/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200310.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, March 10, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 50
Headlines
1-800 CONSTRUCTION: Naiman Sues over Unsolicited Robocalls
AFL GENERAL: Underpays Construction Workers, Skiba and Poliwka Say
AIRBNB INC: Georgia Counties Seek Recovery of Unpaid Taxes
AIRPORT CONCESSIONS: De Renzis Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALKERMES PLC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated EDNY Suit Underway
ALLSTATE CORP: Faces Perrong Suit Over Telemarketing Practices
ALPHA AND OMEGA: Rosen Investigating Potential Securities Claims
ALTAMAREA GROUP: Tenen Seeks Proper Wages for Food Service Staff
AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL: Sends Unsolicited Calls, Lavender Claims
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Federman & Sherwood Announces Class Action
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
ANTHONY VINEYARDS: Stay of Sanchez Pending Villanueva Ruling Denied
ARKANSAS AREA AGENCY: Burley Seeks OT Pay for Care Coordinators
BAPTIST HEALTHCARE: Faces Roberts FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Wages
BARCLAYS PLC: Appeal From Sterling LIBOR Case Dismissal Underway
BARCLAYS PLC: Appeal in SIBOR/SOR Suit in SDNY Underway
BARCLAYS PLC: Bid to Dismiss ICE-Related Antitrust Suit Underway
BARCLAYS PLC: Continues to Defend Japanese Yen LIBOR Suit in SDNY
BHC PINNACLE POINTE: Hospital Employee Dispute Sent to Arbitration
CALIPER BUILDING: Padilla Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA & MFLSA
CANAAN INC: Sued by Lemieux in Ore. for Violating Securities Laws
CARL BUDDIG: Mendoza Seeks OT Pay for Line Packers
CARRIKER INC: Brightly Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages
CEDAR FAIR: Liebold Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
CITIZENS TELECOM: Taylor Sues Over Violations of COBRA and ERISA
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss NJ Securities Suit Pending
COMMERCE HOME: Faces Cardenas FCRA Suit Over Credit Inquiry
COURIER DISTRIBUTION: Sued by Golden Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
DELTA AIR: Discovery Underway in D.C. Antitrust Suit
DIRECT RECOVERY: Faces Meyer Suit over Spam Text Messages
DOMINION ENTERPRISES: Pierucci Wants to Stop Sending of Texts
EN ENGINEERING: McConnell Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
EVENFLO CO: Lechner Sues over False Advertising of Booster Seats
EXPEDIA INC: Arkansas Joins Lawsuit Seeking Rental Taxes
EXPRESS MANAGEMENT: Cheesman Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay
FANNIE MAE: Appeal in D.C. Class Action Underway
GETT: Israeli Taxi Service Faces $44M Suit Over 'Racist' Service
GOJO INDUSTRIES: Aleisa Sues Over Mislabeled Hand Sanitizer
GOJO INDUSTRIES: Marinovich Hits Mislabeled Hand Sanitizer Product
GRINDR INC: Bergeron Sues Over Unauthorized Data Disclosure
HEALTHPEAK PROPERTIES: Plaintiffs' Reply Brief Due March 19
HOMELAND PATROL: Alvarez Seeks OT Pay for Security Officers
HP INC: Gainey McKenna Announces Securities Action Lawsuit
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES: Nexus 6P Owners Start Getting Up to $400
HUNT & HENRIQUES: Violates FDCPA and RFDCPA, Martinez Suit Says
INTEGRATED CONSULTING: Null Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
JOHN HANCOCK: Kroetz Sues Over Breach of Calif. Insurance Code
JUGGERNAUT NUTRITION: Falsely Markets Irate Product, Webber Says
JUUL LABS INC: Cooper Suit Removed to N.D. Tex.
KIEWIT CORP: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Avila Labor Suit
KIMBERLY CLARK: Award in Bahamas Surgery Suit Reduced to $25MM
LAFAYETTE STEEL: Shortchanges Workers' OT Pay, McLaughlin Says
MAJOR LEAGUE: Clifford Suit Claims Fantasy Sports Rigged
MARBLE AND STONE: Godlewski Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages
MASER CONSULTING: Cummings Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
MASTEC NETWORK: Mason Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
NEXTGEN LEADS: Marcavage Sues Over Unauthorized Calls and Texts
NOOTROPICS DEPOT: Black Sues Over Drug's Side Effects
OCEAN SPRAY: Froio & Surman Can't Intervene in Hilsley Suit
OUREM IRON: Matto et al. Seek OT Pay for Iron Workers & Painters
PINE VALLEY CENTER: Fails to Pay Accurate Wages, Francois Claims
PIZZA PETE'S: Ramirez Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
PRO CUSTOM: Fla. Middle Dist. Refuses to Dismiss Becker TCPA Suit
PRO TAX LINK: Dukes Sues in Florida Alleging Violation of TCPA
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Behfarin Case Settlement Wins Initial Okay
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Cho Suit v. PICA Underway
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Crawford Class Action in New Jersey
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Warren Police Securities Suit Ongoing in N.J.
PSP DISTRIBUTION: Misrepresents Redford Wet Cat Food, Ash Claims
PYRAMID OPERATING: Restaurant Managers Seek Overtime Pay
RCI HOSPITALITY: Securities Class Suits in Houston Consolidated
REGENCY CAPITAL: Naiman Sues over Unsolicited Texts and Calls
RELIANCE OILFIELD: Fails to Pay Overtime, Braid et al. Claim
REWARD ZONE USA: Eggleston Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Breaches Duties Over Downtime, Taaffe Claims
ROYAL WASTE: Cooper-Nolasco Seeks Unpaid Wages, Wage Statements
SABOR GUATEMALTECO: Cooks Seek Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
SCHMITT INC: Does not Properly Pay OT Wages, McTigue Suit Claims
SCOTT & ASSOCIATES: Trevino Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection
SELLSTATE PARTNERS: Faces Mailhot Suit over Spam Texts, Robocalls
SENIOR CARE CAROLINAS: Faces Moss Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages
SENIORCARE EMERGENCY: Rosado Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
SETSCHEDULE INC: Bennett Sues over Unsolicited Autodialed Calls
SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE: Abat Disputes Collection Letter Validity
SIERRA ALUMINUM: Underpays Workers, Ramirez Claims
SKYLIGHT HOLDINGS: Faces Umala Suit Over Unlawful Time Shaving
TECHPRECISION CORP: Employee Class Suit Goes to Trial
TIVO CORP: Xperi Corp. Merger Deal Lacks Info, Rosenblatt Claims
TOUGH MUDDER: McKinnon Sues over Abrupt Termination
UNITED STATES: Faces Keoughs Suit Over Debt Collection Fees
US STEEL: Class Certification Order Under Appeal
US STEEL: Discovery Ongoing in Class Suit Related to Clairton Fire
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Antitrust Suits Underway in US & Canada
WALGREEN CO: Brown Files Product Labeling Suit in NY
WALMART INC: Ct. Narrows Claims in Morris Product Mislabeling Suit
WELK RESORT GROUP: Edwards Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
WELLS FARGO BANK: McCoy Sues Over Ignored Request
WEST D & P: Underpays Restaurant Workers, Silva Alleges
YUNJI INC: Faces Chen Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
ZIMMER BIOMET: Ninth Circuit Appeal Initiated in Karl FLSA Suit
*********
1-800 CONSTRUCTION: Naiman Sues over Unsolicited Robocalls
----------------------------------------------------------
SID NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 1-800 CONSTRUCTION, INC. and DOES 1 through
10, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00476-TLN-DMC (E.D. Cal., March 3,
2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted the cellular
phone numbers of Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated
consumers using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice messages in an attempt to market
and promote its services without prior written express consent,
thereby violating the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA.
1-800 Construction, Inc. is a New Jersey-based company that offers
construction and general contracting services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 619-8966
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
AFL GENERAL: Underpays Construction Workers, Skiba and Poliwka Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DAMIAN SKIBA, and PAWEL POLIWKA individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by
KRANG GROUP, INC. and AFL GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, INC., along with
other entities affiliated or controlled by. KRANG GROUP, INC. and
AFL GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, INC. with respect to certain Public Works
Projects awarded by THE CITY OF NEW YORK and THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
Plaintiffs, - against - AFL GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, INC. and KRANG
GROUP, INC. Defendants, Case No. 152176/2020 (N.Y., N.Y. Cty.,
February 28, 2020) alleges that the Defendants fail to pay
prevailing wages and/or supplemental benefits which Plaintiffs and
putative class members are statutorily and contractually entitled
to receive for their services performed on public works projects
contracted with various government entities and their agencies and
divisions.
The Plaintiffs and putative class members were all subject to AFL
GC and Krang's policies and willful practice of refusing to pay
employees prevailing wages and supplemental benefits, thus
sustained similar injuries as a result of the Defendants' actions.
Plaintiffs performed various types of construction-related
improvement work including, interior and exterior construction work
at the Jones Beach Field Six Bath House also known as the Public
Works Projects.
AFL General Construction, Inc. is a Farmingdale, New York-based
company engaged in the construction business.
Krang Group, Inc. is engaged in the construction business with
principal location in Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
AIRBNB INC: Georgia Counties Seek Recovery of Unpaid Taxes
----------------------------------------------------------
City of Rome, Georgia, Hart County, Georgia, City of Cartersville,
Georgia, and City of Tybee Island, Georgia and all other cities and
counties of Georgia similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AirBnB, Inc.
and AirBnB Payments, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00022 (N.D.
Ga., January 30, 2020), seek relief for direct and intentional
violations and evasions of taxes due upon the short-term rental
accommodations in their failure to collect and/or remit taxes due
and owing to the cities and counties and other political
subdivisions of the State of Georgia in violation of Official Code
of Georgia.
AirBnB allegedly failed and refused to comply with transient
occupancy and/or excise taxes enacted by the counties of Georgia.
Defendants are online travel companies and/or short-term rental
companies, which market and sell or rent accommodations (including
but not limited to rooms, apartments, condominiums and/or entire
homes or residences).
Plaintiff are represented by:
J. Anderson Davis, Esq.
A. Franklin Beacham III, Esq.
Samuel L. Lucas, Esq.
Lee B. Carter, Esq.
Sarah C. Martin, Esq.
BRINSON, ASKEW, BERRY, SEIGLER, RICHARDSON & DAVIS, LLP
1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
Bohemia, NY 11716
Tel: (631) 589-7242
Fax: (631) 563-7475
P.O. Box 5007
Rome, GA 30162-5007
Phone: (706) 291-8853
Facsimile: (706) 234-3574
Email: adavis@brinson-askew.com
fbeacham@brinson-askew.com
slucas@brinson-askew.com
lcarter@brinson-askew.com
smartin@brinson-askew.com
- and -
Robert C. Lamar, Esq.
LAMAR ARCHER & COFRIN, LLP
260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2700
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: (404) 577-1777
Facsimile: (404) 419-2978
Email: rclamar@laclaw.net
- and -
David G. Archer, Esq.
ARCHER & LOVELL, P.C.
P.O. Box 1024
Cartersville, GA 30120
Phone: (770) 386-1116
Facsimile: (770) 382-7484
- and -
Walter J. Gordon, Esq.
THE GORDON LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 870
Hartwell, GA 30643
Phone: (706) 376-5418
Facsimile: (706) 376-5416
AIRPORT CONCESSIONS: De Renzis Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro De Renzis, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Airport Concessions Group, Inc. and Global
Concessions, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Case No. 20-cv-20449,
(S.D. Fla., January 31, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees of
this action under the Florida Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Defendants owned and/or operated the restaurants "Islander Bar and
Grill" and "Cafe Versailles" at the Miami International Airport
where De Renzis worked as an assistant manager. He claims to be
being denied pay for one-half wages for all of his actual hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith M. Stern, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
One Flagler, 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 901-1379
Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
ALKERMES PLC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated EDNY Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Alkermes plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the defendants' motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action suit before the U.S. Eastern
District Court for the Eastern District of New York is pending.
In December 2018 and January 2019, purported stockholders of the
Company filed putative class actions against the Company and
certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (the "EDNY District Court") captioned
Karimian v. Alkermes plc, et al., No. 1:18-cv-07410 and McDermott
v. Alkermes plc, et al., No. 1:19-cv-00624, respectively.
In March 2019, the EDNY District Court consolidated the two cases
and appointed a lead plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on July 9, 2019 naming one additional officer of the
Company and one former officer of the Company as defendants.
The amended complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Alkermes securities during the period of July 31,
2014 through November 1, 2018 and alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or
misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
clinical methodologies and regulatory submission for ALKS 5461 and
the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) review and consideration
of that submission.
The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified money damages,
prejudgment and postjudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees and other costs.
In August 2019, the defendants filed a pre-motion letter (in
respect of a requested motion to dismiss filing) with the EDNY
District Court and plaintiff filed a response. On November 27,
2019, the defendants served the plaintiff with a motion to dismiss,
and on December 27, 2019, the plaintiff served the defendants with
its opposition to such motion. On January 17, 2020, the defendants
filed the fully-briefed motion, including a reply to the
plaintiff's opposition, with the EDNY District Court.
Alkermes plc, a biopharmaceutical company, researches, develops,
and commercializes pharmaceutical products to address unmet medical
needs of patients in various therapeutic areas in the United
States, Ireland, and internationally. Alkermes plc was founded in
1987 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
ALLSTATE CORP: Faces Perrong Suit Over Telemarketing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANDREW PERRONG, Plaintiff, v. THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION
and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01506 (N.D. Ill., March
2, 2020) alleges that Plaintiff received unsolicited automated
telemarketing telephone calls from Defendants through the use of an
automatic telephone dialing system in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Plaintiff asserts that he did not give Defendants his express
consent, invitation, or permission to place the automated,
unsolicited telemarketing calls to him.
According to the complaint, the Defendants also violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act when they took Perrong's consumer report for
an impermissible use by making an unauthorized consumer report
inquiry without his consent.
The Allstate Corporation is a Northbrook, Illinois-based company
that engages in the marketing and sale of insurance policies,
insurance coverage, and related products and services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David B. Levin, Esq.
Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
Northbrook, IL 60062
Telephone: (224) 218-0882
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com
ALPHA AND OMEGA: Rosen Investigating Potential Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it is
investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of Alpha and Omega Semiconductor Limited (NASDAQ: AOSL) resulting
from allegations that Alpha and Omega may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
On February 5, 2020, post-market, AOS issued a press release
announcing its financial results for the second fiscal quarter of
2020. In its press release, the Company also disclosed that the
U.S. Department of Justice "recently commenced an investigation
into the Company's compliance with export control regulations
relating to certain business transactions with Huawei and its
affiliates ('Huawei')" and that "[i]n connection with this
investigation, [the Department of Commerce] has requested the
Company to suspend shipments of its products to Huawei . . . .
Accordingly, we expect the financial performance in the March
quarter will be negatively impacted by the Huawei shipment
interruption and by additional professional fees incurred in
connection with the investigation."
On this news, Alpha and Omega's stock price fell $1.48 per share,
or 12%, to close at $10.85 per share on February 6, 2020.
Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Alpha and Omega investors. If you purchased
shares of Alpha and Omega please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1786.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.
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. [GN]
ALTAMAREA GROUP: Tenen Seeks Proper Wages for Food Service Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL PINEDA TENEN on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs, v. ALTAMAREA GROUP, LLC,
MRMADISON LLC, d/b/a RISTORANTE MORINI, AMG PARK LLC, d/b/a
VAUCLUSE and OMAR AT VAUCLUSE, ALTAMAREA LLC, d/b/a MAREA, LETTA
#1, LLC, d/b/a NICOLETTA, AMG HOTELS #1, LLC, d/b/a AI FIORI, 218,
LLC, d/b/a OSTERIA MORINI, MICHAEL WHITE and AHMASS FAKAHANY,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01851 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants for failure to provide the
Plaintiff and Class members with proper wage statements with every
payment of wages, and for failure to properly provide wage notices,
at date of hiring and annually, per requirements of the New York
Labor Law.
The Defendants also failed to pay the Plaintiff and Class members
the proper minimum wage because Defendants were not entitled to
claim any tip credit since they failed to meet statutory
requirements under the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff further claims that Defendants illegally retained
gratuities because they were subject to a tip pooling scheme where
managers Guillermo Martinez and Alessandro Piliego participated in
the tip pool.
The Plaintiff and the Class members were employed by the Defendants
as food service employees that include servers, bussers, food
runners, baristas, food preparers, cooks, bartenders, and barbacks,
among others.
Altamarea Group, LLC owns and operates a restaurant enterprise at
various locations in New York City.
MRMADISON LLC is a Madison, New York City-based restaurant doing
business as Ristorante Morini.
AMG Park LLC, doing business as Vaucluse and Omar AT Vaucluse, is a
domestic limited liability restaurant company with principal
location in New York City.
Altamarea LLC, which is doing business as Marea, is a domestic
limited liability company headquarterd in New York City.
Letta #1, LLC is a domestic limited liability company with a
principal place of business located in New York City, doing
business as Nicoletta.
AMG Hotels #1 is a domestic limited liability company with a
principal place of business located in New York City and is doing
business as AI Fiori.
218, LLC, doing business as OSTERIA MORINI, is a domestic limited
liability company with a principal place of business situated in
New York City. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: 212-465-1180
Facsimile: 212-465-1181
AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL: Sends Unsolicited Calls, Lavender Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
GRACE LAVENDER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00059-RWS (N.D. Ga., March 2, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff started to receive
pre-recorded calls and pre-recorded voicemails on her cell phone
from the Defendant on or around August 7, 2019, to market its
services without prior written express consent. The Defendant
continued to send unsolicited calls despite Plaintiff's request for
the calls to stop.
American Residential Services, LLC is a provider of heating, air
conditioning, plumbing and sewer and drain services to residential
consumers and businesses in the U.S. It is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee with operational centers in
Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tristan Gillespie, Esq.
5150 College Farm Rd.
John's Creek, GA 30022
Telephone: (404) 276-7277
E-mail: Gillespie.tristan@gmail.com
- and -
Stefan Coleman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN P.A.
201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (877) 333-9427
Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com
- and -
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Federman & Sherwood Announces Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on February 19, 2020, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas against Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation (NYSE: APC). The complaint alleges violations of
federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is February 20, 2015 through
May 2, 2017.
To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-anadarko-petroleum-corporation/
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Anadarko
Petroleum Corporation shareholders who purchased common stock
during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as
described above. You may move the Court no later than Monday, April
20, 2020 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.
However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal
requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995.
If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:
Robin Hester
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com
Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/
[GN]
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (NYSE: APC), now a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Corporation (NYSE:
OXY), between February 20, 2015 and May 2, 2017, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Anadarko
investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Anadarko class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1782.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the value of the Shenandoah assets and the success of the
Shenandoah appraisal wells were overstated; (2) the Company lacked
effective internal control over financial reporting; (3) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about the Company's
Shenandoah assets lacked a reasonable basis; and (4) accordingly,
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 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-1782.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
www.rosenlegal.com
[GN]
ANTHONY VINEYARDS: Stay of Sanchez Pending Villanueva Ruling Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SEBASTIANA MARTINEZ-SANCHEZ, an individual, and
EUGENIO ANTONIO-CRUZ, an individual, on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated, the State of California and
current and former aggrieved employees, Plaintiffs, v. ANTHONY
VINEYARDS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01404-DAD-JLT
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California denied the motion to stay filed by
Defendants Anthony Vineyards and Sycamore Labor, Inc. on Dec. 23,
2019.
On Oct. 4, 2019, Plaintiffs Martinez-Sanchez and Eugenio
Antonio-Cruz filed the putative class action against the
Defendants. On Dec. 12, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint ("FAC") to clarify some of their factual allegations and
to add Garza Contracting Inc. as a named Defendant. Defendants
Anthony Vineyards and Sycamore Labor timely answered the FAC on
Dec. 23, 2019.
The Plaintiffs and the putative class are non-exempt agricultural
employees who performed field and vineyard work in the production
of table grapes at Defendant Anthony Vineyards in California. They
assert the following 10 causes of action in their FAC: (1)
Violation of the Agricultural and Migrant Worker Protection Act
("AWPA"); (2) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (3) Failure to Provide
Meal Periods or Pay Premium Wages in Lieu Thereof; (4) Failure to
Provide Rest Breaks or Pay Premium Wages in Lieu Thereof; (5)
Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; (6) Failure to Furnish
Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (7) Failure to Permit Inspection
or Copying of Records; (8) Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at
Resignation or Termination; (9) Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and
(10) Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").
Before the Plaintiffs filed the present action, a different
employee of the Defendants brought a similar putative class action
lawsuit against them in the Riverside County Superior Court, Jose
Luis Villanueva Ceja v. Anthony Vineyards, Inc., et al., Case No.
RIC1901905. The Defendants' counsel is representing the Defendants
in both actions and has declared that the parties in the Villanueva
action are engaged in discovery and have carried out the Belaire
West notice process. The complaint in the Villanueva action was
filed on March 15, 2019 and asserted the following nine causes of
action: (1) Failure to pay wages for all time worked at minimum
wage; (2) Failure to pay proper overtime wages; (3) Failure to
authorize or permit meal periods; (4) Failure to authorize or
permit rest periods; (5) Failure to provide drinking water; (6)
Failure to indemnify employees for required expenditures; (7)
Failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements; (8)
Failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due a
time of separation of employment; and (9) Unfair business
practices.
Seven of the nine causes of action asserted in the Villanueva
action are also brought by the Plaintiffs in the present federal
action. But unlike the Villanueva action, in which violations of
only California law are alleged, the Plaintiffs in the action have
asserted that the Defendants violated a federal law, AWPA. They
have also asserted a PAGA claim, a claim not brought in the
Villanueva action.
The class definition in the Villanueva action -- all current and
former non-exempt employees employed by Defendants in California at
any time within the four years prior to March 15, 2019 and through
the date notice is mailed to a certified class -- encompasses the
proposed class as defined in the present action: All non-exempt
agricultural employees who performed field or vineyard work in the
production of table grapes -- including, but not limited to, tasks
such as weeding, pruning, de-leafing, tipping, harvesting, picking,
and packing -- at Anthony Vineyards in California during the period
four years prior to Oct. 4, 2019 through the date of the action's
final disposition.
On Dec. 23, 2019, the Defendants filed the present motion to stay
the federal action pending the resolution of the Villanueva action
under the Colorado River abstention doctrine. On Jan. 8, 2020, the
Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendants' motion to stay.
On Jan. 15, 2020, the Defendants filed their reply to the
Plaintiffs' opposition.
The Defendants request that the court take judicial notice of the
class action complaint filed in the Villanueva action. Judge Drozd
grants their request for judicial notice, but only for the purposes
of noticing the existence of the Villanueva action and the causes
of action presented there.
The Plaintiffs request the court take judicial notice of facts
contained in certain public records, including public agency
documents and filings. Judge Drozd granted the Plaintiffs' request
for judicial notice. The exhibits offered by them are matters of
public record, made available on the websites of a governmental
entity, and are properly subject to judicial notice. Moreover, the
accuracy of the source of the records -- the websites of the
California Secretary of State and the California Department of
Industrial Relations -- cannot reasonably be questioned.
As to whether the Court should abstain under Colorado River, Judge
Drozd concludes that there is substantial doubt as to whether the
state proceedings in the Villanueva action will resolve all the
issues presented in the federal action. First, the plaintiffs in
the Villanueva action did not allege violations of the AWPA.
Second, the plaintiffs in the Villanueva action did not assert PAGA
claims, which have distinct remedies and procedural limitations.
Third, the Plaintiffs in the instant action have presented a
"client employer" theory of liability under California Labor Code
Section 2810.3, which has not been raised in the Villanueva
action.
In short, after considering all of the relevant factors, the Judge
is not persuaded that exceptional circumstances and the clearest of
justifications have been established justifying the granting of a
stay. Accordingly, he denied the Defendants' motion to stay.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/NtI7z6 from Leagle.com.
Sebastiana Martinez-Sanchez, an individual, on behalf of themselves
and all other persons similarly situated, the State of California
and current and former aggrieved employees & Eugenio Antonio-Cruz,
an individual, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, the State of California and current and former
aggrieved employees, Plaintiffs, represented by Eric Sebastian
Trabucco -- est@advocatesforworkers.com -- Advocates for Worker
Rights LLP, Dawson McKinnon Morton --
dawson@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com -- Law Offices of Santos Gomez,
Joseph Donald Sutton -- jds@advocatesforworkers.com -- Advocates
for Worker Rights LLP, Marco A. Palau --
marco@advocatesforworkers.com -- Advocates for Worker Rights LLP &
Santos Gomez -- santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com -- Law Offices
of Santos Gomez.
Anthony Vineyards, Inc., a California Corporation & Sycamore Labor,
Inc., a California Corporation, Defendants, represented by Kaleb
Lincoln Judy -- kaleb@bbr.law -- Klein DeNatale Goldner Cooper
Rosenlieb and Kimball & Thomas Scott Belden -- scott@bbr.law --
Belden Blaine, LLP.
ARKANSAS AREA AGENCY: Burley Seeks OT Pay for Care Coordinators
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KAMETRIC BURLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL ARKANSAS AREA AGENCY ON
AGING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-226-DPM (E.D. Ark., March
2, 2020), arises from Defendant's alleged violations of overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.
From approximately June 2017 to February 2020, Plaintiff worked for
Defendant as an hourly paid Care Coordinators and performed duties
on Defendant's behalf such as traveling to clients' residences and
assessing their situation for eligibility to participate in
Defendant's various programs. Plaintiff regularly worked more than
40 hours in a single workweek by spending most of the day at
customers' residences.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has commonly applied practice not
to pay Plaintiff and other hourly employees for all the hours they
have worked, did not have a system whereby employees could clock in
or clock out, did not calculate hours based on its own system's
timestamps, and instructed employees to not submit more than forty
hours per week in their spreadsheet.
Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs.
Central Arkansas Area Agency on Aging, Inc. offers planning,
coordinating and offering services to help older adults remain
independent. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501)221-0088
Fax: (888)787-2040
Emails: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
BAPTIST HEALTHCARE: Faces Roberts FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Roberts, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. BAPTIST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, LLC, BAPTIST HOSPITALS OF
SOUTHEAST TEXAS, and BAPTIST BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER, Case No.
1:20-cv-00092 (E.D. Tex., March 4, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Texas common law.
The Plaintiff alleges that she and others have been denied payment
for all hours worked, including overtime, were subject to improper
deductions from wages, and were denied bona fide meal periods. The
Defendants' conduct violated and continues to violate the FLSA
because of the mandate that non-exempt employees, such as the
Plaintiff and the putative Collective members, be paid at one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of forty within a single workweek, says the complaint.
Ms. Roberts was employed as a nurse by the Defendants at the
Behavioral Health Center.
The Defendants operate a network of specialty hospitals and clinics
that provide healthcare services in Southeast Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William M. Hogg, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960
Houston, TX 77098
Phone: (713) 338-2560
Fax: (415) 421-7105
Email: whogg@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Phone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
BARCLAYS PLC: Appeal From Sterling LIBOR Case Dismissal Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the
Sterling LIBOR Case in the U.S. District Court in the Southern
District of New York (SDNY) have taken an appeal from the court's
decision granting defendants' motion to dismiss.
In 2016, two putative class actions filed in the SDNY against
Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc. (BCI) and other Sterling
LIBOR panel banks alleging, among other things, that the defendants
manipulated the Sterling LIBOR rate in violation of the Antitrust
Act, the US Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and the US Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), were consolidated.
The defendants' motion to dismiss the claims was granted in
December 2018. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.
Barclays PLC, through its subsidiaries, provides various financial
products and services in the United Kingdom, other European
countries, the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. The
company operates through Barclays UK and Barclays International
divisions. The company was formerly known as Barclays Bank Limited
and changed its name to Barclays PLC in January 1985. Barclays PLC
was founded in 1690 and is headquartered in London, the United
Kingdom.
BARCLAYS PLC: Appeal in SIBOR/SOR Suit in SDNY Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs appeal of
the dismissal order in the SIBOR/SOR related class action in the
Southern District of New York (SDNY) is still pending.
In 2016, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Barclays PLC,
Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc. (BCI) and other
defendants, alleging manipulation of the Singapore Interbank
Offered Rate (SIBOR) and Singapore Swap Offer Rate (SOR).
In October 2018, the court dismissed all claims against Barclays
PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and BCI.
The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Barclays PLC, through its subsidiaries, provides various financial
products and services in the United Kingdom, other European
countries, the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. The
company operates through Barclays UK and Barclays International
divisions. The company was formerly known as Barclays Bank Limited
and changed its name to Barclays PLC in January 1985. Barclays PLC
was founded in 1690 and is headquartered in London, the United
Kingdom.
BARCLAYS PLC: Bid to Dismiss ICE-Related Antitrust Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (ICE) related antitrust
class action suit is pending.
In 2019, several putative class actions have been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc. (BCI), other
financial institution defendants and Intercontinental Exchange Inc.
and certain of its affiliates (ICE), asserting antitrust claims
that defendants manipulated USD LIBOR through defendants'
submissions to ICE. These actions have been consolidated.
The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.
Barclays PLC, through its subsidiaries, provides various financial
products and services in the United Kingdom, other European
countries, the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. The
company operates through Barclays UK and Barclays International
divisions. The company was formerly known as Barclays Bank Limited
and changed its name to Barclays PLC in January 1985. Barclays PLC
was founded in 1690 and is headquartered in London, the United
Kingdom.
BARCLAYS PLC: Continues to Defend Japanese Yen LIBOR Suit in SDNY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company remains a
defendant in the Japanese Yen LIBOR cases in the U.S. District
Court in the Southern District of New York (SDNY).
In 2012, a putative class action was filed in the SDNY against
Barclays Bank PLC and other Japanese Yen LIBOR panel banks by a
lead plaintiff involved in exchange-traded derivatives and members
of the Japanese Bankers Association's Euroyen Tokyo Interbank
Offered Rate (Euroyen TIBOR) panel.
The complaint alleges, among other things, manipulation of the
Euroyen TIBOR and Yen LIBOR rates and breaches of the US Commodity
Exchange Act (CEA) and the Antitrust Act. In 2014, the court
dismissed the plaintiff's antitrust claims in full, but the
plaintiff's CEA claims remain pending.
In 2015, a second putative class action, making similar allegations
to the above class action, was filed in the SDNY against Barclays
PLC, BarclaysBank PLC and Barclays Capital Inc. (BCI). In 2017,
this action was dismissed in full and the plaintiffs have appealed
the dismissal.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Barclays PLC, through its subsidiaries, provides various financial
products and services in the United Kingdom, other European
countries, the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. The
company operates through Barclays UK and Barclays International
divisions. The company was formerly known as Barclays Bank Limited
and changed its name to Barclays PLC in January 1985. Barclays PLC
was founded in 1690 and is headquartered in London, the United
Kingdom.
BHC PINNACLE POINTE: Hospital Employee Dispute Sent to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Steed reports that a wage dispute between BHC Pinnacle
Pointe Hospital and some of its employees belongs in arbitration,
not in court, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled, reversing a circuit
judge's decision that favored the workers.
The workers in October 2018 sued the Little Rock behavioral health
hospital for violations of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. They
cited a Pinnacle Pointe policy of requiring its registered nurses
and mental health technicians "to clock out for a 30-minute unpaid
break each shift -- regardless of whether those employees were able
to take a 30-minute break due to patient care and low staffing
levels."
The workers, who were paid hourly, stayed on duty and were not paid
for that work, according to the lawsuit filed by John Holleman and
Timothy Steadman of the Holleman & Associates firm in Little Rock.
Employees who didn't clock out for the 30-minute breaks were
disciplined, the lawsuit said. The lawsuit sought class-action
certification for a potential class of more than 40 workers, but
didn't specify an amount in lost wages.
Daniel Herrington and Allison Pearson, of the Friday, Eldredge &
Clark law firm, argued for Pinnacle Pointe that conflict-resolution
agreements signed by employees require third-party arbitration, not
a court of law, for such matters. Signing such agreements wasn't
mandatory, they said.
Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy Fox in January 2019 dismissed
Pinnacle Pointe's argument, ruling that the workers were entitled
to their day in court. The case in Fox's court never got to the
point of legal arguments on the merits of the workers' claims of
the required 30-minute breaks and unpaid wages.
Pinnacle Pointe appealed.
In its divided ruling Thursday, Feb. 20, the Supreme Court reversed
Fox and remanded the case, ordering arbitration.
The "Alternative Resolution for Conflict" agreements "apply,
without limitation, to disputes regarding the employment
relationship, compensation, breaks and rest periods," the court
said in a majority opinion written by Associate Justice Karen R.
Baker.
Associate Justice Josephine Linker Hart dissented, noting that
employees who didn't "opt out" of signing the conflict-resolution
agreements within a certain time limit "were bound to whatever was
contained in those documents."
"In effect, the ARC agreements simply direct workers to resolve any
potential disputes in a less impartial forum where the playing
field could be slanted toward the party with greater resources --
and without the protections of a court of law," Hart wrote. "The
ARC agreements would curtail or altogether remove the workers'
constitutional rights to access the courts, due process, and free
speech, in exchange for higher costs and a diminished ability to
prove his or her case." [GN]
CALIPER BUILDING: Padilla Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA & MFLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Padilla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CALIPER BUILDING SYSTEMS, LLC, JMC CONTRACTING, LLC,
and JOSE MERINO, Case No. 0:20-cv-00658-SRN-KMM (D. Minn., March 4,
2020), seeks overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act for hours
the Plaintiff worked over 40 and 48 in a workweek.
The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated properly for the overtime hours they worked, says the
complaint. Specifically, the Defendants denied them one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over
40 and 48 in a workweek, and instead, the Defendants paid them only
their "straight time" hourly rate, with no overtime premium, the
Plaintiff alleges.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a laborer in Minnesota.
Caliper Building Systems, LLC, functions as a subcontractor
providing installed material packages for commercial, multifamily,
and military construction projects throughout the Midwest and
Western United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
Jay E. Eidsness, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4600 IDS Center
80 S 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: 612-256-3200
Facsimile: 612-338-4878
Email: fisher@nka.com
jeidsness@nka.com
CANAAN INC: Sued by Lemieux in Ore. for Violating Securities Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philippe Lemieux, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CANAAN INC., NANGENG ZHANG, JIAXUAN LI,
JIANPING KONG, QIFENG SUN, QUANFU HONG, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS
INC., CHINA RENAISSANCE SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LIMITED, CMB
INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL LIMITED, GALAXY DIGITAL ADVISORS LLC, HUATAI
FINANCIAL HOLDINGS (HONG KONG) LIMITED, TIGER BROKERS (NZ) LIMITED,
HAITONG INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES COMPANY LIMITED, and VIEWTRADE
SECURITIES, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00356-MO (D. Ore., March 4,
2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons and entities, other
than the Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Canaan, including
its American Depository Shares ("ADSs"), pursuant and/or traceable
to the Company's registration statement and related prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's November 20, 2019 initial
public offering.
On October 28, 2019, Canaan filed a registration statement on Form
F-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission which,
incorporating and in combination with subsequent amendments on
Forms F-1/A and filed pursuant to Rule 424(b)(4), would be used for
the IPO. On November 20, 2019, Canaan filed its final amendment to
the Registration Statement, which registered 10 million Canaan ADSs
for public sale, representing 150 million Class A Ordinary Shares.
Each ADSs represented fifteen Class A ordinary shares. That same
day, the SEC declared the Registration Statement effective. On
November 21, 2019, Defendants priced the IPO at $9 per ADs and
filed the final Prospectus for the IPO on Form 42484, which forms
part of the Registration Statement.
On October 27, 2019, Canaan entered into a "strategic cooperation"
agreement with Hangzhou Grandshores Weicheng Technology Co., Ltd.
According to this agreement, Grandshores agreed to purchase from or
distribute on behalf of Canaan up to $150 million worth of
equipment. According to the company's financial statements filed as
a part of its Registration Statement with the SEC, the Company
reported sales of $132 million in the first 9 months of 2019 and
that it had $36.2 million in cash on hand at the end of 2018.
In its Registration Statement, the Company represented that it sold
primarily to Chinese customers. In relevant part, the Registration
Statement claimed that in 2017, 91.5% of its customers were based
in China; in 2018, 76.1% of its customers were based in China; and
in the first 9 months of 2019, 79.8% were based in China.
The Plaintiff contends that the statements were materially false
and/or misleading because they misrepresented and/or failed to
disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business,
operations and prospects, which were known to the Defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the purported "strategic cooperation" was actually a
transaction with a related party; (2) the Company's financial
health was worse than what was actually reported; (3) the Company
had recently removed numerous distributors from its Web site just
prior to the IPO, many of which were small or suspicious
businesses; and (4) several of the Company's largest Chinese
clients in prior years were clients, who were not in the Bitcoin
mining industry and, thus, would likely not be repeat customers.
On February 20, 2020, Marcus Aurelius Value published a report
explaining Canaan's numerous false and/or misleading statements.
The Report also pointed out after investigating Canaan's financial
representations that, despite the Company's financial statement
reporting $36.2 million in cash, the Company was sued in 2019 by a
vendor for allegedly failing to pay an invoice of approximately
$1.7 million.
On this news, Canaan ADSs fell $0.39 per ADS, or over 6.8%, to
close at $5.32 per share on February 20, 2020, damaging investors.
Canaan ADSs now trade far below the IPO price.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
decline in the market value of the Company's ADSs, the Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Canaan ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to
Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's
IPO.
Canaan purports to provide supercomputing solutions through
proprietary high-performance computing application-specific
integrated circuits ("ASICs"), primarily for the purposes of
Bitcoin mining.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Ratliff, Esq.
RANSOM, GILBERTSON MARTIN & RATLIFF, LLP
8401 NE Halsey Street, Suite 208
Portland, OR
Phone: 503-226-3664
- and -
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
CARL BUDDIG: Mendoza Seeks OT Pay for Line Packers
--------------------------------------------------
VIDALIA MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARL BUDDIG and COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01516 (N.D. Ill., March 2, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly-situated workers for all hours worked over 40 in a
work week at one and one-half times of their regular rate of pay as
mandated under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a line packer.
Carl Buddig and Company is a meat production company with at least
four facilities in Illinois and one in Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Fish, Esq.
Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
John Kunze, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C.
200 E 5th Ave Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Telephone: (630) 355-7590
Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
CARRIKER INC: Brightly Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
MIKE BRIGHTLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARRIKER INC. D/B/A CARRIKER AUTO OUTLET,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00079-JEG-CFB (S.D. Iowa, March 2,
2020) is a putative class action complaint brought against
Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, in an attempt to promote its services,
Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's cellular
number ending in 0500 on or about October 6, 2019. The number used
by Defendant was 855-909-1005, known as a long code, which is a
10-digit phone number that enabled Defendant to send SMS text
messages en masse.
The case asserts that Defendant has been utilizing a combination of
hardware and software systems which have the capacity to dial
numbers and to transmit thousands of automated text messages
without any human intervention.
Plaintiff claims that the unsolicited text messages from Defendant
has caused disruption to his daily life and he spent approximately
15 minutes investigating the messages as well as how they obtained
his number and who the Defendant was.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal
conduct and statutory damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies.
Carriker Inc. sells vehicles for individuals and businesses. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric S. Mail, Esq.
Puryear Law, P.C.
3719 Bridge Ave. #6
Davenport, IA 52807
Tel: (563)265-8344
Fax: (866)415-5032
Email: Mail@PuryearLaw.com
Website: www.PuryearLaw.com
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Tel: 305-479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
CEDAR FAIR: Liebold Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chloe Liebold, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CEDAR FAIR ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, MAGNUM MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-00498 (N.D. Ohio, March 4, 2020),
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Ohio Revised Code by failing to pay overtime wages.
The Plaintiff alleges that she often worked more than 40 hours in a
week, sometimes up to 60 hours in a week; however, she was paid her
normal hourly rate for every hour worked but was not paid an
overtime rate for her hours worked over 40 hours in any week. The
Defendants suffered and permitted the Plaintiff to routinely work
more than 40 hours per week without overtime compensation, says the
complaint.
Ms. Liebold was employed by the Defendants as a Special Events
Intern from May 6, 2019, through August 15, 2019.
Cedar Point is primarily known as an amusement park, but also
provides non-recreational services, including several hotels.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Albrechta, Esq.
John A. Coble, Esq.
ALBRECHTA & COBLE, Ltd.
2228 Hayes Avenue, Suite A
Fremont, OH 43420
Phone: (419)332-9999
Facsimile: (419)333-8147
Email: kwitte@lawyer-ac.com
jcoble@lawyer-ac.com
CITIZENS TELECOM: Taylor Sues Over Violations of COBRA and ERISA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CITIZENS TELECOM SERVICES COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
8:20-cv-00509-TPB-CPT (M.D. Fla., March 4, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff and others adequate
notice of their right to continued health care coverage under the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 and the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The Defendant, the plan sponsor of the Frontier Communications
Corporation Health Care Plan, has repeatedly violated ERISA by
failing to provide participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with
adequate notice, as prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue
their health insurance coverage following an occurrence of a
"qualifying event" as defined by the statute, the Plaintiff
alleges.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to use the Model
Notice and failed to meet the notice requirements of COBRA. The
Defendant did not use the Model Notice to notify plan participants
of their right to continuation coverage. Rather than use the Model
Notice, the Defendant deliberately authored and disseminated a
notice, which omitted critical information required by law. The
information the Defendant omitted from its notice is information
that is included in the Model Notice.
The Plaintiff is a Florida resident, and was a participant in the
Plan prior to his termination.
The Defendant is a foreign corporation with its headquarters in
Norwalk, Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Main No: 813-224-0431
Direct Dial: 813-337-7992
Facsimile: 813-229-8712
Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
gnichols@wfclaw.com
jcornell@wfclaw.com
rcooke@wfclaw.com
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss NJ Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 14, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that the company's motion to dismiss a consolidated class action
suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
remains pending.
On October 5, 2016, October 27, 2016 and November 18, 2016, three
putative securities class action complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming
the company and certain of its current and former officers as
defendants.
These complaints were consolidated into a single action and on
April 7, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who
purchased the company's common stock during the period between
February 27, 2015 and September 29, 2016, naming the company and
certain of its current and former officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the Exchange Act, based on allegedly false
or misleading statements related to potential violations of the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the company's business,
prospects and operations, and the effectiveness of the company's
internal controls over financial reporting and its disclosure
controls and procedures.
The lead plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory damages, among
other relief, and their reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on June 6, 2017. On August 8, 2018, the Court issued an
order which granted the motion to dismiss in part, including
dismissal of all claims against current officers of the Company,
and denied them in part.
On September 7, 2018, the company filed a motion in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey to certify the
August 8, 2018 order for immediate appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1292(b).
On October 18, 2018, the District Court issued an order granting
the company's motion, and staying the action pending the outcome of
our appeal petition to the Third Circuit. On October 29, 2018, the
company filed a petition for permission to appeal with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On March 6, 2019,
the Third Circuit denied the company's petition without prejudice.
In an order dated March 19, 2019, the District Court directed the
lead plaintiffs to provide the defendants with a proposed amended
complaint. On April 26, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed their second
amended complaint.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
on June 10, 2019.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation provides information
technology consulting and technology services in North America,
Europe, and Asia. The company was founded in 1994 and is based in
Teaneck, New Jersey.
COMMERCE HOME: Faces Cardenas FCRA Suit Over Credit Inquiry
-----------------------------------------------------------
JESUS CARDENAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. COMMERCE HOME MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-09670
(C.D. Cal., Nov. 11, 2019), challenges the Defendant's actions with
regard to its unauthorized and unlawful credit inquiry, which
violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the County of Los Angeles,
California, whose credit report was affected by an unauthorized
inquiry.
Commerce Home is a home mortgage lender with its principal place of
business located in San Ramon, California.[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
COURIER DISTRIBUTION: Sued by Golden Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
FREDRICK GOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COURIER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-01662-JPS (E.D. Wis., Nov. 12, 2019), arises from alleged
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiff and the putative class members are, or were, delivery
drivers employed by CDS at times since November 12, 2016. The
Plaintiff alleges that since that time, CDS has had a common policy
and practice of deducting daily meal periods from its delivery
drivers' hours worked despite knowing or having reason to know that
its delivery drivers have performed work during such meal periods.
As a result, CDS has denied the Plaintiff and the putative class
members of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty in given
workweeks at the applicable overtime premium rate mandated by the
FLSA, as well as Wisconsin law.
Courier Distribution Systems, LLC, is a Foreign Limited Liability
Company with a principal place of business located in Duluth,
Georgia. CDS provides courier and express delivery services
throughout the United States and has operated a warehousing,
dispatch, and delivery center in Waukesha County in the state of
Wisconsin at times since November 12, 2016.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL S.C.
222 East Erie Street, Suite 210
PO Box 442
Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
Telephone: 414-271-8650
Facsimile: 414-271-8442
E-mail: tmaynard@hq-law.com
smurshid@hq-law.com
ljohnson@hq-law.com
DELTA AIR: Discovery Underway in D.C. Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Delta Air Lines, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the antitrust
lawsuit against the company and other airline companies is still on
discovery.
In July 2015, a number of purported class action antitrust lawsuits
were filed alleging that Delta, American, United and Southwest had
conspired to restrain capacity.
The lawsuits were filed in the wake of media reports that the U.S.
Department of Justice had served civil investigative demands upon
these carriers seeking documents and information relating to this
subject.
The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single Multi-District
Litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia. In November 2016, the District Court denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss the claims, and the matter is now
proceeding through discovery.
Delta believes the claims in these cases are without merit and is
vigorously defending these lawsuits.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a major American airline, with its
headquarters and largest hub at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia.
DIRECT RECOVERY: Faces Meyer Suit over Spam Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA MEYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECT RECOVERY SERVICES LLC and DOES 1-10,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-mc-00021 (C.D. Cal., March 3, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendant's violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated consumers, alleges that she started receiving spam text
messages on her cellular phone from the Defendant regarding debt
collections on or about July 25, 2019 without prior express
consent. She continued to receive unwanted text messages despite
multiple requests to the Defendant to stop it. The unsolicited text
messages were sent to her cellular phone using an automatic
telephone dialing system.
Direct Recovery Services LLC is a Minnesota-based debt collection
agency that is doing business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
DOMINION ENTERPRISES: Pierucci Wants to Stop Sending of Texts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Pierucci, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dominion Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Homes.com, a Virginia
corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-08048-DWL (D. Ariz., March 4, 2020),
seeks to stop the Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by sending unsolicited autodialed text messages to
consumers.
The Plaintiff contends that she has never provided her consent to
the Defendant to send her text messages using an automatic
telephone dialing system or to otherwise contact her. The
Defendant's unsolicited text was a nuisance that aggravated the
Plaintiff, wasted her time, invaded her privacy, diminished the
value of the cellular services she paid for, caused her to
temporarily lose the use and enjoyment of her phone, and caused
wear and tear to her phone's data, memory, software, hardware, and
battery components, says the complaint.
Ms. Pierucci is a resident of Lake Havasu City, Arizona.
Homes.com is a real estate Web site that, among other things,
generates leads for listings for real estate agents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan Brown, Esq.
BROWN PATENT LAW
15100 N 78th Way Suite 203
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Phone: 602-529-3474
Email: Nathan.Brown@BrownPatentLaw.com
- and -
Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
Bradley K. King, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 474-9111
Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
bking@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
EN ENGINEERING: McConnell Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott McConnell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. EN Engineering, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00153 (W.D. Pa., January 31, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
EN provides engineering, consulting and automation services to
pipeline companies, utilities and industrial customers where
McConnell worked as a Design Engineer from May 2015 until October
2018. He claims he was paid a salary regardless of the number of
hours she worked that day without any overtime pay for hours worked
in excess of forty hours in a workweek. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
cfitz@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
3634 California Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Tel: 412-766-1455
Fax: 412-766-0300
Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
EVENFLO CO: Lechner Sues over False Advertising of Booster Seats
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, HAILEY LECHNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-10420 (D. Mass., March 2, 2020), alleges the Defendant
engaged in deceptive and false advertising related to its marketing
of the Big Kid booster seats as a side-impact tested product and
safe for children as small as 30 pounds. However, impact test
videos from Evenflo and released documents from personal injury
lawsuits showed that the Big Kid booster seats provide dubious
benefit to children involved in side-impact collisions, especially
those under 40 pounds, thereby putting children's health and
well-being at serious risk in side-impact car crashes.
Evenflo Company, Inc. is a designer and manufacturer of
child-related products, including booster-style car seats, with
principal place of business at 225 Byers Road, Miamisburg, Ohio. It
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Goodbaby International Holdings,
Ltd. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica R. MacAuley, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
Cambridge, MA 02142
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
E-mail: jmacauley@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
Ted Wojcik, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
toml@hbsslaw.com
tedw@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
Cincinnati, OH 45202-3604
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
EXPEDIA INC: Arkansas Joins Lawsuit Seeking Rental Taxes
--------------------------------------------------------
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports that the state of Arkansas on
Feb. 19, 2020 joined the 11-year-old class-action lawsuit seeking
to compel Internet travel companies brokering hotel rooms to pay
rental taxes to local governments.
Jefferson County Circuit Judge Robert Hyatt granted the state's
motion to intervene in the lawsuit that includes defendants
Hotels.Com, Hotwire Inc., Cheaptickets.com, Expedia Inc., Orbitz
LLC, Priceline.com and Travelocity.com.
The litigation seeks to recoup payment from online travel companies
that haven't paid all taxes due to cities, counties or other
commissions for hotel and motel rooms rented at a discount through
the companies' websites.
The state, which imposes a 6.5% tax on hotel rooms and similar
temporary lodging, joins plaintiffs Pine Bluff Advertising
Commission, Jefferson County and the city of North Little Rock, all
represented by the Thrash Law Firm of Little Rock.
The judge has already ruled the companies are liable for taxes
dating back as far as 1995. The online-travel companies appealed
the ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court. The high court dismissed
the appeal in December, but the companies can try again. [GN]
EXPRESS MANAGEMENT: Cheesman Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Janelle Cheesman, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Express Management Holdings, LLC, Ronald
Lubin, Marc Lubin and Edward Rosero, individually, Case No.
20-cv-01089 (D. N.J., January 31, 2020), seeks to recover minimum
wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages and costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.
Defendants own, operate, and/or manage T-Mobile Stores in New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland,
Washington D.C., South Carolina and Florida where Cheesman was
employed as a full time, non-exempt manager from November 2009 to
December 2019 at two of its New Jersey locations. Cheesman claims
to have routinely worked well in excess of forty hours in a
workweek and was not able to take an uninterrupted thirty minute
lunch break. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
301 N Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (201) 687-9977
Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
Email: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
FANNIE MAE: Appeal in D.C. Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
13, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
appeal undertaken by plaintiffs in the class action suit pending
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is
still pending.
Fannie Mae is a defendant in three cases pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia -- a consolidated
putative class action and two additional cases. In all three
cases, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stockholders filed amended
complaints on November 1, 2017 against the company, the Federal
Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) as the company's conservator and
Freddie Mac.
On September 28, 2018, the court dismissed all of the plaintiffs'
claims in these cases, except for their claims for breach of an
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In a fourth case
that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia on May 21, 2018, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss on March 6, 2019, and on March 18, 2019, plaintiff moved to
alter or amend the judgment and to file an amended complaint.
On May 24, 2019, the court denied this motion. On June 19, 2019,
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the court's dismissal and
related orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Federal National Mortgage Association provides liquidity and
stability support services for the mortgage market in the United
States. The Company was founded in 1938 and is based in Washington,
the District of Columbia.
GETT: Israeli Taxi Service Faces $44M Suit Over 'Racist' Service
----------------------------------------------------------------
Israeli taxi service Gett is being sued by human rights lawyers in
Jerusalem for allegedly offering a discriminatory service that
gives users an option to filter out Arab drivers, i24 News said,
citing a report from The Guardian.
The Jerusalem-based "Mehadrin" service offered users of the Gett
app the choice to order a taxi guaranteed to not be driven on
Shabbat, the Jewish day of rest.
Many Arab Muslim and Christian drivers often work during Shabbat,
however, Gett says that any driver is able to meet the service
standards, regardless of their religion.
Asaf Pink, a lawyer working on the case was cited by The Guardian
as saying, "They give it a religious title. But, in fact, this is a
proxy for a racist service that provides taxis with Jewish
drivers," adding, "Of course, they can't just say 'we don't want
Arabs'."
The class-action lawsuit seeks around $44 million in damages
against the company's CEO Dave Waiser and Gett Israel head Mark Oun
for the "Mehadrin" option that allegedly leaves out Arab drivers
voluntarily from the user's search.
Prior to submitting the lawsuit, Pink, along with the Israel
Religious Action Center, conducted a private investigation in
October 2018. According to the investigation's report, two people
disguised as aspiring drivers met Gett's Jerusalem representative,
Herzl Moshe.
During the meeting Moshe allegedly said in recorded comments, "Gett
Mehadrin is not for religious [Jews]. It is for people who don't
want an Arab driver. When my daughter wants to travel, I order her
a Gett Mehadrin. She doesn't care if the driver is religious or not
because what she wants is a Jewish driver."
Gett 'objects to any kind of discrimination'
Asked for comment, a Gett spokesperson that "The company has
received the lawsuit, it will study it and respond accordingly in
court. But to lift any doubts, Gett provides it services to all
taxi drivers and all its [app] users . . . and decisively objects
to any kind of discrimination.
"Regarding the last incident, the 'Mehadrin Gett' fleet is just one
of the fleets that Gett operations, is open only to Jerusalem users
and was launched in order to satisfy a need for a specific sector
in the population, to which, according to its faith, is unable to
reserve taxis that cannot drive on the Sabbath and on Jewish
holiday.
"Every taxi driver who is interested in belonging to this fleet,
including non-Jews, can join, on the condition that the taxi does
now drive on Shabbat and during Jewish holidays." [GN]
GOJO INDUSTRIES: Aleisa Sues Over Mislabeled Hand Sanitizer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Manal Aleisa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Gojo Industries, Inc. Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-01045 (C.D. Cal., January 31, 2020), seeks damages, and
requires restitution and injunctive relief resulting from negligent
misrepresentation and intentional misrepresentation and for
violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's
False Advertising Law and California's Unfair Competition Law.
Gojo Industries manufactures hand sanitizers under the "Purell"
brand. Aleisa purchased the "Purell Advanced Hand Sanitizer" and
claims that its label misrepresented itself by claiming its disease
preventing properties despite FDA's disclaimer that topical
antiseptics are not as potent in disease prevention. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, 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
- and -
Ryan L. McBride, Esq. (SBN 032001)
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
GOJO INDUSTRIES: Marinovich Hits Mislabeled Hand Sanitizer Product
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Marinovich and Gayle Sibley, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Gojo Industries, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00747 (C.D. Cal., January 31, 2020),
seeks damages, and requires restitution and injunctive relief
resulting from negligent misrepresentation and intentional
misrepresentation and for violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law and California's
Unfair Competition Law.
Gojo Industries manufactures hand sanitizers under the "Purell"
brand. Marinovich and Sibley purchased the "Purell Advanced Hand
Sanitizer" and claims that its label misrepresented itself by
claiming its disease preventing properties despite FDA's disclaimer
that topical antiseptics are not as potent in disease prevention.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Tammy Gruder Hussin, Esq.
HUSSIN LAW FIRM
1596 N. Coast Highway 101
Encinitas, CA 92024
Tel. (877) 677-5397
Fax: (877) 667-1547
Email: Tammy@HussinLaw.com
- and -
Daniel R. Johnson, Esq.
WASKOWSKI JOHNSON YOHALEM LLP
954 W. Washington Blvd., Suite 720
Chicago, IL 60607
Telephone: (312) 278-3153
Fax: (312) 690-4641
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Phone: (312) 283-3814
Fax: (773) 496-8617
Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com
GRINDR INC: Bergeron Sues Over Unauthorized Data Disclosure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bergeron, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Grindr Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00875
(S.D. N.Y., January 31, 2020), seeks injunctive relief resulting
from negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of contract and for
violation of the Consumer Protection Act.
Grindr is social networking app for gay, bisexual, transgender and
queer people. Bergeron claims that Grindr disclosed his private
information to unidentified third-parties without his consent.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Ste. 311
Great Neck NY 11021-5101
Tel: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
HEALTHPEAK PROPERTIES: Plaintiffs' Reply Brief Due March 19
-----------------------------------------------------------
Healthpeak Properties, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Plaintiffs'
reply brief in the Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP,
Inc., et al. class action suit is due March 19, 2020.
On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters'
Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
the Company, certain of its officers, HCR ManorCare, Inc.
("HCRMC"), and certain of its officers, asserting violations of the
federal securities laws.
The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and alleges that the Company made certain false or misleading
statements relating to the value of and risks concerning its
investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing to disclose that HCRMC had
engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by the U.S. Department of
Justice ("DoJ") in a suit against HCRMC arising from the False
Claims Act that the DoJ voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.
The plaintiff in the class action suit demands compensatory damages
(in an unspecified amount), costs and expenses (including
attorneys' fees and expert fees), and equitable, injunctive, or
other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
On November 28, 2017, the Court appointed Societe Generale
Securities GmbH (SGSS Germany) and the City of Birmingham
Retirement and Relief Systems (Birmingham) as Co-Lead Plaintiffs in
the class action.
The motion to dismiss was fully briefed on May 21, 2018 and oral
arguments were held on October 23, 2018. Subsequently, on December
6, 2018, HCRMC and its officers were voluntarily dismissed from the
class action lawsuit without prejudice to such claims being
refiled. On November 22, 2019, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss.
On December 20, 2019, Co-Lead plaintiffs filed a motion to amend
the Court's judgment. Defendants' opposition brief is due on
February 18, 2020, and Co-Lead Plaintiffs' reply brief is due on
March 19, 2020.
The Company believes the suit to be without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.
Healthpeak Properties, Inc. formerly HCP, Inc. is a diversified
real estate investment trust that owns and develops healthcare real
estate within the United States for Life Science, Senior Housing
and Medical Office. The company is based in Irvine, California.
HOMELAND PATROL: Alvarez Seeks OT Pay for Security Officers
-----------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL ALVAREZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HOMELAND PATROL CORP., a Florida Corporation, MIRTHA
CORDERO, individually, and AUGUSTO CORDERO, Individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-20931 (S.D. Fla., March 2, 2020)
brings this action complaint against Defendant for its alleged
failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately March 2017
until February 2020 as a non-exempt Security Officer.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay him time and
one-half wages for all of his actual overtime hours worked each
week during the three years of his employment when he regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Instead, Defendants paid him
straight-time wages for his overtime hours each week.
Moreover, Defendants violated 29 U.S.C. Sec. 215 when they
terminated Plaintiff because of Plaintiff's good faith objections
to and complaints about Defendants' failure to pay time and
one-half overtime compensation for Plaintiff's hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.
Mirtha Cordero and Augusto Cordero owned, operated, managed, and
have regularly exercised the authority to hire and fire employees
including Plaintiff, determined the manner in which Plaintiff and
other employees were compensated, determined how Plaintiff and
other employees' hours worked were tracked or recorded, set the
rates of pay of Plaintiff and other employees, and/or controlled
the finances and day-to-day management operations of Homeland
Patrol Corp.
Homeland Patrol Corp. provides security services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith M. Stern, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000
Miami, FL 33130
Tel: (305)901-1379
Email: employlaw@keithstern.com
HP INC: Gainey McKenna Announces Securities Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against HP Inc. (NYSE: HPQ) in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired the securities of HP between
February 23, 2017 to October 3, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for HP investors
under the federal securities laws.
The Complaint Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that material adverse information.
Specifically the Complaint alleges that: (1) HP falsely highlighted
that the four-box model was an accurate, reliable tool to determine
demand and revenue in its Supplies business, and reassured
investors that, based on the four-box model, HP had a "clear line
of sight to supply stabilization"; (2) Defendants repeatedly made
false and misleading statements to investors about the reliability
of its 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 its "Supplies revenue
is in line with the expectations that we set, and that our 4-box
model continues to drive predictability"; and (3) and as a result,
HP common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of HP 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 at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
gegleston@gme-law.com.
Visit the website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information
about the firm. [GN]
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES: Nexus 6P Owners Start Getting Up to $400
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Friedman, writing for Phone Arena, reports that Nexus 6P
owners who took part in the class-action suit against Google and
Huawei are now receiving the proceeds of a subsequent $9.75 million
settlement. Those who purchased the device brand new between
September 29, 2015, and May 3, 2019, were eligible to file a claim.
According to Android Police, consumers who had no issues with their
Nexus 6P are receiving emailed payments of $29.11. On the other end
of the spectrum, $400 payments are being disseminated to those who
suffered issues with both bootlooping and sudden shutdowns.
Bootlooping is caused when the phone is turned on and continues a
never-ending cycle of booting up and shutting down never allowing
the user to get past the boot screen. In addition, many Nexus 6P
users noticed that the battery on their devices was draining much
too fast leading the phones to abruptly shut down. The suit was
filed in April 2017 with Google blamed for issues related to the
phone's software and Huawei blamed by the plaintiffs for problems
related to the handset's hardware.
For those who don't remember Google's Nexus devices, they were a
series of Android phones and tablets that ran a stock version of
the operating system and were first in line to receive Android
updates. Google would design, develop, market, and support the
Nexus devices while the manufacturer would be responsible for some
of the development and all of the manufacturing. The HTC-made Nexus
One was released in January 2010. Other manufacturers to have made
Nexus phones and tablets include LG, Motorola, Asus, and Samsung.
The Nexus 6P was one of two Nexus models released in 2015. The less
expensive Nexus 5X was manufactured by LG and also suffered from a
bootloop issue. Even though LG offered full refunds to consumers
who purchased the device only to see it turn into a paperweight, in
April 2017 a class action suit was filed on behalf of Nexus 5X
owners. The suit never became certified because a settlement was
reached in early 2018. Nexus 5X owners were given the option of
receiving $700 toward the purchase of a new LG phone or $425 in
cash. [GN]
HUNT & HENRIQUES: Violates FDCPA and RFDCPA, Martinez Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HUNT & HENRIQUES, CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA) N.A. and DOES
1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-00443 (C.D. Cal., March 4,
2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, which prohibit debt collectors from engaging in
abusive, deceptive and unfair practices.
According to the complaint, a personal debt was allegedly incurred
by the Plaintiff to Defendant Citibank. The Plaintiff's alleged
debt was referred and/or assigned to Defendant Hunt & Henriques for
collection.
Defendant Hunt & Henriques, on behalf of co-Defendant Citibank,
filed a lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court (Case No. 30-2008
00233706, the "Collections Lawsuit") against the Plaintiff in an
attempt to collect on the Debt. The Plaintiff asserts that the
Defendants regularly purchase debts and/or initiate legal
proceedings without valid prima face proof of the validity of the
debts to compel debtors into payment by means of legal action.
The Defendants, in their attempts to collect on the Debt and pursue
the Collections Lawsuit, committed various fraudulent acts on the
state court, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff adds that the
documents filed by the Defendants in support of the Collections
Lawsuit contained fraudulent, inaccurate and other questionable
information regarding service of process upon the Plaintiff.
The Defendants failed to properly serve the Plaintiff with the
Collections Lawsuit and the Plaintiff was fraudulently served, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a "consumer" and natural person residing in Orange
County, California.
The Defendants are a "creditor" and "debt collector."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF AMIR J. GOLDSTEIN
7304 Beverly Blvd., Suite 212,
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Phone: 323.937.0400
Fax: 866.288.9194
Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com
INTEGRATED CONSULTING: Null Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dustin Null, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INTEGRATED CONSULTING & INSPECTION, LLC, Case No.
4:20-cv-00777 (S.D. Tex., March 4, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff and others regularly worked for the Defendant in
excess of 40 hours each week, but the Defendant did not pay them
overtime wages, says the complaint. Instead of paying overtime pay
as required by the FLSA, the Defendant improperly paid the
Plaintiff a daily rate with no overtime compensation, the Plaintiff
alleges.
Plaintiff Null worked for Integrated as a Mechanical Inspector.
Integrated is an inspection services company, which assists in the
planning, construction, and management of oil and gas
ventures.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
cfitz@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
JOHN HANCOCK: Kroetz Sues Over Breach of Calif. Insurance Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
Silvina Kroetz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and DOES 1 TO 50,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02117-AB-RAO (C.D. Cal., March 4, 2020), is
brought to hold John Hancock accountable for its violations of
California law and the California Insurance Code, which have
severely harmed, and will continue to severely harm, if not
stopped, numerous families, such as Mrs. Kroetz's.
Under the California Insurance Code, which became effective January
1, 2013, life insurance companies, such as John Hancock, are
required to give their policyholders an opportunity to designate a
third party to receive notice of a potential termination of
benefits for non-payment of a premium ("Designation Notice
Requirement").
The Plaintiff alleges that John Hancock has repeatedly and
intentionally failed to adhere to the Designation Notice
Requirements, and then failed to honor those life insurance
policies by refusing to pay beneficiaries the proceeds. She
contends that the Defendant violated California law by failing to
provide statutorily mandated annual notices to policyholders, as
required by California law, and therefore, improperly lapsed and
refused to pay the benefits of its life insurance policies.
The Plaintiff says she is one of many beneficiaries that have been
damaged by John Hancock's unlawful conduct. John Hancock improperly
terminated and refused to pay the benefits of a policy it had
issued to Sean Kroetz-—Mrs. Kroetz's husband—who died on
October 17, 2017, says the complaint.
Mrs. Kroetz is the sole beneficiary of the insurance policy issued
to her late-husband Sean Kroetz that was entered into in
Chatsworth, California.
John Hancock Life Insurance Company is an insurance company
licensed to conduct the business of insurance in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Pitoun, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: (213) 330-7150
Fax: (617) 482-3003
Email: christopherp@hbbslaw.com
- and -
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
John P. Bjork, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 641-3200
Email: jvanek@sperling-law.com
jbjork@sperling-law.com
- and -
David S. Klevatt, Esq.
KLEVATT & ASSOCIATES, LLC
33 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60602-2619
Phone: (312) 782-9090
Email: dklevatt@insurancelawyer.com
JUGGERNAUT NUTRITION: Falsely Markets Irate Product, Webber Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blake Webber, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. JUGGERNAUT NUTRITION, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02105 (C.D.
Cal., March 4, 2020), challenges the deceptive advertising and
business practices of the Defendant with regard to its false and
misleading promotion of its Irate Extreme Pre-Workout product as
being a "dietary supplement," in violation of California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition
Law.
Based on such false and misleading advertisements, the Plaintiff
purchased the Defendant's mislabeled product. The Plaintiff
purchased a product manufactured and labeled by the Defendant,
which the Defendant advertised as being a dietary supplement that
is safe for human consumption. Specifically, the Plaintiff
purchased a product known as Irate Extreme Pre-Workout (the
"Product").
The Plaintiff alleges that the Product contains Dimethylhexylamine
("DMHA"). The Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") has warned
that DMHA is considered dangerous and not safe or approved for
human consumption. Consequently, any product containing DMHA cannot
be a dietary supplement, but in actuality would be an unapproved
drug.
The Defendant does not comply with federal and parallel state
regulations, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff asserts that the
Defendant's labeling misleads consumers into believing its Product
is a dietary supplement safe for human consumption, which is false.
These misrepresentations are not only harmful to consumers, but
also allow the Defendant to increase its sales and capture market
shares from its competitors, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Webber is a natural person residing in the City of Acton,
County of Los Angeles, California.
The Defendant manufactures and/or distributes various products,
including purportedly consumable consumer packaged goods and
purportedly dietary supplements.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Nick Barthel, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
nicholas@kazlg.com
- and -
Yana A. Hart, Esq.
David James McGlothlin, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (619) 233-7770
Fax: (619) 297-1022
Email: yana@kazlg.com
david@kazlg.com
JUUL LABS INC: Cooper Suit Removed to N.D. Tex.
-----------------------------------------------
The case captioned Ethan Cooper, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JUUL Labs Inc.; Altria
Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No. C2020001 filed in the District
Court for Hood County, Texas on January 9, 2020, was removed to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on
January 29, 2020, under Case No. 20-cv-00189.
Cooper seeks compensatory, exemplary, and treble damages for
negligence, breach of implied warranty, failure to warn, product
liability, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation,
deceptive trade practice, unjust enrichment and for violations of
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California False
Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law, over his permanent
brain injury.[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
G. Thomas Vick, Jr.
VICK CARNEY LLP
111 York Avenue
Weatherford, TX 76086
Telephone: (817) 596-5533
Email: tvick@vickcarneylaw.com
- and -
Scott A. Powell, Esq.
HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP
2025 Third Ave. N, Suite 800
Birmingham, AL 35203
Tel: (205) 328-5330
Email: scott@hwnn.com
JUUL Labs, Inc. is represented by:
Russel H. Falconer, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 68-3170
Facsimile: (214) 571-2958
Email: rfalconer@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Austin Schwing, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
555 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
Telephone: (415) 393-8210
Facsimile: (415) 374-8458
Email: aschwing@gibsondunn.com
KIEWIT CORP: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Avila Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Kiewit Corporation filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Melvin Avila v. Kiewit Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 2:19-cv-01295-PJW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Magistrate
Judge Patrick J. Walsh of the District Court remanded the case back
to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles.
In January 2019, the Plaintiff filed the action in the Superior
Court against his former employer, Defendant Kiewit. He claimed
that the Defendant failed to pay proper wages, provide meal breaks,
etc. He brought the action on behalf of present and past employees
similarly situated and sought class certification.
In February 2019, the Defendant removed the case to the District
Court, arguing that federal jurisdiction existed under the Class
Action Fairness Act. The Plaintiff then moved to remand the case
back to the Superior Court on the ground that the Defendant has not
shown that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million,
a jurisdictional requirement under CAFA.
The appellate case is captioned as Melvin Avila v. Kiewit
Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-56300, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee MELVIN AVILA, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Howard Scott Leviant, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W. Seventh Street, Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: 213-232-3128
E-mail: scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com
Defendant-Appellant KIEWIT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:
Michael D. Hidalgo, Esq.
BAKER MCKENZIE LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310-201-4728
E-mail: michael.hidalgo@bakermckenzie.com
- and -
Arthur J. Rooney, Esq.
BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
300 E. Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: 312-861-2838
E-mail: arthur.rooney@bakermckenzie.com
KIMBERLY CLARK: Award in Bahamas Surgery Suit Reduced to $25MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly-Clark Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the total
compensatory and punitive damages plus pre-judgment interest
awarded against Kimberly-Clark in the case entitled, Bahamas
Surgery Center v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., is
approximately $25 million.
The company is a party to certain legal proceedings relating to its
former health care business, Avanos Medical, Inc. ("Avanos",
previously Halyard Health, Inc.), which the company spun-off on
October 31, 2014, including civil actions, consumer class actions,
qui tam matters, a shareholder derivative suit, a securities class
action and certain subpoena and document requests from the federal
government.
The health care matters include Bahamas Surgery Center v.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., a California consumer class
action relating to the sale of surgical gowns.
In April 2017, the jury awarded the plaintiff class $3.9 million in
compensatory damages and $350 million in punitive damages against
the company. During the first quarter of 2018, the Court reduced
the punitive damages award to approximately $19 million.
As a result, the total compensatory and punitive damages plus
pre-judgment interest awarded against Kimberly-Clark is
approximately $25 million.
Kimberly-Clark said, "We intend to continue our vigorous defense of
the Bahamas matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and markets personal care, consumer tissue, and
professional products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Personal Care, Consumer Tissue, and K-C Professional.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation was founded in 1872 and is headquartered
in Dallas, Texas.
LAFAYETTE STEEL: Shortchanges Workers' OT Pay, McLaughlin Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McLaughlin, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Lafayette Steel Erector, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-00153 (W.D. La., February 2, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Lafayette Steel Erector, Inc. operates as "LSE Crane and
Transportation," offering rental services for cranes and related
equipment where Plaintiff worked as an as an operator. He claims
that Lafayatte failed to include his hourly per diem in the
computation of his overtime pay. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
800 Sawyer St.
Houston, TX 77007
Tel: (713) 999-5228
Fax: (713) 999-1187
Email: matt@parmet.law
MAJOR LEAGUE: Clifford Suit Claims Fantasy Sports Rigged
--------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Clifford, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Major League Baseball, MLB
Advanced Media, LP, Houston Astros, LLC, Boston Red Sox Baseball
Club, LP and John Does 1-50, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01000, (S.D.
N.Y., February 5, 2020), seeks statutory and punitive damages,
equitable relief, attorney's fees and costs, interest and all other
relief resulting from unjust enrichment and for violation of the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Texas Business and Commerce
Code and various states consumer protection statutes.
Clifford claims that Major League Baseball failed to investigate,
prevent, remedy or even disclose its member teams' scandals in
order to manipulate players' statistical performance in daily
fantasy sports. Major League Baseball allegedly invested in
DraftKings Inc., a daily fantasy sports operator. Plaintiffs seek
to recover money paid for fees and the sum of moneys for wagers on
DraftKings. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Radice, Esq.
Kenneth Pickle, Esq.
Natasha Fernandez-Silber, Esq.
April Lambert, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
475 Wall Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
Tel: (646) 245-8502
Fax: (609) 385-0745
Email: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
kpickle@radicelawfirm.com
nsilber@radicelawfirm.com
alambert@radicelawfirm.com
- and -
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
BERGER AND MONTAGUE
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 875-3000
Fax: (215) 875-4604
Email: ecramer@bm.net
pmadden@bm.net
MARBLE AND STONE: Godlewski Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Godlewski, Roman Tymczyk, Tadeausz Wiczolek, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. MARBLE AND
STONE CREATIONS, INC. d/b/a GREGORY MULLER ASSOCIATES,
individually, and any other related or affiliated entities, Case
No. 152355/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., March 4, 2020), is
brought to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation, which the
Plaintiffs are statutorily and contractually entitled to receive
for their services.
The Plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours in a week but was not paid
overtime compensation in an amount equal to one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked, and were instead
paid their hourly rate for hours exceeding 40 per week, says the
complaint. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant has engaged in
the policy and practice of requiring its employees to regularly
work in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing overtime
compensation as required by applicable state law.
The Plaintiffs formerly worked for the Defendants.
The Defendant employed individuals to perform marble and tile
installation and related work on properties in the New York
metropolitan area.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 943-9080
Email: lambinder@vandallp.com
MASER CONSULTING: Cummings Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Cummings, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Maser Consulting, P.A., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00188 (W.D. Pa., February 5, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio Prompt
Pay Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
Maser is an engineering consulting company offering construction
administration, geotechnical engineering, storm-water management,
landscape architecture and environmental services throughout the
United States. Cummings worked as a Land Representative from June
2018 until October 2018. He claims he was paid a salary regardless
of the number of hours she worked that day without any overtime pay
for hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
cfitz@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
3634 California Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Tel: 412-766-1455
Fax: 412-766-0300
Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
MASTEC NETWORK: Mason Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
David Mason, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MasTec Network Solutions, LLC and Mastec
Services Company, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00280 (D. Md.,
January 31, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Maryland
Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Labor and Employment Code.
MasTec is a full service infrastructure, construction company
centering on most facets of the utility industry where Mason worked
as an inspector. Throughout his employment with MasTec, he was paid
a day-rate with no overtime compensation. He claims that he was
paid a salary regardless of the number of hours he worked that day
without any overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours
in a workweek. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
tjones@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
NEXTGEN LEADS: Marcavage Sues Over Unauthorized Calls and Texts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Marcavage, individually and of behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NEXTGEN LEADS, LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-00409-LAB-MDD (S.D. Cal., March 4, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
invaded the Plaintiff's privacy by causing unsolicited phone calls
and text messages to be made to the Plaintiff's cellular telephones
through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system.
According to the complaint, the Defendant made one or more
unauthorized text message to the Plaintiff's cellular phones using
an automatic telephone dialing system in an attempt to profit. In
the Defendant's overzealous attempt to market its services, the
Defendant knowingly made (and continues to make) telemarketing
phone calls without the prior express written consent of the call
recipients and with the knowledge that they did not have the prior
express written consent. As such, the Defendant not only invaded
the personal privacy of the Plaintiff, but also intentionally and
repeatedly violated the TCPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff lives in Pennsylvania.
The Defendant operates a generation lead company in which it, for a
profit, solicits consumers for information and sells that
information to third parties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ
11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 800
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
- and -
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (732) 695-3282
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com
NOOTROPICS DEPOT: Black Sues Over Drug's Side Effects
-----------------------------------------------------
Nathan Black and Justin Munoz, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nootropics Depot LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00729 (N.D. Cal., January 31, 2020),
seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief resulting from
negligent misrepresentation and intentional misrepresentation and
for violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
California's False Advertising Law and California's Unfair
Competition Law.
Plaintiffs claim that Nootropics' "Phenylpiracetam" and "Phenibut
HCL" capsules causes tremors, sweats, muscle aches, visual and
auditory hallucinations, and heart palpitations. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Seyed 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 A. Hart, Esq.
David James McGlothlin, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233-7770
Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
Email: yana@kazlg.com
david@kazlg.com
OCEAN SPRAY: Froio & Surman Can't Intervene in Hilsley Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CRYSTAL HILSLEY, and WILLIAM RILEY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OCEAN
SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC.; ARNOLD WORLDWIDE LLC; and DOES defendants
1 through 5, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 17cv2335-GPC (MDD)
(S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California denied Proposed Intervenors
Michael Froio and Mikhail Surman's motion to intervene pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) and 24(b)(1)(B).
In November 2017, Plaintiff Hilsley filed a consumer class action
against Defendants Ocean Spray and Arnold Worldwide for violations
of California consumer protection laws claiming that the "no
artificial flavors" labels on certain Ocean Spray's juice-based
beverage products are false and misleading because each Product
contains the artificial flavors of dl-malic acid or fumaric acid,
or both, that simulate advertised fruit flavors. She alleged
causes of action for violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"), California Civil Code section 1750 et seq; violation of
the unlawful prong of the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"),
California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq.;
violation of the unfair prong of the UCL; violation of California's
False Advertising Law ("FAL"), breach of express warranty and
breach of implied warranty.
On Nov. 29, 2018, the Court granted in part the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification of a California class who purchased certain
Ocean Spray Products and appointed class counsel. It certified a
Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and also
certified a Class under Rule 23(b)(3) as to the UCL, FAL and CLRA
causes of action.
The parties engaged in extensive motion practice. Meanwhile,
during the pendency of the case, on Sept. 24, 2018, Proposed
Intervenors Michael Froio and Mikhail Surman filed a purported
class action complaint with the same allegations that certain Ocean
Spray juice products contained artificial flavoring ingredients of
malic acid and fumaric acid and were improperly labeled as
containing "No Artificial Flavors" in the District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. The Froio Complaint seeks a 49-state
class, excluding California, alleging claims of fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and breach of express
warranty.
On April 19, 2019, prior to the case management conference, the
case was stayed in order for the parties to engage in mediation on
June 18, 2019. On June 23, 2019, the stay was extended to allow
the parties to schedule another mediation. On July 18, 2019, after
the second mediation, the parties executed a memorandum of
understanding that would form the basis of a proposed nationwide
class settlement of the case. The parties anticipated filing a
motion for preliminary approval in the near future as well as a
stipulation granting Froio and Surman leave to amend the complaint
to conform to the settlement terms. However, on Nov. 8, 2019,
after being informed of the pending settlement in the case, the
district court in Massachusetts stayed the case and reset a status
conference for Jan. 27, 2020.
The Proposed Intervenors move to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2),
intervention as of right and Rule 24(b)(1)(B), permissive
intervention.
Judge Curiel finds that the Proposed Intervenors have failed to
demonstrate the second factor that they have a significant
protectable interest in the subject matter of the litigation. They
claim to have a protectable interest in recovering their attorneys'
fees and costs for work done in facilitating settlement in the case
as well as incentive awards for Froio and Surman for their
involvement as Plaintiffs in facilitating settlement in the case.
The Plaintiffs respond that the Proposed Intervenors do not claim
to have a protectable interest in the merits of the litigation but
only seek to secure attorneys' fees and costs and incentive awards
for work performed in the Froio case, not the Hilsley case. They
should seek these fees and awards in their litigation in
Massachusetts.
In reply, the Proposed Intervenors argue that they became a part of
this case on October 25, 2019 when Plaintiffs expanded the class
definition to include the claims in the Froio action in the
settlement in this case. They explain they spent two full days in
mediation, negotiated the terms of a settlement, and now the
Plaintiffs and their attorneys have now adopted the settlement
terms as their own. They claim they only seek compensation for the
work they did to bring about the settlement.
First, Judge Curiel holds that notwithstanding the Proposed
Intervenors' claim they facilitated the settlement in the Hilsley
case, they have not demonstrated they have a significant
protectable interest in the subject matter of the litigation.
Second, the Proposed Intervenors' claimed interests in the
attorneys' fees and costs as well as the incentive awards do not
relate directly to the subject matter of the litigation, which is
the alleged misrepresentations on certain Ocean Spray's Juice
Product labels stating "no artificial flavors."
Because the Proposed Intervenors have failed to demonstrate the
second factor to support intervention as of right, the Judge need
not address the remaining factors. Accordingly, Judge Curiel
denied the Proposed Intervenor's motion to intervene as of right.
The Proposed intervenors also seek permissive intervention under
Rule 24(b)(1)(B). Judge Curiel finds that the potential
prejudicial effect, delay and derailment of the settlement that
would be caused by intervention warrant denial of the motion to
intervene. Based on the parties' positions, permitting
intervention may result in undue delay and prejudice to the class
members if an interlocutory appeal were filed or if Ocean Spray
declined to re-negotiate the terms of the Settlement Agreement and
the Plaintiffs decided to back out of the Settlement Agreement.
The potential for the derailment of the settlement is of great
concern for the Court as it is aware that the case has been
vigorously litigated for over two years and the parties, who are
intimately aware of the factual and legal bases for the causes of
action, concluded that settlement is in the best interest of the
class.
Finally, per Section 5.7, while it appears that the settlement may
be derailed if the Court were to grant attorneys' fees to an
objector, the more appropriate procedure for the relief Proposed
Intervenors seek is to file an objection to the settlement as
opposed to intervening as Plaintiffs. However, if the Proposed
Intervenors are not open to objecting to the settlement, they may
opt-out of the settlement and continue to prosecute their existing
pending case in the District Court of Massachusetts and seek relief
in that court.
Based on the above, Judge Curiel denied the Proposed Intervenors'
motion to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2) & Rule 24(b)(1)(B).
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/c3pVWu from Leagle.com.
Crystal Hilsley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented byDavid Elliot, The Elliott Law
Firm, Lilach Halperin, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron,
PLC,Michael
Houchin, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron & Ronald Marron, Law
Office of Ronald Marron, 651 Arroyo DriveSan Diego, CA 92103
Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. & Arnold Worldwide LLC, Defendants,
represented by Ricky Lynn Shackelford -- shackelfordr@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
The Nielsen Company (U.S.), LLC, Miscellaneous Party, represented
by Heather Elizabeth Belville -- heatherbelville@quinnemanuel.com
-- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP & Robert James Slobig --
rslobig@torshen.com -- Torshen, Slobig & Axel, Ltd., pro hac vice.
OUREM IRON: Matto et al. Seek OT Pay for Iron Workers & Painters
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ROBERS COSTILLA MATTO, DANIEL PAISIG VALENCIA, WILBERT
COSTILLA MATTO, and ALDO VALENZUELA HILAR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated v. OUREM IRON WORKS, INC.
and ARTHUR VIEIRA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01868 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 3, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to give
the Plaintiffs and all others similarly-situated workers
appropriate minimum wage or overtime compensation for any of the
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week and also by failing to
keep accurate payroll records.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as iron workers,
painters, and installers between May 2000 and April 2017.
Ourem Iron Works, Inc. is a Yonkers, New York-based iron
fabricating company. It is a corporation authorized to do business
under the laws of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
PINE VALLEY CENTER: Fails to Pay Accurate Wages, Francois Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JINETTE FRANCOIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PINE VALLEY CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND
NURSING, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-1780 (S.D.N.Y., February 28,
2020) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay
for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime, and failure to
provide accurate wage statements to Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated.
The Plaintiff and all similarly situated were employed by the
Defendant as certified nursing assistants.
Pine Valley Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing is a senior
living and rehabilitation facility located in Spring Valley, New
York that offers short-term, long term and sub-acute health care
solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Orin Kurtz, Esq.
GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
Tower 56
126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 905-0509
Facsimile: (212) 905-0508
Email: okurtz@gardylaw.com
PIZZA PETE'S: Ramirez Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Javier Escalante Ramirez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. PIZZA PETE'S LLC, d/b/a PIZZA PETE'S,
PERIESO DILLOTO, and JAY SHIM, Case No. 1:20-cv-01947 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 4, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid
overtime wages, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.
The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with
a policy of not paying to the Plaintiff either the FLSA minimum
wage or the New York State minimum wage, and the proper overtime
rate thereof for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the
complaint. The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendants were also
not entitled to claim any tip credits under FLSA or NYLL.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a delivery
person.
PIZZA PETE'S LLC d/b/a PIZZA PETE'S, is a domestic limited
liability company organized under the laws of the State of New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: 212-465-1188
Fax: 212-465-1181
PRO CUSTOM: Fla. Middle Dist. Refuses to Dismiss Becker TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PERRY BECKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PRO CUSTOM SOLAR LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-535-FtM-29NPM (M.D. Fla.), Judge John E. Steele of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort
Myers Division, denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss filed on
Sept. 16, 2019.
On Sept. 1, 2019, Plaintiff Becker filed a two-count Amended Class
Action Complaint against Defendant Pro Custom Solar, doing business
as Momentum Solar. The Amended Class Action Complaint asserts
claims against the Defendant under 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b) and 47
U.S.C. Section 227(c) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991.
According to the Amended Class Action Complaint, the Defendant is a
nationwide solar company that designs, sells, and installs solar
panels. On June 27, 2019, the Defendant called the Plaintiff's
cell phone. The Plaintiff answered the phone call and heard a very
long and noticeable pause before being greeted by a live person.
During the phone call, the Defendant's employee, Diamond, attempted
to sell the Plaintiff solar panels and tried to setup a solar panel
installation at his house. The Defendant made the phone call using
a "spoofed" number, which means it used technology that altered its
phone number and made it appear on the Plaintiff's Caller ID that
it called the Plaintiff from a local area code.
On June 28, 2019, the Plaintiff received a text message from
"Elijah from Momentum Solar. The text message stated: "Hello Mr.
Becker, this is Elijah from Momentum Solar. This is my business
cell so feel free to shoot me a text or call anytime with any
questions about the solar program." On that same day, the
Plaintiff received another phone call from the Defendant. During
the phone call, the Defendant again tried to sell him solar panels
and tried to schedule an appointment for solar panel installation.
On July 8, 2019, the Plaintiff received another phone call from it
trying to sell him solar panels. During the July 8, 2019 phone
call, the Plaintiff told the Defendant to stop calling him. On
July 19, 2019, he received another phone call from the Defendant.
During this phone call, the Defendant again attempted to sell him
its goods and services.
The Plaintiff answered the Defendant's calls and spoke to the
Defendant on the phone because he was so annoyed by the calls that
he wanted to verify who was calling and why they were calling. He
did not invite the Defendant to call him and was not in the market
for solar panels or solar panel installation. His cell phone
number had been registered on the National Do Not Call Registry
since July of 2007.
The Amended Class Action Complaint asserts claims against
theDefendant under Section 227(b) of the TCPA (Count I) and Section
227(c) of the TCPA (Count II). The Defendant now moves to dismiss
the Amended Class Action Complaint in its entirety.
As to Counts I and II collectively, the Defendant argues that (1)
the Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts demonstrating that
it placed the alleged phone calls; (2) the Defendant cannot be held
vicariously liable for the alleged phone calls because the
Plaintiff failed to plead that the callers were acting as its
agent; and (3) the Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the
Defendant used an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS). As to
Count II individually, the Defendant argues it is entitled to
dismissal because (1) the Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that
he received a telephone solicitation; (2) the Plaintiff invited the
Defendant's phone calls; and (3) the Plaintiff failed to allege
that the phone calls were placed to a residential landline.
As for the Defendant's arguments as to Counts I and II
collectively, Judge Steele finds that (i) the Plaintiff has
plausibly alleged that the Defendant placed the phone calls to his
cell phone; (ii) because the Plaintiff has clarified that he is
asserting that the Defendant placed the calls at issue in the case,
the Defendant's arguments regarding vicarious liability are
inapplicable to the Plaintiff's direct liability TCPA claim; and
(iii) the Plaintiff has plausibly alleged the use of an ATDS at
this stage of the proceedings.
Turning to the Defendant's arguments as to Count II, Judge Steele
finds that (i) the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that he
received phone solicitations from the Defendant; (ii) because the
Plaintiff does not assert a claim under Section 64.1200(d), the
Section 64.1200(d)(3) 30-day window cannot serve as a basis for
dismissal of Count II; (iii) the Plaintiff's failure to allege he
received calls on a landline does not warrant dismissal; and (iv)
the Plaintiff's allegation that his cell phone number is not
associated with a business and is for personal use, coupled with
the TCPA's presumption that wireless subscribers who ask to be put
on the national do-not-call list are residential subscribers, is
sufficient to allege that the Plaintiff is a residential telephone
subscriber under the TCPA.
Accordingly, Judge Steele denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
To the extent the Amended Class Action Complaint asserts a
vicarious liability claim under the TCPA, that claim is deemed
withdrawb and the Plaintiff's allegation that "third parties
directed by the Defendant" used an ATDS to call him and the other
class members is stricken from the Amended Class Action Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/4zKhp2 from Leagle.com.
Perry Becker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ignacio Hiraldo --
IJHiraldo@IJHlaw.com -- IJH Law, Manuel Santiago Hiraldo --
mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com -- Hiraldo PA & Michael Eisenband --
MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com -- Eisenband Law, P.A.
Pro Custom Solar LLC, doing business as Momentum Solar, Defendant,
represented by Joshua Adam Migdal -- josh@markmigdal.com -- Mark
Migdal & Hayden, Yaniv Adar -- yaniv@markmigdal.com -- Mark Migdal
& Hayden & Thomas Joseph Cotton -- tjc@spsk.com -- Schenck, Price,
Smith & King, LLP.
PRO TAX LINK: Dukes Sues in Florida Alleging Violation of TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
KAYAYETTA DUKES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PRO TAX LINK, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company,
Case No. 0:19-cv-62811-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 11, 2019), seeks to
secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
The Defendant is a tax software and service company. To promote
its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing,
harming thousands of consumers in the process, the Plaintiff
alleges.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
the Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion
of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily
life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks
statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies.
Pro Tax is a Florida limited liability company whose principal
office is located at 4784 W Commercial Blvd., in Tamarac, Florida.
The Defendant directs, markets, and provides its business
activities throughout the state of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Behfarin Case Settlement Wins Initial Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a California
court has issued an order granting the motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement in Richard Behfarin v. Pruco Life
Insurance Company.
In July 2017, a putative class action complaint entitled Richard
Behfarin v. Pruco Life Insurance Company was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
alleging that the Company imposes charges on owners of universal
life policies to cure defaults and/or reinstate lapses, that are
inconsistent with the applicable universal life policy.
The complaint includes claims for breach of contract, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of
California law, and seeks unspecified damages along with
declaratory and injunctive relief.
In September 2017, the Company filed its answer to the complaint.
In September 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. In October 2019, plaintiff filed: (1) the First
Amended Complaint adding Prudential Insurance Company of America
and Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey as defendants; and
(2) a motion seeking preliminary certification of a settlement
class, appointment of a class representative and class counsel, and
preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement.
In November 2019, the court issued an order granting the motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement.
Prudential Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
insurance, investment management, and other financial products and
services. It operates through PGIM, U.S. Workplace Solutions, U.S.
Individual Solutions, and International Insurance divisions.
Prudential Financial, Inc. was founded in 1875 and is headquartered
in Newark, New Jersey.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Cho Suit v. PICA Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the putative class action suit entitled, ho v. The
Prudential Insurance Company of America, et. al., is underway.
In November 2019, a putative class action complaint entitled Cho v.
The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et. al., was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of participants in
the Prudential Employee Savings Plan (the "Plan") and (i) alleges
that Defendants failed to fulfill their fiduciary obligations under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, in the
administration, management and operation of the Plan, including
engaging in prohibited transactions; and (ii) seeks declaratory,
injunctive and equitable relief, and unspecified damages including
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
In January 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.
Prudential Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
insurance, investment management, and other financial products and
services. It operates through PGIM, U.S. Workplace Solutions, U.S.
Individual Solutions, and International Insurance divisions.
Prudential Financial, Inc. was founded in 1875 and is headquartered
in Newark, New Jersey.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Crawford Class Action in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has
been named as a defendant in a putative class action suit entitled,
David P. Crawford v. Prudential Financial, Charles F. Lowrey and
Kenneth Tanji.
In January 2020, a putative class action complaint entitled David
P. Crawford v. Prudential Financial, Charles F. Lowrey and Kenneth
Tanji, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.
The complaint asserts claims for federal securities law violations
against PFI, and Charles Lowrey and Kenneth Tanji, individually,
and alleges that: (i) the Company's reserve assumptions failed to
account for adversely developing mortality experience in the
Individual Life business segment; (ii) the Company's reserves were
insufficient to satisfy its future policy benefit liabilities; and
(iii) the Company materially understated its liabilities and
overstated net income due to flawed assumptions in calculating
mortality experience. The putative class includes all purchasers of
PFI common stock between February 15, 2019 and August 2, 2019.
In January 2020, the Board of Directors received a shareholder
demand letter containing allegations: (i) of wrongdoing similar to
those alleged in the City of Warren and Crawford complaints; and
(ii) that certain of the Company's current and former directors and
executive officers breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due
care and candor.
The demand letter requests that the Board of Directors investigate
and commence legal proceedings against the named individuals to
recover for the Company's benefit the damages purportedly sustained
by the Company as a result of the alleged breaches.
The Company may become subject to additional actions related to
this matter.
Prudential Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
insurance, investment management, and other financial products and
services. It operates through PGIM, U.S. Workplace Solutions, U.S.
Individual Solutions, and International Insurance divisions.
Prudential Financial, Inc. was founded in 1875 and is headquartered
in Newark, New Jersey.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Warren Police Securities Suit Ongoing in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, City of
Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. Prudential Financial,
Inc., Charles F. Lowrey and Kenneth Y. Tanji.
In November 2019, a putative class action complaint entitled City
of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. Prudential
Financial, Inc., Charles F. Lowrey and Kenneth Y. Tanji, was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The complaint asserts claims for federal securities law violations
against PFI, and Charles Lowrey, PFI's chief executive officer, and
Kenneth Tanji, PFI's chief financial officer, individually, and
alleges that: (i) the Company's reserve assumptions failed to
account for adversely developing mortality experience in the
Individual Life business segment; (ii) the Company's reserves were
insufficient to satisfy its future policy benefit liabilities; and
(iii) the Company materially understated its liabilities and
overstated net income due to flawed assumptions in calculating
mortality experience.
The putative class includes all purchasers of PFI common stock
between February 15, 2019 and August 2, 2019.
Prudential Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
insurance, investment management, and other financial products and
services. It operates through PGIM, U.S. Workplace Solutions, U.S.
Individual Solutions, and International Insurance divisions.
Prudential Financial, Inc. was founded in 1875 and is headquartered
in Newark, New Jersey.
PSP DISTRIBUTION: Misrepresents Redford Wet Cat Food, Ash Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARYN ASH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PSP DISTRIBUTION, LLC, PSP FRANCHISING LLC, and PSP
GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2019CH13116 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Nov. 12,
2019), alleges that the Defendants misrepresented their Redford
Naturals wet cat food as having ground flaxseed.
Ground flaxseed--a seed derived from the flax plant--and flaxseed
oil are popular nutritional supplements due to the fact that they
are rich sources of the essential fatty acid alpha-linolenic acid
("ALA"), which is a heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acid. Because
ground flaxseed (as opposed to whole flaxseed) is actually
effective at delivering ALA to humans and animals, such as cats,
and is less likely to cause severe adverse effects than whole
flaxseed, consumers, such as the Plaintiff and members of the
proposed class, are willing to pay a premium for cat food that
contains ground flaxseed over cat food that does not, the Plaintiff
asserts.
The Defendants, individually and acting jointly, collectively, and
in concert together, distribute, advertise, market, and sell a
private-label brand of pet food known as "Redford Naturals."
Redford Naturals wet cat food comes in a variety of varieties,
including Grain-Free Adult Beef, Grain-Free Adult Chicken,
Grain-Free Kitten Chicken, Grain-Free Adult Salmon, Grain-Free
Kitten Salmon, and Grain-Free Adult Turkey.
According to the complaint, the labels on cans of Redford Naturals
wet cat food--and corresponding information on the Pet Supplies
Plus Web site--represent that each of the varieties of Redford
Naturals wet cat food contains ground flaxseed. However, these
varieties of Redford Naturals wet cat food do not contain ground
flaxseed. Instead, these varieties of Redford Naturals wet cat
food contain whole flaxseed.
Caryn Ash, a resident and citizen of Illinois, contends that the
Defendants misled the class into falsely believing that Redford
Naturals wet cat food contained ground, as opposed to whole,
flaxseed, in order to unjustly receive and retain profit.
The Defendants are Delaware limited liability companies based in
Livonia, Michigan, and that do business nationwide, including in
Illinois. The Defendants are in the business of selling retail pet
supplies to pet owners. Although PSP Franchising, PSP
Distribution, and PSP Group are different entities, the Defendants,
individually and acting jointly, collectively, and in concert
together, operate retail stores nationwide and a Web site,
https://www.petsuppliesplus.com, under the name "Pet Supplies
Plus."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
sharon@attorneyzim.com
matt@attorneyzim.com
nick@attorneyzim.com
PYRAMID OPERATING: Restaurant Managers Seek Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ and RYAN WELLCOME, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PYRAMID OPERATING
GROUP, INC. d/b/a INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKES a/k/a IHOP; EXTON
OPERATING GROUP, INC. d/b/a INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKES a/k/a
IHOP; HEM MANAGEMENT, INC.; EMAD ELGEDDAWY; and DOE DEFENDANTS 120.
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01207-JS (E.D. Pa., March 2, 2020)
alleges that Defendants fail to pay Plaintiffs and all other
similarly situated Assistant Managers and General Managers overtime
compensation for the hours they worked over 40 in one or more
workweeks since Defendants classified them as exempt from overtime,
even though their duties do not fall within any of the exemptions
under federal or state overtime laws.
Rodriquez and Wellcome had spent the vast majority of their time as
both an AM and GM performing the same duties as non-exempt
employees, including helping customers, taking orders, preparing
food, serving food, cleaning the restaurant (including the
bathroom), cleaning dishes, unloading trucks, and ringing customers
up on the cash register.
Pyramid Operating Group, Inc. d/b/a International House of Pancakes
a/k/a IHOP is a corporation that is registered to do business in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and operates a restaurant that is
located in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Exton Operating Group, Inc., d/b/a International House of Pancakes
a/k/a IHOP is a corporation that is registered to do business in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and operates a restaurant in
Exton, Pennsylvania.
HEM Management, Inc., is a corporation registered to do business in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and operates a business that is
located at 471 John Young Way, Exton, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason Conway, Esq.
CONWAY LEGAL, LLC
1700 Market Street, Suite 1005
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 278-4782
Facsimile: (215) 278-4807
Email: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com
RCI HOSPITALITY: Securities Class Suits in Houston Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13,
2020, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the class
action suits initiated against the company in the Southern District
of Texas, Houston Division, have been consolidated and is now
captioned as In re RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., No.
4:19-cv-01841.
In May and June 2019, three putative securities class action
complaints were filed against RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. and
certain of its officers in the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division.
The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
based on alleged materially false and misleading statements made in
the Company's SEC filings and disclosures as they relate to various
alleged transactions by the Company and management.
The complaints seek unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys'
fees.
These lawsuits are Hoffman v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et
al. (filed May 21, 2019, naming the Company and Eric Langan); Gu v.
RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed May 28, 2019, naming
the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall); and Grossman v. RCI
Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed June 28, 2019, naming the
Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall). The plaintiffs in all
three cases moved to consolidate the purported class actions.
On January 10, 2020 an order consolidating the Hoffman, Grossman,
and Gu cases was entered by the Court. The consolidated case is
styled In re RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-01841.
RCI Hospitality said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend
against this action. This action is in its preliminary phase, and a
potential loss cannot yet be estimated."
RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates night clubs offering adult entertainment, restaurants, and
bar operations in Texas and other locations in the United States.
The Company, through its subsidiaries, also owns and operates media
and websites related to their operations. The company is based in
Houston, Texas.
REGENCY CAPITAL: Naiman Sues over Unsolicited Texts and Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
SID NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REGENCY CAPITAL CONSULTING CORP., d/b/a
MERCHANT BANK, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00465-TLN-DMC (E.D. Cal., March 2, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted the cellular
phone numbers of Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated
consumers using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice messages in an attempt to market
and promote its services without prior written express consent,
thereby violating the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA.
Regency Capital Consulting Corp. is a New York-based business
financing company, which is also doing business as Merchant Bank,
Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 619-8966
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
RELIANCE OILFIELD: Fails to Pay Overtime, Braid et al. Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
COLBY BAIRD, BYRUM KETRON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RELIANCE OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00191-F (W.D. Okla., March 2, 2020) is
a collective and class action complaint brought against Defendant
for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant to directly and indirectly
provide its oilfield services to Defendant's customers and paid
them on a non-exempt basis, Baird was from approximately May 2018
to June 2019 and Ketron was from approximately December 2015 to
October 2019.
According to the complaint, Defendant's non-exempt employees,
including Plaintiffs, regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. But because Defendants miscalculated overtime by failing
to include all required remuneration earned by non-exempt employees
in the regular rate of pay to determine overtime compensation,
Defendant failed to pay them at the legally required rate for all
overtime hours worked.
Reliance Oilfield Services, LLC is a Tulsa-based oilfield services
company that provides wireline and other oilfield services to its
clients at oilfield job sites throughout the Southwest, including
New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Noble K. McIntyre, Esq.
MCINTYRE LAW, P.C.
8601 S. Western Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73139
Tel: (405)917-5250
Email: noble@micntyrelaw.com
- and -
Jack Siegel, Esq.
SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
4925 Greenville Ave., Suite 600
Dallas, TX 75206
Tel: (214)790-4454
Email: Jack@siegellawgroup.biz
- and -
Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
Houston, TX 77056
Tel: (281)572-0727
Email: travis@hedgpethlaw.com
REWARD ZONE USA: Eggleston Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
----------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Eggleston and Monica Abboud, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Reward Zone USA LLC
and Does 1 through 10, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01027 (C.D. Cal.,
January 31, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages,
treble damages and all other relief for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Abboud and Eggleston started receiving frequent text messages from
Reward Zone that sought to solicit its "rewards" and other
associated promotions. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Breaches Duties Over Downtime, Taaffe Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Taaffe, on behalf of himself and the Class of others
similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL
LLC, and ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-00513-CEH-SPF
(M.D. Fla., March 4, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
breaching their contractual duties to the Plaintiff in connection
with the recent downtime across Robinhood's platform.
In a March 2, 2020 e-mail to its customers and/or users, Robinhood
states, "This morning, starting at 9:33 AM ET, we started
experiencing downtime across our platform. These issues are
affecting functionality on Robinhood, including your ability to
trade." Robinhood's customers and/users were not able to access
Robinhood's platform to engage in any trading activity, to access
their funds kept on the platform, to transfer funds onto the system
or transfer fund off the system.
The Defendant breached their contractual duties to him by failing
to provide a functioning platform for him and others to access
their personal funds, securities and/or other property, the
Plaintiff contends. The Defendant's breach also prevented the
Plaintiff from executing market securities transactions on March 2
and 3, 2020. This breach caused the Plaintiff to miss out on some
of the highest single-day market gains in history, says the
complaint.
Plaintiff Travis Taaffe is an adult citizen of Florida and resides
in Sarasota County, Florida.
Robinhood Markets, Inc., is a financial services holding company
incorporated in Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael S. Taaffe, Esq.
Michael D. Bressan, Esq.
Jarrod J. Malone, Esq.
SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP
240 South Pineapple Ave., 10th Floor
Sarasota, FL 34236
Phone: (941) 366-6660
Facsimile: (941) 366-3999
Email: mtaaffe@shumaker.com
mbressan@shumaker.com
jmalone@shumaker.com
ROYAL WASTE: Cooper-Nolasco Seeks Unpaid Wages, Wage Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keiro J. Cooper-Nolasco, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Royal Waste Services, Inc., Royal
Waste Recycling Services, Inc., Paul Reali, Peter L. Reali, Michael
II Reali and Chris Adams, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00640, (E.D.
N.Y., February 5, 2020), seeks to recover to recover unpaid minimum
wage compensation, unpaid overtime wage compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and/or attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
New York labor laws.
Defendants operate as "Royal Waste Services," where Nolasco was
employed as a garbage truck driver. He claims to be denied lawful
overtime compensation of one and one-half times the regular rate of
pay for all hours worked over forty in a given workweek and full
and accurate records of hours and wages. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
Leanghour Lim, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
Flushing, NY 11355
Tel: (718) 762-1324
Fax: (718) 762-1342
Email: TroyLaw@TroyPllc.Com
SABOR GUATEMALTECO: Cooks Seek Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Arcelia Susano and Leticia Magali Mauricio Valdez, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sabor
Guatemalteco Inc., Noe Estrada and Lilian Cruz, Defendants, Case
No. 702049/2020 (N.Y. Sup., February 5, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages and redress for failure to
provide itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
Defendants own, operate, or control a Guatemalan restaurant,
located at 103-18 Roosevelt Ave, Corona, New York 11368 under the
name "Sabor Guatemalteco" where Plaintiffs were employed as a cook
and a food preparer respectively. They regularly worked in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime,
and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked.
Sabor failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked
and failed to pay them the required "spread of hours" pay for any
day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day, says the
complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
Email: michael@faillacelaw.com
SCHMITT INC: Does not Properly Pay OT Wages, McTigue Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD McTIGUE, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SCHMITT, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, Case No.
8:19-cv-02793 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 11, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not properly
paying overtime wages.
The Plaintiff, a resident of Hernando County, Florida, worked as a
Service Technician for the Defendant during the applicable statute
of limitations. He alleges that as a Service Technician, he worked
in excess of 40 hours per work week for which he was not
compensated by the Defendant at a rate of time and one half his
regular hourly rate.
Schmitt, Inc., is a Florida Profit Corporation, authorized and
doing business in Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
FLORIN, GRAY, BOUZAS, OWENS, LLC
16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
Lutz, FL 33558
Telephone (727) 254-5255
Facsimile (727) 483-7942
E-mail: miguel@fgbolaw.com
wolfgang@fgbolaw.com
SCOTT & ASSOCIATES: Trevino Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Trevino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SCOTT & ASSOCIATES, P.C., a Texas Professional
Corporation; and JOHN AND JANES DOES 1-10, Case No. 7:20-cv-00059
(S.D. Tex., March 4, 2020), is brought for the illegal practices of
the Defendants, who used illegal, unfair, unconscionable, false,
deceptive, and misleading practices in connection with their
attempts to collect an alleged debt from the Plaintiff, in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Texas Debt
Collection Act.
Scott mailed or caused to be mailed a letter dated March 14, 2019.
The Letter alleged Plaintiffs Trevino had incurred and defaulted on
a financial obligation (the "Debt"), owed to Capital One Bank
(USA), N.A.
The Letter's "Tax Time Settlement Offer" is in the idiom of
limited-time or one-time sales offers, clearance sales,
going-out-of-business sales, and other temporary discounts, which
are false, deceptive, and misleading because they cause the
unsophisticated consumer to think that if the payment of the
reduced amount is not paid by the deadline, there will be no
further chance to settle the Debt for less than the full amount,
the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff notes that the Letter falsely
suggests to the unsophisticated consumer that the Settlement Offers
were one-time, take-it-or-leave-it offers.
The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a citizen of, and
resided in, the City of Edinburg, Hidalgo County, Texas.
Scott regularly engages in the collection of defaulted consumer
debts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francis R. Greene, Esq.
Philip D. Stern, Esq.
Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
Katelyn B. Busby, Esq.
STERN THOMASSON LLP
3010 South Appleton Road
Menasha, WI 54952
Phone (973) 379-7500
Email: Philip@SternThomasson.com
Andrew@SternThomasson.com
Francis@SternThomasson.com
Katelyn@SternThomasson.com
- and -
Joseph A. George, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH A. GEORGE, PLLC
P.O. Box 147
Olmito, TX 78575
Phone: (210) 410-3689
Email: joseph@josephageorge.com
SELLSTATE PARTNERS: Faces Mailhot Suit over Spam Texts, Robocalls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MAILHOT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICORE INTERNATIONAL REALTY LLC d/b/a
SELLSTATE PARTNERS REALTY, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-62184-RS
(S.D. Fla., March 2, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent thousands of text
messages and prerecorded/artificial voice messages to the cellular
telephones of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
consumers to market its products using an automatic dialing system
without prior written express consent. The Defendant's conduct
caused them injuries, including invasion of their privacy,
aggravation, and annoyance.
Americore International Realty, LLC is a real estate brokerage
based in Coral Springs, Florida. It is also doing business as
Sellstate Partners Realty. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW P.A
515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 533-4092
E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
SENIOR CARE CAROLINAS: Faces Moss Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Moss, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. SENIOR CARE CAROLINAS, PLLC, INNOVATIVE HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT,
LLC and MELISSA LYNCH, Case No. 3:20-cv-00137-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C.,
March 4, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour
Act.
The Defendants knowingly and willfully violated the provisions of
the FLSA and its implementing regulations by deducting sleep time
from the employees' hours worked while: (1) failing to provide an
adequate sleeping facility; (2) failing to meet the requirement
that the employees' time spent sleeping was usually uninterrupted;
and (3) failing to have a reasonable, written agreement to deduct
sleep time.
Because the Defendants unlawfully deducted sleep time from the
Plaintiff's time in a 24-hour shift, the Plaintiff was paid well
below the required federal minimum wage, the Plaintiff alleges. The
Defendants knew that their caregiver employees routinely worked in
excess of 40 hours per individual work week; nonetheless, the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours during individual work weeks, as
required by federal and North Carolina wage and hour laws, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as a dedicated caregiving employee for the
Defendants.
The Defendants control, own and/or operate senior living centers,
with at least five current sites throughout North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
GESSNERLAW, PLLC
602 East Morehead Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone: (704) 234-7442
Fax: (980) 206-0286
Email: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com
SENIORCARE EMERGENCY: Rosado Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Rosado and Nick Rosario, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. SENIORCARE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01925 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid wages resulting from the
Defendant's policy of requiring off-the-clock work and statutory
penalties under the New York Wage Theft Prevention Action.
The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendants as EMTs, allege
that they did not receive proper compensation for all hours worked,
including hours beyond 40 hours per workweek and, in some cases,
beyond 10 hours per workday. The Plaintiffs add that they received
inaccurate, incomplete, wage notice and periodic wage statements.
The Defendant is an ambulance service providing medical
transportation and related services for a number of medical
facilities in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (718) 669-0714
Email:mgangat@gangatllc.com
SETSCHEDULE INC: Bennett Sues over Unsolicited Autodialed Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SETSCHEDULE INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-00422 (C.D. Cal., March 2, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The case alleges that Defendant places autodialed calls to cell
phone numbers of potential customers, including Plaintiff, in order
to market its lead generation platform to real estate agents
without obtaining prior express written consent. Plaintiff received
an autodialed call on his phone from SetSchedule using phone number
949-299-0329 on February 12, 2020 at 3:16PM.
Moreover, real estate agents have complained online, specifically
to SetSchedule, about unsolicited autodialed calls that were
received from SetSchedule agents.
Because the unauthorized phone call has harmed Plaintiff in the
form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy, Plaintiff
seeks to stop SetSchedule from placing autodialed calls and to
obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by
SetSchedule's conduct.
SetSchedule Inc. offers a paid lead generation platform to real
estate agents that provide the real estate agent with consumer
leads, automated marketing tools and other data services including
a customer relationship management system. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Tel: (305)469-5881
Email: Rachel@kaufmanpa.com
SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE: Abat Disputes Collection Letter Validity
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eileen M. Abat, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. New Residential Investment Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00634, (N.D. Ill., January 28, 2020),
seeks injunction, actual, statutory and treble damages, attorney
fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit and such further and
other relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
Defendant is a national mortgage servicer based in Greenville,
South Carolina. On February 21, 2013, Abat executed a mortgage in
favor of Quicken Loans Inc. that secured the purchase of her
principal residence located at 5443 South Indiana Avenue, Apartment
3, Chicago in the amount of $183,850.00.
On May 21, 2018, Abat filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
New Residential Investment Corporation, operating as Shellpoint
Mortgage Servicing, assumed the servicing rights to Abat's mortgage
which was in default at the time. Shellpoint's collection letter
failed to disclose that Shellpoint is a "debt collector" thus
failing to provide Abat with essential disclosures required by the
FDCPA.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph S. Davidson, Esq.
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone (630) 575-8180
Fax: (630) 575- 8188
Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com
mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
SIERRA ALUMINUM: Underpays Workers, Ramirez Claims
--------------------------------------------------
RON RAMIREZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. SIERRA ALUMINUM
COMPANY, a California Corporation; and Does 1 through 50,
Inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00417 (Calif. Super.,
Riverside Cty., March 2, 2020) is an action against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, provide meal and
rest periods, offer wages when due, provide itemized wage
statements, prevent discrimination harassment and/or retaliation,
and for their engagement in wrongful termination and unfair
competition.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee from May of 2018 to August of 2019 stationed in the
furnace area of the Defendants' workplace.
Other than violations on laws involving minimum and overtime wages,
meal and rest periods, the Defendants also engage in wrongful
termination after the Plaintiff requested to assume a less
physically strenuous role like transferring from the furnace area,
where he required to wear cumbersome and heavy protective gear, to
the excursion area as he suffered from a major congestive heart
failure. The termination letter of the Defendants further informed
Plaintiff that in addition to being out of a job, his health
coverage under Defendants' plan was also immediately terminated.
Sierra Aluminum Company offers billet casting, extrusion, painting,
anodizing, thermal improvement, fabrication, and architectural
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
SKYLIGHT HOLDINGS: Faces Umala Suit Over Unlawful Time Shaving
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Umala and Alicia Batista, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. SKYLIGHT HOLDINGS INC. d/b/a COMPARE FOODS,
SKYLIGHT HOLDINGS 2 INC. d/b/a MARKET PLACE BY KEY FOOD, SKYLIGHT
HOLDINGS 4 INC. d/b/a FOOD UNIVERSE, PEDRO GOICO and JUAN PEREZ,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01176 (E.D.N.Y., March 4, 2020), is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, to recover
from the Defendants: unpaid wages due to time shaving, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were required to clock
out for a 30 minute meal break every day. However, at least twice a
week, the Plaintiffs were required to work through their break but
the Defendants deducted 30 minutes for a meal break even though the
Plaintiffs clocked out for their break. The Plaintiffs were not
paid for such off-the-clock work and as a result, was time-shaved 1
hour per week.
The Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendants to work as cashiers.
The Defendants own and operate supermarkets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: 212-465-1188
Fax: 212-465-1181
TECHPRECISION CORP: Employee Class Suit Goes to Trial
-----------------------------------------------------
TechPrecision Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the court in the
class action suit against Ranor, Inc. has denied both parties'
motions for summary judgement.
TechPrecision is a Delaware corporation organized in February 2005
under the name Lounsberry Holdings II, Inc. The name was changed to
TechPrecision Corporation on March 6, 2006. TechPrecision is the
parent company of Ranor, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Wuxi
Critical Mechanical Components Co., Ltd., a wholly foreign-owned
enterprise.
On or about February 26, 2016, nine former employees of Ranor filed
a complaint in the Massachusetts Superior Court, Worcester County,
against Ranor and certain former and current executive officers of
Ranor, alleging violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act, breach of
contract and conversion based on a modification made to Ranor's
personal time off policy.
Plaintiffs claim that Ranor's modification to its personal time off
policy in April 2014 caused these employees to forfeit earned PTO.
Plaintiffs purport to assert their claims on behalf of a class of
all current and former employees of Ranor who were affected by the
modification to Ranor's PTO policy.
In 2018, plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted. In
September 2019, cross-motions for summary judgment were made by
Ranor and the plaintiffs, and oral arguments were heard by the
court on such motions in December 2019. On February 12, 2020, the
court denied both parties' motions for summary judgement.
TechPrecision Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells precision, large-scale fabricated, and
machined metal components and systems in the United States and the
People's Republic of China. It offers custom components for ships
and submarines, aerospace equipment, nuclear power plants, and
large scale medical systems. The company also provides
manufacturing engineering services to assist customers. It serves
customers in defense, aerospace, nuclear, energy, medical, and
precision industrial markets. The company was founded in 1956 and
is headquartered in Westminster, Massachusetts.
TIVO CORP: Xperi Corp. Merger Deal Lacks Info, Rosenblatt Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TIVO CORPORATION, JAMES E.
MEYER, RAGHAVENDRA RAU, LAURA J. DURR, ALAN L. EARHART, EDDY W.
HARTENSTEIN, DAN MOLONEY, DAVE SHULL, GLENN W. WELLING, LORIA B.
YEADON, XPERI CORPORATION, XRAYTWOLF HOLDCO CORPORATION, XRAY
MERGER SUB CORPORATION, and TWOLF MERGER SUB CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00327-UNA (D. Del., March 3, 2020)
stems from a proposed transaction announced on December 19, 2019,
pursuant to which TiVo Corporation will be acquired by Xperi
Corporation, XRAY-TWOLF HoldCo Corporation, XRAY Merger Sub
Corporation, and TWOLF Merger Sub Corporation.
On December 18, 2019, TiVo's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Xperi. Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of TiVo will
receive 0.455 shares of HoldCo common stock.
According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a Form S-4
Registration Statement with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
The Registration Statement omits material information with respect
to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration
Statement false and misleading. The omitted information was
regarding TiVo's, Xperi's, and the combined company's financial
projections. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the Registration Statement.
Plaintiff is the owner of TiVo common stock.
TiVo Corporation owns an intellectual property portfolio and
products to help consumers watch entertainment. The Company's
products include movies, videos, and shows from across live TV, on
demand, streaming services, and apps.
Xperi Corporation is a San Jose, California-based firm that
licenses technology and intellectual property in areas such as
mobile computing, communications, memory and data storage, and
three-dimensional integrated circuit technologies, among others.
XRAYTWOLF Holdco Corporation is a Delaware-based corporation and a
jointly owned subsidiary of TiVo and Xperi Corporation.
XRAY Merger Sub is a Delaware-based corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of HoldCo.
TWOLF Merger Sub is a Delaware-based corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of HoldCo. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
– and –
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
Email: rm@maniskas.com
TOUGH MUDDER: McKinnon Sues over Abrupt Termination
---------------------------------------------------
REBECCA MCKINNON, CLAIRE LARBEY, DANIEL PARKE, IRENE CARIAS, JAKE
RABOY, JAMES MCGUINNESS, NICOLA PORTER-SMITH, and JOHN LITTLE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. TOUGH MUDDER INCORPORATED and TOUGH MUDDER EVENT
PRODUCTION INCORPORATED, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01892 (N.Y.
Sup., New York Cty., March 3, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the New York Labor Law, particularly
New York State WARN Act's 90-day statutory requirement.
According to the complaint, the Defendants terminated all employees
located at MetroTech Center in Brooklyn, New York on February 3,
2020 without prior notice, thereby violating the 90-day statutory
requirement.
Tough Mudder Incorporated is a New York-based company that manages
endurance racing events. It is the parent company of Tough Mudder
Event Production Incorporated.
Tough Mudder Event Production Incorporated is an events and media
company. It is a foreign business corporation organized under the
laws of the State of Delaware and conducts business in New York
State. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Danilo Bandovic, Esq.
DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP PLLC
1 Penn Plaza, Suite 4905
New York, NY 10119
Telephone: (212) 587-0760
E-mail: Danilo@dereksmithlaw.com
UNITED STATES: Faces Keoughs Suit Over Debt Collection Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN KEOUGH AND NANCY KEOUGH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
and STEVEN MNUCHIN, Secretary of the Treasury, in his official
capacity, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10311 (D. Mass., February
14, 2020) contends that the Defendant charges and/or collects
excess debt collection fees on account of the Plaintiffs'
disgorgement, pre-judgment interest and penalties.
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced on November 20,
2017, that the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts entered a final judgment in an enforcement action
against Inofin, Inc., a Massachusetts-based subprime auto-financing
company. The SEC's complaint, filed in April 2011, alleged that
Inofin and several of its executives, including the Keoughs,
illegally raised at least $110 million from hundreds of individual
investors across the country through the sale of unregistered
promissory notes and made material misrepresentations to those
investors about the company's financial performance and how it was
using investors' funds. That case was captioned, Securities and
Exchange Commission v. Inofin, Inc., Michael J. Cuomo, Kevin J.
Mann, Sr., Melissa George, Thomas Kevin Keough, David Affeldt, and
Nancy Keough, Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-10633 (D. Mass., Complaint
Filed April 14, 2011).
The Keoughs now allege that the Defendants United States government
and Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin charged a debt
collection fee or administrative fee which the Defendant calculated
as a percentage or other means rather than the actual or reasonably
estimated costs of collection of the debt purportedly owed by the
Plaintiffs to the Defendant.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A. Borrelli, Esq.
806 Fox Run
Middleboro, MA 02346
Telephone: (781) 983-7983
US STEEL: Class Certification Order Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
is pursuing an appeal on the court's decision in granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
On October 2, 2017, an Amended Shareholder Class Action Complaint
was filed in Federal Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania
consolidating previously-filed actions.
Separately, five related shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed
in State and Federal courts in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and the
Delaware Court of Chancery.
The underlying consolidated class action lawsuit alleges that U. S.
Steel, certain current and former officers, an upper level manager
of the Company and the financial underwriters who participated in
the August 2016 secondary public offering of the Company's common
stock (collectively, Defendants) violated federal securities laws
in making false statements and/or failing to discover and disclose
material information regarding the financial condition of the
Company.
The lawsuit claims that this conduct caused a prospective class of
plaintiffs to sustain damages during the period from January 27,
2016 to April 25, 2017 as a result of the prospective class
purchasing the Company's common stock at artificially inflated
prices and/or suffering losses when the price of the common stock
dropped.
The derivative lawsuits generally make the same allegations against
the same officers and also allege that certain current and former
members of the Board of Directors failed to exercise appropriate
control and oversight over the Company and were unjustly
compensated. The plaintiffs seek to recover losses that were
allegedly sustained.
The class action Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims.
On September 29, 2018 the Court ruled on those motions granting
them in part and denying them in part. On March 18, 2019, the
plaintiffs withdrew the claims against the Defendants related to
the 2016 secondary offering.
As a result, the underwriters are no longer parties to the case.
The Company and the individual defendants are vigorously defending
the remaining claims. On December 31, 2019, the Court granted
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the proceeding as a class action. The
Company is pursuing an appeal of that decision.
United States Steel Corporation produces and sells flat-rolled and
tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe. It
operates through three segments: North American Flat-Rolled
(Flat-Rolled), U.S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products
(Tubular). United States Steel was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
US STEEL: Discovery Ongoing in Class Suit Related to Clairton Fire
------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that discovery
is ongoing in the class action suit related to the December 24,
2018 fire at Clairton, Pennsylvania.
On April 24, 2019, U. S. Steel was served with a class action
complaint that was filed in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas
related to the December 24, 2018 fire at Clairton.
The complaint asserts common law nuisance and negligence claims and
seeks compensatory and punitive damages that allegedly were the
result of U. S. Steel's conduct that resulted in the fire and U. S.
Steel's operations subsequent to the fire.
The parties are currently engaged in discovery. U. S. Steel is
vigorously defending the matter.
United States Steel Corporation produces and sells flat-rolled and
tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe. It
operates through three segments: North American Flat-Rolled
(Flat-Rolled), U.S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products
(Tubular). United States Steel was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Antitrust Suits Underway in US & Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that that the
company's subsidiary Vishay Polytech Co., Ltd., continues to defend
itself from antitrust lawsuits in the United States and Canada.
Vishay Polytech Co., Ltd. ("VPC"), a subsidiary of Vishay which was
purchased from Holy Stone Enterprises Co., Ltd. ("Holy Stone") in
June 2014, is a named defendant, among other manufacturers, in
antitrust class action complaints in the United States.
The complaints allege restraints of trade in aluminum and tantalum
electrolytic capacitors, and in some cases, film capacitors, and
seek injunctive relief and unspecified joint and several treble
damages.
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. and VPC are parties to similar cases,
including with respect to resistors, filed in Canada.
Holy Stone has agreed to indemnify Vishay and VPC for losses,
including penalties and expenses associated with the subject matter
of the litigation.
Vishay said, "Notwithstanding this indemnity obligation, the
Company and VPC intend to defend vigorously against the civil
complaints."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. manufactures and supplies discrete
semiconductors and passive components in the United States, Europe,
and Asia. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. was founded in 1962 and is
based in Malvern, Pennsylvania.
WALGREEN CO: Brown Files Product Labeling Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------
Tina Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Walgreen Co., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00891 (S.D. N.Y., February 1, 2020), seeks injunctive relief
resulting from negligence, unjust enrichment and breach of contract
and for violation of the Consumer Protection from Deceptive
acts/practices of New York business laws.
Walgreen Co. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
cracker products under the "Nice!" brand. Brown disputes its
labeling that claims that it is sweetened primarily with honey and
contains a predominant amount of whole grain graham flour despite
the fact that it contains actual sugar and enriched flour. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Ste. 311
Great Neck NY 11021-5101
Tel: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
WALMART INC: Ct. Narrows Claims in Morris Product Mislabeling Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAYLAN MORRIS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WALMART INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-650-GMB (N.D. Ala.), Magistrate Judge Gray M. Borden of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern
Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss the Class Action Complaint.
Walmart sells a product described as the "Parent's Choice Pediatric
Shake," which it markets to mothers or expectant mothers. It
advertises that the range of Parent's Choice products are a
complete baby collection specially selected with love and attention
to this special time in your family's life. he labeling on the
shakes indicates that they are "Naturally Flavored," contain a
"Balanced Nutrition to Help Kids Thrive" and "Nutrition to help
kids grow," and have "No Synthetic Color, Flavor or Sweeteners."
Concerned about the diet and nutrition of her son, who is a picky
eater, Morris purchased the shakes for her child in Walmart retail
stores located in Jefferson County, Alabama. She purchased the
vanilla and chocolate flavored shakes. Morris would not have
purchased the shakes had she known that they contained synthetic
and artificial ingredients. The shakes did not provide the
nutrients her son needed and instead incorporated significant
sweeteners and sugars. As a result of Walmart's material
misrepresentations, Morris brings the class action lawsuit on
behalf of customers who purchased the shakes during the statute of
limitations period.
Morris alleges that the labels "Naturally Flavored," "Balanced
Nutrition to Help Kids Thrive," "No Synthetic Color, Flavor, or
Sweeteners," and "Nutrition to Help Kids Grow" are untrue,
misleading, and likely to deceive reasonable customers because the
shakes contain unnatural and synthetic ingredients. Based on these
allegations, Morris states claims for breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and violation of the Alabama Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.
Walmart moves to dismiss these claims, arguing that Morris'
state-law claims are either preempted by federal regulations or not
sufficiently pled, that the labels do not constitute a written
warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and that the claims
under the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act have been waived.
Magistrate Judge Borden granted in part and denied in part the
Motion to Dismiss. Morris' claims predicated on the label
"Naturally Flavored" are dismissed with prejudice. Her claims
predicated on the labels "Balanced Nutrition to Help Kids Thrive"
and "Nutrition to help kids grow" are dismissed without prejudice.
The motion is denied in all other respects.
Among other things, the Judge finds that there is nothing on the
face of the complaint to suggest that Morris is attempting to
impose more stringent requirements on Walmart than the FDA already
requires. Accordingly, Morris' claims based on the "No Synthetic
Color, Flavor, or Sweeteners" label should not be dismissed at this
stage of the litigation.
Also, nowhere in her complaint does Morris allege that Walmart
violated the MMWA by breaching an implied warranty. Nowhere in her
complaint does Morris allege that Walmart breached its promise to
refund her money or replace the shakes if she was unhappy with the
product. Because the Court's review of a motion to dismiss is
limited to the allegations and claims stated in the complaint,
Morris cannot defeat Walmart's motion to dismiss by relying on
these claims in her response.
Morris has sufficiently pled a state law claim for breach of
express warranty regarding the "No Synthetic Color, Flavor, or
Sweeteners" label. Accordingly, her Complaint also states a claim
under the MMWA.
Moreover, Morris does not plausibly allege that the labels
"Balanced Nutrition to Help Kids Thrive" and "Nutrition to Help
Kids Grow" are false and misleading. Without more, the allegations
do not plausibly demonstrate that Walmart misled its customers.
All claims based on the labels "Balanced Nutrition to Help Kids
Thrive" and "Nutrition to Help Kids Grow" are due to be dismissed
without prejudice.
If Morris seeks to amend her Complaint, the Court directed her to
file a motion for leave to amend -- attaching her proposed Amended
Complaint, which will omit any claims dismissed with prejudice. If
Morris files a motion for leave, Walmart must show cause as to why
it should not be granted, adds the Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2020 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/n4r8bD from Leagle.com.
Kaylan Morris, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by J. Stuart McAtee --
smcatee@asilpc.com -- SHUNNARAH INJURY ATTORNEYS & Taylor C.
Bartlett -- taylor@hgdlawfirm.com -- HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS.
Walmart Inc, formerly known as Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Defendant,
represented by Cole Robinson Gresham -- cgresham@starneslaw.com --
STARNES DAVIS FLORIE LLP.
WELK RESORT GROUP: Edwards Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
----------------------------------------------------------
Kimberley Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Welk Resort Group, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00216, (S.D. Cal., February 2, 2020),
seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Welk owns, operates, oversees and control luxury resorts and
timeshares in the United States and Mexico. Edwards claims to have
received SMS Ads from the Defendants without his express written
consent to be contacted using an automated dialer. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 766-3534
Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
WELLS FARGO BANK: McCoy Sues Over Ignored Request
-------------------------------------------------
Don McCoy III and Maximiliano Olivera, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00176 (D. Or., January 31, 2020),
asserts claims for relief for breach of duties owed, remedies
including actual damages, costs, statutory damages and attorneys'
fees, pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(RESPA).
Wells Fargo is a mortgage servicer of Plaintiffs' mortgages on real
property. Wells Fargo allegedly failed to comply with RESPA
regulations by failing to provide a written response acknowledging
receipt of Plaintiffs' qualified written request. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P .C.
77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312) 440-0020
Fax: (312) 440-4180
Email: matt@attorneyzim.com
tom@attorneyzim.com
- and -
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
Daniel M. Solar, Esq.
DANNLAW
P.O. Box. 6031040
Cleveland, OH 44103
Phone: (216) 373-0539
Fax: (216) 373-0536
Email: notices@dannlaw.com
mdann@dannlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey A. Long, Esq.
4248 Galewood St., Suite 18
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Telephone: (503) 374-9777
Facsimile: (503) 765-5544
Email: jefflonglawyer@gmail.com
WEST D & P: Underpays Restaurant Workers, Silva Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
MARIA DEJESUS SILVA ARZOLA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEST D & P LLC, D/B/A GINA LA
FORNARINA; MANNA MADISON AVENUE LLC, D/B/A GINA MEXICANA; PAOLA
PEDRIGNANI; and IGOR SEGOTA, Defendants, Index No. 152283/2020
(N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., March 3, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for violation of the New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated workers appropriate
minimum wage or overtime pay for any of the hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per week. The Defendants also failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of hours worked and did not comply on the
required spread of hours pay for any day in which they had to work
over 10 hours a day.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a pastry and pasta
maker and a cook at Gina La Fornarina and Gina Mexicana restaurants
from approximately June 2013 until on or about October 31, 2015.
West D & P LLC is an owner and operator of the Italian restaurant
Gina La Fornarina, located at 2028 Broadway, New York, New York.
Manna Madison Avenue LLC is an owner and operator of the Mexican
restaurant Gina Mexicana, located at 26 East 91st Street, New York,
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
Michael Faillace & Associates P.C.
One Grand Central Place
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: michael@faillacelaw.com
ctucker@faillacelaw.com
YUNJI INC: Faces Chen Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------
JIAZHOU CHEN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. YUNJI INC., SHANGLUE XIAO, CHEN CHEN, HUAN HAO,
QINGRONG KONG, YANHUA SUN, WEI YING, MORGAN STANLEY & CO., CREDIT
SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, CHINA
INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION, HONG KONG SECURITIES LIMITED,
and TOP CAPITAL PARTNERS LIMITED, Case No. 1:19-cv-06403 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 12, 2019), seeks to pursue claims against the Defendants under
the Securities Act of 1933 arising from the decline of the
Company's share price.
The putative class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Yunji American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares'") pursuant and/or traceable
to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection
with the Company's May 2019 initial public offering ("IPO" or the
"Offering").
On May 3, 2019, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4 with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, which forms part of the
Registration Statement. In the IPO, the Company sold 11,217,447
shares at a price of $11 per share. The Company received proceeds
of approximately $108.97 million from the Offering, net of
underwriting discounts and commissions. The proceeds from the IPO
were purportedly to enhance and expand its business operations, to
enhance its technological capabilities, to improve fulfillment
facilities, and for general corporate purposes.
On August 22, 2019, the Company disclosed a supply chain
restructuring that shifted part of its merchandise sales to its
marketplace platform, resulting in a year-over-year decrease in
total revenues for second quarter 2019.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.21, nearly 11%, to
close at $9.39 per share on August 22, 2019, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The share price continued to decline by $3.34, or
over 35%, over the next three consecutive trading sessions to close
at $6.05 per share on August 27, 2019, on unusually heavy trading
volume. By the commencement of the action, Yunji stock was trading
as low as $4.40 per share, a nearly 60% decline from the $11 per
share IPO price.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement was false and
misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company was shifting certain of its sales to its marketplace
platform; (2) that this supply chain restructuring was likely to
disrupt Yunji's relationships with suppliers; (3) that this supply
chain restructuring was likely to have an adverse impact on the
Company's financial results; and (4) that, as a result, the
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, argues the Plaintiff, a holder of
Yunji ADSs.
Yunji is incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands with its
principal executive offices located in China. Yunji operates a
social e-commerce platform in China based on a membership-based
model. Yunji purports to offer high-quality products at attractive
prices and incentivizes its members to promote the platform with
their social contacts. The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.
Defendants Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, J.P. Morgan, China
International, and Top Capital served as underwriters for the
Company's IPO.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 530
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com
- and -
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
ZIMMER BIOMET: Ninth Circuit Appeal Initiated in Karl FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James Karl filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled James Karl v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:18-cv-04176-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge William
Alsup entered an Amended Order on Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case.
In July 2018, James Karl filed the instant putative class action
and now seeks eight claims for relief: (1) violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA); (2) failure to pay overtime wages under
California law; (3) failure to provide meal periods under
California law; (4) failure to provide rest periods under
California law; (5) failure to provide itemized wage statements;
(6) failure to reimburse business expenses; (7) unfair business
practices; and (8) Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claim. The
gravamen of these claims stems from the allegation that the
Defendants misclassified their sales representatives as independent
contractors rather than employees and thus denied them various
benefits under federal and California wage-and-hour laws.
The appellate case is captioned as James Karl v. Zimmer Biomet
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-80150, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner JAMES KARL, on behalf of himself, and on
behalf of a class of those similarly situated, is represented by:
Alec Segarich, Esq.
LOHR RIPAMONTI & SEGARICH LLP
140 Geary Street, 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: 415-683-7945
E-mail: alec.segarich@lrllp.com
Defendants-Respondents ZIMMER BIOMET HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; ZIMMER US, INC., a Delaware Corporation; BIOMET INC.,
an Indiana Corporation; BIOMET U.S. RECONSTRUCTION, LLC, an Indiana
limited liability company; and BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC, an Indiana
limited liability company, are represented by:
Andrea L. Fellion, Esq.
Eric Meckley, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market Street
Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: 415-442-1000
E-mail: andrea.fellion@morganlewis.com
eric.meckley@morganlewis.com
*********
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 ***