entertainment company in the United States. The company operates SeaWorld theme parks in Orlando, Florida; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California, as well as Busch Gardens theme parks in Tampa, Florida, and Williamsburg, Virginia. The company was formerly known as SW Holdco, Inc. and changed its name to SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. in December 2012. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Orlando, Florida. [GN] SEQWATER: Queensland Dam Operator to Appeal Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reports that thousands of victims of the 2011 Brisbane floods have learned a Queensland dam operator will appeal a court decision finding it partly responsible for water damage. According ot the report, a lawyer for Seqwater, the Queensland Government Bulk Water Supply Authority responsible for providing a safe, reliable, resilient and affordable bulk drinking water, confirmed it would appeal the NSW Supreme Court finding that nearly 7,000 flood victims were failed by engineers operating its Wivenhoe and Somerset dams. The dams weren't operated according to the rules, exacerbating downstream flooding when a deluge of "biblical" proportions fell after days of earlier rain, Justice Robert Beech-Jones found in November. More water should have been released earlier, he said. Another state-owned entity that provided flood management services to Seqwater has also filed a notice of intention to appeal. However Sunwater's lawyer told the court on Friday he was awaiting final instructions on whether to proceed with the challenge. The State of Queensland, the third defendant, has ruled out appealing. Damages could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, placing it among the biggest class-action payouts in Australian legal history, lawyers for victims say. "Real justice, that is compensating our clients, feels that much further away (because of this appeal)," Maurice Blackburn lawyer Rebecca Gilsenan told reporters outside court in Sydney. "Their hearts are sinking." Former Ipswich councillor and flood class action claimant Paul Tully said the appeal process will add to the distress victims have experienced over "nine long and tortuous years". "These insurance companies are toying with people's lives and futures," he said in a statement. "They are corporate scumbags just delaying the inevitable. They make Scrooge look like an honourable citizen." While Seqwater prepares its grounds for appeal, mediation between the parties will commence. "We're happy to mediate immediately," Julian Sexton SC, for the victims, told the court on Friday. Each defendant will also need to tell the court by April 9 how it believes the eventual damages payout should be divided among them. The matter is scheduled to return to court on April 29 for further case management. [GN] SHASTA BEVERAGES: Garcia Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as AMBER GARCIA, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated non-exempt former and current v. SHASTA BEVERAGES, INC., NATIONAL BEVPAK, NATIONAL BEVERAGE CORP. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-07798-PA-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on March 23, 2020, for an order granting her motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) and (3), or, in the alternative, an order granting an extension of time. National Beverage is an American beverage developer, manufacturer, and distributor based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, focused on flavored soft drinks.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Heather McMillan, Esq. Daniel P. Stevens, Esq. Michael J. Berry, Esq. STEVENS & McMILLAN 335 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Telephone: (714) 730-1000 Facsimile: (714) 730-1067 E-mail: heather@scmclaw.com ken@scmclaw.com michael@scmclaw.com Attorneys for Defendants: Christopher J. Kondon, Esq. Saman M. Rejali, Esq. Jonathan D. Kintzele, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 8th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310-552-5000 Facsimile: 310-552-5001 E-mail: saman.rejali@klgates.com christopher.kondon@klgates.com Jonathan.kintzele@klgates.com SIOUX HONEY: Class Certification Bid in Tran Suit Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Susan Tran v. Sioux Honey Association Cooperative, Case No. 8:17-cv-00110-JLS-SS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order on Feb. 24, 2020: 1. granting in part and denying in part Tran's motion for class certification: -- Tran's Motion is denied as to the certification of a Rule 23(c)(4); and -- Rule 23(b)(2) class is certified, on behalf of: "all persons residing in California, who, from January 2014 to the Present, purchased, for personal use and not resale, Sue Bee Products"; 2. appointing Susan Tran as Class Representative; and 3. appointing Kim E. Richman of the Richman Law Group as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff may provide a supplemental declaration identifying and detailing the adequacy of the individual attorney from Levi & Korsinsky LLP who is to serve as co-class counsel in this case. Sioux Honey produces and supplies honey products. The company provides spun, natural, organic, raw, and orange honey, honey bears, and BBQ sauces.[CC] SIX FLAGS: Lieff Cabraser Notes of April 13 Filing Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased shares of the common stock of Six Flags Entertainment Corporation (NYSE: SIX) between April 25, 2018 and January 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased shares of the common stock of Six Flags during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than April 13, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. Six Flags investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358. Six Flags, incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Grand Prairie, Texas, is the largest regional theme park operator in the world, with 26 parks across North America. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements to investors regarding the Company's business, operations, and growth prospects in connection with its agreements with Riverside Investment Group Co. Ltd. ("Riverside"), a real estate developer, to develop Six Flags-branded theme parks in China. Further, defendants misled investors by assuring that delays in developing the parks were "short term," that the problems were "not material in the context of long-term opportunity," and that Riverside was in "great shape" financially. The truth about defendants' fraud began to emerge on February 14, 2019, when Six Flags announced a negative $15 million revenue adjustment for fourth quarter of 2018 as a result of delays in the opening of multiple parks in China, which the Company falsely attributed to macroeconomic issues in China. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $9.00 per share, or over 14%, from its closing price on February 13, 2019 to close at $54.87 per share on February 14, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. On October 23, 2019, the Company again announced delays in its park openings in China. In addition, Six Flags reported a 26% drop in international agreements, sponsorship and accommodations revenue for the third quarter of 2019 compared to the third quarter of 2018. On these disclosures, Six Flags's stock price fell $6.35 per share, or 12.4%, from its closing price on October 22, 2019 to close at $44.88 per share on October 23, 2019. On January 10, 2020, Six Flags revealed that it continued to encounter challenges in the development of its parks in China, that Riverside had defaulted on its payment obligations to Six Flags, and that the Company would realize no revenue from its agreements with Riverside in the fourth quarter 2019 and expected a negative $1 million revenue adjustment in connection with those agreements. Six Flags also disclosed approximately $10 million in charges related to Riverside's default. On this news, Six Flags's stock price fell $7.80 per share, or approximately 17.8%, from its closing price of $43.76 on January 10, 2020 to close at $35.96 per share the next day, January 11, 2020. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America." [GN] SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Plagued by Maintenance Problems, Reveals Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jozelyn Escobedo, writing for WFAA, reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Airlines on behalf of other stockholders, claiming the company has been "plagued by non-compliance and maintenance issues," according to court documents. The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court mid-February, accuses Southwest of having maintenance issues with flights for more than a decade. It also accuses the airlines and their top-officials of being non-compliant. Plaintiff Robert G. Linenewebe, who is representing the class, says Southwest has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and self-touted remediation efforts, according to court documents. The lawsuit states the class includes people who purchased or acquired Southwest Airlines securities between the dates of Feb. 7, 2017, and June 25, 2019. Documents allege that during the time period, Southwest denied any wrongdoing and insisted that is was a complaint with government regulations. "We are aware of the complaint and are reviewing it ahead of mounting a vigorous defense against it," Southwest officials said in a written statement. The lawsuit claims the issues were exacerbated by the airlines' undue influence over Federal Aviation Administration officials. It also says the because of this and other wrongdoings, that passengers' safety was put at risk. [GN] SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Airlines Company (NYSE: LUV) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division and indexed under 20-cv-00408, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Southwest securities between February 7, 2017, and June 25, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Southwest securities during the class period, you have until April 20, 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. Southwest was founded in 1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas. The Company operates a passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation services in the U.S. and near-international markets. Southwest is regulated by, among other government entities, the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"), the sub-agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation ("DOT") that regulates civil aviation in the U.S. and its surrounding international waters. Southwest's operations have been plagued by non-compliance and maintenance issues with its flight services for over a decade, often exacerbated by the Company's repeated denials of wrongdoing and self-touted remediation efforts. For example, according to the Wall Street Journal, the FAA's certificate-management office overseeing Southwest faced significant controversy over a decade ago "when congressional investigators discovered that local agency managers had allowed the airline to continue flying tens of thousands of passengers on nearly two dozen aircraft without completing mandatory structural inspections." Additionally, "[i]n 2009, Southwest agreed to pay $7.5 million in penalties to settle allegations that it operated 46 aircraft on 60,000 flights without completing mandatory maintenance checks for potential fuselage cracks." Notwithstanding these widely reported issues, Southwest has continually denied any wrongdoing, while insisting that it has remained compliant with applicable government maintenance and safety regulations. 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) Southwest's operations were non-compliant with government maintenance and safety regulations; (ii) the foregoing issues were exacerbated by Southwest's undue influence over FAA officials and, consequently, lax regulatory oversight of the Company's operations; (iii) all of the foregoing significantly increased the safety risks to passengers traveling on Southwest flights and heightened governmental scrutiny into the Company; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 17, 2018, news sources reported that a Southwest plane had blown an engine, which exploded and caused shrapnel to strike the plane. The explosion resulted in the death of one passenger, who was partially pulled through a large hole as the cabin suffered rapid decompression, and injured seven others. According to the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, the incident marked "the first passenger fatality in a U.S. airline accident since 2009," and that, out of twenty-four fan blades in the engine at issue, one was missing. On this news, Southwest's stock price fell $0.62 per share, or 1.13%, to close at $54.27 per share on April 17, 2018. On April 19, 2018, during pre-market hours, the FAA announced that it would "order inspections of at least 220 aircraft engines as investigators are focusing on a broken fan blade in an engine that exploded." According to news sources, the order was initially proposed in August 2016, following the earlier incident in which engine failure had also resulted from a broken fan blade. Critics also reportedly questioned why the FAA had not acted sooner in conjunction with their European counterparts. On this news, Southwest's stock price fell $1.02 per share, or 1.83%, to close at $54.80 per share on April 19, 2018. On June 21, 2018, near the end of the trading session, news sources reported that eight passengers were suing Southwest in connection with the engine explosion in April 2018. On this news, Southwest's stock price fell $1.24 per share, or 2.33%, to close at $51.91 per share on June 22, 2018. Finally, on June 25, 2019, during after-market hours, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled "FAA Reassigns Senior Managers in Office Overseeing Southwest Airlines," which reported that the FAA had "removed three senior managers in the office overseeing Southwest Airlines Co., amid allegations of lax safety enforcement raised by agency whistleblowers and various resulting government inquiries." The article also noted that "[t]he [DOT]'s inspector-general has been looking into some of the safety issues for many months . . . including lapses by the airline in documenting maintenance for more than 100 of its jets," as well as "failures to reliably compute the weight of checked baggage and hazardous landing incidents in which one aircraft smacked a wingtip on the tarmac and another ran off the strip in stormy weather. On this news, Southwest's stock price fell $0.30 per share, or 0.59%, to close at $50.70 per share on June 26, 2019. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. Contact: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Pomerantz Alerts Shareholders to Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Spirit Aerosystems Holdings, Inc. (SPR) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Spirit securities between October 31, 2019 and January 29, 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 Spirit securities during the class period, you have until April 10, 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 POMERANTZ LLP E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or Tel: 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. Spirit purports to design, manufacture, and supply commercial aero structures in the United States and internationally. 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: (1) the Company lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; (2) the Company did not comply with its established accounting principles related to potential contingent liabilities; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about Spirit's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On January 30, 2020, before the market opened, the Company issued a press release announcing that Spirit had determined that it did not comply with its accounting procedures and that its Chief Financial Officer Jose Garcia and Chief Accounting Officer John Gilson had resigned. On this news, the Company's shares fell $2.56 per share or approximately 4% on unusually high volume to close at $65.08 per share on January 30, 2020, damaging investors. 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. [GN] SVA HEALTHCARE: Navigators Has Until March 9 to Answer Questions ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SVA HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, and TIMOTHY RAVE, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Necessary party, Case No. 18-cv-1062-jdp (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin has given Navigators until March 9, 2020, to file supplemental materials addressing the questions raised in the Order before the Court can consider its motion for summary judgment. Navigators has filed a motion for summary judgment in the suit for a declaration regarding the scope of an insurance policy that Navigators issued to Defendant SVA. Specifically, Navigators contends that its policy doesn't cover the losses alleged in a pending class action filed in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court by Timothy Rave. Before the Court can consider Navigators' motion, Navigators must show that it has brought the case in the proper court. As its basis for subject matter jurisdiction, Navigators relies on 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, which requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy more than $75,000. It is reasonable to infer from Navigators' allegations that more than $75,000 is at stake, but Navigators hasn't shown complete diversity of citizenship. First, Navigators alleges in its proposed findings of fact that it is a New York domiciled stock property and casualty insurance company with its principal place of business in New York, New York. But it only cites its complaint to support that allegation, and a complaint isn't evidence. More fundamentally, Navigators doesn't say whether it is incorporated or unincorporated. That's important because the citizenship of incorporated and unincorporated companies is determined in different ways. If Navigators is a corporation, it is a citizen of its state of incorporation and the state of its principal place of business; if Navigators is not incorporated, its citizenship is determined by the citizenship of its members. Navigators must provide the Court with the information necessary to determine its citizenship. Second, Navigators says that SVA Healthcare is a limited liability company and is a citizen of Wisconsin. But it doesn't identify SVA's members or the citizenship of those members. Without that information, the Court cannot determine SVA's citizenship. Third, Navigators says that Mr. Rave is a citizen of Wisconsin. But Navigators has identified Rave as a "necessary party" rather than a plaintiff or defendant, so before the Court can determine Rave's effect on jurisdiction, Navigators must explain whether Rave should be aligned as a plaintiff or a defendant. In addition to these jurisdictional issues, Navigators must address some other questions not discussed in its summary judgment motion. First, Navigators has failed to explain why it is seeking a declaration in the District Court rather than in the court where the underlying class action is pending. Second, Navigators should explain why the District Court should determine the scope of coverage before liability has been determined in the state court action. Third, and finally, Navigators must address the significance of its decision to name not just Mr. Rave but also the class he represents as a necessary party. Based on the foregoing, the District Court gives Navigators until March 9, 2020, to file supplemental materials addressing the questions raised in the Order. Any other party who wishes to be heard should respond by the same date. Briefing on Navigators' motion for summary judgment is stayed pending further order of the Court. If Navigators does not respond by March 9, the Court will dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 25, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/a9pxjW from Leagle.com. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Kimberly E. Blair -- kimberly.blair@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP. SVA Healthcare Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bryan J. Cecil -- bcecil@hansenreynolds.com -- Hansen Reynolds, LLC & Timothy Michael Hansen -- thansen@hansenreynolds.com -- Hansen Reynolds Dickinson Crueger LLC. Timothy Rave, Individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Defendant, represented by Robert Welcenbach, Welcenbach Law Offices, S.C.. TALLGRASS ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:20-cv-00155-MN on behalf of shareholders of Tallgrass Energy, LP ("TGE" or the "Partnership") (NYSE:TGE) who have been harmed by TGE's and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed merger of the Partnership with affiliates of Blackstone Infrastructure Partners together with affiliates of Enagas, GIC, NPS and USS (the "Proposed Transaction"). On December 16, 2019, the Board caused the Partnership to enter into an agreement and plan of merger under which TGE shareholders stand to receive $22.45 in cash for each share of TGE stock they own. The complaint alleges that the Proxy filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because it provides materially incomplete and misleading information about the Partnership and the Proposed Transaction, including information concerning the Partnership's financial projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to TGE shareholders. If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/TGE. Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com [GN] TARGET CORP: $8.2MM Settlement in Walters Suit Gets Prelim Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District California granted preliminary approval to the proposed class settlement in JAMES WALTERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-1678-L-MDD. (S.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Walters filed the California action against Target seeking monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive relief for Target's alleged breach of the Target Debit Card (TDC) Agreement (TDC Agreement) and California law. The Settlement has a total cash value of $8,222,330, consisting of the Cash Settlement Amount of $5,000,000 payable by Target to establish the Settlement Fund and the Debt Reduction Cash Amount of $3,222,330. The Court finds that the Settlement has satisfied the Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. The proposed Settlement Class consists of thousands of TDC holders and joinder of all class members is impracticable. Plaintiffs point out the following questions of law and fact common to the class: (1) whether Target's TDC processing practices violate the TDC Agreement and (2) whether the TDC Agreement and allegedly deceptive TDC marketing injured all Settlement Class members through imposition of RPFs. Plaintiffs contend the typicality requirement is satisfied because the named Plaintiffs' claims are reasonably coextensive with those of the absent class members. The Court also finds that class counsel is competent due to class counsel's purported experience in litigation, certification, trial and settlement of nationwide class action cases. Moreover, the Court finds that the class representative service awards amounts are reasonable in light of the time, effort, and risk each class representative assumed. Plaintiff Walters will apply for an award not exceeding $10,000, and Plaintiffs Dixon, Powell, and Polcare will apply for an award not exceeding $3,000. These awards merely compensate the class representatives for the risk they assumed and the successful assistance they provided in this case. The Court finds the settlement is preliminarily fair, reasonable, and adequate to the proposed class. The Parties' deadline to file a Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and to file a response to Absent Settlement Class Members' objections is May 22, 2020. A full-text copy of the District Court December 5, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/t84jwwq from Leagle.com James Walters, on Behalf of Himself and Those Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrea Gold - agold@tzlegal.com - Tycko & Zavareei LLP, pro hac vice, Hassan Ali Zavareei -hzavareei@tzlegal.com - Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel - jkaliel@tzlegal.com - Kaliel PLLC, Jeffrey M. Ostrow - ostrow@kolawyers.com - Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, pro hac vice, Joshua Robert Levine - levine@kolawyers.com - Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, pro hac vice, Scott Edelsberg - edelsberg@kolawyers.com - Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., pro hac vice, Sophia Goren Gold - sgold@kalielpllc.com - Kaliel PLLC, Chiharu Sekino -csekino@sfmslaw.com - Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP & James C. Shah - jshah@sfmslaw.com - Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP. Target Corp., Defendant, represented by James R. McGuire - jmcguire@mofo.com - Morrison and Foerster, Mark Poe - mpoe@gawpoe.com - Gaw & Poe LLP, Morgan Donoian MacBride - mmacbride@mofo.com - Morrison & Foerster & Sylvia Rivera - srivera@mofo.com - Morrison and Foerster LLP. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces Evans FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Monet Evans, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Transworld Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-05720 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 28, 2020). The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical companies, dental companies, education facilities, Fortune 500 companies, and small businesses in the United States and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: McCutchen Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Verletta McCutchen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Transworld Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01528 (N.D. Ill., March 2, 2020). The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical companies, dental companies, education facilities, Fortune 500 companies, and small businesses in the United States and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Non-Stick Pans Defective, Partida et al. Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANDY PARTIDA, PATRICIA GARY, and GLENN GRAEVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRISTAR PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00436 (C.D. Cal., Riverside Cty., March 3, 2020) alleges false and deceptive advertising of the Copper Chef Signature Cookware products manufactured, marketed, distributed, warranted and, in some cases, sold by Defendant Tristar Products, Inc. The Plaintiffs rely upon the advertising claims made in Defendant's television infomercials, social media sites and website, and on the Product's labels, all of which Defendant and its agents intended to entice consumers to purchase Copper Chef Pans at a premium over conventional non-stick pans. The advertisements assert that Copper Chef Pans are breakthrough and premium alternatives to traditional pans and utilize Cerami-Tech Non-Stick Technology so that nothing sticks to the surface after several uses. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to remedy the Products' propensity to prematurely fail, despite Defendant's knowledge and notice of the Products' propensity to prematurely peel, chip, discolor, and generally degrade shortly after purchase. Tristar Products, Inc. is a New Jersey-based manufacturer and direct marketer of cookware products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric D. Zard, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1350 Columbia St. Ste. 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1900 Facsimile: (619) 756-6990 Email: ezard@carlsonlynch.com – and - Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq. Matthew Brady, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 Email: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com mbrady@carlsonlynch.com – and - Katrina Carroll , Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 111 W. Washington St., Ste. 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 Facsimile: (412) 231-024 Email: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com – and – Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 150 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312)782-4880 Facsimile: (312)782-7785 Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com ctourek@caffertyclobes.com TROPICANA MANUFACTURING: Falsely Markets Drinks, Willard Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline Willard and Amie Blackman, on behalf of themselves individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the general public v. TROPICANA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. a Delaware corporation; Case No. 1:20-cv-01501 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 28, 2020), alleges that the Defendant misbrands and falsely advertises numerous juice-based beverage products, in Illinois, California, and throughout the United States, in violation of federal and state unfair competition, false advertising, and consumer protection laws. The Defendant conceals that the Products are artificially flavored, the Plaintiffs allege. They note that the Defendant knowingly adds artificial flavor to the Products but fails to label the Products accordingly, concealing this crucial fact from consumers. They add that the Defendant knowingly omits all the federal and state law required label disclosures informing consumers that the Products contain artificial flavors. The Products, in fact, are all labeled as if they contain only natural ingredients deceiving consumers into believing they are purchasing a premium, all-natural product instead of one that contains artificial flavoring, the Plaintiffs allege. They argue that the Defendant intended to give reasonable consumers like them the impression that the Products are pure, natural, and not artificially flavored, by packaging, labeling, and advertising the Products in this way. The Plaintiffs and the Class lost money as a result of the Defendant's conduct because they would not have purchased the Product or would not have paid as much as they had in the absence of the Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased one or more of the Products several times. The Defendant manufactures, packages, labels, distributes, advertises, markets, and sells fruit-juice-based beverage products that contain undisclosed artificial flavoring agents.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Elliot, Esq. ELLIOT LAW OFFICES, P.C. 3200 Fourth Avenue, Suite 207 San Diego, CA 92103 Phone: (858) 228-7997 Email: davidelliot@elliotfirm.com - and - Ronald A. Marron, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Phone: (619) 696-9006 Fax: (619) 564-6665 Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com TRULIEVE CORP: Pomerantz Woos Shareholders to Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Trulieve Corporation (OTCMKTS: TCNNF) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 20-cv-00775, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Trulieve securities between September 25, 2018 and December 17, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Trulieve securities during the class period, you have until February 28, 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 POMERANTZ LLP E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or Tel: 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980 Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Trulieve, together with its subsidiaries, purports to operate as a medical marijuana company. The Company cultivates and produces products in-house and distributes its products to Trulieve branded stores (dispensaries) in Florida, as well as directly to patients through home delivery. 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) Trulieve overstated its mark-up on its biological assets; (ii) therefore, Trulieve's reported gross profit was inflated; (iii) Trulieve engaged in an undisclosed related party real estate sale with Defendant Rivers' husband; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On December 17, 2019, during market hours, Grizzly Research published a report (the "Report") explaining that Trulieve had failed to disclose: (i) real estate transactions with insiders; (ii) that rather than high-quality indoor production, the vast majority of the Company's marijuana was produced in low quality hoop houses; and (iii) the Company's markup on biological assets was excessive and unreasonable. The Report provided evidence that One More Wish LLC, an entity in which Trulieve engaged in a real estate transaction, was controlled by Kim Rivers, the company's Chief Executive Officer husband, JT Burnett. The Report also explained after researching Trulieve's manufacturing facilities, it was found that the vast majority of the Company's cultivation facilities were "low-quality hoop houses" that were "prone to infestations and weather damage." The Report went on to explain that the Company's markups on biological assets were likely inflated as a result. On this news, shares of Trulieve fell $1.51 per share, or over 12.6%, to close at $10.40 per share on December 17, 2019, damaging investors. 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. [GN] UNITED STATES: $1.7MM Deal in Jones Veterans Suit Gets Final OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has given final approval of the settlement agreement proposed in the case captioned ANNETTE E. JONES, et al, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 11-681C, (Fed. Cl.). Plaintiffs are current or former employees of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), who allege that they have been regularly scheduled to work, and did perform work, on Sundays and that they are entitled to receive Sunday premium pay pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section5546(a) or 5 U.S.C. Section 5544(a). As relief, plaintiffs seek to recover back pay, interest and other fees and costs. At a fairness hearing held on the matter, the Court concludes that the proposed settlement in the case is fair, reasonable and adequate. Accordingly, the Court approves the Settlement Agreement. The Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment in the total amount of $1,725,734.39; which amount consists of: -- $713,269.44 in back pay; -- $156,919.28 in interest; -- $54,565.12 in employer's contributions for VA Medicare and VA Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance on back pay for all class members; -- $235,350.11 for services approved by the Court to the class administrator; and -- $565,630.44 in attorney's fees, expenses and costs to be awarded to class counsel. The judgment shall be payable to the Jones Class Qualified Settlement Trust for distribution by the class administrator to the class members and class counsel according to the terms of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order, and the parties' settlement agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's December 5, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/tup6g66 from Leagle.com ANNETTE E. JONES, NORMAN SAMPSON, ROLAND SIMMONS & HAZELLA THORNHILL, for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Ira M. Lechner. USA, Defendant, represented by Zachary John Sullivan , U.S. Department of Justice Commerical Litigation Branch, Civil Division. UNITED STATES: Education Dept. Urges Court to Toss Students Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a Justice Department lawyer urged a federal judge to strike down a class action over long delays in processing student debt relief applications as moot, even as 171,000 borrowers remain "in limbo" with no decision from the U.S. Education Department. Justice Department lawyer R. Charles Merritt told the judge that the rollout of a new formula for processing borrower defense claims effectively resolves a class action over prolonged waits of up to four years or more. Lead plaintiff Theresa Sweet sued Education Secretary Betsy DeVos in June last year, claiming the department's "pause" in processing borrower defense claims became a "policy of inaction and obfuscation" preventing defrauded students from obtaining debt relief as required by law. The plaintiffs say the long delays have damaged their credit and permanently stifled their ability to accumulate wealth. Enacted in 2015 by the Obama administration, the borrower defense rule gave students who attended predatory for-profit colleges an avenue to have their loan debt forgiven. After Trump's inauguration in January 2017, the Education Department announced it was taking a "pause" in processing those claims in order to "re-evaluate" the Obama-era policies. DeVos unveiled a new blueprint for the program on Dec. 10. The revamped methodology offers sliding-scale debt relief based on a complex formula which compares the median salary of graduates from fraudulent for-profit colleges with the median salaries of graduates from similar schools. At a hearing on dueling motions for summary judgment, Merritt insisted that because the department has resumed processing borrower defense claims, the lawsuit is no longer relevant or necessary. The department has processed 25,000 applications since Dec. 10, finding 5,000 borrowers eligible for at least partial debt relief and denying another 20,000. Representing a certified class of 171,000 student borrowers, attorney Kyra Taylor argued that despite processing a small percentage of borrowers' claims, the department has offered no evidence showing it can resolve all other pending applications in a reasonable time frame. "All the people waiting are doing so because of the department's choice to stop issuing final decisions," Taylor said. "There's no evidence that the department will ever deal with the backlog." Taylor is with the Project on Predatory Student Lending at Harvard Law School. [GN] UNITED STATES: Faces Velesaca v. Homeland Security in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wolf, et al. The case is styled as Jose L. Velesaca, On behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chad Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Thomas R. Decker, in his official capacity as New York Field Office Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Matthew Albence, in his official capacity as the Acting Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; United States Department of Homeland Security; Carl E. DuBois, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Orange County, Case No. 1:20-cv-01803 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Habeas Corpus--Alien Detainee for the Immigration & Nationality Act. Chad F. Wolf is the acting Secretary of Homeland Security and Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Strategy, Policy, and Plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy Belsher, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 607-3300 Email: abelsher@nyclu.org UNIVERSAL TRANS: Class Conditionally Certified in Sprague Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Robert Sprague v. Universal Transportation Systems LLC, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00165-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael R. Barrett entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and court-supervised notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs pursuant to 20 U.S.C. section 216(b); 2. directing the Parties to have a reasonable amount of time to meet and confer, and directing the Plaintiff shall file an amended notice consistent with the Court's findings; and 3. denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion to toll the limitations period applicable to the Fair Labor Standards Act claims of potential opt-in Plaintiffs. The Court said, "The Plaintiff has made a sufficient factual showing under the 'fairly lenient' standard this Court must employ at this stage. The Plaintiff retains the right to re-file his motion or raise the issue of equitable tolling at a later date." The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a driver from February 2016 until December 2017. Universal Transportation provides transportation services throughout Ohio.[CC] USCB INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Rideau Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed USCB, Inc. The case is styled as Siobhan Rideau, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. USCB, Inc., doing business as: USCB America, Case No. 2:20-cv-00467-WBS-EFB (E.D. Cal., March 2, 2020). The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Uscb, Inc., doing business as USCB America, provides accounting services. The Company offers business process outsourcing and full-service accounts receivable management solutions to healthcare providers, retail, banking, creditors, and government municipalities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for May 27 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP notified of a hearing on the proposed settlement in the Valeant Pharmaceuticals Securities Litigation. The Summary Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action is for ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ("VALEANT," NOW KNOWN AS BAUSCH HEALTH COMPANIES INC.) COMMON STOCK, VALEANT DEBT SECURITIES, OR CALL OPTIONS ON VALEANT COMMON STOCK, OR SOLD PUT OPTIONS ON VALEANT COMMON STOCK, DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN JANUARY 4, 2013 AND MARCH 15, 2016, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"). Interested parties are notified that a hearing will be held on May 27, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh, U.S.D.J. (Ret.), Special Master, at the Clarkson S. Fisher Building & U.S. Courthouse, 402 East State Street, Courtroom 1, Trenton, New Jersey 08608, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the Valeant action as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement for $1,210,000,000.00 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Litigation against all Defendants with prejudice except PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC"); (3) the Class should be finally certified for purposes of the Settlement only; (4) to award Lead Counsel attorneys' fees and charges and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and, if so, in what amount; (5) to award Plaintiffs out of the Settlement Fund pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(4) in connection with their representation of the Class and, if so, in what amount; and (6) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, one must establish its rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form by mail (postmarked no later than May 6, 2020) or online (no later than May 6, 2020). Failure to submit your Proof of Claim and Release by May 6, 2020, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Litigation. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion so that it is postmarked no later than May 6, 2020, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you request exclusion, you will not recover money pursuant to the Settlement. If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to exclude yourself from the Class or to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain these Documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation and other settlement documents, may be obtained online at www.ValeantSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing to: Valeant Securities Settlement c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC P.O. Box 43337 Providence, RI 02940-3337 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim and Release, may be made to a representative of Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Rick Nelson c/o Shareholder Relations 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 800/449-4900 If you are a class member, you have the right to object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, the request by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and/or the awards to Plaintiffs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a) in connection with their representation of the class. Any objections must be filed with the Court and mailed to Lead Counsel and Valeant's counsel by May 6, 2020. The case is In re VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master No. 3:15-cv-07658-MAS-LHG (N.J.). VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Court Strikes Schmitzes' Rep. Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin issued a Decision and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the case captioned SHEILA SCHMITZ and ROBERT SCHMITZ, Individually, as Representatives of the Estate of JOANNE SCHMITZ, and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. VALENTINE & KEBARTAS, LLC and LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-15. (E.D. Wis.). Sheila and Robert Schmitz filed the putative class action against Valentine & Kebartas, LLC and LVNV Funding, LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA). The Schmitzes are brother and sister and the adult children of Joanne Schmitz, who died on April 30, 2017. The Schmitzes allege that they are the representatives of Joanne Schmitz's estate. In November 2017, Valentine sent a debt collection letter to Joanne Schmitz at the address at which Joanne Schmitz resided with the Schmitzes. The alleged debt referenced in the letter is a Citibank credit card account, used only for personal, family, or household purposes. The Schmitzes allege that the debt collection letter addressed to their deceased mother, but received and opened by them, contained a false statement in violation of the FDCPA and the WCA. Valentine and LVNV argue that the Schmitzes' amended complaint must be dismissed because the Schmitzes lack standing to prosecute their claims both individually and as representatives of their mother's estate. * Individual Capacity Claims Valentine and LVNV argue that the Schmitzes lack standing to bring a claim under Section 1692e. Specifically, they argue that Valentine's debt collection letter was addressed and directed to Joanne Schmitz. While Sheila and Robert were her powers of attorney during her lifetime, this position ceased upon Joanne's death and the Schmitzes fail to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate they fall within Section 1692e's zone of interest, whether in their individual or representative capacities. The Schmitzes counter that they fall within the statute's zone of interest because they were close family members of Joanne, they had authority to open and review Joanne's mail, and they resided at the same address as Joanne and are the primary beneficiaries of her estate. The Court notes that allowing a person who has the authority to open and read the debtor's letters to pursue a Section 1692e claim fulfills the purpose of the FDCPA to protect consumers and those who have a special relationship with the consumer such that the Act is still protecting the consumer from statements that would mislead these consumers. In this case, the Schmitzes allege that they were authorized to open their mother's mail. While the defendants may challenge the validity of this authorization, at this juncture, the amended complaint alleges sufficient facts to show standing on the Schmitzes' individual claims under the FDCPA and the WCA, the Court opines. * Representative Capacity Claims Valentine and LVNV also challenge the Schmitzes' standing to bring the FDCPA and WCA claims on behalf of their mother's estate. As an initial matter, the law the Schmitzes cite in support of standing to pursue a claim on behalf of the estate is inapposite. They argue that because the FDCPA is remedial in nature, a cause of action under the FDCPA survives the death of a party. While this may be true, these cases address substitution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 after a party dies during litigation. That is not what happened here. No FDCPA action was filed until after Joanne's death. In fact, the letter was not sent until after Joanne's death. Because there was no lawsuit prior to Joanne's death, there was no claim to survive her death, the Court finds. The Court further notes that there are no allegations in the complaint that plausibly claim the estate was harmed. In fact, the Schmitzes specifically allege that they received and read the debt collection letter as the caregivers of Joanne Schmitz, they do not allege that the letter was read or received in their capacities as representatives whether formal or informal of the estate. While the Schmitzes' allegations sufficiently plead claims in their individual capacities, by alleging that the letter was read as Joanne's caregivers, they have pled themselves out of court as to their representative capacity claims. For these reasons, the Schmitzes may pursue their FDCPA and WCA claims in their individual capacities, but not as representatives of Joanne's estate, the Court maintains. Accordingly, the Court rules that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The plaintiffs may pursue their FDCPA and WCA claims in their individual capacities. However, their FDCPA and WCA claims made in their capacities as representatives of Joanne Schmitz's estate are dismissed. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/t7h5eyd from Leagle.com Sheila Schmitz & Robert Schmitz, Plaintiffs, represented by Ben J. Slatky - bslatky@ademilaw.com- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Jesse Fruchter - jfruchter@ademilaw.com - Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, John D. Blythin - jblythin@ademilaw.com - Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Shpetim Ademi - sademi@ademilaw.com - Ademi & O'Reilly LLP & Mark A. Eldridge - meldridge@ademilaw.com - Ademi & O'Reilly LLP. Valentine & Kebartas LLC & LVNV Funding LLC, Defendants, represented by Alyssa A. Johnson - ajohnson@hinshawlaw.com - Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & David M. Schultz - dschultz@hinshawlaw.com - Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP VERDI EQUITIES: Underpays Cooks, Benavides Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- JOSE BENAVIDES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERDI EQUITIES, INC.; and R.G.G. ENTERPRISES, INC.; GIUSEPPE "JOE" ROCCO; JOHN SACCO; and ROCCO SACCO, Defendants, Case 2:20-cv-00850 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff Benavides was employed by the Plaintiff as cook. Verdi Equities, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 679-5000 Facsimile: (212) 679-5005 VOLKSWAGEN AG: To Resume Talks Over German Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Emma Thomasson and Illona Wissenbach, writing for Reuters, report that Volkswagen (VOWG_p.DE) and the German consumer protection organisation have agreed to resume talks aimed at reaching a deal in a class action lawsuit over the carmaker's rigging of diesel emissions tests. VW admitted using illegal software to cheat U.S. diesel engine tests in 2015, a scandal which has cost it more than $30 billion in vehicle refits, fines and provisions. Nearly all U.S. owners of affected cars agreed to take part in a $25 billion settlement in 2016 in the United States, but VW has said there was no legal basis for consumers in Germany to seek compensation due to differences in law. A court in the town of Brunswick, which has urged Volkswagen to settle the lawsuit, said the parties to the case had agreed on the advice of the court to resume discussions to try to reach a settlement. State-financed consumer protection organisation Vzbv said it had accepted the court invitation and said talks should take place soon. A Volkswagen spokesman confirmed the new talks, but declined to comment further. Vzbv said it had not changed its demand that any settlement must be fair, transparent and verifiable. Vzbv has said it aimed to show that owners of VW, Audi, Skoda and Seat cars with so-called type EA 189 diesel engines have been intentionally harmed by VW's use of software that was used to cheat emissions tests. The German class action was made possible after the cabinet approved a draft law in 2018 allowing consumer protection organisations to litigate on behalf of consumers, avoiding the high legal costs that might put people off legal action. When the diesel scandal broke, 2.4 million cars with defeat devices were on German roads. In the meantime, most have received a software update. [GN] WAL-MART STORES: Faces Zamora Suit in Calif. Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jesenia Zamora and Brandan Griego, individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; WALMART, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; SAM'S WEST, INC., AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION; AND DOES 1-100, Case No. 3:20-cv-00401-W-AHG (S.D. Cal., March 2, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for alleged unpaid wages. As a matter of policy and/or practice, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs all wages due and owing upon termination of employment, including payment of all vacation and day equivalent wages (the latter including Paid Time Off days and personal holidays), minimum wage and regular wage and other qualifying wage compensation, in violation of Labor Code, the Plaintiffs allege. The Defendants also failed to maintain sufficient funds to pay wages and failed to properly deliver all wages owed to their employees by withholding and maintaining an internal fund for undelivered and/or uncashed wages, in violation of California law, says the complaint. In addition, the Plaintiffs contend, the Defendants failed to reimburse employees for bounced check or overdraft or bank fees incurred as a result of their failure to deliver all wages owed to their employees, in violation of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in California as an hourly non-exempt cashier and associate. Wal-Mart is a national retailer with locations throughout the United States, including San Diego County, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christina A. Humphrey, Esq. CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C. 8330 Allison Ave., Ste. C. La Mesa, CA 91942 Phone: (619) 488-6400 Facsimile: (805) 618-2939 Email: christina@chumphreylaw.com - and – Peter M. Hart, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART 12121 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 725 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: (310) 478-5789 Facsimile: (509) 561-6441 Email: hartpeter@msn.com WESTPAC BANKING: Byrne Hits Stock Drop Over Money Laundering Row ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Byrne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Westpac Banking Corporation, Brian Charles Hartzer and Peter Francis King, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00171 (D. Or., January 30, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of federal securities laws. Westpac provide various banking and financial services in Australia, New Zealand, Asia and the Pacific region. It is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia. Westpac's American Depositary Receipts (ADR) trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "WBK." It sold for $13.00 per ADS during its December 2018 IPO. Defendants failed to disclose that contrary to Australian law, the company failed to report over 19.5 million international funds transfer instructions violating anti-money laundering regulations. On this news, Westpac ADRs fell $1.25 per share over the next three trading days or over 7.13% to close at $16.67 per ADR on November 22, 2019, damaging investors including Byrne. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com - and - Jeffrey S. Ratliff, Esq. RANSON, GILBERTSON, MARTIN AND RATLIFF LLP 8401 NE Halsey St., Suite 208 Portland OR 97220 Tel: (503) 226-3664 WESTPAC BANKING: Zhang Law Files Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Westpac Banking Corporation (WBK) between November 11, 2015 and November 19, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). 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. To join the class action, http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=westpac-banking-corporation&id=2169 call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action. http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=westpac-banking-corporation&id=2169 According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants and its senior executives presented false and misleading financial statements or omitted to (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 has not been certified. You may retain counsel of your choice. You may take no action at this time and be an absent class member. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. Contact: Zhang Investor Law P.C. 99 Wall Street, Suite 232 New York, New York 10005 tel: (800) 991-3756 E-mail: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***