/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200427.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, April 27, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 84
Headlines
ABSOLUTE SECURITY: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Goetz Says
ALLERGAN INC: Newman Suit Transferred to New Jersey
ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Steijn Sues Over Failure to Refund Passes
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Gill Suit Transferred from Kansas to D.N.J.
AMERICAN OUTDOOR: Faces Shooting Victims' Class Suit in Canada
AQUAVENTURE HOLDINGS: Faces Culligan-Merger Related Suits
ATLAS FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Fryman Class Suit Still Pending
BANK OF AMERICA: Morgan Class Suit Removed to E.D. Washington
BANKAMERICA CORP: Denial of Deal Fund Payment to Minton Affirmed
BANKERS LIFE: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Mackey Suit Affirmed
BARCLAYS CAPITAL: Park Employees Fund Files Suit in Pennsylvania
BUMBLE TRADING: Out-of-State Plaintiffs' Claims in King Narrowed
CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid to Dismiss New Jersey Securities Suit Pending
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Ramirez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
CB FLEET: Court Enters Protective Order in Allcott Fraud Lawsuit
CH ROBINSON: Abuses Exclusive Sales Agreement, Lusk Suit Alleges
CH ROBINSON: Court Certifies CSE Class in Dietrich FLSA Lawsuit
CHERRY HILL PROGRAMS: Ayers Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
CIRCLE K STORES: Suaverdez Suit Removed to District of Colorado
CRESCENT CAPITAL: Alcentra Capital Faces Stockholder Class Suits
CRUNCH LLC: Fox Suit Over Labor Claims Removed to E.D. California
CUSTOM WIRE: Fails to Properly Pay Operators, Jannette Claims
CVS PHARMACY: Crowley Suit Removed to District of Massachusetts
D. HOUSTON INC: McMinn Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages Under FLSA
DELTA DENTAL: Baldwin Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
DELTA DENTAL: Braunstein Suit Moved from W.D. Ky. to N.D. Ill.
DELTA DENTAL: DeVinney Suit Moved From California to Illinois
DELTA DENTAL: Dickey Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
DELTA DENTAL: Drs. Lutins Suit Moved from M.D.N.C. to N.D. Ill.
DELTA DENTAL: Kottemann Antitrust Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
DELTA DENTAL: Mells Antitrust Suit Moved From Calif. to N.D. Ill.
DELTA DENTAL: Mincy Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
DELTA DENTAL: Obeng Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
DELTA DENTAL: Schwartz Suit Moved from E.D. La. to N.D. Ill.
DELTA DENTAL: Stephens Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to N.D. Ill.
DELTA-SONIC: Lennert et al. Seek Payment for Wait-Times, Overtime
DEVA CONCEPTS: Consumers Sue Over Hair Care Product Side Effects
DIGITAL INTELLIGENCE: Buchsbaum Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
DOW JONES: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Horton Suit
DUNWORTH CONSTRUCTION: Gizze Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
ELI LILLY: Rochester Drug Hits Insulin Price-rigging
EQUITI US: Faces Motes Suit Over Fraudulent Investment Scheme
EVENTS AND ADVENTURES: Carisi Sues Over Membership Fee Collection
FAULT LINE LOGISTICS: Vargas Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
FORD MOTOR: Wins Summary Judgment in Beaty Class Suit
FUSION INDUSTRIES: Garza Suit Moved From D.N.M. to W.D. Oklahoma
GENERAL MOTORS: Claims of 5 Out-of-State Plaintiffs in Sloan Nixed
GEORGIA: Walters Sues Challenging Ban on Carrying Guns in Public
GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Maroney Sues Over Defective SlimFast Oil
GYK DRYWALL: Fails to Pay Workers Under FLSA & NJWPL, Romero Says
HEALTH INSURANCE: Continues to Defend Belin Suit
HEALTH INSURANCE: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Florida Suit
IRWIN INDUSTRIES: Williams May File Second Amended Labor Complaint
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Roman Seeks Damages From Breach of Contract
JUUL LABS: Carroll Sues in N.D. Cal. Over Sale of E-Cigarettes
JUUL LABS: Faces Dyer Suit in N.D. California Over Use of E-Cigs
JUUL LABS: Faces Perry Suit in N.D. Cal. Over Use of E-Cigarettes
JUUL LABS: Faces Pulce Suit in N.D. Cal. Over Use of E-Cigarettes
JUUL LABS: Gibson Sues in N.D. Calif. Over Use of E-Cigarettes
JUUL LABS: Wilhelm Sues in N.D. Calif. Over Use of E-Cigarettes
JUUL LABS: Williams-Walker Sues in N.D. Cal. Over Use of E-Cigs
KEIM ENTERPRISES: Faces Gritz TCPA Suit Over Autodialed Calls
KRAFT HEINZ: Osborne ERISA Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Faces Telemarketing Suit From Fister
MIAMI-DADE, FL: Fails to Respond to COVID-19 Threat, Swain Says
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Suris Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Web Site
MOWI ASA: Hunt-Alpine Club Suit Moved from Maine to S.D. Fla.
MOWI ASA: Prime Steakhouse Suit Moved From Maine to S.D. Florida
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hall Suit Transferred to Illinois
NATIONAL CREDIT: Ivey Sues in Virginia Over Violation of RICO Act
NEW PRIME INC: Parker Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
NEW YORK: Thomas Sues Asserting Claims for Prisoner Civil Rights
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Bolden Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. New York
ORION CAPITAL: Bryan Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
PEL-STATE BULK: Workers Seek Pay for Hours Worked Over 40
PIONEER EXPLORATION: Dillard Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
PROMISE HOME: Questions on Settlement in Abraham FLSA Suit Issued
PRUCO LIFE: Settlement in Behfarin Suit Wins Initial Approved
QUAPAW HOUSE: Faces Schatz Suit Over Reduced Employee Paychecks
RATNER COMPANIES: Faces Olsen FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
RECRO PHARMA: Wins Dismissal of IV Meloxicam-Related Suit
REV GROUP: Consolidated Suit Over 2017 IPO Underway
RITE AID: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
ROADRUNNER TRANS: Accord in Wisconsin Securities Suit Fully Paid
SALESFORCE.COM INC: Expert Discovery Underway in Scheufele Suit
SANOFI US: APESAC Class Action Underway in France
SANOFI US: Continues to Defend Suits Over Sales of Lantus(R)
SANOFI US: Faces Suits Over Zantac(R)-Related Injuries
SANOFI US: RICO Claims in Insulin Pricing Class Suit Dismissed
SPARK ENERGY: Discovery Still Ongoing in Rolland Class Action
SPARK ENERGY: Finalizing Settlement Agreement in Veilleux Suit
TOTAL CARD: Davis Class Debt Collection Letter "Deceptive"
TRAVELERS AID: Court Approves $8.5K Settlement in Carney Labor Suit
TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Acerra Securities Suit Moved to N.D. Florida
TRULIEVE CANNABIS: McNear Securities Suit Moved to N.D. Florida
TUFF CREW LLC: Portales FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
UNITED SITE: Williams CEPA Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
VERDE ENERGY: Jurich Settlement Approved Court Orders Dismissal
VIACOMCBS INC: Derosa Sues Over Unremitted Contributions
WIDEOPENWEST INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit in NY Pending
WORLD FINANCE: Solis Sues over Unwanted SMS Messages, Phone Calls
WPB HOSPITALITY: Holmes Sues Over Misclassification of Dancers
ZOOM VIDEO: Cullen Sues Over Illegal Personal Data Disclosure
ZOOM VIDEO: Taylor Sues over Personal Info Disclosure to Facebook
[*] GMS Receives Proceeds as Part of Class Action Settlement
*********
ABSOLUTE SECURITY: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Goetz Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LORI GOETZ v. ABSOLUTE SECURITY INTERNATIONAL, INC. and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV14380 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., April 14, 2020), alleges that the Defendants have
deprived the Plaintiff and all persons similarly situated their
minimum and overtime wages, in violation of the California Labor
Code.
The complaint also asserts claims against the Defendants for
wrongful termination in violation of public policy; retaliation in
the Fair Employment and Housing Act; disability discrimination;
failure to accommodate; failure to engage in the interactive
process; unpaid meal and rest period premiums; waiting time
penalties; and wage statement violations.
The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant as a security officer
on January 5, 2019. She was primarily stationed at a bus station in
Pomona.
Absolute International Security provides security guard
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BUCHSBAUM & HAAG, LLP
100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 733-2498
Facsimile: (562) 628-5501
E-mail: brent@buchsbaumhaag.com
laurel @buchsbaumhaag.com
ALLERGAN INC: Newman Suit Transferred to New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ellen Newman, Amy Grotte, Rachael Herron,
Lisa Roberts, Amy Edens, Heidi Lee, Amber Ferrell-Steele, Tory
Bobadilla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Allergan Inc formerly known as: INAMED
CORPORATION, Allergan USA Inc. and Allergan PLC, Defendants, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania with the assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-05968 to the
U.S. District Court District for the District of New Jersey on
February 25, 2020, and assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01972-BRM-JAD.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Personal
Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product
Liability.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7225
Tel: (215) 238-1700
Fax: (215) 238-1968
Email: jshub@kohnswift.com
ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Steijn Sues Over Failure to Refund Passes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Milan Steijn, Abbas Gokal, and Joseph Panganiban, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALTERRA MOUNTAIN
COMPANY U.S. INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-00755 (C.D. Cal., April 16,
2020), seeks relief from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and
False Advertising Law; and breach of express warranties, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, money had and
received, conversion and breach of contract arising from its
failure to refund resort passes.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all of the Defendant's
customers nationwide that purchased Ikon Pass Products for the
2019-2020 season who, as of March 15, 2020, had not used up all of
the days remaining on their Ikon Pass Products.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has made the
unconscionable decision to retain its millions of customers'
passholder fees while closing 100% of its mountain resorts as the
novel coronavirus, COVID-19, rages throughout the world and the
United States economy has gone into a deep recession. For the
2019-2020 ski season, the Defendant sold two annual passes, the
Ikon Pass and the Ikon Base Pass to costumers in the United States
and throughout the world.
The Defendant sold the Ikon Pass Products promising pass holders
"unlimited skiing and riding destinations" for many of its resorts
and up to 5 or 7 days of skiing at other ones. To visit the
Defendant's mountain resorts, consumers could have purchased either
of the Ikon Pass Products, which range anywhere from $40 to over
$1000 depending on the Product and the age of the consumer.
On March 14, 2020, the Defendant announced that it was closing all
of its mountain resorts indefinitely. The Defendant initially
announced "Alterra Mountain Company will suspend operations at our
15 North American ski resorts, starting the morning of Sunday,
March 15, until further notice." In response to the indefinite
closure of the Defendant's resorts, the Defendant created a
"Covid-19 Update" page where it stated that the Defendant has
"doubled the renewal discount on 20/21 Ikon Pass products" to
"address the shortened 19/20 season."
Instead of offering a refund, the Defendant retained the full price
of its customers' Ikon Pass Product fees while 100 percent of its
mountain resorts remain closed to the public, according to the
complaint. The Defendant has not refunded any consumers for their
lost mountain resort access. Accordingly, customers who did not
have a chance to use all of their purchased Ikon Pass Products get
zero consideration or compensation for their inability to use those
unused, purchased days, even if they wanted to.
Subsequently, the Plaintiffs allege, the Defendant has unjustly
enriched itself by retaining passholder fees of hundreds of
thousands of consumers--while denying passholders access to all of
its mountain resorts.
The Plaintiffs are annual pass holders of the Ikon Pass Products.
The Defendant offers consumers access to over 40 mountain resort
locations through its Ikon Pass Products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
Blair E. Reed, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ykrivoshey@bursor.com
breed@bursor.com
- and -
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ste. 220
Miami, FL 33133-5402
Phone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
Email: scott@bursor.com
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Gill Suit Transferred from Kansas to D.N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Carolyn Gill, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMAG
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:19-cv-02681 (Filed Nov. 4, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on March 25, 2020.
The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-03230 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's marketing, sale, and
manufacturing of the drug Makena, a hydroxyprogesterone
caproate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq.
Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
Sean Cooper, Esq.
PAUL LLP
601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
Kansas City, MI 64106
Telephone: (816) 984-8100
E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com
Ashlea@PaulLLP.com
Sean@PaulLLP.com
AMERICAN OUTDOOR: Faces Shooting Victims' Class Suit in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Outdoor Brands Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that the Company
is a defendant in a putative class proceeding before the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Canada. The action was filed
on December 16, 2019.
The action claims CAD$50 million in aggregate general damages,
CAD$100 million in aggregate punitive damages, special damages in
an unspecified amount, together with interest and legal costs.
The named plaintiffs are two victims of a shooting that took place
in Toronto on July 22, 2018, and their family members.
One victim was shot and injured during the shooting. The other
suffered unspecified injuries while fleeing the shooting.
The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a claim on behalf of classes
that include all persons who were killed or injured in the shooting
and their immediate family members.
The plaintiffs allege negligent design and public nuisance. The
case has not been certified as a class action.
American Outdoor said, "We intend to vigorously oppose the
proceedings."
American Outdoor Brands Corporation, formerly known as Smith &
Wesson Holding Corporation until 2016, is an American manufacturer
of firearms and outdoor sports and recreation products. It owns 18
brands. Its principal brand is Smith & Wesson firearms. The company
is based in Springfield, Massachusetts.
AQUAVENTURE HOLDINGS: Faces Culligan-Merger Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
AquaVenture Holdings Limited said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 5, 2020,
that the compan has been named as a defendant in class action suits
related to its merger with Culligan International Company.
On December 23, 2019, AquaVenture Holdings Limited entered into the
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "merger agreement"), among the
Culligan International Company ("Culligan"), Amberjack Merger Sub
Limited ("Merger Sub") and the Company providing for the merger of
Merger Sub with and into the Company (the "merger"), with the
Company surviving the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Culligan.
On February 18, 2020, the Company filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission a definitive proxy statement with respect to
the special meeting of the Company's shareholders scheduled to be
held on March 16, 2020, in connection with the merger (the "special
meeting").
In connection with the merger with Culligan announced on December
23, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, Post v. AquaVenture
Holdings Ltd., et al., 1:20-cv-174, was filed by purported
shareholder Joseph Post against the Company and its directors in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on
February 4, 2020.
On February 12, 2020, in connection with the merger, a lawsuit,
Hamilton v. AquaVenture Holdings Ltd., et al., 1:20-cv-01227, was
filed as an individual action by purported shareholder Peter
Hamilton against the Company and its directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On February 20, 2020, purported shareholder Christopher Jagt filed
an individual lawsuit against the Company and its directors in the
United States District Court for the Eastern district of New York,
captioned Jagt v. AquaVenture Holdings Ltd., et. al.. 1:20-cv-931.
The merger actions generally allege that the Preliminary Proxy
Statement filed with the SEC on January 27, 2020 or the Definitive
Proxy Statement filed on February 18, 2020, as applicable,
misrepresents and/or omits certain purportedly material information
and assert violations of Sections 14(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder
against all defendants and violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the Company's directors.
The merger actions seek, among other things, an injunction
enjoining consummation of the merger, costs of the action,
including plaintiff’s attorneys' fees and experts' fees, and
other relief the Court may deem just and proper.
The defendants believe that the respective allegations asserted
against them in the merger actions are without merit and intend to
defend against the lawsuits vigorously. Similar cases may be filed
in connection with the proposed merger.
AquaVenture said, "While the Company believes the merger actions
lack any merit and that the disclosures in the Definitive Proxy
Statement comply fully with applicable law, solely in order to
avoid the expense and distraction of litigation, the Company has
determined voluntarily to supplement the Definitive Proxy Statement
with the supplemental disclosures."
A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/3bWzTmZ.
AquaVenture Holdings Limited is a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, develops, and provides water
purification, disinfection, and desalination solutions. AquaVenture
Holdings operates around the world. The company is based in British
Virgin Islands.
ATLAS FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Fryman Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Financial Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 201, that the motion to
dismiss the class action suit entitled, Fryman v. Atlas Financial
Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-01640, is still pending.
On March 5, 2018, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois asserting claims under the
federal securities laws against the Company and two of its
executive officers on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
the Company’s securities, styled Fryman v. Atlas Financial
Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-01640 (N.D. Ill.).
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 30, 2018. Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss, which was fully briefed as of December
12, 2018.
On April 1, 2019, before the Court had addressed defendants'
pending motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
to amend their complaint to include allegations relating to the
Company's press release dated March 4, 2019 disclosing a further
increase in its loss reserves.
The Court subsequently granted plaintiffs leave to file a second
amended complaint, which plaintiffs filed on April 9, 2019. On June
5, 2019, before the defendants had responded to the second amended
complaint, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third
amended complaint to add allegations relating to developments
occurring after the Company's March 4, 2019 press release.
The Court subsequently granted the motion for leave, and plaintiffs
filed the third amended complaint on June 12, 2019. In the third
amended complaint, the plaintiffs asserts claims on behalf of a
putative class consisting of purchasers of the Company's securities
between February 22, 2017 and April 30, 2019.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and misleading
statements or failing to disclose certain information regarding the
adequacy of the Company's reserves. The complaint seeks, among
other remedies, unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other
costs, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and such other relief as
the court may find just and proper.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July
17, 2019, and briefing on that motion was completed on October 31,
2019.
The motion remains pending before the Court.
Atlas Financial said, "Under the federal securities laws, discovery
and other proceedings automatically will be stayed during the
pendency of the motion to dismiss."
Atlas Financial Holdings, Inc. is a financial services holding
company whose subsidiaries specialize in the underwriting of
commercial automobile insurance policies, focusing on the "light"
commercial automobile sector. This sector includes taxi cabs,
non-emergency para-transit, limousine, livery and business auto.
The company is based in Schaumburg, Illinois.
BANK OF AMERICA: Morgan Class Suit Removed to E.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Daviel Morgan, an individual, and all those
similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A., was removed from the
Washington Superior Court, Spokane County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Washington on April 16, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00157 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as marine contract.
The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina, with central hubs in New York City, London, Hong
Kong, and Toronto.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian Cameron, Esq.
CAMERON SUTHERLAND PLLC
421 W Riverside Avenue, Suite 660
Spokane, WA 99201
Phone: (509) 315-4507
Fax: (509) 315-4584
Email: bcameron@cameronsutherland.com
- and -
Kirk D Miller, Esq.
KIRK D MILLER PS
421 West Riverside Avenue, Suite 660
Spokane, WA 99201
Phone: (509) 413-1494
Fax: (509) 413-1724
Email: kmiller@millerlawspokane.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Laura Coughlin, Esq.
WRIGHT FINLAY & ZAK LLP
612 S Lucile Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98108
Phone: (206) 946-9811
Fax: (949) 608-9142
Email: lcoughlin@wrightlegal.net
BANKAMERICA CORP: Denial of Deal Fund Payment to Minton Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: BankAmerica Corporation Michael B. Minton,
Movant Appellant, Case No. 19-2968 (8th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial
of the 2018 motion of Michael Minton, the trustee of the Jack W.
Minton Living Trust, seeking payment from a 2002 class action
settlement fund. It concluded that the district court did not
abuse its discretion by denying the motion and declining to reopen
litigation in the case.
A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit's April 1, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/qeI04k from Leagle.com.
BANKERS LIFE: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Mackey Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARTIN MACKEY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BANKERS
LIFE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. D075029
(Cal. App.), Judge Judith Haller of the Court of Appeals of
California for the Fourth District, Division One, affirmed the
Court's order denying the Defendant's motion to compel Mackey to
arbitrate his claims on an individual basis.
Mackey filed a class action complaint against Bankers and two of
its managers, alleging he and similarly situated workers were
misclassified as independent contractors and he was wrongfully
terminated for complaining about the status. In 2013, Mackey began
working for Bankers as an insurance agent in "Office 1040," which
includes its two Orange County offices. Two years later, Bankers
requested he sign an arbitration agreement mandating that covered
disputes be resolved in binding arbitration and that he waive his
right to bring class and other collective actions in arbitration.
Mackey signed the agreement, believing it was a requirement of the
job. Bankers terminated Mackey about two years later in February
2017, shortly after he allegedly complained that he and other
workers were misclassified as independent contractors.
Several months later, on Aug. 31, 2017, Mackey filed a complaint in
Orange County Superior Court against Bankers and two of its
managers/officers (Maryam Habashi and Richard Harman). Mackey
alleged wage and hour violations on behalf of himself and a class
of similarly situated individuals currently or formerly working in
Office 1040. He claimed Bankers misclassified him and the other
workers as independent contractors instead of employees. He sought
damages under applicable Labor Code sections; declaratory,
injunctive and restitutionary relief under Business and Professions
Code section 17200 (UCL); and penalties under the Private Attorney
General Act of 2004. He also alleged an individual wrongful
discharge claim based on his assertion that Bankers terminated him
for complaining about his independent contractor status.
About one month later, on October 2, the Defendants filed an answer
denying the allegations. They asserted 15 affirmative defenses,
but did not include the arbitration agreement as one of these
defenses or otherwise mention the agreement in its answer.
After conducting some class discovery and unsuccessfully attempting
to fully coordinate the action with another class action, the
Defendants moved to compel Mackey to arbitrate his claims on an
individual basis. They argued that all of Mackey's claims were
subject to arbitration, and their delay in seeking arbitration did
not bar their arbitration rights because no depositions had
occurred; only limited discovery had been exchanged; no trial date
had been set; and there was no prejudice to Mackey.
In opposing the motion, Mackey did not dispute his claims were
within the scope of the parties' arbitration agreement, but argued
(1) defendants waived their right to compel arbitration; (2) his
PAGA claim is not subject to arbitration because the waiver is not
enforceable under skanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC;
and (3) the arbitration agreement is procedurally and substantively
unconscionable and thus unenforceable.
The court denied the motion on two independent grounds: (1) the
Defendants waived their arbitration right; and (2) the parties'
arbitration agreement is procedurally and substantively
unconscionable. Bankers challenges both findings.
Judge Haller concludes that Bankers made an informed choice to
defend Mackey's claims in a class action rather than in an
arbitration forum, and could not fairly change its mind once it
took actions that imposed unnecessary costs and delay on Mackey. A
party that signs a binding arbitration agreement and has
subsequently been sued in court has a choice: it can either seek to
compel arbitration or agree to litigate in court. It cannot choose
both. A party may not delay seeking arbitration until after the
court rules against it in whole or in part; nor may it belatedly
change its mind after first electing to proceed in what it believed
to be a more favorable forum. Allowing it to do so would result in
a waste of resources for the parties and the courts and would be
manifestly unfair to the opposing party.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Haller determines that substantial
evidence supported the Court's waiver finding and affirmed the
order on this basis. She thus does not reach Mackey's challenges
to the Court's unconscionability finding, and does not discuss the
facts or law relating only to the unconscionability issues.
Accordingly, she affirmed the Order. Appellant Bankers will bear
the Respondent's costs on appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 1, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ihguxU from Leagle.com.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. and William Hays Weissman --
wweissman@littler.com -- for Defendant and Appellant.
Cornerstone Law Group, Harry Lewis -- hlewis@cornerlaw.com -- and
Gordon W. Renneisen -- grenneisen@cornerlaw.com -- for Plaintiff
and Respondent.
BARCLAYS CAPITAL: Park Employees Fund Files Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barclays Capital Inc.
The case is styled as Park Employees And Retirement Board Employees
Annuity And Benefit Fund of Chicago, Petitioner v. Barclays Capital
Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, LLC, Shane Cooke, Liyanaarchchie De
Silva, John Delucca, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Endo
International PLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Arthur Higgins, Nancy
Hutson, Michael Hyatt, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Rajiv Kanishka,
Roger Kimmel, William Montague, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, MUFG
Securities Americas Inc. (f/k/a Misubishi UFJ Securities (USA)
Inc.), Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi, RBC
Capital Markets, LLC, Daniel Rudio, Jill D. Smith, William F.
Spengler, Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc, TD Securities (USA) LLC
and Suketu Upadhyay, Respondents, Case No. 14 EDM 2020 (Pa.,
Super., Feb. 12, 2020).
The category of the suit is stated as Civil.
Barclays Capital Inc. operates as a brokerage firm and investment
advisor. The Company buys and sells securities such as stocks,
bonds, mutual funds, and other investment products, as well as
manages investment portfolios and financial planning services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy T. Myers, Esq.
Elliott Greenleaf, P.C.
Elliott Greenleaf P.c.
Po Box 3010
Blue Bell, PA 19422-0780
Tel: (215) 977-1062
- and -
John M. Elliott, Esq.
Elliott Greenleaf, P.C.
Elliott Greenleaf P.c.
925 Harvest DrSte 300
Blue Bell, PA 19422-1956
Tel: (215) 977-1004
- and -
Joseph A. Fonti, Esq.
Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, LLP
7 Times Square
27th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Tel: (212) 789-1340
Fax: (212) 205-3960
The Respondent Barclays Capital Inc. is represented by:
Kevin Thomas Kerns, Esq.
Cozen O'Connor
1650 Market St Ste 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 665-6912
- and -
Scott Edelman, Esq.
Milbank, LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
The Respondent Citigroup Global Markets, LLC is represented by:
Kerns, Kevin Thomas, Esq.
Cozen O'Connor
1650 Market St Ste 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 665-6912
- and -
Scott Edelman, Esq.
Milbank, LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
The Respondent Shane Cooke is represented by:
Giblin, Thomas James, Jr., Esq.
Latham & Watkins LLP
885 Third Ave
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 906-1200
- and -
McNally, Laura Hughes, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Morgan Lewis & BockiusLlp
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
Tel: (215) 963-5000
The Respondent Liyanaarchchie De Silva is represented by:
Giblin, Thomas James, Jr., Esq.
Latham & Watkins LLP
885 Third Ave
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 906-1200
- and -
McNally, Laura Hughes, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
Tel: (215) 963-5000
The Respondent John Delucca is represented by:
Giblin, Thomas James, Jr., Esq.
Latham & Watkins LLP
885 Third Ave
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 906-1200
- and -
McNally, Laura Hughes, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
Tel: (215) 963-5000
The Respondent Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. is represented by:
Kevin Thomas Kerns, Esq.
Cozen O'Connor
1650 Market St Ste 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 665-6912
- and -
Scott Edelman, Esq.
Milbank, LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
The Respondent Endo International PLC is represented by:
Giblin, Thomas James, Jr., Esq.
Latham & Watkins LLP
885 Third Ave
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 906-1200
- and -
McNally, Laura Hughes, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
Tel: (215) 963-5000
The Respondent Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is represented by:
Kevin Thomas Kerns, Esq.
Cozen O'Connor
1650 Market St Ste 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 665-6912
- and -
Scott Edelman, Esq.
Milbank, LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
The Respondent Arthur Higgins is represented by:
Giblin, Thomas James, Jr., Esq.
Latham & Watkins LLP
885 Third Ave
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 906-1200
- and -
Laura Hughes McNally, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
Tel: (215) 963-5000
The Respondent Nancy Hutson is represented by:
Giblin, Thomas James, Jr., Esq.
Latham & Watkins LLP
885 Third Ave
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 906-1200
- and -
Laura Hughes McNally, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
Tel: (215) 963-5000
The Respondent Michael Hyatt is represented by:
Thomas James, Jr. Giblin, Esq.
Latham & Watkins LLP
885 Third Ave
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 906-1200
- and -
Laura Hughes McNally, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
Tel: (215) 963-5000
The Respondent J.P. Morgan Securities LLC is represented by:
Kevin Thomas Kerns, Esq.
Cozen O'Connor
1650 Market St Ste 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 665-6912
- and -
Scott Edelman, Esq.
Milbank, LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
The Respondent Rajiv Kanishka is represented by:
Thomas James, Jr. Giblin, Esq.
Latham & Watkins LLP
885 Third Ave
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 906-1200
- and -
Laura Hughes McNally, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP
Morgan Lewis &BockiusLlp
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
Tel: (215) 963-5000
The Respondent Roger Kimmel is represented by:
Thomas James, Jr. Giblin, Esq.
Latham & Watkins LLP
885 Third Ave
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 906-1200
- and -
Laura Hughes McNally, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
Tel: (215) 963-5000
The Respondent William Montague is represented by:
Thomas James, Jr. Giblin, Esq.
Latham & Watkins LLP
885 Third Ave
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 906-1200
- and -
Laura Hughes McNally, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
Tel: (215) 963-5000
The Respondent Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is represented by:
Kevin Thomas Kerns, Esq.
Cozen O'Connor
1650 Market St Ste 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 665-6912
- and -
Scott Edelman, Esq.
Milbank, LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
The Respondent MUFG Securities Americas Inc. (f/k/a Misubishi UFJ
Securities (USA) Inc.) is represented by:
Kevin Thomas Kerns, Esq.
Cozen O'Connor
1650 Market St Ste 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 665-6912
- and -
Scott Edelman, Esq.
Milbank, LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
The Respondent Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi is
represented by:
James Richard Banko, Esq.
Labaton Sucharow LLP
300 Delaware Ave Ste 1340
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (610) 544-3140
- and -
Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
Labaton Sucharow, LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
- and -
Thomas Watson, Esq.
Labaton Sucharow, LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
The Respondents RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Suntrust Robinson
Humphrey, Inc and TD Securities (USA) LLC are represented by:
Kevin Thomas Kerns, Esq.
Cozen O'Connor
1650 Market St Ste 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 665-6912
- and -
Scott Edelman, Esq.
Milbank, LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
BUMBLE TRADING: Out-of-State Plaintiffs' Claims in King Narrowed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICK KING, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BUMBLE TRADING,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06868-NC (N.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied
in part Bumble Trading, Inc. and Bumble Holding, Ltd.'s motion to
dismiss out-of-state Plaintiffs' claims for lack of personal
jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).
The Defendants own and operate a mobile software application
"Bumble" that provides dating services for its users. Plaintiffs
Nick King, Jr., Deena Fischer, Elena Weinberger, and Brian Wess
accuse Bumble of violating New York and California law by failing
to provide statutorily required disclaimers and contract provisions
in connection with Bumble's premium service, "Bumble Boost." They
seek to represent a nationwide class of Bumble Boost purchasers.
On Sept. 9, 2019, the Defendants moved to dismiss certain claims in
the Plaintiffs' third amended complaint. The Court denied in part
the Defendants' motion to dismiss in-state Plaintiffs' claims under
New York law, but deferred ruling on whether the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over out-of-state Plaintiffs' claims to give
the parties time to conduct jurisdictional discovery.
Jurisdictional discovery is now complete.
At issue is whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over the
claims of the out-of-state named Plaintiff, Brian Wess, and those
of absent out-of-state class members. The Defendants argue that
the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the claims of
the out-of-state named Plaintiff, Brian Wess, and those of absent
out-of-state class members. The Plaintiffs raise three arguments
in response: (1) the Defendants waived any challenge to personal
jurisdiction; (2) the Court has general jurisdiction; and (3) the
Court has specific jurisdiction.
As for the Plaintiffs' first argument, Magistrate Judge Cousins
disagrees. That provision unambiguously refers to the user's
waiver of personal jurisdiction. The word "you" is used throughout
the Terms to specifically reference the user, not the Defendants.
The provision limits the agreement to waive personal jurisdiction
and venue to "you," and says nothing about personal jurisdiction
over the Defendants. Accordingly, the Defendants did not waive
their challenge to personal jurisdiction through the Terms.
Turning to the Plaintiffs' second argument, Judge Cousins finds
that the Plaintiffs have not shown that Bumble Trading's principal
place of business is in California. Likewise, as to Bumble
Holding, the Plaintiffs merely point to corporate documents showing
that some of its officers or shareholders live and work in
California. But they provide no evidence suggesting that
California is where Bumble Holding's "overall direction, control,
and coordination" takes place. Accordingly, the Court does not
have general jurisdiction over the Defendants.
As for the Plaintiffs' third argument, Judge Cousins follow the
Court's prior decision in Fitzhenry-Russell and finds that the
Court has specific jurisdiction over the out-of-state class
members' claims. Wess and the California named Plaintiffs all
assert the same claims under the same New York laws. Their claims
arise from the same nucleus of alleged facts. Requiring Wess to
separately litigate his claims on an individual basis would be an
extremely inefficient use of judicial resources and could subject
Defendants to inconsistent obligations.
As an alternative to dismissal, the Defendants request that the
Court certifies the issue of personal jurisdiction for an
interlocutory appeal. The Plaintiffs oppose certification. Judge
Cousins declines to certify the order for interlocutory appeal
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). The Judge does not find that an
interlocutory appeal would materially advance the ultimate
termination of the litigation. The Plaintiffs also seek to
represent California class members and the Defendants do not
contest the Court's personal jurisdiction over their claims. Thus,
even if the Ninth Circuit were to reverse the Court's finding of
personal jurisdiction as to Wess and the out-of-state class
members, the lawsuit would continue to march towards trial on every
claim in the third amended complaint.
In connection with their supplemental briefing on personal
jurisdiction, both parties move to seal various declarations,
exhibits, and portions of the Plaintiffs' brief referencing those
documents. Those documents include a deposition transcript,
corporate statements, discovery responses, and employment
agreements.
Judge Cousins finds that the documents sought to be sealed are only
tangentially related to the merits of the case. Each document
relates to the question of personal jurisdiction, not the
underlying merits of Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims. Thus,
the "good cause" standard for sealing applies. The Magistrate
finds that there is good cause to seal the documents in question.
Each document contains non-public information relating to the
Defendants' internal processes for decision making or employment
terms. Revealing that information could cause Bumble to suffer
competitive harm.
Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Cousins granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as
to Wess. Wess is terminated as an individual Plaintiff. Judge
Cousins also denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction as to absent out-of-state class members. The
Judge declined to certify the Order for interlocutory appeal. The
Judge granted both parties' motions to seal.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/gSppso from Leagle.com.
Nick King, Jr., Deena Fischer & Elena Weinberger, Plaintiffs,
represented by Grace E. Parasmo --
gparasmo@parasmoliebermanlaw.com
-- Parasmo Lieberman Law, David Christopher Parisi --
dcparisi@parisihavens.com -- Parisi & Havens LLP, Suzanne Havens
Beckman -- shavens@parisihavens.com -- Parisi & Havens LLP &
Yitzchak Hillel Lieberman, Parasmo Lieberman Law, 7400 Hollywood
Blvd Apt 505, Los Angeles, CA 90046.
Bumble Trading, Inc. & Bumble Holding, Ltd., Defendants,
represented by Michael Graham Rhodes -- mrhodes@cooley.com --
Cooley LLP, Kelsey R. Spector, Kyle Christopher Wong --
kwong@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Max Bernstein, Esq., Cooley LLP.
CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid to Dismiss New Jersey Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended January
26, 2020, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, In re Campbell
Soup Company Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS,
is still pending.
On January 7, 2019, three purported shareholder class action
lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey were consolidated under the caption, In re
Campbell Soup Company Securities Litigation, Civ. No.
1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS.
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System was appointed
lead plaintiff in the Action and, on March 1, 2019, filed an
amended consolidated complaint.
The company, Denise Morrison (the company's former President and
Chief Executive Officer), and Anthony DiSilvestro (the company's
former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer) are
defendants in the Action.
The consolidated complaint alleges that, in public statements
between July 19, 2017 and May 17, 2018, the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted material
information about the company's business, operations, customer
relationships, and prospects, specifically with regard to the
Campbell Fresh segment.
The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.
On April 30, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.
Campbell said, "We are vigorously defending against the Action."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Campbell Soup Company, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures
and markets branded food and beverage products. It operates through
three segments: Americas Simple Meals and Beverages, Global
Biscuits and Snacks, and Campbell Fresh. Campbell Soup Company was
founded in 1869 and is headquartered in Camden, New Jersey.
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Ramirez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ERNESTINA RAMIREZ,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. CAPSTONE
LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV06608 (Filed Feb. 20, 2020),
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on April 8, 2020.
The Central District of Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-03285
to the proceeding.
In the complaint, the Plaintiff asserts claims against the
Defendants for failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay all wages upon termination, and
failure to provide accurate wage statements.
Capstone offers customized & integrated solutions to create
efficiencies that reduce costs, enhance visibility & eliminate
waste.[BN]
Defendant Capstone is represented by:
Gerald L. Maatman, Esq.
Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
Alexandra S. Oxyer, Esq.
Justin T. Curley, Esq.
Megha J. Charalambides, Esq.
233 S. Wacker Drive, 80th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 460-5000
Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
E-mail: gmaatman@seyfarth.com
jriley@seyfarth.com
aoxyer@seyfarth.com
jcurley@seyfarth.com
mcharalambides@seyfarth.com
CB FLEET: Court Enters Protective Order in Allcott Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California entered a Protective Order in
the case, ALLYSON ALLCOTT and MICHELE PAYLOR, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. C.B. FLEET
COMPANY, INC., a Virginia corporation and PRESTIGE CONSUMER
HEALTHCARE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01744 JVS (ADSx) (C.D. Cal.).
The action is likely to involve trade secrets and other valuable
research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or
proprietary information for which special protection from public
disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of
this action is warranted. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of
information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over
confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect
information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to
ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of
such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to
address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the
ends of justice, a protective order for such information is
justified in the matter.
It is the intent of the parties that information will not be
designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be
so designated without a good faith belief that it has been
maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good
cause why it should not be part of the public record of the case.
The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not
only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or
extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts,
summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any
testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their
Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected
Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial
judge. The Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at
trial.
Once a case proceeds to trial, all of the information that was
designated as confidential or maintained pursuant to the Protective
Order becomes public and will be presumptively available to all
members of the public, including the press, unless compelling
reasons supported by specific factual findings to proceed otherwise
are made to the trial judge in advance of the trial. Accordingly,
the terms of the Protective Order do not extend beyond the
commencement of the trial.
Any party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of
confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court's
Scheduling Order.
If a Receiving Party learns that, by inadvertence or otherwise, it
has disclosed Protected Material to any person or in any
circumstance not authorized under the Stipulated Protective Order,
the Receiving Party must immediately (1) notify in writing the
Designating Party of the unauthorized disclosures, (2) use its best
efforts to retrieve all unauthorized copies of the Protected
Material, (3) inform the person or persons to whom unauthorized
disclosures were made of all the terms of the Order, and (4)
request such person or persons to execute the "Acknowledgment and
Agreement to be Bound."
After the final disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a
written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must
return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy, at
the option of the Receiving Party, such material. As used in the
subdivision, "all Protected Material" includes all copies,
abstracts, compilations, summaries, and any other format
reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material. Whether
the Protected Material is returned or destroyed, the Receiving
Party must submit a written certification to the Producing Party
all the Protected Material that was returned or destroyed and (2)
affirms that the Receiving Party has not retained any copies,
abstracts, compilations, summaries or any other format reproducing
or capturing any of the Protected Material.
Notwithstanding the provision, the Counsel are entitled to retain
an archival copy of all pleadings, motion papers, trial,
deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal memoranda,
correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert reports,
attorney work product, and consultant and expert work product, even
if such materials contain Protected Material. Any such archival
copies that contain or constitute Protected Material remain subject
to this Protective Order as set forth in Section V.
Any violation of the Order may be punished by any and all
appropriate measures including, without limitation, contempt
proceedings and/or monetary sanctions.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Protective
Order is available at https://is.gd/WFO3mW from Leagle.com.
Allyson Allcott, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated & Michele Paylor, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Timothy G. Blood --
tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst and O'Reardon LLP, Anne Andrews --
aa@andrewsthornton.com -- Andrews and Thornton, Paula R. Brown --
pbrown@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst and O'Reardon LLP & Robert Sean
Siko -- rsiko@andrewsthornton.com -- Andrews and Thornton.
C.B. Fleet Company, Inc., a Virginia corporation & Prestige
Consumer Healthcare, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants,
represented by Melanie Atswei Ayerh -- mayerh@steptoe.com --
Steptoe and Johnson LLP, Anthony J. Anscombe --
aanscombe@steptoe.com -- Steptoe and Johnson LLP & Mary E. Buckley,
Steptoe and Johnson LLP, pro hac vice.
CH ROBINSON: Abuses Exclusive Sales Agreement, Lusk Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY LUSK, JASON LUSK, and JUSTIN LUSK, individually and d/b/a JTJ
FARMS, and JMR FARMS, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC.; C.H.
ROBINSON COMPANY, INC.; and C.H. ROBINSON COMPANY, Case No.
0:20-cv-00879-PJS-HB (D. Minn., April 3, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' abuse of their exclusive sales agency obtained from the
Plaintiffs for the sale of the fresh fruit and vegetables, which
the Plaintiffs grew on their farms, in violation of the Perishable
Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930, state law, and the Parties'
contracts.
The Defendants' written contracts with the Plaintiffs concerned the
growing, packing, and sale of fresh produce. The Defendants'
compensation under the contracts was commissions from the
consignment sales of the Plaintiffs' produce. The Defendants' used
their special status as the Plaintiffs' exclusive agent pursuant to
those contracts to obtain additional revenue arising out of or
related to the growing, packing, and sale of the Plaintiffs'
produce, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants reduced the net proceeds
payable to the Plaintiffs by including deducting what was reported
by the Defendants to be chargeable costs paid or payable by the
Defendants under the contracts, but the amounts charged included
undisclosed profits to the Defendants.
C.H. Robinson is an American Fortune 500 provider of multimodal
transportation services and third-party logistics. The Company
offers freight transportation, transportation management, brokerage
and warehousing. It offers truckload, less than truckload, air
freight, intermodal, and ocean transportation.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig A. Stokes, Esq.
STOKES LAW OFFICE LLP
3330 Oakwell Court, Suite 225
San Antonio, TX 78218
Telephone: (210) 804-0011
E-mail: cstokes@stokeslawofffice.com
CH ROBINSON: Court Certifies CSE Class in Dietrich FLSA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Taryn Dietrich, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18 C 4871 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Ronald A.
Guzman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiff's renewed motion
for class certification.
In her amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that she was hired
in June 2013 by C.H. Robinson Worldwide ("CHRW"), a third-party
transportation logistics company providing a combination of freight
transportation services, logistics solutions, and supply chain
services to companies through global transportation and
distribution networks. The Plaintiff started as an Assistant
Carrier Account Manager, also known as a Buyer, and later worked as
a Carrier Account Manager and a Senior Carrier Account Manager
("CSEs").
The CSEs, including the Plaintiff while she was employed at CHRW,
work in its North American Surface Transport business segment in
Chicago. While the parties disagree on the specifics, they
generally are in accord that these positions assist in providing
logistical services, including booking loads of freight, with motor
carriers across the country. The Plaintiff alleges that despite
regularly working more than 40 hours per week, she and the putative
class members were not paid overtime, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
("IMWL"). The Plaintiff also alleges an individual claim for
constructive discharge.
The Court conditionally certified a collective action under the
FLSA on June 13, 2019, and eight individuals opted in, for a total
of nine collective-action members. The Plaintiff now seeks
certification of a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b) with respect to the IMWL claim.
The Plaintiff proposes the following class definition: All persons
who have been employed in the state of Illinois at C.H. Robinson as
Assistant Carrier Account Managers, Buyers, Carrier
Representatives, Carrier Account Managers, Senior Carrier Account
Managers, Capacity Account Managers, and/or other similar
positions, and who did not sign a C.H. Robinson arbitration
agreement, at any time from three years before the filing of this
action through and including the present.
Judge Guzman finds that the proposed class has satisfied the
commonality, typicality, adequacy requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a), and the predominance and the superiority
requirements in Rule 23(b).
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class
certification, the Court rules.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/PI40rx from
Leagle.com.
Taryn Dietrich, on behalf of herself and a class of all similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jamie S. Franklin --
jsf@thefranklinlawfirm.com -- The Franklin Law Firm LLC, Robin B.
Potter -- robin@potterlaw.org -- Potter Bolanos LLC, Maria De Las
Nieves Bolanos -- nieves@potterlaw.org -- Potter Bolanos LLC &
Patrick James Cowlin -- patrick@potterlaw.org -- Potter Bolanos
LLC.
C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerald L.
Maatman, Jr., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Peter John Wozniak, Barnes &
Thornburg LLP, Andrew Douglas Welker, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Christina
Marie Janice -- cjanice@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Mark W.
Wallin -- mark.wallin@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg LLP & Michael
Lawrence Demarino -- mdemarino@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
CHERRY HILL PROGRAMS: Ayers Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA LOPICCOLO AYERS,
individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CHERRY HILL PROGRAMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 19-CECG-4643, (Filed Dec. 26, 2019),
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Fresno, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on April 6, 2020.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-at-00245 to the proceeding.
The complaint alleges causes of action against Cherry Hill for
violation of the California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of salaried
managers employed by Cherry Hill in California and a putative class
of employees, who were compensated using payroll cards in
California.
Cherry Hill is doing business in experiential photography.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew S. Disbrow, Esq.
HONIGMAN LLP
2290 First National Building
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: 313-465-7000
Facsimile: 313-465-7373
E-mail: mdisbrow@honigman.com
CIRCLE K STORES: Suaverdez Suit Removed to District of Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as REYNALDO SUAVERDEZ, on behalf
of himself and all similarly situated persons v. CIRCLE K STORES
INC., Case No. 2020CV30639 (Filed March 15, 2020), was removed from
the Colorado District Court, Arapahoe County, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado on April 10, 2020.
The District of Colorado Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01035 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the form of straight
time and overtime wages for allegedly unpaid meal and rest breaks
for a period of at least two years, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, pre-judgment, post-judgment and moratory interest, and
statutory penalties in violations of the Colorado Wage Claim Act
and the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act.
Circle K is an international chain of convenience stores, owned by
the Canadian multinational Alimentation Couche-Tard.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larkin Reynolds, Esq.
FOUNDRY LEGAL, LLC
3120 Blake Street, Suite A4
Denver, CO 80205
E-mail: LReynolds@Foundry.Legal
- and -
Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
Fort Collins, CO 80528
E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jennifer S. Harpole, Esq.
zDanielle Van Katwyk, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 800
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: 303 629 6200
Facsimile: 303 629 0200
E-mail: jharpole@littler.com
dvankatwyk@littler.com
CRESCENT CAPITAL: Alcentra Capital Faces Stockholder Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crescent Capital BDC, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Alcentra Capital has
been named as a defendant in several stockholder class action
suits.
On or about December 23, 2019, stockholders of Alcentra Capital
filed two virtually identical stockholder class action complaints
purportedly on behalf of holders of the common stock of Alcentra
Capital against the members of Alcentra Capital's board of
directors and certain former Alcentra Capital officers, in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland alleging that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the public
stockholders of Alcentra Capital by commencing a sales process
allegedly in response to certain actions by Stilwell Value Partners
VII, Stilwell Activist Fund, Stilwell Activist Investments, and
Stilwell Associates, and by omitting allegedly material information
concerning the transaction, the resignation of certain directors of
Alcentra, and the financial analysis and fairness opinion of
Houlihan Lokey from the joint proxy statement filed with the SEC on
December 11, 2019 as part of the registration statement relating to
the Alcentra Acquisition.
The complaints seek to recover compensatory damages for all losses
resulting from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.
Crescent said, "We assumed indemnification responsibilities owed by
Alcentra to its former directors and officers with respect to this
proceeding in connection with the Alcentra Acquisition. We believe
that these claims are without merit."
Crescent Capital BDC, Inc. is a business development company that
seeks to maximize the total return of our stockholders in the form
of current income and capital appreciation by providing capital
solutions to companies with sound business fundamentals and strong
growth prospects. The company is based in Los Angeles, California.
CRUNCH LLC: Fox Suit Over Labor Claims Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH FOX, individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated
v. CRUNCH, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CRUNCH
NORCAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-00276101 (Filed Feb. 24,
2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on April 3, 2020.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-at-00242 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges claims against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime; failure to pay meal period premiums; failure to pay
rest period premiums; and unpaid minimum wages, in violation of the
California Labor Code.
Crunch is a full-spectrum fitness gym offering state-of-the-art
equipment, personal training, and over 200 fitness classes.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Mia Farber, Esq.
Shannon B. Nakabayashi, Esq.
Mariko Mae Ashley, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689.0430
E-mail: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com
Shannon.Nakabayashi@jacksonlewis.com
Mariko.Ashley@jacksonlewis.com
CUSTOM WIRE: Fails to Properly Pay Operators, Jannette Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
TRACY JANNETTE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CUSTOM WIRE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00516-LA (E.D. Wis., March 31, 2020) is a
collective and class action complaint brought against Defendant for
its alleged unlawful compensation system in violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws.
Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as an Operator at Defendant's Port
Washington, Wisconsin location in approximately July 2014 and still
currently working with an hourly rate of pay and a non-exempt
employee in her entire employment with Defendant.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid and
non-exempt employees were required by Defendant to clock-in and
clock-out each work day via Defendant's electronic timekeeping
system to record their actual hours worked and work performed.
However, Defendant failed to compensate them for all hours worked
according to the electronic timekeeping system's record.
Custom Wire Technologies, Inc. is manufacturer of custom medical
wire products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott S. Luzi, Esq
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
Brookfield, WS 53005
Tel: (262)780-1953
Fax: (262)565-6469
Emails: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
CVS PHARMACY: Crowley Suit Removed to District of Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE CROWLEY,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CVS
PHARMACY, INC. and KEVIN HOURICAN, Case No. 2083CV00088 (Filed Jan.
28, 2020), was removed from the Massachusetts Superior Court,
Plymouth County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on April 14, 2020.
The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-10731 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts common law claims for breach of contract and
a number claims under the Massachusetts Wage Act for alleged unpaid
wages on behalf of herself and others similarly situated.
CVS Pharmacy is a subsidiary of the American retail and health care
company CVS Health, headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Anthony S. Califano, Esq.
James J. Swartz, Jr., Esq.
J. Stanton Hill, Esq.
Ariel D. Fenster, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Seaport East, Suite 300
Two Seaport Lane
Boston, MA 02210-2028
Telephone: (617) 946-4800
Facsimile: (617) 946-4801
E-mail: acalifano@seyfarth.com
jswartz@seyfarth.com
shill@seyfarth.com
afenster@seyfarth.com
D. HOUSTON INC: McMinn Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY MCMINN a/k/a CAMILLA/KAYMA an individual v. D. HOUSTON, INC.
D/B/A TREASURES, ALI DAVARI, HASSAN DAVARI and BILL DOE
individuals, Case No. 4:20-cv-01246 (S.D. Tex., April 8, 2020),
seeks to recover damages for the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated resulting from the Defendants evading the mandatory
minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from May 2019 through
July 2019. Throughout her employment with the Defendants, the
Plaintiff has been denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime
as part of the Defendants scheme to classify the Plaintiff and
other dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors", says the
complaint.
The Defendants own and operate a strip club named Treasures.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
craft@hughesellzey.com
leigh@hughesellzey.com
DELTA DENTAL: Baldwin Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Dr. Jack Baldwin, DDS v.
DELTA DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Case No. 2:19-cv-10576
(Filed Dec. 20, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 10, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02203 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Elaine E. Bucklo.
The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal
antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United
States.
The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta
Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.;
Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California;
Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta
Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta
Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental
Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of
Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service
Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of
Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of
Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New
Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental
Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta
Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta
Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of
Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of
Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of
Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental
of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West
Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of
Wyoming.
The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit
dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories,
multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with
dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that
accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental
Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided
to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts.
The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta
Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an
administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans
offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the
Delta Dental State Insurers.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the
monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy
to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental
insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing
Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants'
Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing
among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the
Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to
Delta Dental insureds.
Dr. Baldwin is a dental services provider and a citizen of the
State of Minnesota. He is a member of Northwoods Dental, a dental
practice located at 15600 36th Avenue N., in Plymouth, New
Hampshire.
Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest
providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have
approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the
U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
310 Clifton Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403
Telephone: (612) 338-4605
Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
E-mail: rsteiner@heinsmills.com
vesades@heinsmills.com
- and -
Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
Chad B. Holtzman, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722-8500
Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
E-mail: reiseler@gelaw.com
choltzman@gelaw.com
- and -
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Melissa Felder Zappala, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
1401 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 237-2727
Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com
mzappala@bsfllp.com
DELTA DENTAL: Braunstein Suit Moved from W.D. Ky. to N.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Dr. David H. Braunstein v.
Delta Dental Plans Association, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00915-DJH
(Filed Dec. 16, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky to the U.S. District Court for
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 9, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02200 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Elaine E. Bucklo
The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal
antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United
States.
The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta
Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.;
Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California;
Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta
Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta
Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental
Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of
Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service
Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of
Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of
Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New
Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental
Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta
Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta
Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of
Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of
Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of
Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental
of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West
Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of
Wyoming.
According to the complaint, Delta Dental secured unlawful monopsony
power through its artificial territorial division of that market
among the Delta Dental State Insurers, and is abusing it to:
(1) restrict competition among the Delta Dental State Insurers
when operating under the "Delta Dental" brand (the "Market
Allocation Conspiracy");
(2) reduce the amounts of reimbursement paid by the Delta
Dental State Insurers to the dentists and dental practices
who provide services to patients under Delta Dental
insurance plans (the "Price Fixing Conspiracy"); and
(3) restrict competition between the Delta Dental State
Insurers when operating under non-"Delta Dental" brands
(the "Revenue Restriction Conspiracy").
The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit
dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories,
multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with
dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that
accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental
Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided
to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts.
The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta
Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an
administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans
offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the
Delta Dental State Insurers.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the
monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy
to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental
insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing
Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants'
Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing
among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the
Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to
Delta Dental insureds.
These two conspiracies are buttressed by a third conspiracy:
Defendants' Revenue Restriction Conspiracy takes the form of
Defendants agreeing--via the Delta Dental Plan Agreement--that the
Delta Dental State Insurers will limit the amount of revenue they
derive from dental insurance sold other than under the "Delta
Dental" brand, or that they will derive from administering "Delta
Dental" plans.
Dr. Braunstein is a dental services provider and a citizen of the
State of Kentucky. He is a member of Arbor Ridge Family Dental, a
dental practice located at 6402 Westwind Way, in Crestwood,
Kentucky. Dr. Braunstein provided covered dental goods and
services to consumers insured by Defendants pursuant to his
in-network contract with Delta Dental of Kentucky.
Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest
providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have
approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the
U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Melissa Felder Zappala, Esq.
David Boies, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
1401 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 237-2727
Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com
mzappala@bsfllp.com
dboies@bsfllp.com
- and -
Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
Chad B. Holtzman, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722-8500
Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
E-mail: reiseler@gelaw.com
choltzman@gelaw.com
- and -
Charles J. Cooper, Esq.
Harold S. Reeves, Esq.
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 220-9600
Facsimile: (202) 220-9601
E-mail: ccooper@cooperkirk.com
- and -
Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
2001 Park Place N., Suite 1100
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 322-8880
Facsimile: (205) 328-2711
E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com
jonm@pittmandutton.com
- and -
Edward K. Wood, Esq.
WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
P.O. Box 382434
Birmingham, AL 35238
Telephone: (205) 612-0243
Facsimile: (866) 747-3905
E-mail: Kirk@woodlawfirmllc.com
- and -
Mark K. Gray, Esq.
Matthew L. White, Esq.
GRAY & WHITE
9301 Dayflower Street, Suite 300
Prospect, KY 40059
Telephone: (502) 805-1800
Facsimile: (502) 618-4059
E-mail: Mgray@grayandwhitelaw.com
Mwhite@grayandwhitelaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Lea Ann Smith, Esq.
BUTLER SNOW LLP
201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2700
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 299-7746
E-mail: leaann.smith@butlersnow.com
DELTA DENTAL: DeVinney Suit Moved From California to Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Robin Dr. Jacob DeVinney, DDS
v. DELTA DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Case No. 3:19-cv-08258
(Filed Dec. 19, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court
for Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 14, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02199 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Elaine E. Bucklo.
The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal
antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United
States.
The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta
Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.;
Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California;
Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta
Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta
Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental
Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of
Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service
Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of
Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of
Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New
Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental
Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta
Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta
Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of
Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of
Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of
Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental
of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West
Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of
Wyoming.
The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit
dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories,
multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with
dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that
accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental
Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided
to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts.
The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta
Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an
administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans
offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the
Delta Dental State Insurers.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the
monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy
to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental
insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing
Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants'
Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing
among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the
Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to
Delta Dental insureds.
Jacob DeVinney is a dental services provider and a citizen of the
State of California. He is a member of Amador Dental and
Orthodontic, a family dental practice located at 5000 Pleasanton
Ave., in Pleasanton, California.
Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest
providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have
approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the
U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel E. Birkhaeuser, Esq.
BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER
2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 125
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Telephone: 925-945-0200
E-mail: dbirkhaeuser@bramsonplutzik.com
- and -
Timothy D. Battin, Esq.
Shinae Kim-Helms, Esq.
Nathan M. Cihlar, Esq.
Joshua Q. Callister, Esq.
STRAUS & BOIES, LLP
4041 University Drive, Fifth Floor
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 764-8700
Facsimile: (703) 764-8704
E-mail: tbattin@straus-boies.com
skimhelms@straus-boies.com
ncihlar@straus-boies.com
jcallister@straus-boies.com
DELTA DENTAL: Dickey Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Dr. William Dickey, DMD v.
Delta Dental Plans Association, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-910
DPJ-FKB (Filed Dec. 11, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 7,
2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02172 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Elaine E Bucklo.
The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal
antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United
States.
The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta
Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.;
Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California;
Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta
Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta
Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental
Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of
Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service
Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of
Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of
Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New
Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental
Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta
Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta
Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of
Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of
Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of
Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental
of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West
Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of
Wyoming,
The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit
dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories,
multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with
dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that
accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental
Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided
to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts.
Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest
providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have
approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the
U.S.
Dr. Dickey is a dental services provider and a citizen of the State
of Mississippi. He is a member of Big River Dental, LLC, in
Brandon, Mississippi.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael P. McGartland, Esq.
Lee Rikard McGartland, Esq.
MCGARTLAND LAW FIRM, PLLC
University Centre I, Suite 500
1300 South University Drive
Fort Worth, TX 76107
Telephone: (817) 332-9300
Facsimile: (817) 332-9301
E-mail: mike@mcgartland.com
lee@mcgartland.com
DELTA DENTAL: Drs. Lutins Suit Moved from M.D.N.C. to N.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Drs. Lutins & Benitez, P.A.
v. DELTA DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Case No. 1:19-cv-01247
(Filed Dec. 20, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina to the U.S. District
Court for Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 9,
2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02205 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Elaine E. Bucklo
The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal
antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United
States.
The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta
Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.;
Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California;
Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta
Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta
Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental
Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of
Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service
Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of
Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of
Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New
Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental
Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta
Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta
Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of
Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of
Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of
Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental
of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West
Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of
Wyoming.
The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit
dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories,
multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with
dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that
accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental
Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided
to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts.
The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta
Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an
administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans
offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the
Delta Dental State Insurers.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the
monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy
to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental
insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing
Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants'
Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing
among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the
Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to
Delta Dental insureds.
Drs. Lutins & Benitez, P.A., d/b/a Greensboro Perio, is a dental
service provider located at 301 East Wendover Avenue, in
Greensboro, North Carolina. The Plaintiff is part of DDNC's
provider network and provides dental care services to subscribers
to Delta Dental insurance coverage provided by DDNC.
Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest
providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have
approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the
U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Nathan Duggins III, Esq.
Jeffrey S. Southerland, Esq.
Scott C. GayleScott C. Gayle
TUGGLE DUGGINS P.A.
100 N. Greene Street, Suite 600
Greensboro, NC 27401
Telephone: 336 378 1431
Facsimile: 336 274 6590
E-mail: NDuggins@tuggleduggins.com
JSoutherland@tuggleduggins.com
SGayle@tuggleduggins.com
- and -
Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, New Jersey 07102
Telephone: 973.623.3000
Facsimile: 973.623.0858
E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
mreuben@litedepalma.com
sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com
DELTA DENTAL: Kottemann Antitrust Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Kottemann Orthodontics,
P.L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. DELTA DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Case No.
0:19-cv-03139 (Filed Dec. 20, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District
Court for Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 10,
2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02202 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Elaine E. Bucklo.
The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal
antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United
States.
The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta
Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.;
Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California;
Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta
Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta
Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental
Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of
Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service
Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of
Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of
Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New
Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental
Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta
Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta
Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of
Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of
Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of
Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental
of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West
Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of
Wyoming.
The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit
dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories,
multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with
dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that
accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental
Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided
to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts.
The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta
Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an
administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans
offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the
Delta Dental State Insurers.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the
monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy
to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental
insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing
Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants'
Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing
among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the
Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to
Delta Dental insureds.
Kottemann Orthodontics is a dentistry professional association
organized under the laws of the state of Minnesota with its
principal office located in Maple Grove, Minnesota. The Plaintiff
provided dental goods and services to consumers insured by Delta
Dental pursuant to its in-network contract with Delta Dental of
Minnesota.
Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest
providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have
approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the
U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
Justin N. Boley, Esq.
Melinda J. Morales, Esq.
WEXLER WALLACE LLP
55 West Monroe St., Ste. 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
jnb@wexlerwallace.com
mjm@wexlerwallace.com
The Defendants are represented by:
William Michael, Jr., Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 South Wacker
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 701-7653
E-mail: wmichael@mayerbrown.com
DELTA DENTAL: Mells Antitrust Suit Moved From Calif. to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Robin Lambert Mells v. DELTA
DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Case No. 3:19-cv-08182 (Filed,
Dec. 16, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 13, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02198 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Elaine E. Bucklo
The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal
antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United
States.
The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta
Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.;
Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California;
Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta
Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta
Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental
Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of
Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service
Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of
Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of
Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New
Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental
Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta
Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta
Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of
Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of
Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of
Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental
of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West
Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of
Wyoming.
The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit
dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories,
multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with
dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that
accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental
Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided
to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts.
The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta
Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an
administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans
offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the
Delta Dental State Insurers.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the
monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy
to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental
insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing
Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants'
Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing
among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the
Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to
Delta Dental insureds.
Robin Lambert Mells of Robin Lambert Mells, D.D.S., is a dental
services provider and citizen of the State of California. Mells'
family dental practice is located at 1150 Scott Boulevard, in Santa
Clara, California.
Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest
providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have
approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the
U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Judith A. Zahid, Esq.
Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
Heather T. Rankie, Esq.
James S. Dugan, Esq.
ZELLE LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 693-0700
Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
E-mail: jzahid@zelle.com
cmicheletti @zelle.com
hrankie@zelle.com
jdugan@zelle.com
- and -
James R. Martin, Esq.
Jennifer Duncan Hackett, Esq.
ZELLE LLP
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 375
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 899-4100
E-mail: jmartin@zelle.com
jhackett@zelle.com
DELTA DENTAL: Mincy Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Dr. Catherine J. Mincy, DDS
v. DELTA DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Case No. 1:19-cv-00227
(Filed Dec. 13, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi to the U.S. District Court
for Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 10, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02204 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Elaine E. Bucklo
The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal
antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United
States.
The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta
Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.;
Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California;
Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta
Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta
Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental
Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of
Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service
Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of
Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of
Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New
Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental
Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta
Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta
Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of
Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of
Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of
Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental
of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West
Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of
Wyoming.
The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit
dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories,
multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with
dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that
accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental
Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided
to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts.
The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta
Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an
administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans
offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the
Delta Dental State Insurers.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the
monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy
to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental
insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing
Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants'
Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing
among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the
Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to
Delta Dental insureds.
Dr. Mincy is a dental services provider and her office is located
at 607 W. Church St., in Booneville, Mississippi. She is a citizen
of the State of Mississippi. Dr. Mincy provided covered dental
goods and services to consumers insured by the Defendants pursuant
to her in-network contract with DDIC.
Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest
providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have
approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the
U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent Hazzard, Esq.
HAZZARD LAW, LLC
447 Northpark Drive
Ridgeland, MS 391757
Telephone: (601) 977-5253
Facsimile: (601) 977-5253
E-mail: brent.hazzard@hazzardlaw.net
- and -
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Melissa Felder Zappala, Esq.
David Boies, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
1401 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 237-2727
Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com
mzappala@bsfllp.com
dboies@bsfllp.com
- and -
Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
Chad B. Holtzman, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722-8500
Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
E-mail: reiseler@gelaw.com
choltzman@gelaw.com
- and -
Casey Lott, Esq.
LANGSTON & LOTT, PLLC
100 South Main Street
Post Office Box 382
Booneville, MS 38829
Telephone: (662) 728-9733
Facsimile: (662) 728-1992
E-mail: clott@langstonlott.com
- and -
Charles J. Cooper, Esq.
Harold S. Reeves, Esq.
Davis Cooper, Esq.
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 220-9600
Facsimile: (202) 220-9601
E-mail: ccooper@cooperkirk.com
- and -
Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
2001 Park Place N., Suite 1100
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 322-8880
Facsimile: (205) 328-2711
E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com
jonm@pittmandutton.com
- and -
Edward K. Wood, Esq.
WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
P.O. Box 382434
Birmingham, AL 35238
Telephone: (205) 612-0243
Facsimile: (866) 747-3905
E-mail: kirk@woodlawfirmllc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
John Adam Crawford, Jr., Esq.
BUTLER SNOW LLP
P. O. Box 6010
Ridgeland, MS 39158-6010
Telephone: (601) 948-5711
E-mail: jack.crawford@butlersnow.com
DELTA DENTAL: Obeng Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Dr. Stephen N. Obeng, DMD v.
Delta Dental Plans Association, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-25072-XXXX
(Filed Dec. 9, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 7, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02171 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Elaine E. Bucklo.
The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal
antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United
States.
According to the complaint, Delta Dental secured unlawful monopsony
power through its artificial territorial division of that market
among the Delta Dental State Insurers, and is abusing it to:
(1) restrict competition among the Delta Dental State Insurers
when operating under the "Delta Dental" brand (the "Market
Allocation Conspiracy");
(2) reduce the amounts of reimbursement paid by the Delta
Dental State Insurers to the dentists and dental practices
who provide services to patients under Delta Dental
insurance plans (the "Price Fixing Conspiracy"); and
(3) restrict competition between the Delta Dental State
Insurers when operating under non-"Delta Dental" brands
(the "Revenue Restriction Conspiracy").
The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit
dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories,
multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with
dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that
accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental
Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided
to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts.
The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta
Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an
administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans
offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the
Delta Dental State Insurers.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the
monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy
to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental
insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing
Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants'
Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing
among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the
Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to
Delta Dental insureds.
These two conspiracies are buttressed by a third conspiracy:
Defendants' Revenue Restriction Conspiracy takes the form of
Defendants agreeing--via the Delta Dental Plan Agreement--that the
Delta Dental State Insurers will limit the amount of revenue they
derive from dental insurance sold other than under the "Delta
Dental" brand, or that they will derive from administering "Delta
Dental" plans.
Dr. Obeng is a dental services provider and a citizen of the State
of Florida. He is a member of Cooper Dental Group, a family dental
practice located in Ormond Beach, Florida. Dr. Obeng provided
covered dental goods and services to consumers insured by the
Defendants pursuant to his in-network contract with DDIC.
The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta
Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.;
Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California;
Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta
Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta
Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental
Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of
Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service
Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of
Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of
Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New
Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental
Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta
Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta
Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of
Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of
Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of
Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental
of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West
Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of
Wyoming.
Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest
providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have
approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the
U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Melissa Felder Zappala, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
1401 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 237-2727
Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com
mzappala@bsfllp.com
- and -
David Boies, Esq.
55 Hudson Yards
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 446-2300
Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com
- and -
Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
Chad B. Holtzman, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722-8500
Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
E-mail: reiseler@gelaw.com
choltzman@gelaw.com
- and -
Charles J. Cooper, Esq.
Harold S. Reeves, Esq.
Davis Cooper, Esq.
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 220-9600
Facsimile: (202) 220-9601
E-mail: ccooper@cooperkirk.com
- and -
Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
2001 Park Place N., Suite 1100
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 322-8880
Facsimile: (205) 328-2711
E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com
jonm@pittmandutton.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jaime Abigail Quick, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
2200 Wells Fargo Center
90 S 7th St., Ste. 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55402-3924
Telephone: 612-766-7107
Facsimile: 612-766-1600
E-mail: jaime.quick@faegredrinker.com
DELTA DENTAL: Schwartz Suit Moved from E.D. La. to N.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN C. SCHWARTZ, D.D.S., A
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION v. DELTA DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION, ET AL.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00018 (Filed Jan. 3, 2020), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to
the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois (Chicago)
on April 9, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02201 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Elaine E. Bucklo
The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal
antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United
States.
The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta
Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.;
Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California;
Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta
Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta
Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental
Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of
Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service
Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of
Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of
Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New
Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental
Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta
Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta
Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of
Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of
Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of
Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental
of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West
Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of
Wyoming.
The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit
dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories,
multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with
dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that
accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental
Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided
to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts.
The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta
Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an
administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans
offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the
Delta Dental State Insurers.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the
monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy
to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental
insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing
Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants'
Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing
among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the
Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to
Delta Dental insureds.
John C. Schwartz D.D.S., is a dental services provider and a
citizen of the State of Louisiana. He is and was an owner and
member a John C. Schwartz, D.D.S., a Professional Corporation, a
dental practice located at 337 Metairie Rd., in Metairie
Louisiana.
Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest
providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have
approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the
U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Melissa Felder Zappala, Esq.
David Boies, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
1401 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 237-2727
Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com
mzappala@bsfllp.com
dboies@bsfllp.com
- and -
Charles J. Cooper, Esq.
Harold S. Reeves, Esq.
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 220-9600
Facsimile: (202) 220-9601
E-mail: ccooper@cooperkirk.com
- and -
Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
2001 Park Place N., Suite 1100
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 322-8880
Facsimile: (205) 328-2711
E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com
jonm@pittmandutton.com
- and -
Henry St. Paul Provosty, Esq.
Edgar Dean Gankendorff, Esq.
Eric R.G. Belin, Esq.
PROVOSTY & GANKENDORFF, LLC
650 Poydras St., Suite 2700
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 410-2795
E-mail: hprovosty@provostylaw.com
egankendorff@provostylaw.com
ebelin@provostylaw.com
- and -
Edward Takashima, Esq.
401 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 850
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 752-2408
E-mail: etakashima@bsfllp.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel L. Ring, Esq
MAYER BROWN, LLP
71 S. Wacker Dr.
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 701-8520
E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com
DELTA DENTAL: Stephens Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM G. STEPHENS v. DELTA
DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Case No. 2:19-cv-10576 (Filed
Dec. 13, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 9, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02197 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Elaine E. Bucklo
The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal
antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United
States.
The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta
Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.;
Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California;
Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta
Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta
Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental
Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of
Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service
Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of
Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of
Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New
Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental
Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta
Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta
Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of
Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of
Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of
Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental
of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West
Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of
Wyoming.
The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit
dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories,
multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with
dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that
accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental
Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided
to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts.
The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta
Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an
administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans
offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the
Delta Dental State Insurers.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the
monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy
to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental
insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing
Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants'
Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing
among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the
Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to
Delta Dental insureds.
Dr. Stephens is a dental services provider and a citizen of the
State of California. He is and was an owner and member of William
G. Stephens DDS, Family Dental Care, a family dental practice
located at 2801 Townsgate Road, in Westlake Village, California.
Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest
providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have
approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the
U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles J. Cooper, Esq.
Harold S. Reeves, Esq.
Davis Cooper, Esq.
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 220-9600
Facsimile: (202) 220-9601
E-mail: ccooper@cooperkirk.com
- and -
Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
Chad B. Holtzman, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER , P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722-8500
Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
E-mail: reiseler@gelaw.com
choltzman@gelaw.com
- and -
Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
2001 Park Place N., Suite 1100
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 322-8880
Facsimile: (205) 328-2711
E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com
jonm@pittmandutton.com
- and -
Edward H. Takashima, Esq.
B OIES S CHILLER F LEXNER LLP
401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 850
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 752-2400
Facsimile: (310) 752-2490
E-mail: etakashima@bsfllp.com
- and -
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Melissa Felder Zappala, Esq.
David Boies, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
1401 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 237-2727
Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com
mzappala@bsfllp.com
dboies@bsfllp.com
- and -
William A. Baird, Esq.
BAIRD LAW FIRM
2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 267-1209
E-mail: w.baird.law@gmail.com
DELTA-SONIC: Lennert et al. Seek Payment for Wait-Times, Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR LENNERT, MACKENZIE LENNERT, ADAM TUCKER, STEPHANIE WETZEL,
RYEN SEYFRIED, and CHRISTINE MCCONNELL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. DELTA-SONIC CARWASH
SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00479 (W.D.N.Y., April
22, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for subjecting
Plaintiffs and Class members to frequent wait-times without any
compensation, refusing to pay Plaintiffs for at least four hours
when they commenced their shift at the carwash and were asked to
leave before the completion of four hours, and paying them
sub-minimum wages and wrong overtime rate in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiffs Taylor Lennert, Tucker and Seyfried worked for the
Defendant as Delta technicians and advisors from March 2017 to
March 2020, from April 2016 to October 2017, and from May or June
2016 until the summer of 2017, respectively.
Plaintiffs Mackenzie Lennert, Wetzel and McConnell worked for the
Defendant as Delta technicians from October 2018 to April 2019,
from July 15, 2017 to February 13, 2019, and from May 2017 to June
or July 2019, respectively.
Delta-Sonic Carwash Systems, Inc. is an owner and operator of at
least 28 full-service car wash locations in New York, Illinois, and
Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business located at 570
Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC
225 Broadway, Suite 2700
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 406-6890
DEVA CONCEPTS: Consumers Sue Over Hair Care Product Side Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Priccilla Carpenter, Sydney Oliver, and Maha Abduselam,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Deva Concepts, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00840
(D. Minn., March 30, 2020), seeks monetary, statutory and punitive
damages, compensatory relief, preliminary and permanent injunctive
and declaratory relief, costs and fees incurred in connection with
this action, including attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and
other costs and such other and further relief resulting from breach
of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, negligence, and
for violation of Minnesota's Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act,
Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minnesota Unfair
Trade Practices Act, Minnesota False Statement in Advertisement Act
and consumer protections laws of various states.
Deva produces hair care products for consumers with curly, super
curly and wavy hair. Plaintiffs complained of hair loss, hair
damage, balding and scalp injury when using these products. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., Esq.
David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
Alia M. Abdi, Esq.
80 S 8th Street, Suite 1100
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Tel: (612) 341-0400
Fax: (612) 341-0844
E-mail: gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com
david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
alia.abdi@zimmreed.com
DIGITAL INTELLIGENCE: Buchsbaum Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as BERNARDO BUCHSBAUM,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
DIGITAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; T-MOBILE USA, INC. a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-00012175-CU-OE-CTL (Filed
March 4, 2020), was removed from the California Superior Court for
the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on April 13, 2020.
The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-00706-BAS-AGS to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that he and other non-exempt employees who
worked for the Defendant in California during the putative class
period were denied meal and rest breaks, forced to work off the
clock, paid less than minimum wage, denied overtime pay for hours
worked in excess of eight per day, not reimbursed for all business
expenses, not paid their allegedly due wages upon separation and
were not provided accurate wage statements, in violation of the
California Labor Code.
Digital Intelligence provides managed staffing and IT consulting
services. T-Mobile USA is an American wireless network
operator.[BN]
Defendant Digital Intelligence Systems, LLC, is represented by:
Jennifer A. Kearns, Esq.
Meredith P. Grant, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
750 B Street, Suite 2900
San Diego, CA 92101-4681
Telephone: 619 744 2200
Facsimile: 619 744 2201
E-mail: jkearns@duanemorris.com
mpgrant@duanemorris.com
Defendant T-Mobile, USA, Inc., is represented by:
Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: 858-652-3102
Telephone: 619-889-5051
E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
DOW JONES: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Horton Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissing the case, ROBERT JEREMY HORTON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC.,
DBA The Wall Street Journal, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant,
Case Nos. 19-527 (L), 19-832 (XAP) (2d Cir.).
In a putative class action complaint, Horton alleged on behalf of
himself and other Wall Street Journal subscribers that Defendant
Dow Jones sold personal information to third parties in violation
of Michigan's Video Rental Privacy Act. Dow Jones, in turn, moved
to compel arbitration of Horton's claims. The district court
denied Dow Jones's motion but nevertheless dismissed the case. As
relevant, the district court held that Horton was barred from
proceeding on a class basis because he agreed to a class-waiver
provision in his Wall Street Journal Subscriber Agreement, and the
court declined to exercise jurisdiction over Horton's individual
state-law claim against Dow Jones. Horton appeals the dismissal of
the case, and Dow Jones conditionally cross-appeals the denial of
its motion to compel.
Horton first argues that the district court deprived him of a fair
opportunity to raise all arguments against the applicability and
enforceability of the class-waiver provision. According to him,
the district court "completely surprised" him because it failed to
provide any notice that it was even considering a sua sponte
dismissal based on the class-waiver provision, failed to provide
him any opportunity to argue against such undisclosed, erroneous
grounds for dismissal, and failed to provide any briefing or
argument whatsoever on the issue.
The Second Circuit holds that this argument is not supported by the
record. Dow Jones' first and second motions to compel argued that
Horton brought this action in violation of the class-waiver
provision. Moreover, the district court issued an amended order on
Jan. 18, 2019, in which it clearly signaled that it was considering
dismissing the case on this basis. And Horton's letter responding
to the district court's amended order confirms that he understood
and addressed the possibility that the district court would dismiss
on these grounds. Accordingly, the Second Circuit concludes that
the district court afforded Horton a fair opportunity to present
his arguments against the applicability and enforceability of the
class-waiver provision.
For similar reasons, the Second Circuit rejects Horton's argument
that Dow Jones waived its right to enforce the class-waiver
provision because it failed to timely assert the provision as a
defense in an answer or responsive pleading to his complaint. As a
preliminary matter, the district court adjourned Dow Jones'
deadline to answer the complaint sine die pending resolution of its
motion to compel arbitration. Furthermore, Dow Jones argued in its
first and second motions to compel arbitration that the
class-waiver provision barred Horton from proceeding on a class
basis.
Horton next argues that the district court erred in holding that
the class-waiver provision barred him from proceeding on a class
basis. As noted, Horton agreed to the class-waiver provision in
his Wall Street Journal Subscriber Agreement, which is governed by
New York law. Under New York law, a written agreement that is
complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced
according to the plain meaning of its terms. Courts are obliged to
interpret a contract so as to give meaning to all of its terms, and
to avoid interpretations that "render any portion meaningless."
And a contractual proscription against class actions is neither
unconscionable nor violative of public policy.
Notwithstanding Horton's arguments to the contrary, the plain
meaning of the class-waiver provision bars Horton from proceeding
on a class basis. Horton contends that because the class-waiver
provision appears in the Agreement to Arbitrate section, it bars
only class actions in disputes that are otherwise arbitrable. But
as the district court explained, the provision bars both "class
arbitrations and class actions," and a reading that confines the
prohibition on class litigation to arbitration would render
meaningless the phrase and class actions. Moreover, because the
section provides that by entering into the Agreement, one is giving
up the ability to participate in a class action, and because "this
Agreement" refers to the entire Subscriber Agreement, the
class-waiver provision is best read as applying to both litigation
and arbitration.
The Second Circuit also disagrees with Horton's argument that the
class-waiver provision did not survive termination of the
Subscriber Agreement. The Agreement to Arbitrate section specifies
that the agreement to arbitrate will survive termination of the
Subscriber Agreement. Because the agreement to arbitrate is most
naturally read to refer to the entire Agreement to Arbitrate
section, and because the Agreement to Arbitrate section contains
the class-waiver provision, the Second Circuit concludes that the
class-waiver provision survives termination of the Subscriber
Agreement.
Finally, the Second Circuit agrees with the district court's
decision not to exercise jurisdiction over Horton's individual
state-law claim after it concluded that Horton could not proceed on
a class basis. The Second Circuit has previously rejected the
position that district courts, on finding that a case cannot
proceed as a class action, must adjudicate state law claims rather
than remand them to state court. Instead, the Second Circuit has
explained, they can also, of course, dismiss them without prejudice
for consideration in state courts. In the case, the district court
appropriately dismissed Horton's individual state-law claim without
prejudice after holding that the class-waiver provision barred him
from seeking class relief.
The Second Circuit has considered Horton's remaining arguments on
appeal and has found in them no basis for reversal. For the
foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed,
and Dow Jones' conditional cross-appeal is dismissed as moot.
A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's April 1, 2020 Summary
Order is available at https://is.gd/qs92DB from Leagle.com.
FRANK S. HEDIN -- fhedin@careyrodriguez.com -- Hedin Hall LLP,
Miami, FL; Thomas L. Laughlin, IV -- TLAUGHLIN@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM --
(on the brief), Scott & Scott Attorneys at Law, LLP, New York, NY,
for Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.
NATALIE J. SPEARS -- natalie.spears@dentons.com -- (Sandra D.
Hauser -- sandra.hauser@dentons.com -- Kristen C. Rodriguez --
kristen.rodriguez@dentons.com -- on the brief), Dentons US LLP,
Chicago, IL and New York, NY, for
Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.
DUNWORTH CONSTRUCTION: Gizze Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY GIZZE v. DUNWORTH CONSRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, INC., and ROY
F. DUNWORTH, Case No. 9:20-cv-80593-DMM (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2020),
seeks to recover overtime wages owed to the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, often another person was at any job
site to whom Mr. Gizze and all others reported. When such a person
was absent, Mr. Gizze often had seniority but had to obtain
approval for virtually any act which required the exercise of
discretion. During this period, Mr. Gizze was never paid overtime.
The Plaintiff contends that he was employed by the Defendants on a
construction crew since January 2019. His timesheets note a
position as "laborer" or "foreman." In fact, he was never a
"foreman." He asserts that he never had the duties,
responsibilities, discretion, or authority.
Dunworth Construction is a Palm Beach County certified and Florida
licensed contractor and construction business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart M. Address, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STUART M. ADDRESS, P.A.
611 S.W. Federal Highway, Suite A
Stuart, FL 34994
Telephone: (772) 781-8003
Facsimile: (772) 781-8005
E-mail: stuart@stuartaddresslaw.com
ELI LILLY: Rochester Drug Hits Insulin Price-rigging
----------------------------------------------------
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Eli Lilly And Company, Novo
Nordisk Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, CVS Health Corporation,
CareMarkPCS Health LLC, Caremark LLC, CareMark Rx LLC, Express
Scripts Holding Company, Express Scripts Inc., Medco Health
Solutions Inc., United Health Group Incorporated, United Healthcare
Services Inc., Optum Inc., Optumrx Holdings, Llc, And Optumrx Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03426, (D. N.J., March 30, 2020), seeks
to recover overcharges due to the artificial inflation of prices
for the analog Insulin medication in violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Insulin glargine is a long-acting analog insulin for management of
diabetes. Defendants commercially sell analog Insulin medications
under the Humalog, Basaglar, Fiasp, Novolog, Levemir, Tresiba,
Apidra, Lantus and Toujeo brands.
Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc. and Sanofi-Aventis U.S.
LLC are pharmaceutical companies that manufacture and sell insulin
while CVS Health Corporation, CaremarkPCS Health, LLC, Caremark
LLC, Caremark Rx LLC, Express Scripts Holding Company, Express
Scripts, Inc., Medco Health Solutions, Inc., United Health Group
Incorporated, United Healthcare Services, Inc., Optum, Inc.,
OptumRx Holdings, LLC and OptumRx, Inc. are pharmacy benefit
managers who negotiate rebates with drug manufacturers.
Rochester Drug Co-Operative claims that the pharmacy benefit
managers negotiated an onerous deal with the insulin manufacturers
that allowed them to pocket a profit to Rochester's
disadvantage.[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
David F. Sorensen, Esq.
Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 875-3000
Email: dsorensen@bm.net
ccoslett@bm.net
- and -
Peter Kohn, Esq.
Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
One Penn Center, Suite 1550
1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 277-5770
Email: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
jlukens@faruqilaw.com
- and -
David Golub, Esq.
Steven Bloch, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
184 Atlantic Street
Stamford, CT 06901
Tel: (203) 325-4491
Email: dgolub@sgtlaw.com
sbloch@sgtlaw.com
- and -
Russ Chorush, Esq.
HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP
1111 Bagby, Suite 2100
Houston, TX 77002
Tel: (713) 221-2000
Email: rchorush@hpcllp.com
- and -
Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
Noah Silverman, Esq.
GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Tel: (212) 398-0055
Email: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
nsilverman@garwingerstein.com
- and -
Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq.
ODOM & DES ROCHES, LLC
650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020
New Orleans, LA 70130
Tel: (504) 522-0077
Email: stuart@odrlaw.com
- and -
Susan Segura, Esq.
David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq.
SMITH SEGURA RAPHAEL & LEGER, LLP
221 Ansley Blvd.
Alexandria, LA 71303
Tel: (318) 445-4480
Email: ssegura@ssrllp.com
draphael@ssrllp.com
EQUITI US: Faces Motes Suit Over Fraudulent Investment Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MOTES v. EQUITI US LLC and EQUITI CAPITAL UK LIMITED, Case
No. 9:20-cv-80599-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 7, 2020), is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging
that the Defendants knowingly aided their prime brokerage client--a
fraudulent investment fund called Mediatrix--to deceive investors
that its trading strategy had resulted in massive gains when, in
fact, the opposite was true.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants knew Mediatrix was using
Equiti software and reports to mislead investors. The Defendants
also knew Mediatrix suffered enormous losses, yet continued to
deposit more investor moneys in its Equiti accounts. But the
Defendants continued to enable the fraud.
While the Defendants collected nearly $13 million in fees from
Mediatrix's trading activities, the investor-class lost tens of
millions of dollars. Mediatrix perpetrated a massive investment
fraud on its investors, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff and the putative class suffered losses of tens of
millions of dollars in connection with their investments in
Mediatrix's Managed Account Foreign Exchange Fund and the Fund,
both of which Mediatrix Capital purportedly managed.
Equiti, formerly known as Divisa Capital is an institutional Forex
broker.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott L. Silver, Esq.
SILVER LAW GROUP
11780 W. Sample Road
Coral Springs, FL 33065
Telephone: (954) 755-4799
Facsimile: (954) 755-4684
E-mail: ssilver@silverlaw.com
- and -
Jared A. Levy, Esq.
Aiman Farooq, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
515 N. Flagler Dr., Suite 2125
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 227-5858
Facsimile: (561) 227-5857
E-mail: JLevy@forthepeople.com
AFarooq@forthepeople.com
- and -
James D. Sallah, Esq.
Joshua A. Katz, Esq.
SALLAH ASTARITA & COX LLC
3010 North Military Trail, Suite 210
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 989-9080
Facsimile: (561) 989-9020
E-mail: jds@sallahlaw.com
jak@sallahlaw.com
EVENTS AND ADVENTURES: Carisi Sues Over Membership Fee Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IAN CARISI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EVENTS AND ADVENTURES CALIFORNIA and ADVENTURES
NORTHWEST, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02260-SK (N.D. Cal., April 2,
2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged unconscionable decision
to keep charging its tens of thousands of customers monthly
membership fees while cancelling 100% of their in-person "events
and adventures" as the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, rages
throughout the world and the United States economy has gone into a
deep recession.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants continued charging their
members monthly fees--at full price. He adds that the Defendants
are able to unilaterally charge its customers monthly fees without
their consent, as it is in possession of its customers' debit card,
credit card, or bank information. Thus, the Defendants have made
the deliberate decision to bilk their customers out of millions of
dollars while not providing the sole services its members signed up
and contracted to pay for – in person events, the Plaintiff
avers.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and the False
Advertising Law for breach of express warranties, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, money had and
received, conversion, and breach of contract.
The Defendants operate a members-only "singles" event company that
hosts and organizes in person events for singles looking to meet
other singles in person through group outings, such as white water
rafting or wine tasting. Both Defendants do business as "Events and
Adventures."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
ykrivoshey@bursor.com
scott@bursor.com
FAULT LINE LOGISTICS: Vargas Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as RUBEN VARGAS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FAULT LINE
LOGISTICS, LLC and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV05604
(Filed Feb. 13, 2020), was removed from the the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on April 11,
2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-03438 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that he (along with the putative class) was
misclassified over a period of greater than four years. He adds
that stemming from this misclassification, he seeks unpaid wages
and overtime under the California Labor Code.
Fault Line is doing business in the intermodal industry.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Joshua S. Lipshutz, Esq.
MICHAEL J. HOLECEK, Esq.
THOMAS F. COCHRANE, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
Telephone: 415.393.8200
Facsimile: 415.393.8306
E-mail: jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com
mholecek@gibsondunn.com
tcochrane@gibsondunn.com
FORD MOTOR: Wins Summary Judgment in Beaty Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACOB and JESSICA BEATY, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. C17-5201RBL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ronald
B. Leighton of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, granted Ford's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Beaty purchased a 2013 Ford Escape with a panoramic glass sun roof
("PSR") in September 2012. She claims her Escape's PSR
spontaneously shattered while she was driving on the freeway in
February 2017, due to a manufacturing defect common to a wide range
of Ford vehicles. She claims that Ford PSRs' tempered glass is too
thin, leading to failure. She sued, seeking to represent a class
of purchasers of such vehicles. She asserts claims fraudulent
concealment and breach of Washington's Consumer Protection Act,
based on her allegation that Ford knew about and concealed the
defect.
Ford seeks summary judgment on both of Beaty's claims, arguing:
(1) There is no "defect," because PSRs' tempered glass breaks
in the exact way the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
specifies it must break: into small, round pieces rather than in
shards that can cause far more serious injuries;
(2) The 2013 Escape was the first model year to include a PSR,
and Beaty bought hers at the very beginning of production. Ford
could not have "known," much less concealed, the defect (an
unreasonably high PSR failure rate) at the time she purchased, as a
matter of law. It therefore had no duty to disclose the claimed
defect to Beaty;
(3) The allegedly known and concealed defect would not have
been material to a purchaser, given its extremely low (0.05%)
occurrence rate. Ford argues a failure rate below 1% is not
material as a matter of law; and
(4) Beaty cannot demonstrate her claimed
benefit-of-the-bargain damages as a matter of law. Beaty's experts
have not yet performed their "conjoint analysis survey" to
determine the difference in market value between an Escape as
represented (with PSR that will not fail), and the one Beaty bought
(with a PSR that will fail at a 0.05% rate). Ford claims the
proposed conjoint analysis does not and cannot account for the
supply side of the fair market value equation.
Judge Leighton holds that even assuming that the Escape's PSR
shattering is a material defect, and even if Ford would be required
to disclose it to potential purchasers, Beaty has not met her
summary judgment burden of providing evidence from which a
reasonable trier of fact could find that Ford knew about alleged
PSR defect when Beaty purchased her 2013 Escape in September 2012.
On Ford's duty to disclose the defect, the Court finds that even if
Ford had knowledge of a defect, its corresponding duty to disclose
necessarily depends on whether that defect -- the risk that the PSR
might shatter, and the consequences of it doing so -- is material.
The duty to disclose arise in situations where the seller has
knowledge of a material fact not easily discovered by the buyer.
Ford also demonstrates that its failure rates are low by industry
standards. Beaty's claim that there are hundreds of similar
complaints does not address or rebut the failure rate, and even her
own expert's claimed "PSR replacement rate" of 0.41% is still
within the range of other manufacturers and lower than some
competitors.
The Court is not willing to adopt the Third Circuit's "bright line"
1% threshold, and it is not willing to hold broadly that any
failure is not material if it is similar to failure rates in
comparable products. A truly dangerous failure is material even if
it is rare, and in a different case a duty to disclose a material
defect may arise even if the defect occurs only infrequently. But
viewed in the NHTSA's "severity, frequency and consequences"
context, the actual failure rates, and the evidence in the record,
the Judge cannot conclude that the defect at issue here was
material, if it was a defect at all. Hence, Ford's Motion for
Summary Judgment on its claim that the PSR is not a material defect
is granted, the Court rules.
In light of these holdings, the Court need not delve deeply into
Ford's final argument, regarding the evidentiary support for the
fact and measure of Beaty's and her class's claimed damages. Ford
argues that Beaty has no evidence of her claimed
benefit-of-the-bargain damages, because her expert's proposed
conjoint analysis survey should have already been performed, and
even if it had, it would be flawed and inadmissible. A conjoint
analysis that does not (and perhaps cannot) account for factors in
a functioning marketplace other than consumers' willingness to pay
is not competent evidence of the quantum of damages. It is worth
noting that the better-reasoned cases reject the sort of damages
calculations that Beaty's expert proposes. Such a determination
would not address Beaty's alternate, out-of-pocket damages claim.
Judge Leighton concludes that Beaty cannot establish the elements
of her fraudulent concealment or Washington CPA claims against Ford
as a matter of law: she cannot show that Ford knew of and failed to
disclose a material defect. She cannot establish that any such
failure caused her benefit-of-the-bargain damage. For these
reasons, the Judge granted Ford's Motion for Summary Judgment and
dismissed with prejudice Beaty's fraudulent concealment and CPA
claims. The Judge denied as moot all other pending motions.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/JD6SsB from Leagle.com.
Jacob Beaty & Jessica Beaty, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam A. Edwards --
adam@gregcolemanlaw.com -- GREG COLEMAN LAW PC, pro hac vice,
Amanda M. Steiner -- asteiner@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Beth E. Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
Eric S. Johnson, SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC, pro hac vice, Gregory F.
Coleman -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- GREG COLEMAN LAW PC, pro hac
vice, Lisa A. White, GREG COLEMAN LAW PC, pro hac vice, Mark E.
Silvey -- mark@gregcolemanlaw.com -- GREG COLEMAN LAW PC, pro hac
vice, Mitchell M. Breit -- mbreit@simmonsfirm.com -- SIMMONS HANLY
CONROY LLC, pro hac vice, Paul J. Hanly, Jr. --
phanly@simmonsfirm.com -- SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC, pro hac vice &
Benjamin Drachler, TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.
Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Brett Thomas
MacIntyre, STOKES LAWRENCE PS, Caryn Geraghty Jorgensen, STOKES
LAWRENCE PS, John T. Fetters, STOKES LAWRENCE PS, Bradley W.
Petersen, SLATTERY PETERSEN PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari K. Dawson --
cari.dawson@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac vice, Kyle
G.A. Wallace -- kyle.wallace@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro
hac vice & Sherry A. Rozell -- sherry.rozell@mcafeetaft.com --
MCAFEE & TAFT, pro hac vice.
FUSION INDUSTRIES: Garza Suit Moved From D.N.M. to W.D. Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JAVIER GARZA, on Behalf of
Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FUSION
INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00072 (Filed Jan. 24, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Mexico to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma (Oklahoma City) on April 11, 2020.
The Western District of Oklahoma Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-00336-D to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant required him to work more
than 40 hours in a workweek without overtime compensation. He
contends that the Defendant misclassified him and other similarly
situated workers as independent contractors instead of as
employees. By misclassifying them as independent contractors, the
Defendant illegally denied them compensation at time and one half
their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, he adds.
Fusion is an electrical engineering, design, procurement, and
construction company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: DFoty@hftrialfirm.com
- and -
Daniel M. Faber, Esq.
4620C Jefferson Lane NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109
Telephone: (505) 830-0405
E-mail: dan@danielfaber.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Charlotte A. Lamont, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
201 Third Street NW, Suite 500
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: (505) 944-9680
Facsimile: (505) 944-9681
GENERAL MOTORS: Claims of 5 Out-of-State Plaintiffs in Sloan Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MONTEVILLE SLOAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL
MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-07244-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (i) granted the Defendants' Motion for
Reconsideration, and (ii) dismissed the claims of Plaintiffs Edwin
and Katelyn Doepel, Dennis Vita, William Martell, and Kelly
Harris.
The Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") in the case
on Aug. 31, 2017. The SAC added five new Plaintiffs: Illinois
Plaintiffs Edwin and Katelyn Doepel, New York Plaintiff Vita,
Oregon Plaintiff Martell, and Washington Plaintiff Harris. GM
filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, arguing,
among other things, that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction
over the claims of non-California Plaintiffs, including the newly
added Plaintiffs from Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Washington.
On Feb. 7, 2018, after extensive supplemental briefing, the Court
issued an order granting in part and denying in part that motion.
In that order, the Court concluded that the existence of federal
question jurisdiction precluded the application of Bristol-Myers
Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California; the Court therefore
found it proper to exercise pendent personal jurisdiction over the
claims of the newly added non-California Plaintiffs.
In July 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint, which
added a Plaintiff from Ohio. GM moved to dismiss the claims of the
Ohio Plaintiff for lack of personal jurisdiction. On Dec. 5, 2019,
the Court dismissed the claims of the Ohio Plaintiff on the grounds
that it lacked personal jurisdiction over those claims. In so
doing, the Court noted first that there is no federal question
furnishing federal question jurisdiction as it relates to Plaintiff
Szep's claims. Federal question jurisdiction had not been pled by
Plaintiffs, and the Ohio Plaintiff had no viable Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act claim. Next, the Court observed that nearly every
court considering the issue has concluded pendent party
jurisdiction cannot be exercised by a federal court sitting in
diversity. Because pendent party jurisdiction was the sole basis
for personal jurisdiction advanced by the Plaintiffs, the Court
concluded that because it would be inappropriate to exercise
pendent party jurisdiction, the Court lacked personal jurisdiction
over the claims of the Ohio Plaintiff.
GM now seeks reconsideration of that issue, in light of the Court's
order from Dec. 5, 2019. The Plaintiffs effectively concede that--
in light of the Court's order dismissing the claims of the Ohio
Plaintiff -- the claims of Illinois Plaintiffs Edwin and Katelyn
Doepel, Oregon Plaintiff Martell, and Washington Plaintiff Harris
should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. However,
they contend that New York Plaintiff Vita has a valid claim under
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which raises a federal question
that permits the Court to exercise pendent personal jurisdiction
over Plaintiff Vita's claims notwithstanding Bristol-Myers. Thus,
Plaintiffs argue that GM's Motion should, at minimum, be denied
with respect to Plaintiff Vita.
Judge Chen holds that the Plaintiffs' argument is unpersuasive.
The Plaintiffs have only pled diversity jurisdiction. It is
consistent with the fact that CAFA constituted an expansion of
diversity jurisdiction; it does not, on its own, purport to
establish federal question jurisdiction. Indeed, several courts
have recognized the distinction between diversity jurisdiction
under CAFA and federal question jurisdiction furnished by MMWA
claims. Consequently, even if Plaintiff Vita is able to assert a
viable MMWA claim in this case by virtue of CAFA, that claim would
not furnish federal question jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is not
a basis, under current law, to distinguish Bristol-Myers.
Accordingly, Jujdge Chen granted the Defendants' Motion for
Reconsideration, and dismissed the of Plaintiffs Edwin and Katelyn
Doepel, Vita, Martell, and Harris.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/Aa3gDV from Leagle.com.
Monteville Sloan, Jr., Raul Siqueiros, Donald Ludington, Thomas
Shorter, Gabriel Del Valle & Steven Ehrke, Plaintiffs,
represented by Lori Erin Andrus -- lori@andrusanderson.com --
Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Andrew England Brashier -- andrew.brashier@beasleyallen.com --
Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia --
Anthony@aglawinc.com -- AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II,
Beasley Allen, 218 Commerce St. PO Box 4160, Montgomery, AL
36103, pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri -- dferri@dlcfirm.com -
- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H. Clay Barnett, III --
clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com -- Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin,
Portis and Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon --
jshannon@johnsonbecker.com -- Johnson Becker, pro hac vice, John
Ernst Tangren -- jtangren@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Mark A. DiCello -- madicello@dlcfirm.com -- The DiCello Law
Firm, pro hac vice, Timothy J. Becker --
tbecker@johnsonbecker.com -- Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice,
Wilson Daniel Miles, III -- dee.miles@beasleyallen.com -- Beasley
Allen, pro hac vice & Jennie Lee Anderson --
jennie@andrusanderson.com -- Andrus Anderson LLP.
Joseph Brannan, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus,
Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, pro hac vice, Andrew
England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia,
AG Law, P.A., pro hac vice, Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley
Allen, pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis
and Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson
Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, Marybeth V. Gibson,
The Finley Firm, PC, pro hac vice, Timothy J. Becker, Johnson
Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Beasley,
Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. & Jennie Lee Anderson,
Andrus Anderson LLP.
Gail Lannom, Bradley K. Zierke, Ross Dahl, Drew Peterson, Barbara
Molina, Bill Mauch, Thomas Gulling & Ronald Jones, Plaintiffs,
represented by Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J.
Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt
& Casey LLC, pro hac vice, Andrew England Brashier, Beasley
Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia, AG Law, P.A., pro hac
vice, Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice,
Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H. Clay
Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles,
P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, pro
hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Mark A.
DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, Marybeth V. Gibson, The Finley
Firm, PC, pro hac vice, Timothy J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC,
pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow,
Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. & Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus
Anderson LLP.
John Graziano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus
Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Amy E.
Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, pro hac vice, Andrew England
Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia, AG Law,
P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice,
Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H. Clay
Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles,
P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, pro
hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Mark A.
DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, Timothy J. Becker, Johnson Becker,
PLLC, pro hac vice & Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Beasley, Allen,
Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.
Rudy Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, DiCello
Levitt & Casey LLC, Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, Timothy
J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC & Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus
Anderson LLP.
Mike Warpinski, Marc Perkins, Joseph Olivier, Christopher
Thacker, Derick Bradford, Larry Goodwin, James Robertson, Joshua
Byrge, Randy Clausen, Steve Kitchen, Ted Edgecomb, Kevin
Hanneken, Michael Ware, Scott Smith, John Neubauer, James
Faulkner & Dan Madson, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam J. Levitt,
DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia, AG Law, P.A., pro hac vice,
Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, Timothy J. Becker,
Johnson Becker, PLLC & Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP.
Jonas Bednarek, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, DiCello
Levitt & Casey LLC, Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia, AG Law, P.A., pro hac vice, Eric
J. Haag, Atterbury Kammer Haag S.C., pro hac vice, Jennell
Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, Timothy J. Becker, Johnson
Becker, PLLC & Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP.
Doepel Katelyn, Plaintiff, represented by Jennie Lee Anderson,
Andrus Anderson LLP & Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC.
Katelyn Doepel, Todd Cralley, Jill Cralley, Dennis Vita, Edwin
Doepel, Kelly Harris & William Martell, Plaintiffs, represented
by Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, pro hac vice,
Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP & Adam J. Levitt,
DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC.
General Motors LLC, Defendant, represented by Joseph John Ybarra
-- Joseph.Ybarra@hygmlaw.com -- Huang Ybarra Gelberg & May LLP &
Gregory Richard Oxford -- goxford@iccolaw.com -- Isaacs Clouse
Crose & Oxford LLP.
GEORGIA: Walters Sues Challenging Ban on Carrying Guns in Public
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Walters, an individual; SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION; and,
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC., and similarly situated individuals
v. BRIAN KEMP, in his official capacity as the Governor of Georgia;
GARY VOWELL, in his official Capacity as Commissioner of the
Department of Public Safety and Colonel of the Georgia State
Patrol; THE COUNTY OF CHEROKEE, GEORGIA; and KEITH WOOD, in his
official Capacity as Judge of the Probate Court of Cherokee County,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01624-JPB (N.D. Ga., April 16, 2020), seeks to
redress the deprivation under color of the laws, statutes,
ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of the State of
Georgia, of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the
United States Constitution.
The Plaintiff asserts that she--a law-abiding member of her
community and member of the Plaintiffs SAF and FPC, and similarly
situated individuals, who are not prohibited from possessing or
acquiring firearms under state and federal law--has a fundamental,
constitutionally guaranteed right to carry loaded, operable
handguns on their person, outside their homes, vehicles, and place
of business, in public, for self-defense. But because of the
Defendants' laws, orders, and enforcement of them, she and others
cannot exercise that right.
In Georgia, unless specifically exempted, the conduct of carrying a
loaded, operable handgun on the person in public--outside the
limited boundaries of a person's home, personal vehicle, or place
of business is absolutely banned. One exemption to most criminal
laws is a "Georgia Weapon License" ("GWL") issued by the probate
judge of a person's county of residence. The State of Georgia and
law enforcement officers, under the ultimate direction of Defendant
Vowell, and prosecutors within it routinely enforce O.C.G.A.
against individuals otherwise legally eligible to possess and
acquire handguns, who carry such weapons in public, outside the
limited confines of their homes, cars, or workplaces, without a
validly issued GWL.
The Legislature has provided no findings or declarations to support
any legitimate government interest for creating such special
exemptions while denying other law-abiding, responsible citizens,
like Plaintiff Walters, the ability to lawfully exercise their
constitutional right to freely carry a handgun in public, says the
complaint. Even if the State's general ban scheme were to be
declared unconstitutional and enjoined, as the Plaintiffs seek as
to its application against law-abiding individuals like Plaintiff
Walters and others like her, the State and law enforcement within
it have other statutes available to them under which to arrest and
publish specific or dangerous conduct.
Plaintiff Walters is a member and supporter of Plaintiffs Second
Amendment Foundation, Inc. and Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc.
Brian Kemp is the elected Governor of the State of Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John R. Monroe, Esq.
JOHN MONROE LAW, P.C.
156 Robert Jones Road
Dawsonville, GA 30534
Phone: 678-362-7650
Email: jrm@johnmonroelaw.com
- and -
Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, Esq.
THE DIGUISEPPE LAW FIRM, P.C.
4320 Southport-Supply Road, Suite 300
Southport, NC 28461
Phone: 910-713-8804
Fax: 910-672-7705
Email: law.rmd@gmail.com
- and -
Adam Kraut, Esq.
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION
1215 K Street, 17th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 476-2342
Email: akraut@fpclaw.org
GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Maroney Sues Over Defective SlimFast Oil
-------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY MARONEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GLANBIA PERFORMANCE NUTRITION, INC. d/b/a SLIMFAST,
Case No. 7:20-cv-02788-CS (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant for selling a defective dietary supplement
product, SlimFast Keto MCT Oil, through its SlimFast brand.
The Plaintiff contends that the Product contains "100% Pure Coconut
Oil" and bears the representation "Clinically Proven Lose Weight &
Keep It Off," but that representation is not true. The Plaintiff
asserts that a 2018 peer-reviewed study found "no evidence of
difference in mean weight, BMI, or per cent body fat" associated
with the use of coconut oil. And far from being "clinically proven"
to cause weight loss, a 2015 meta-analysis concluded that "further
research is required to confirm the efficacy of MCT" because "many
trials lacked sufficient information" and "commercial bias was
detected."
In July 2018, the Plaintiff purchased a container of Glanbia's
SlimFast MCT product for approx $10 from Wal-Mart in Middletown,
New York. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf
of himself and purchasers of the SlimFast MCT dietary supplements.
Glanbia sells lifestyle nutrition products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
aobergfell@bursor.com
GYK DRYWALL: Fails to Pay Workers Under FLSA & NJWPL, Romero Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elmer Romero, Kevin Ochoa, and Alirio Pereira, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. GYK DRYWALL, INC., CEIBA
SERVICES LLC, ALLSTATE INTERIORS, INC., and DANILO VALLE, Case No.
2:20-cv-04378 (D.N.J., April 16, 2020), seeks equitable and legal
relief for the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, the New Jersey Wage
Payment Law, and for breach of contract.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have intentionally,
willfully, and repeatedly harmed the Plaintiffs by engaging in a
pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA and the
NJWPL. This policy and pattern or practice includes, inter alia,
failing to pay employees the applicable overtime rates for all time
worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants have engaged
in their unlawful conduct pursuant to a corporate policy of
minimizing labor costs and denying employees compensation.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laborers and
drivers.
GYK and Ceiba are construction companies that provide labor and
related services for drywall installation and other construction
tasks.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam Sackowitz, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 460-0047
Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
Email: kymorales@katzmelinger.com
HEALTH INSURANCE: Continues to Defend Belin Suit
------------------------------------------------
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a proposed class action suit entitled, Belin
et. al. v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., et. al., Case No.
19-cv-61430.
Separate from the Federal Trade Commission v. Simple Health Plans,
et al. case against Simple Health, a proposed class action, but not
yet certified, styled as Belin et. al. v. Health Insurance
Innovations, Inc., et. al., Case No. 19-cv-61430, was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 7,
2019.
The case alleges that the Company conspired with Simple Health
using a theory of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act along with other claims and seeks unspecified
damages.
The Company's Motion to Dismiss was partially denied and the
Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims.
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. operates as a cloud-based
technology platform and distributor of individual and family health
insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United States.
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is based
in Tampa, Florida.
HEALTH INSURANCE: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Florida Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that discovery
is ongoing in the consolidated class action suit spearheaded by
Oklahoma Municipal Retirement Fund and City of Birmingham
Retirement and Relief System.
On February 18, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit styled Julian
Keippel v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Gavin Southwell, and
Michael D. Hershberger, Case No. 8:19-cv-00421, was filed against
the Company, its chief executive officer, and chief financial
officer in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff in the action is seeking
an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs on behalf of a putative class of individuals and entities
that acquired shares of the Company's common stock during the
period February 28, 2018 through November 27, 2018.
The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or material omissions during the
purported class period relating to the Company's relationship with
third parties, particularly Health Benefits One LLC/Simple Health
Plans and affiliates.
The complaint alleges that, among other things, the Company failed
to disclose to investors that a substantial portion of the
Company's revenues were derived from third parties who allegedly
used deceptive tactics to sell the Company's products and that
regulatory scrutiny of such third parties would materially impact
the Company's operations. The complaint alleges violations of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act.
On May 13, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiff Oklahoma
Municipal Retirement Fund and City of Birmingham Retirement and
Relief System and lead counsel Saxena White P.A.
The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on July
19, 2019. The consolidated complaint incorporated the allegations
from the first complaint and added allegations of alleged
materially false or misleading statements or material omissions
relating to alleged deficiencies in the Company's compliance and
customer service programs and the number of complaints the Company
received from consumers relating to third parties, particularly
Health Benefits One LLC/Simple Health and affiliates.
The complaint also adds allegations regarding insider stock sales
by Messrs. Southwell and Hershberger.
The plaintiffs are seeking an undetermined amount of damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of putative classes
of individuals and entities that acquired shares of the Company's
common stock during a purported class period of September 25, 2017
through April 11, 2019.
On August 28, 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the action, which
the court denied on November 4, 2019, and the case is currently in
discovery.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. operates as a cloud-based
technology platform and distributor of individual and family health
insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United States.
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is based
in Tampa, Florida.
IRWIN INDUSTRIES: Williams May File Second Amended Labor Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARL CURTIS; ARTHUR WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs, v. IRWIN
INDUSTRIES, INC.; DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
2:15-cv-02480-ODW (Ex) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright, II of the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted
in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs motion for leave to file
a second amended complaint ("SAC").
The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant Irwin Industries.
The Defendant employed both the Plaintiffs prior to approximately
April 7, 2014. Both the Plaintiffs worked on an oil platform off
the California coast, working shifts typically lasting seven days.
Plaintiffs allege that they received pay for 12 hours each day but
could not reasonably leave the platform during their seven-day
shifts. Thus, in February 2015, they initiated the wage and hour
putative class action. They filed a First Amended Complaint
("FAC") on April 1, 2015.
Under the FAC, the Plaintiffs assert claims under California law,
individually and on behalf of a putative class, for (1) Minimum
Wage Violations; (2) Pay Stub Violations; (3) Unfair Competition;
(4) Failure to Timely Pay Wages at Termination; (5) Failure to
Provide Lawful Meal and Rest Periods; (6) Failure to Pay Overtime
and Doubletime Premium Wages; and (7) Civil Penalties under the
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). The Plaintiffs defined the
class to include the Defendant's hourly employees who, at any time
within four years from the date of filing the action, worked on oil
platforms off of the California coast for periods of 24 consecutive
hours or more.
On Nov. 12, 2015, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the FAC. The Court found the Plaintiffs' claims preempted
by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA")
because they required interpretation of collective bargaining
agreements ("CBA") entered into between the parties, granted the
Defendant's motion to dismiss, and ordered the parties to
arbitration pursuant to the terms of the CBAs. The Court
subsequently granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration, affirming dismissal of all claims but withdrawing
the portion of the order compelling the parties to arbitration.
On Jan. 25, 2019, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and remanded
the case in part. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's
finding that the Plaintiffs' overtime claim was preempted under
Section 301 of the LMRA, because the CBA terms triggered the
exemption under California Labor Code section 514. The Ninth
Circuit remanded the Plaintiffs' remaining meal and rest period and
minimum wage claims, along with the four derivative claims (pay
stubs, unfair business practices, final wages, and PAGA) because
issues of preemption under both Section 301 of the LMRA and the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA") remained. The Ninth
Circuit denied the Plaintiffs' petition for panel rehearing and
issued the Mandate on March 15, 2019.
Following the Ninth Circuit's Mandate, the Court stayed the matter
pending the Supreme Court's decision in Parker Drilling Mgmt.
Servs., Ltd. v. Newton, which addressed whether federal law
(pursuant to the OCSLA) or California law applies to Plaintiffs'
claims, an issue the parties recognized as potentially dispositive
on remand.
On June 10, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the
Parker Drilling case. The Supreme Court addressed whether federal
law or California law applies to wage and hour claims made by
employees who work on drilling platforms off the coast of
California, on the Outer Continental Shelf ("OCS"). It found the
plaintiff's wage and hour claims premised on the adoption of
California law requiring payment for all time that the plaintiff
spent on standby were already addressed by federal law under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Likewise, to the extent the
plaintiff's OCS-based claims rely on the adoption of the California
minimum wage the FLSA already provides for a minimum wage so the
California minimum wage does not apply. Thus, those California
laws were unavailable on the OCS and the plaintiff's California
overtime and minimum wage claims failed. As the plaintiff's other
California wage and hour claims had not been analyzed by lower
courts or in the parties' briefing, the Supreme Court did not
specifically address them and remanded the matter to the lower
court.
Following the decision in Parker Drilling, the District Court in
Irwin permitted the Plaintiffs to move for leave to file an amended
Complaint. Accordingly, on Aug. 19, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the
Motion.
The Plaintiffs contend that Parker Drilling only negatively impacts
their claims for California overtime/double-time and minimum wage
violations and that their other claims (meal breaks, rest breaks,
paystub, waiting-time penalties, unfair competition and PAGA)"
should survive. Further, the Plaintiffs argue that while their
overtime claims under California law are no longer viable, they
should be granted leave to assert overtime claims under the FLSA.
The Defendant opposes the Plaintiffs' Motion, argueing that the
Plaintiffs are merely attempting to assert claims that they
strategically elected not to raise back in 2015 and it constitutes
a bad faith tactical measure that will prejudice it and cause undue
delay. The Defendant contends the Plaintiffs' proposed amendment
is futile because (1) the FLSA claim is time-barred and does not
relate back to the original Complaint and (2) Parker Drilling
requires dismissal of the Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims.
Judge Wright holds that an FLSA plaintiff is procedurally unable to
claim the relation back doctrine to overcome the time-bar set by
the statute of limitations. As such, the Plaintiffs may not claim
relation-back to save their FLSA claim. As the Plaintiffs have not
filed a written consent and the time for commencing an FLSA action
elapsed in April 2017, their FLSA claim is time barred and
amendment would be futile. Accordingly, Judge Wright denies the
Plaintiffs' Motion to add an FLSA claim.
Judge Wright also finds that the Defendant has not satisfied its
burden to show that amendment of the Plaintiffs' remaining state
law claims should not be granted. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs may
file a Second Amended Complaint amending only their remaining state
law claims. Any amendment strictly beyond the scope herein
permitted is subject to strike.
For the reasons stated, Judge Wright granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended
Complaint.
A full-text copy of Judge Wright's Feb. 11, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/0V39kL from Leagle.com.
Arthur Williams, an individual & Carl Curtis, an individual,
Plaintiffs, represented by Aris Edmund Karakalos --
aris@strausslawyers.com -- Strauss and Strauss APC, Michael Anthony
Strauss -- mike@strausslawyers.com -- Strauss and Palay APC, Andrew
Clayton Ellison, Strauss and Palay APC & Anthony R. Strauss,
Strauss Law Group APC.
Irwin Industries, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant,
represented by Matthew C. Lewis, Payne and Fears LLP, Ronald J.
Holland, II -- rjholland@mwe.com -- McDermott Will and Emery LLP &
Ellen M. Bronchetti -- ebronchetti@mwe.com -- McDermott Will and
Emery LLP.
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Roman Seeks Damages From Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
Josephine Marie Roman, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORP., Case No. 1:20-cv-01829
(E.D.N.Y., April 16, 2020), is brought for breach of contract
damages or, in the alternative, specific performance of the
contract's refund terms, based on the Defendant's breaches of its
contract, including its Passenger Bill of Rights.
This year, JetBlue has responded to a sudden drop in demand for
passenger air travel by canceling scores of scheduled flights.
Under the terms of its contract, when JetBlue cancels a flight, it
must either re-accommodate passengers on the next available flight
or refund the passengers in full. JetBlue has breached its
contracts with thousands of paying customers by offering credits
for future travel on JetBlue instead of providing refunds.
Despite JetBlue's suggestion in its public press release that it is
giving consumers the "choice" of a refund or a credit (which is
contrary to its own contractual obligations), it is not, in fact,
giving consumers refunds when requested. Instead, the Plaintiff
says, it is unilaterally giving consumers a credit only. Thus,
JetBlue's failure to provide prompt refunds for canceled flights
violates not only its own contract, but also federal law.
On March 10, 2020, the Plaintiff received an email from JetBlue
informing her that her March 19 flight to JFK had been canceled. In
this cancellation email, JetBlue did not offer to rebook the
Plaintiff on the next available flight. Nor did JetBlue offer
Plaintiff a refund of the fare she paid for the flight. In sum,
despite the fact that the Plaintiff could not take the flight she
booked because JetBlue canceled it, JetBlue failed to provide a
refund to the Plaintiff and, instead, only offered the Plaintiff a
credit for use on a future JetBlue flight, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased a round-trip ticket for travel from
Orlando, Florida, to JFK airport in New York City, on March 19,
2020, and a return flight from JFK to Orlando on March 22, 2020.
JetBlue is the sixth largest United States based airline and
typically operates around 1,000 flights per day to approximately
100 destinations in the United States, Mexico, the Caribbean,
Central America, and South America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
James E. Miller, Esq.
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
52 Duane Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 419-0156
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
Email: lrubinow@sfmslaw.com
jshah@sfmslaw.com
–and–
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
- and –
V Chai Oliver Prentice, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 254-6807
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
Email: vprentice@tzlegal.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq.
Joshua R. Levine, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
Email: streisfeld@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 389-0600
Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
Email: mweiner@pswlaw.com
jbourne@pswlaw.com
- and -
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: (818) 788-8300
Email: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
JUUL LABS: Carroll Sues in N.D. Cal. Over Sale of E-Cigarettes
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH CARROLL, individually and as the mother and next of
friend of T.A.C. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02562
(N.D. Cal., April 14, 2020), alleges that JUUL products are
defective and unreasonably dangerous as they promote nicotine
addiction.
The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for design
defect, negligent failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, and
violation of unfair trade practices/consumer protection law, and
breach of express warranty.
The Plaintiff contends that she used JUUL products from Oct. 2016
to present and that use caused and or substantially contributed to
her injury, including addiction and nicotine poisoning. She adds
that JUUL products, including e-cigarettes and JUUL pods, deliver
dangerous toxins and carcinogens to users. Nicotine itself is a
carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with
cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory, treble, and punitive damages,
medical monitoring to diagnose JUUL induced injuries at an earlier
date to allow for timely treatment and prevention of exacerbation
of injuries, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys'
fees, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper.
The Defendants are ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.;
ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY;
ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC; THE MANGEMENT DEFENDANTS INCLUDING JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; AND RIAZ
VALANI; AND THE E-LIQUID MANUFACTURING DEFENDANTS INCLUDING MOTHER
MURPHY'S LABS, INC.; ALTERNATIVE INGREDIENTS, INC.; TOBACCO
TECHNOLOGY, INC.; eLIQUITECH, INC.; AND THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS
INCLUDING MCLANE COMPANY, INC.; EBY-BROWN COMPANY, LLC; AND
CORE-MARK HOLDING COMPANY, INC.
The Carroll case is consolidated in MDL 2913 RE: JUUL LABS, INC.,
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company which spun
off from Pax Labs in 2017. Juul Labs makes the Juul e-cigarette,
which packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use
cartridges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
412 H St. NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
JUUL LABS: Faces Dyer Suit in N.D. California Over Use of E-Cigs
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT DYER, individually and as the father and next of friend of
B.D. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02543 (N.D. Cal.,
April 13, 2020), alleges that JUUL products are defective and
unreasonably dangerous as they promote nicotine addiction.
The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for design
defect, negligent failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, and
violation of unfair trade practices/consumer protection law, and
breach of express warranty.
The Plaintiff contends that he used JUUL products from Oct. 2015 to
present and that use caused and or substantially contributed to his
injury including addiction and nicotine poisoning. The Plaintiff
alleges that JUUL products, including e-cigarettes and JUUL pods,
deliver dangerous toxins and carcinogens to users. Nicotine itself
is a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with
cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory, treble, and punitive damages,
medical monitoring to diagnose JUUL induced injuries at an earlier
date to allow for timely treatment and prevention of exacerbation
of injuries, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys'
fees, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper.
The Defendants are ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.;
ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY;
ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC; THE MANGEMENT DEFENDANTS INCLUDING JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; AND RIAZ
VALANI; AND THE E-LIQUID MANUFACTURING DEFENDANTS INCLUDING MOTHER
MURPHY'S LABS, INC.; ALTERNATIVE INGREDIENTS, INC.; TOBACCO
TECHNOLOGY, INC.; eLIQUITECH, INC.; AND THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS
INCLUDING MCLANE COMPANY, INC.; EBY-BROWN COMPANY, LLC; AND
CORE-MARK HOLDING COMPANY, INC.
The Dyer case is consolidated in MDL 2913 RE: JUUL LABS, INC.,
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company which spun
off from Pax Labs in 2017. Juul Labs makes the Juul e-cigarette,
which packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use
cartridges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
412 H St. NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
JUUL LABS: Faces Perry Suit in N.D. Cal. Over Use of E-Cigarettes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VICKIE PERRY, individually and as the mother and next of friend of
L.P. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02558 (N.D. Cal.,
April 13, 2020), alleges that JUUL products are defective and
unreasonably dangerous as they promote nicotine addiction.
The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for design
defect, negligent failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, and
violation of unfair trade practices/consumer protection law, and
breach of express warranty.
The Plaintiff contends that she used JUUL products from 2018 to
2020 and that use caused and or substantially contributed to her
injury, including addiction and nicotine poisoning. She adds that
JUUL products, including e-cigarettes and JUUL pods, deliver
dangerous toxins and carcinogens to users. Nicotine itself is a
carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with
cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory, treble, and punitive damages,
medical monitoring to diagnose JUUL induced injuries at an earlier
date to allow for timely treatment and prevention of exacerbation
of injuries, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys'
fees, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper.
The Defendants are ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.;
ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY;
ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC; THE MANGEMENT DEFENDANTS INCLUDING JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; AND RIAZ
VALANI; AND THE E-LIQUID MANUFACTURING DEFENDANTS INCLUDING MOTHER
MURPHY'S LABS, INC.; ALTERNATIVE INGREDIENTS, INC.; TOBACCO
TECHNOLOGY, INC.; eLIQUITECH, INC.; AND THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS
INCLUDING MCLANE COMPANY, INC.; EBY-BROWN COMPANY, LLC; AND
CORE-MARK HOLDING COMPANY, INC.
The Perry case is consolidated in MDL 2913 RE: JUUL LABS, INC.,
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company which spun
off from Pax Labs in 2017. Juul Labs makes the Juul e-cigarette,
which packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use
cartridges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
412 H St. NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
JUUL LABS: Faces Pulce Suit in N.D. Cal. Over Use of E-Cigarettes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LACRETIA PULCE, individually and as the mother and next of friend
of K.P. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02556 (N.D.
Cal., April 13, 2020), alleges that JUUL products are defective and
unreasonably dangerous as they promote nicotine addiction.
The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for design
defect, negligent failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, and
violation of unfair trade practices/consumer protection law, and
breach of express warranty.
The Plaintiff contends that she used JUUL products from 2017 to
present and that use caused and or substantially contributed to her
injury including addiction and nicotine poisoning. She adds that
JUUL products, including e-cigarettes and JUUL pods, deliver
dangerous toxins and carcinogens to users. Nicotine itself is a
carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with
cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory, treble, and punitive damages,
medical monitoring to diagnose JUUL induced injuries at an earlier
date to allow for timely treatment and prevention of exacerbation
of injuries, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys'
fees, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper.
The Defendants are ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.;
ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY;
ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC; THE MANGEMENT DEFENDANTS INCLUDING JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; AND RIAZ
VALANI; AND THE E-LIQUID MANUFACTURING DEFENDANTS INCLUDING MOTHER
MURPHY'S LABS, INC.; ALTERNATIVE INGREDIENTS, INC.; TOBACCO
TECHNOLOGY, INC.; eLIQUITECH, INC.; AND THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS
INCLUDING MCLANE COMPANY, INC.; EBY-BROWN COMPANY, LLC; AND
CORE-MARK HOLDING COMPANY, INC.
The Pulce case is consolidated in MDL 2913 RE: JUUL LABS, INC.,
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company which spun
off from Pax Labs in 2017. Juul Labs makes the Juul e-cigarette,
which packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use
cartridges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
412 H St. NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
JUUL LABS: Gibson Sues in N.D. Calif. Over Use of E-Cigarettes
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE GIBSON, individually and as the father and next of friend of
K.G. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02545 (N.D. Cal.,
April 13, 2020), alleges that JUUL products are defective and
unreasonably dangerous as they promote nicotine addiction.
The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for design
defect, negligent failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, and
violation of unfair trade practices/consumer protection law, and
breach of express warranty.
The Plaintiff contends that he used JUUL products from 2016 to
present and that use caused and or substantially contributed to his
injury including addiction and nicotine poisoning. He argues that
JUUL products, including e-cigarettes and JUUL pods, deliver
dangerous toxins and carcinogens to users. Nicotine itself is a
carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with
cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory, treble, and punitive damages,
medical monitoring to diagnose JUUL induced injuries at an earlier
date to allow for timely treatment and prevention of exacerbation
of injuries, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys'
fees, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper.
The Defendants are ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.;
ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY;
ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC; THE MANGEMENT DEFENDANTS INCLUDING JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; AND RIAZ
VALANI; AND THE E-LIQUID MANUFACTURING DEFENDANTS INCLUDING MOTHER
MURPHY'S LABS, INC.; ALTERNATIVE INGREDIENTS, INC.; TOBACCO
TECHNOLOGY, INC.; eLIQUITECH, INC.; AND THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS
INCLUDING MCLANE COMPANY, INC.; EBY-BROWN COMPANY, LLC; AND
CORE-MARK HOLDING COMPANY, INC.
The Gibson case is consolidated in MDL 2913 RE: JUUL LABS, INC.,
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company which spun
off from Pax Labs in 2017. Juul Labs makes the Juul e-cigarette,
which packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use
cartridges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
412 H St. NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
JUUL LABS: Wilhelm Sues in N.D. Calif. Over Use of E-Cigarettes
---------------------------------------------------------------
JANECE WILHELM, individually and as the mother and next of friend
of D.L. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02560 (N.D.
Cal., April 13, 2020), alleges that JUUL products are defective and
unreasonably dangerous as they promote nicotine addiction.
The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for design
defect, negligent failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, and
violation of unfair trade practices/consumer protection law, and
breach of express warranty.
The Plaintiff contends that she used JUUL from March 2017 to
present and that use caused and or substantially contributed to her
injury, including addiction and nicotine poisoning. She adds that
JUUL products, including e-cigarettes and JUUL pods, deliver
dangerous toxins and carcinogens to users. Nicotine itself is a
carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with
cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory, treble, and punitive damages,
medical monitoring to diagnose JUUL induced injuries at an earlier
date to allow for timely treatment and prevention of exacerbation
of injuries, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys'
fees, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper.
The Defendants are ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.;
ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY;
ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC; THE MANGEMENT DEFENDANTS INCLUDING JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; AND RIAZ
VALANI; AND THE E-LIQUID MANUFACTURING DEFENDANTS INCLUDING MOTHER
MURPHY'S LABS, INC.; ALTERNATIVE INGREDIENTS, INC.; TOBACCO
TECHNOLOGY, INC.; eLIQUITECH, INC.; AND THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS
INCLUDING MCLANE COMPANY, INC.; EBY-BROWN COMPANY, LLC; AND
CORE-MARK HOLDING COMPANY, INC.
The Wilhelm case is consolidated in MDL 2913 RE: JUUL LABS, INC.,
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company which spun
off from Pax Labs in 2017. Juul Labs makes the Juul e-cigarette,
which packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use
cartridges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
412 H St. NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
JUUL LABS: Williams-Walker Sues in N.D. Cal. Over Use of E-Cigs
---------------------------------------------------------------
TONYA WILLIAMS-WALKER, individually and as the mother and next of
friend of M.W. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02547
(N.D. Cal., April 13, 2020), alleges that JUUL products are
defective and unreasonably dangerous as they promote nicotine
addiction.
The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for design
defect, negligent failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, and
violation of unfair trade practices/consumer protection law, and
breach of express warranty.
The Plaintiff contends that she used JUUL products from May 2017 to
present and that use caused and or substantially contributed to her
injury, including addiction and nicotine poisoning. The Plaintiff
asserts that JUUL products, including e-cigarettes and JUUL pods,
deliver dangerous toxins and carcinogens to users. Nicotine itself
is a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with
cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory, treble, and punitive damages,
medical monitoring to diagnose JUUL induced injuries at an earlier
date to allow for timely treatment and prevention of exacerbation
of injuries, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys'
fees, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper.
The Defendants are ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.;
ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY;
ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC; THE MANGEMENT DEFENDANTS INCLUDING JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; AND RIAZ
VALANI; AND THE E-LIQUID MANUFACTURING DEFENDANTS INCLUDING MOTHER
MURPHY'S LABS, INC.; ALTERNATIVE INGREDIENTS, INC.; TOBACCO
TECHNOLOGY, INC.; eLIQUITECH, INC.; AND THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS
INCLUDING MCLANE COMPANY, INC.; EBY-BROWN COMPANY, LLC; AND
CORE-MARK HOLDING COMPANY, INC.
The Williams-Walker case is consolidated in MDL 2913 RE: JUUL LABS,
INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION.
Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company which spun
off from Pax Labs in 2017. Juul Labs makes the Juul e-cigarette,
which packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use
cartridges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
412 H St. NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
KEIM ENTERPRISES: Faces Gritz TCPA Suit Over Autodialed Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID GRITZ, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KEIM ENTERPRISES, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation,
Case No. (M.D. Pa., April 6, 2020), seeks to stop the Defendant
from directing their realtors to violate the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by making unsolicited, pre-recorded and autodialed
calls to consumers without their consent, and to obtain injunctive
and monetary relief for all persons injured by their conduct.
Between November 4, 2019, and November 8, 2019, the Plaintiff
received 3 unsolicited calls from the Defendant. None of these
calls were answered. On November 8, 2019, at 10:39 AM, Mr. Gritz
received a pre-recorded call from the Defendant on his cell phone
using phone number 484-209-6077 regarding a home-buying program,
says the complaint.
The Defendant is a real estate firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew M Carroll, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW M. CARROLL
1800 JFK Blvd, Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (609) 400-1302
E-mail: andrewcarrollesq@gmail.com
-and -
Stefan Coleman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
1072 Madison Ave., Suite 1
Lakewood, NJ 08701
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
KRAFT HEINZ: Osborne ERISA Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN OSBORNE, BRIAN COLEMAN
and EVE COLEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION BOARD OF KRAFT HEINZ,
DAVID KNOPF, GREG GUIDOTTI, SHIRLEY WEINSTEIN, KATHI BARTON, STEVE
CRUCITT and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:19-cv-00307 (Filed March 19,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 10, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02256 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.
The case is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act against the Employee Benefits
Administration Board of Kraft Heinz. The Plaintiffs filed this
complaint on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
current and former employees of Kraft Heinz who were participants
in and beneficiaries of various retirement plans which were
co-invested in a commingled investment fund known as the Kraft
Foods Savings Plan Master Trust during the period of May 4, 2017,
through February 21, 2019.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Plan participants, who purchased
Kraft Heinz stock, were damaged by overpaying this amount, and they
bore this foreseeable loss, which could have been avoided. No
matter what happens to the stock price in the future, these Plan
participants sustained a loss due to paying the excessive
artificial price, and they will bear this loss even if Kraft Heinz
stock recovers in the future. The Plaintiffs add that the
Defendants should have acted to end and prevent this concrete,
present harm to the Plan and its participants.
Kraft Heinz, is an American food company formed by the merger of
Kraft Foods and Heinz with headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
and Chicago Illinois. EBAB is a committee established by the
governing documents of the Plan and is a "named fiduciary" of the
Plan according to those documents. The EBAB is a Plan fiduciary
pursuant to ERISA.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason A. Archinaco, Esq.
THE ARCHINACO FIRM
Michael A. O'Leary
1100 Liberty Avenue, Suite C-6
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 434-0555
Facsimile: (888) 563-7549
E-mail: jarchinaco@archlawgroup.com
- and -
Samuel E. Bonderoff, Esq.
Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
James Ostaszewski, Esq.
ZAMANSKY LLC
50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 742-1414
Facsimile: (212) 742-1177
E-mail: samuel@zamansky.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew Ehrlich, Esq.
Daniel J. Kramer, Esq.
William A. Clareman, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6064
Telephone: (212) 373-3166
E-mail: aehrlich@paulweiss.com
dkramer@paulweiss.com
wclareman@paulweiss.com
- and -
Matthew D. Stachel, Esq.
POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON, LLP
1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr.
P.O. Box 951
Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
Telephone: (302) 984-6194
E-mail: mstachel@potteranderson.com
- and -
Roy W. Arnold, Esq.
Shawna J. English, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
501 Grant Street, 8th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 932-2814
E-mail: rarnold@blankrome.com
senglish@blankrome.com
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Faces Telemarketing Suit From Fister
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DAVID JAMES FISTER, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY, a Massachusetts corporation, and EMERITUS INSTITUTE OF
MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD. Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10789 (D. Mass.,
April 20, 2022) arises from a campaign by Defendants to market
educational programs through the use of automated text messages in
plain violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the text messages received by Plaintiff
demonstrates that the messages were sent for the purpose of
encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property,
goods, or services as it seeks to have him sign up for MIT's course
in the "Drug and Medical Device Development program," which is a
service. This message therefore qualified as telemarketing.
Fister did not provide the Defendants his prior express written
consent to receiving telemarketing text messages.
Plaintiff's privacy has been violated by the telemarketing
robocalls from Defendants. The calls were an annoying, harassing
nuisance, the Complaint says.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (617) 485-0018
Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
– and –
Donald E. Petersen, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DONALD E. PETERSEN
2100 Campbell Street
Palatka, FL 32177
Telephone: (407) 648–9050
Email: Petersen.NACBA@gmail.com
MIAMI-DADE, FL: Fails to Respond to COVID-19 Threat, Swain Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY SWAIN; ALEN BLANCO; BAYARDO CRUZ; RONNIEL FLORES; WINFRED
HILL; DEONDRE WILLIS; PETER BERNAL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DANIEL JUNIOR, in his official
capacity as Director of the Miami-Dade Corrections and
Rehabilitation Department; MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Case No.
1:20-cv-21457-KMW (S.D. Fla., April 5, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants failed to respond to the obvious and urgent threats
posed by the growing COVID-19 pandemic.
The Plaintiffs contend that the over 1,800 people jailed at Metro
West Detention Cent are forced to suffer unconstitutional
conditions that deny them the precautions and protections necessary
to mitigate against the risks of COVID-19.
Because of the ongoing, systemic violations of the Petitioners'
constitutional rights, the Petitioners seek class-wide relief
requiring the Defendants to take basic and necessary steps to
safeguard the health of people who, due to the nature of their
confinement, are not only at heightened risk of infection and death
but are also rendered unable to take the simple steps to protect
themselves that have become a necessary part of everyday life for
those people not in jail. The Petitioners further request a writ of
habeas corpus for all those who are medically vulnerable and at
particularly grave risk of infection and death from COVID-19, says
the complaint.
Miami-Dade County is a county in the southeastern part of the U.S.
state of Florida. The Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation
Department operates the eighth-largest jail system in the
country.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
R. Quinn Smith, Esq.
Katherine Alena Sanoja, Esq.
GST LLP
1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2715
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 856-7723
E-mail: quinn.smith@gstllp.com
katherine.sanoja@gstllp.com
- and -
Meena Jagannath, Esq.
COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT
3000 Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 106
Miami, FL 33137
Telephone: (305) 907-7697
E-mail: meena@communityjusticeproject.com
- and -
Maya Ragsdale, Esq.
DREAM DEFENDERS
6161 NW 9th Ave.
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: 786-309-2217
E-mail: maya@dreamdefenders.org
- and -
Alexandria Twinem, Esq.
Katherine Hubbard, Esq.
CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
1601 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 800
Washington, DC 2009
Telephone: (202) 894-6126
E-mail: alexandria@civilrightscorps.org
katherine@civilrightscorps.org
- and -
Tiffany Yang, Esq.
Thomas B. Harvey, Esq.
ADVANCEMENT PROJECT
1220 L Street NW, Ste. 850
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 728-9557
E-mail: tyang@advancementproject.org
tharvey@advacementproject.org
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Suris Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Web Site
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yaroslav Suris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION d/b/a MSN, Case No.
1:20-cv-01831-LDH-CLP (E.D.N.Y., April 16, 2020), is brought for
retribution for the Defendant's actions against deaf and hard of
hearing individuals residing in New York and within the United
States.
The Defendant has denied the Plaintiff, who is deaf and deaf and
hard-of-hearing individuals' access to goods and services provided
to non-disabled individuals through its Web site,
http://www.msn.com/,and in conjunction with its physical locations
of offices, video, television and blog studios, publishing
personnel and offices, live events, hosting locations along with
partnerships with premium publishers and more than 3,000 brands in
all major global markets.
The Defendant's Web site states "Our AI scans the content as it
arrives, processes it to understand dimensions like freshness,
category, topic type, opinion content and potential popularity and
then presents it to our editors. Editors then curate the top
stories throughout the day, across a variety of topics, so our
readers get the best news from the best stories." If their AI does
all of that, it should be able to add closed captioning to not
discriminate against the disabled in violation of the Plaintiff's
rights under the American with Disabilities Act, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff lives in Kings County, New York, and is a deaf
individual.
The Defendant offers information and video on its Web site on such
topics as the Weather, News, Election 2020, Entertainment, Sports,
Money, Lifestyle, Health, Food, Travel, Autos, Videos, Kids,
amongst other various topics.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Segal, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL S. SEGAL P.C.
1010 Northern Blvd., Ste. 208
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 415-0100
Fax: (516) 706-6631
MOWI ASA: Hunt-Alpine Club Suit Moved from Maine to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Portland Hunt-Alpine Club,
LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Mowi
ASA (fka Marine Harvest ASA), Marine Harvest USA, LLC, Marine
Harvest Canada, Inc., Ducktrap River of Maine LLC, Grieg Seafood
ASA, Grieg Seafood BC Ltd., Bremnes Seashore AS, Ocean Quality AS,
Ocean Quality North America Inc., Ocean Quality USA Inc., Ocean
Quality Premium Brands, Inc., SalMar ASA, Leroy Seafood Group ASA,
Leroy Seafood USA Inc., and Scottish Sea Farms Ltd., Case No.
2:19-cv-00207 (Filed Oct. 1, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maine to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on April 9, 2020.
The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-21509-KMW to the proceeding.
The lawsuit arises from alleged unlawful coordination of the price
of farm-raised salmon and salmon products derived therefrom, which
were sold by the Defendants and/or entities owned or controlled by
them between July 1, 2015, and the present. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants' conduct violates federal antitrust law and
various state antitrust and unfair competition, consumer protection
and unfair trade practices, and unjust enrichment laws.
Mowi ASA, formerly known as Marine Harvest ASA, is a Norwegian
seafood company with operations in a number of countries around the
world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Taylor Asen, Esq.
BERMAN & SIMMONS
129 Lisbon Street
Lewiston, ME 04240
Telephone: 207-560-0692
E-mail: tasen@bermansimmons.com
- and -
Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: azapala@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Don Barrett, Esq.
Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq.
David McMullan, Esq.
BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
P.O. Box 927
404 Court Square
Lexington, MS 39095
Telephone: (662) 834-2488
E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com
dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
- and -
Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
LARSON KING, LLP
2800 Wells Fargo Place
30 East Seventh Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651) 312-6518
E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com
- and -
Samuel J. Dubbin, P.A.
DUBBIN & KRAVETZ, LLP
1200 Anastasia Avenue
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 371-4700
E-mail: sdubbin@dubbinkravetz.com
- and -
Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
Daniel Cohen, Esq.
Jennifer Kelly, Esq.
Blaine Finley, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
danielc@cuneolaw.com
jkelly@cuneolaw.com
bfinley@cuneolaw.com
MOWI ASA: Prime Steakhouse Suit Moved From Maine to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Prime Steakhouse, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated v. Mowi ASA (fka Marine
Harvest ASA), Marine Harvest USA, LLC, Marine Harvest Canada, Inc.,
Ducktrap River of Maine LLC, Grieg Seafood ASA, Grieg Seafood BC
Ltd., Bremnes Seashore AS, Ocean Quality AS, Ocean Quality North
America Inc., Ocean Quality USA Inc., Ocean Quality Premium Brands,
Inc., SalMar ASA, Leroy Seafood Group ASA, Leroy Seafood USA Inc.,
and Scottish Sea Farms Ltd., Case No. 2:19-cv-00207 (Filed May 9,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maine to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Miami) on April 6, 2020.
The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-21463-DPG to the proceeding.
This lawsuit arises from the Defendants' unlawful coordination of
the price of farm-raised salmon and salmon products derived
therefrom which were sold by the Defendants and/or entities owned
or controlled by them between July 1, 2015, and the present. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' conduct violates federal
antitrust law and various state antitrust and unfair competition,
consumer protection and unfair trade practices, and unjust
enrichment laws.
Mowi ASA, formerly known as Marine Harvest ASA, is a Norwegian
seafood company with operations in a number of countries around the
world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Taylor A. Asen, Esq.
BERMAN & SIMMONS, P.A.
P.O. Box 961
Lewiston, ME 04243-0961
Telephone: (207) 784-3576
E-mail: tasen@bermansimmons.com
- and -
Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
Daniel Cohen, Esq.
Jennifer Kelly, Esq.
Blaine Finley, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
danielc@cuneolaw.com
jkelly@cuneolaw.com
bfinley@cuneolaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hall Suit Transferred to Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Stacy Hall, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association and Colgate University, Defendants, was
transferred from the Indiana Southern District Court with the
assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00363 to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on February 25, 2020, and
assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01297.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as
Diversity-Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a nonprofit
organization that regulates student athletes from 1,268 North
American institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
Raizner Slania, Llp
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL CREDIT: Ivey Sues in Virginia Over Violation of RICO Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Credit
Adjusters, LLC. The case is styled as Ronald Ivey, Jessica Lewis,
Lorene Nelson, Timothy Underwood, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals v. National Credit Adjusters, LLC,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00274-MHL (E.D. Va., April 16, 2020).
The Plaintiffs filed the case under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
National Credit Adjusters, L.L.C. (NCA) provides financial
services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
Newport News, VA 23601
Phone: (757) 930-3660
Fax: (757) 930-3662
Email: craig@clalegal.com
lenbennett@clalegal.com
NEW PRIME INC: Parker Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as TERESA PARKER, individually
and on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NEW PRIME INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. Case No. 56-2020-00540835-CU-OE-VTA (Filed March 5, 2020), was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Ventura to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on April 8, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-03298 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the California
Labor Code by failing to pay for all hours work,
to pay minimum wages, and to provide meal and rest periods or
compensation in lieu thereof.
New Prime provides trucking transportation services. The Company
offers refrigerated, flatbed, tanker, and intermodal carrier
services.[BN]
Defendant New Prime, Inc., is represented by:
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq.
Michele L. Maryott, Esq.
Jordan E. Johnson, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: 213.229.7000
Facsimile: 213.229.7520
E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
mmaryott@gibsondunn.com
jjohnson@gibsondunn.com
NEW YORK: Thomas Sues Asserting Claims for Prisoner Civil Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anthony Annucci, et
al. The case is styled as James Thomas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Anthony Annucci, Acting
Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and
Community Supervision; Andrew Cuomo; Governor, New York State, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03072-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as "Prison Condition for Prisoner
Civil Rights."
Anthony Annucci has drafted legislation that has been signed into
law by five different governors.
The Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Auburn
Correctional Facility, in Auburn, New York, appears pro se.[BN]
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Bolden Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Twanna Bolden, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northstar
Location Services, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00451 (W.D.N.Y., April 16,
2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar
Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to
customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Michael Barshay, Esq.
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com
csanders@barshaysanders.com
ORION CAPITAL: Bryan Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orion Capital
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Amy R. Bryan, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Orion Capital
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00226 (W.D.N.C., April 16, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Orion Capital offers smart debt recovery solutions to creditors by
providing consumers easy-to-use account management and payment
tools.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arthur H. Piervincenti, Esq.
ARHUTR H. PIERVINCENTI, P.A.
631-200B Brawley School Road, Box 225
Mooresville, NC 28117
Phone: (704) 997-9529
Fax: (704) 230-0413
Email: arthur@lawahp.com
PEL-STATE BULK: Workers Seek Pay for Hours Worked Over 40
---------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Collins and Zachary Hall, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pel-State Bulk Plant, LLC
and William H. Broyles, II, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00083 (W.D.
Tex., March 27, 2020), seeks to recover monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of non-payment of overtime
premiums pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Collins was employed as an hourly CDL Frac Operator and Hall was
employed as an hourly fuel technician by the Defendants from
September of 2019 through the present. They claim that they were
denied overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
One Financial Center
650 S. Shackleford Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (479) 880-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
PIONEER EXPLORATION: Dillard Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Steven Dillard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pioneer Exploration LLC, Atlas Operation
LLC and Younas Chaudhary, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01127, (S.D.
Tex., March 30, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit and such other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants are into oil and gas exploration. They jointly employed
Dillard as a floor hand from October 2019 through March 2020.
Dillard claims to regularly work in excess of forty hours per week
without overtime and often worked through his meal breaks. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
Renu Tandale, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Center
440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
PROMISE HOME: Questions on Settlement in Abraham FLSA Suit Issued
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HELEN ABRAHAM and NATOYA KERDEANE SYLVESTER, on behalf
of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiffs. v. PROMISE HOME CARE AGENCY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 18 Civ. 4502 (GWG) (S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an order on the pending motion
to approve the proposed settlement.
The Court scheduled an oral argument on the pending Settlement
Motion.
The Judge notes that he is proposing revisions to the various
notices to the claimants in an effort to simplify the language.
Also, these revisions include (1) a requirement that claimants
provide an email address and telephone inasmuch as this would
vastly increase the chance of finding a claimant who mailed in a
claim form but did not cash their check (or whose check was
returned as undeliverable); and (2) language requiring that a
person seeking to dispute the calculation of weeks worked must do
so by attaching a letter to the claim form.
The Court is separately emailing a Word version of these documents.
It is strongly suggested that the parties do a comparison of the
Court's proposed versions to the parties' original versions so that
the parties are aware of all of the Court's proposed changes. If
the parties disagree with any of the changes, they should raise
their disagreements at the oral argument.
As to the merits of the settlement proposal itself, the Judge has
the following questions that the parties should be prepared to
address at the oral argument:
I. It would appear far more equitable to distribute funds
according to the number of hours worked per week over 40 rather
than according to the number of weeks worked. Why did the parties
choose to allocate by the number of weeks (paragraph 9.2(B))? Does
this not result in a situation where a class member who worked 10
hours in a particular week receives the same payment as a class
member who worked 60 hours in that week? Is there a reason such an
allocation is fair?
II. The Court is concerned that there may be insufficient
information to ensure that the notice is received by all the class
members. What makes the parties believe they have accurate mail
and email addresses for the class members (paragraph 5.2(B))? Is
there a plan in effect by the Settlement Administrator or counsel
to obtain accurate mail and email addresses before the first
mailing is made? More importantly, are cellphone numbers not
available? Why is there not a provision for sending a text or
email to class members at some point after the initial mailing to
ensure there was receipt?
III. It appears from paragraph 9.1(B) of the Settlement
Agreement that the Defendant is not required to fund the entire
$1.1 million amount until 20 months after the date of the Court's
preliminary approval order. In light of this fact, the Court would
like to discuss with the parties what steps will be taken so that,
in the event that a substantial number of class members send in a
claim form, greater efforts will be made to ensure that the
Settlement Administrator has up-to-date addresses for the class
members. The Court has already changed the claim form to require
the plaintiffs to provide email addresses. Additionally,
affirmative and cost-effective efforts might be made during this
lengthy period to ensure that contact is maintained, for example
through emails or texts.
IV. If the Defendant fails to fully fund the settlement
(paragraph 9.1(F)), why should the Plaintiffs not be entitled to a
judgment for an amount over and above the agreed settlement amount?
Because the settlement is a compromise, the Court does not
understand why, if it fails to pay the compromised amount, the
Defendant should simply have a judgment entered against it for that
same amount. In the Court's experience, there is normally a
significant downside built in to dissuade a defendant from failing
to adhere to a payment plan -- typically, the threat of a judgment
for double the amount remaining due or, at a minimum, an additional
20% of the settlement amount.
V. The Court wonders if it is really the case that the text of
the "reminder postcard" can actually fit on a postcard.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/X2AHb6 from Leagle.com.
Helen Abraham, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated & Natoya Kerdeane Sylvester, on
behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexander Todd
Coleman -- atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com -- Borrelli &
Associates, P.L.L.C., Michael John Borrelli --
mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com -- Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C.
& Michael R. Minkoff -- mrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com -- Borrelli
& Associates, P.L.L.C.
Promise Home Care Agency, Inc., Defendant, represented by Emina
Poricanin -- eporican@hodgsonruss.com -- Hodgson Russ LLP & Joshua
I. Feinstein -- josh_feinstein@hodgsonruss.com -- Hodgson Russ
LLP.
PRUCO LIFE: Settlement in Behfarin Suit Wins Initial Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 5, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that
the court overseeing the case, Richard Behfarin v. Pruco Life
Insurance Company, issued an order granting the motion for
preliminary approval of the pastor's settlement.
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.
Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Pruco Life Insurance Company, which in turn is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of The Prudential Insurance Company of
America. The company is based in Newark, New Jesey.
QUAPAW HOUSE: Faces Schatz Suit Over Reduced Employee Paychecks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Schatz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. QUAPAW HOUSE, INC.; CASEY BRIGHT, Case No.
5:20-cv-05066-TLB (W.D. Ark., April 16, 2020), is brought to remedy
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act relating to reduced employee paychecks.
The Defendants has not paid its employees, specifically including
the Plaintiff, since paychecks issued on February 25, 2020, for
work performed since that date, according to the complaint. The
Defendants reduced employee paychecks for certain benefits,
including health coverage, that were not provided as health
coverage for all employees terminated on January 31, 2020, yet
paychecks delivered in February were still deducted for payment of
health coverage. Of course, no paychecks were delivered in March or
April 2020, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an employee employed as a program director for
QHI's facility in Bentonville known as Decision Point.
Quapaw House, Inc., is an Arkansas Non-Profit Corporation that
provides residential treatment and mental health services and
maintains its home office in Hot Springs, Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George M. Rozzell IV, Esq.
Kristin Pawlik, Esq.
MILLER, BUTLER, SCHNEIDER, PAWLIK, & ROZZELL PLLC
112 W. Center St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Phone: 479.621.0006
Email: grozzell@arkattorneys.com
kpawlik@arkattorneys.com
RATNER COMPANIES: Faces Olsen FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE OLSEN, individually and for others similarly situated v.
RATNER COMPANIES L.C. d/b/a HAIR CUTTERY, PHIL HORVATH, DENNIS
RATNER, JOHN/ JANE DOES 1-10, fictitious persons; ABC CORP. 1-10,
fictitious entities, Case No. 1:20-cv-03760 (D.N.J., April 7,
2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and
other employees minimum wage when due for the hours they worked, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff contends that she and employees similarly situated
were not paid at least the minimum wage for the hours they worked
from March 15, 2020, to March 21, 2020.
On March 21, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 crisis, the
Defendants ceased operations at all of their retail locations
across the country. This action came in the middle of a pay period
that originally began on March 15, 2020. The Plaintiff and other
employees similarly situated to her worked multiple days between
March 15, 2020, and when their stores ceased operations, on March
21, 2020, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an adult individual, who resides in the State of
New Jersey. She has been employed by the Defendants as a Hair
Stylist since 1994.
Ratner owns and operates hair salons, doing business as Hair
Cuttery. Mr. Horvath is the President and COO of the company. Mr.
Ratner is the founder and CEO of the Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam S. Malamut, Esq.
Keith J. Gentes, Esq.
Primitivo J. Cruz, Esq.
Mark R. Natale, Esq.
MALAMUT & ASSOCIATES, LLC
457 Haddonfield Road Suite 500
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: 856-424-1808
Facsimile: 856-424-2032
RECRO PHARMA: Wins Dismissal of IV Meloxicam-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Recro Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that a trial court has granted the
company's motion to dismiss the class action suit related to the
New Drug Application (NDA) for IV meloxicam.
On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit, or the
Securities Litigation, was filed against the company and certain of
its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that
purported to state a claim for alleged violations of Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, based on statements made by the company concerning the
New Drug Application (NDA) for IV meloxicam.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and other costs.
On December 10, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that asserted the same claims and sought the same relief but
included new allegations and named additional officers as
defendants.
On February 8, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety, which the lead plaintiff opposed
on April 9, 2019. On May 9, 2019, the company filed its response
and briefing was completed on the motion to dismiss.
In response to questions from the Judge, the parties submitted
supplemental briefs with regard to the motion to dismiss the
amended complaint during the fall of 2019.
On February 18, 2020, the motion to dismiss was granted without
prejudice; however, the plaintiffs have indicated that they intend
to file a second amended complaint.
In connection with the separation of Baudax Bio, Baudax Bio
accepted assignment by the company of all of its obligations in
connection with the Securities Litigation and agreed to indemnify
the company for all liabilities related to the Securities
Litigation.
Recro Pharma said, "We believe that the lawsuit is without merit
and intend to vigorously defend against it if the plaintiffs file a
new complaint. The lawsuit is in the early stages and, at this
time, no assessment can be made as to its likely outcome or whether
the outcome will be material to us."
Recro Pharma, Inc. operates as a specialty pharmaceutical company.
It operates through two divisions, an Acute Care, and Contract
Development and Manufacturing (CDMO). The company was formerly
known as Recro Pharma I, Inc. and changed its name to Recro Pharma,
Inc. in August 2008. Recro Pharma, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is
based in Malvern, Pennsylvania.
REV GROUP: Consolidated Suit Over 2017 IPO Underway
---------------------------------------------------
REV Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action related to the company's
January 2017 initial public offering.
A consolidated federal putative securities class action and a
consolidated state putative securities class action are pending
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.
These actions collectively purport to assert claims on behalf of
putative classes of purchasers of the Company's common stock in or
traceable to its January 2017 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"),
purchasers in its secondary offering of common stock in October
2017, and purchasers from October 10, 2017 through June 7, 2018.
The state action also names certain of the underwriters for the
Company's IPO or secondary offering as defendants. The federal and
state courts each consolidated multiple separate actions pending
before them, the first of which was filed on June 8, 2018. The
actions have alleged certain violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and, for the federal action, the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
Collectively, the actions seek certification of the putative
classes asserted and compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.
The underwriter defendants have notified the Company of their
intent to seek indemnification from the Company pursuant to the IPO
underwriting agreement regarding the claims asserted with respect
to the IPO, and the Company expects the underwriters to do the same
in regard to the claims asserted with respect to the October 2017
offering.
Two purported derivative actions, which have since been
consolidated, were also filed in federal court in Delaware in 2019
against the Company's directors (with the Company as a nominal
defendant), premised on allegations similar to those asserted in
the consolidated federal securities litigation. The Company and the
other defendants intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously.
REV Group said, "Additional lawsuits may be filed and, at this
time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuits,
the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the
resolution of the lawsuits, or any potential effect that it may
have on the Company or its operations."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
REV Group, Inc. designs, manufactures, and distributes specialty
vehicles in the United States, Canada, Europe, Africa, the Middle
East, Latin America, the Caribbean, and internationally. It
operates through three segments: Fire & Emergency, Commercial, and
Recreation. REV Group, Inc. was formerly known as Allied Specialty
Vehicles, Inc. and changed its name to REV Group, Inc. in November
2015. The company is headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
RITE AID: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RITE AID CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-03531 (C.D.
Cal., April 16, 2020), challenges the Defendant's policies and
practices of failing to pay the Plaintiff all minimum wages owed;
to pay overtime wages; to compensate for all hours worked; and to
provide accurate, itemized wage statements.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been denied payment
for all hours worked, including overtime, and has been forced to
wait in security-check lines while off-the-clock. This case
implicates the Defendant's longstanding policies and practices,
which fails to properly compensate non-exempt employees for work
performed while "off-the-clock."
The Defendant's conduct violates California law by knowingly and
willfully requiring the Plaintiff and Class members to perform work
and/or remain on duty for the benefit of the Defendant while
off-the-clock, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt supervisor by the
Defendant.
The Defendant operates a chain of drugstores throughout the United
States and California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
Ryan M. Hecht, 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
rhecht@schneiderwallace.com
ROADRUNNER TRANS: Accord in Wisconsin Securities Suit Fully Paid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 30, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that
all settlements have been paid in the class action suit entitled,
In re Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation
(Case No. 17-cv-00144).
In 2017, three putative class actions were filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against
the company and its former officers, Mark A. DiBlasi and Peter R.
Armbruster. On May 19, 2017, the Court consolidated the actions
under the caption In re Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation (Case No. 17-cv-00144), and appointed Public
Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiff.
On March 12, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint (the "CAC") on behalf of a class of persons who purchased
our common stock between March 14, 2013 and January 30, 2017,
inclusive.
The CAC asserted claims arising out of the company's January 2017
announcement that the company would be restating its prior period
financial statements and sought certification as a class action,
compensatory damages, and attorney's fees and costs.
On March 29, 2019, the parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement agreeing to settle the action for $20 million, $17.9
million of which will be funded by the company's D&O carriers ($4.8
million of which is by way of a pass through of the D&O carriers'
payment to the company in connection with the settlement of the
Federal Derivative Action).
On September 26, 2019, the Court entered an Order finally approving
the settlement and a final judgment. All settlements have been
paid.
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. provides asset-right
transportation and asset-light logistics services. The company
operates through three segments: Truckload & Express Services
(TES), Less-than-Truckload (LTL), and Ascent Global Logistics.
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. is headquartered in Downers
Grove, Illinois.
SALESFORCE.COM INC: Expert Discovery Underway in Scheufele Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salesforce.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court in "Scheufele
Action", granted lead plaintiff's motion for certification. The
parties are proceeding to expert discovery.
In July and August 2017, two substantially similar securities class
action complaints were filed against ableau Software, Inc.
(Tableau) and two of its now former executive officers.
The first complaint was filed in the U.S. District for the Southern
District of New York (the "Scheufele Action").
The second complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington and was voluntarily dismissed on
October 17, 2017.
In December 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Scheufele Action filed
an amended complaint, which alleged that between February 5, 2015
and February 4, 2016, Tableau and certain of its executive officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in
connection with statements regarding Tableau's business and
operations by allegedly failing to disclose that product launches
and software upgrades by competitors were negatively impacting
Tableau's competitive position and profitability.
The amended complaint sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys’ fees and other costs.
In February 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint (the "SAC"), which contains substantially similar
allegations as the amended complaint, and added as defendants two
of Tableau's now former executive officers and directors.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SAC in March 2018, which
was denied in February 2019. Defendants filed an answer to the SAC
in March 2019, and subsequently amended their answer in April 2019.
On January 15, 2020, the court granted lead plaintiff's motion for
certification.
The parties have completed fact discovery and engaged in expert
discovery. The court has not yet set a trial date.
Salesforce.com, Inc. develops enterprise cloud computing solutions
with a focus on customer relationship management. The company
offers Sales Cloud to store data, monitor leads and progress,
forecast opportunities, and gain insights through analytics and
relationship intelligence, as well as deliver quotes, contracts,
and invoices. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.
SANOFI US: APESAC Class Action Underway in France
-------------------------------------------------
Sanofi said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that in the class action lawsuit filed by the
APESAC (Association des Parents d'Enfants souffrant du Syndrome de
l'Anti-Convulsivant) before a trial court in Paris, the judge
denied claimant's motion on interim measures in November 2017.
APESAC lodged an appeal which was rejected by the Court of Appeal
of Paris in October 2018.
Hearings are expected to take place in the second quarter of 2020.
Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs and
engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of
therapeutic solutions. The company is based in Paris, France.
SANOFI US: Continues to Defend Suits Over Sales of Lantus(R)
------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that Sanofi US and Sanofi GmbH continue to
defend two putative class action suits related to Lantus(R).
In December 2016 and January 2017, two putative class actions were
filed against Sanofi US and Sanofi GmbH in Federal Court in
Massachusetts on behalf of direct-purchasers of Lantus(R) alleging
certain antitrust violations.
In January 2018, the District Court of Massachusetts dismissed
Plaintiffs' complaint against Sanofi. The dismissal of Plaintiffs'
entire case was without prejudice.
Plaintiffs appealed that order to the Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit, which issued its decision on February 13, 2020
reversing and remanding to the district court.
Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs and
engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of
therapeutic solutions. The company is based in Paris, France.
SANOFI US: Faces Suits Over Zantac(R)-Related Injuries
------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant
in class action suits related to Zantac(R).
In September 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
announced it was investigating the claims of an online pharmacy's
Citizen Petition that the medication Zantac(R) (the brand name for
ranitidine) used for stomach burns contains or can generate the
chemical N-nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA"), an alleged human
carcinogen.
As a precautionary measure, Sanofi initiated a voluntary recall of
branded over-the-counter Zantac(R) in October 2019. Concurrent with
FDA's investigation, multiple personal injury lawsuits and class
actions alleging that Zantac(R) causes various cancers and seeking
damages for either alleged personal injuries or alleged economic
injuries were filed.
In addition, in November 2019, Sanofi received a Civil
Investigative Demand (CID) related to this issue from the Arizona
Attorney General.
Sanofi said, "At this preliminary stage, Sanofi cannot reliably
predict the outcome of the litigation or the potential impact on
the Company."
Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs and
engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of
therapeutic solutions. The company is based in Paris, France.
SANOFI US: RICO Claims in Insulin Pricing Class Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the court overseeing the consolidated class
action suit entitled, In re Insulin Pricing had dismissed the RICO
claims, and allowed some state law claims to proceed.
In early 2017, four actions (now consolidated and captioned "In re
Insulin Pricing") were filed against Sanofi US in Federal Court in
New Jersey on behalf of a putative class of diabetes patients
alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO Act") and various state unfair/deceptive
trade practices statutes in connection with the pricing of
Lantus(R), Apidra(R), and Toujeo(R).
In February 2020, the Court dismissed the RICO claims, and allowed
some state law claims to proceed. The parties were ordered to
commence discovery in September 2019.
Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs and
engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of
therapeutic solutions. The company is based in Paris, France.
SPARK ENERGY: Discovery Still Ongoing in Rolland Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that discovery is still ongoing in
the class action suit entitled, Janet Rolland, et al v. Spark
Energy, LLC.
Janet Rolland, et al v. Spark Energy, LLC is a purported class
action originally filed on April 19, 2017 in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Spark
Energy, LLC charged a variable rate that was higher than permitted
by its terms of service, resulting in breach of contract and
violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs
alleged claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
The case seeks to certify a putative nationwide class of all Spark
variable rate electricity customers from April 19, 2011 to the
present.
The relief sought includes unspecified actual damages, refunds,
treble damages and punitive damages for the putative class,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs of suit.
Spark obtained dismissal with prejudice of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act claim and has sought dismissal of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act claim and other claims.
Discovery is ongoing in this matter. Spark denies the allegations
asserted by Plaintiffs and intends to vigorously defend this
matter.
Spark Energy said, "Given the ongoing discovery and current stage
of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome of this case at this
time."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.
SPARK ENERGY: Finalizing Settlement Agreement in Veilleux Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in Katherine
Veilleux, et. al. v. Electricity Maine LLC, Provider Power, LLC,
Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean, and Emile Clavet, are completing a
settlement agreement and will present such Agreement to the court
for approval.
Katherine Veilleux, et. al. v. Electricity Maine LLC, Provider
Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean, and Emile Clavet is a
purported class action lawsuit filed on November 18, 2016 in the
United States District Court of Maine, alleging that Electricity
Maine, LLC ("Electricity Maine"), an entity acquired by Spark
Holdco in mid-2016, enrolled customers and conducted advertising,
and promotions not in compliance with law.
Plaintiffs seek damages for themselves and the purported class,
injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys' fees.
The parties are completing a settlement agreement and will present
such Agreement to the court for approval, which we expect the court
to review in second quarter of 2020.
Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.
TOTAL CARD: Davis Class Debt Collection Letter "Deceptive"
----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TOTAL CARD, INC., a South Dakota
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01212-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind.,
April 21, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against
Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Plaintiff has a defaulted, time-barred debt allegedly owed for an
HSBC/Capital One Account which Defendant attempted to collect.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff's defaulted debt was
allegedly purchased or obtained by Cavalry SPV I, LLC, and allowed
Defendant to collect the debt by sending a form collection letter,
dated September 10, 2019, which demanded payment of the HSBC debt
via discounted settlement offers.
However, Defendant's collection letter confused and alarmed
Plaintiff about the status of the debt because it failed to provide
Plaintiff enough information to make an informed decision. Also,
Defendant failed to foreclose the possibility that Cavalry SPV I,
LLC could not or would not credit report the debt and could file a
lawsuit. Thus, Defendant's form letter is false, deceptive or
misleading.
Total Card, Inc. acts as a debt collector and operates a nationwide
debt collection business and attempts to collect debts from
consumers in virtually every state, including consumers in the
State of Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Davis J. Philipps, Esq.
Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
Palos Hills, IL 60465
Tel: (708)974-2900
Fax: (708)974-2907
Emails: davephilipps@aol.com
mephilipps@aol.com
angie@philippslegal.com
- and –
John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
JOHN T. STEINKAMP & ASSOCIATES
5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
Indianapolis, IN 46227
Tel: (317)780-8300
Fax: (317)217-1320
Email: john@johnsteinkampandassociates.com
TRAVELERS AID: Court Approves $8.5K Settlement in Carney Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WENONAH CARNEY, Plaintiff, v. TRAVELERS AID
SOCIETY OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-3599 (E.D.
Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiff's Unopposed
Motion for Approval of Settlement.
Wenonah Carney filed the lawsuit against the Defendant on Aug. 8,
2019, alleging that it violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA") by
misclassifying her as exempt, thereby resulting in a denial of
overtime compensation. Following filing of the Complaint, the
parties engaged in informal production and settlement discussions,
and ultimately reached an agreement resolving the Plaintiff's
individual claims. Because the parties reached a settlement, the
Defendant did not file a dispositive motion or answer.
Following a telephone conference on Jan. 21, 2020, the Plaintiff
submitted a revised Settlement Agreement and Release. Only the
Confidentiality Clause was changed in the amended submission.
The proposed settlement agreement requires the Defendant to pay a
total of $8,500 in full settlement of the Plaintiff's lawsuit. The
Defendant's $8,500 obligation will be broken down into three
separate payments: (1) one check made payable to the Plaintiff in
the amount of $2,559.13, from which payroll taxes will be deducted
and withheld (based on the claim for unpaid wages); (2) one check
payable to the Plaintiff in the amount of $2,559.13 (based on the
claim for liquidated damages); and (3) one check payable to the
Plaintiff's counsel in the amount of $3,381.74 (approximately 40%
of the total settlement amount).
In exchange, the Plaintiff has agreed to release any and all
federal, state, and/or local wage-and-hour-related or wage payment
claims, rights, demands, liabilities, debts, suits, and causes of
action of every nature and description, whether known or unknown,
including, without limitation, statutory, constitutional,
contractual, or common law claims for wages, overtime, other
compensation or benefits of any kind, damages, unpaid costs,
penalties, liquidated damages, penalties, interest, attorney fees,
litigation costs, restitution, and equitable relief, which arose
during the time that the Plaintiff was employed by or otherwise
performed services for the Defendant.
The settlement agreement also includes a confidentiality clause
requiring that she refrain from seek[ing any publicity or making
any statement to the media or press relative to the Lawsuit
Finally, the settlement agreement contains a mutual
non-disparagement provision forbidding the Plaintiff from making or
causing to be made any statements which disparage Defendant, either
orally or in writing.
Judge Baylson concludes that the proposed Settlement Agreement and
Release is fair and reasonable, and that the Plaintiff's counsel
has sufficiently demonstrated entitlement to an attorney's fee
award of 40% of the total recovery. The Judge finds that the
compensation terms and the attorney's fee award are fair and
reasonable to the Plaintiff. The Judge also finds that the
implementation of the Settlement Agreement and Release would not
frustrate the purposes of the FLSA and the third element is
fulfilled. For these reasons, the Judge granted the Plaintiff's
Settlement Motion.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Memorandum
is available at https://is.gd/irTWc0 from Leagle.com.
WENONAH CARNEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATION, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL GROH --
mgroh@phillemploymentlawyer.com -- MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC & MICHAEL
PATRICK MURPHY, Jr. -- murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com -- MURPHY
LAW GROUP LLC.
TRAVELERS AID SOCIETY OF PHILADELPHIA, doing business as FAMILIES
FORWARD PHILADELPHIA, Defendant, represented by LEE E. TANKLE --
tanklel@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON LLP.
TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Acerra Securities Suit Moved to N.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MONICA ACERRA, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRULIEVE CANNABIS
CORP., KIM RIVERS, and MOHAN SRINIVASAN, Case No. 2:20-cv-00775
(Filed Feb, 12, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Florida (Tallahassee) on April 14, 2020.
The Northern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00186-RH-MJF to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Robert L. Hinkle.
The case is a class action on behalf of persons or entities, who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Trulieve securities
between September 25, 2018, and December 17, 2019. The Plaintiff
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff purchased Trulieve securities during the Class Period
and was economically damaged thereby.
Trulieve, together with its subsidiaries, purports to operate as a
medical marijuana company. The Company cultivates and produces
products in-house and distributes its products to Trulieve branded
stores (dispensaries) in Florida, as well as directly to patients
through home delivery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
TRULIEVE CANNABIS: McNear Securities Suit Moved to N.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID MCNEAR, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRULIEVE CANNABIS
CORP., KIM RIVERS, and MOHAN SRINIVASAN, Case No. 1:19-cv-07289
(Filed Dec. 30, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District for the
Northern District of Florida on April 14, 2020.
The Northern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00187-AW-MAF to the proceeding.
The case is a class action on behalf of persons or entities, who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Trulieve securities
between September 25, 2018, and December 17, 2019, inclusive. The
Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Trulieve, together with its subsidiaries, purports to operate as a
medical marijuana company. The Company cultivates and produces
products in-house and distributes its products to Trulieve branded
stores (dispensaries) in Florida, as well as directly to patients
through home delivery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
TUFF CREW LLC: Portales FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as NARCISO ALVAREZ PORTALES, and
all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. TUFF CREW
LLC and LUIS R. CAMEJO, Case No. 2020-000762-CC-24 (Filed March 9,
2020), was removed from the Florida Circuit Court in and for
Miami-Dade County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Miami) on April 10, 2020.
The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-21538-CMA to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Tuff Crew is doing business in commercial and office building
construction.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J.H. Zidell, Esq.
David Nudel, Esq.
J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
300 71st Street, Suite 605
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Telephone: (305) 865-6766
Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
UNITED SITE: Williams CEPA Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as GLEN WILLIAMS v. UNITED SITE
SERVICES, INC., UNITED SITE SERVICES NORTHEAST, INC. AND JOHN DOES
1-5 AND 6-10, Case No. MID-L-001131-20 (Filed Feb. 21, 2020), was
removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on April 8,
2020.
The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-03828 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's complaint alleges claims of retaliation, in
violation of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act.
The Plaintiff did not allege a specific of amount of damages in his
complaint. Although the Defendants submit that the Plaintiff is not
entitled to any recovery, the Plaintiff's requested relief includes
back pay and front pay damages, lost employment benefits, emotional
distress damages, punitive damages and attorneys' costs and fees.
United Site provides portable toilet and temporary fence rental
services. The Company offers portable restrooms, trailer-mounted
toilets, portable washing sinks, shower trailers, waste holding
tanks, as well as dumpster rental, generators, septic tank pumping,
and grease trap services.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Lauren J. Marcus, Esq.
Dylan C. Dindial, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
One Newark Center, 8th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: 973 848 4700
VERDE ENERGY: Jurich Settlement Approved Court Orders Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the settlement reached by the
parties in Jurich v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. has received final
approval, and the court has entered an order of dismissal.
Jurich v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a class action originally filed
on March 3, 2015 in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut and subsequently re-filed on October 8,
2015 in the Superior Court of Judicial District of Hartford, State
of Connecticut.
The Amended Complaint asserts that the Verde Companies charged
rates in violation of its contracts with Connecticut customers and
alleges (i) violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sections 42-110a et seq., and (ii) breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages for
the class and injunctive relief.
As part of an agreement in connection with the acquisition of the
Verde Companies, the original owners of the Verde Companies are
handling this matter.
The parties have reached a class settlement in this matter, which
has received final court approval, and an order of dismissal on
February 24, 2020.
Spark Energy said, "Settlement claims' administration is
continuing. The Company believes it has full indemnity coverage,
net of tax benefit, for any actual exposure in this case at this
time."
Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.
VIACOMCBS INC: Derosa Sues Over Unremitted Contributions
--------------------------------------------------------
Sara DeRosa, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. VIACOMCBS Inc., CBS Studios, Inc., Sessions
Payroll Management, Inc., Firsthand Productions, Inc., East End
Productions, Inc., Snapshot Productions, Inc., Gail Levine, Gregg
Levine, Board of Trustees of the AFTRA Retirement Fund, Board of
Trustees of the SAG Producers Pension Plan, Board of Trustees of
the SAG-AFTRA Health Plan and Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-02965 (C.D. Cal. March 30, 2020), seeks redress for
Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation for every hour
worked over 40 per week, unlawful deductions from wages in
violation of the the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor
laws and failure to furnish wage statements.
ViacomCBS Inc. and CBS Studios, Inc. are mass media companies with
interests primarily in commercial broadcasting, publishing and
television where DeRosa has been employed as a background
actor/stand-in through Firsthand Productions, Inc., East End
Productions, Inc. and Snapshot Productions, Inc. -- staffing
agencies owned by Gail Levine and Gregg Levine. Her wages were paid
through Sessions Payroll. She claims that, since 2010, her wages
had not been reported to the Social Security Administration or
Internal Revenue Service despite the deductions intended for
Medicare, Social Security, federal income tax and New York State
income tax were not remitted to the government.
AFTRA Retirement Fund, SAG Producers Pension Plan and the SAG-AFTRA
Health Plan are multiemployer plans. DeRosa claims that her
employer contributions had still not been fully paid to the said
plans. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
Maria L. Weitz, Esq.
Jean Sedlak, Esq.
BOUCHER LLP
21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600
Woodland Hills, CA 91367-4903
Tel: (818) 340-5400
Fax: (818) 340-5401
Email: ray@boucher.la
weitz@boucher.la
Sedlak@boucher.la
WIDEOPENWEST INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit in NY Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
WideOpenWest, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that defendants are still awaiting a
court ruling on the motion to dismiss the consolidated class action
suit in New York related to the company's initial public offering.
In June and July of 2018, putative class action complaints were
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and Colorado
State Court against WideOpenWest, Inc. (WOW) and certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors, as well as
Crestview, Avista, and each of the underwriter banks involved with
the Company's Initial Public Offering (IPO).
The complaints allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the IPO.
The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of stockholders who
purchased stock pursuant to or traceable to the IPO.
The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
The Company believes the complaint and allegations to be without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these
actions.
The Colorado actions have been stayed while the New York cases have
been consolidated with the court staying discovery until after a
determination has been made with respect to the Company's Motion to
Dismiss.
WideOpenWest said, "The Company is unable at this time to determine
whether the outcome of the litigation would have a material impact
on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash
flows."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
WideOpenWest, Inc. provides high speed data, cable television, and
digital telephony services to residential and business services
customers in the United States. The company was formerly known as
WideOpenWest Kite, Inc. and changed its name to WideOpenWest, Inc.
in March 2017. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in
Englewood, Colorado.
WORLD FINANCE: Solis Sues over Unwanted SMS Messages, Phone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
vJULIE SOLIS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WORLD FINANCE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 5:20-cv-00404-OLG (W.D. Tex., March 31, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Texas Debt Collection
Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff has obtained an advance loan
from Defendant six months ago and was not able to pay due to
unforeseen financial hardship. Consequently, Plaintiff started to
receive SMS messages and no less than 45 unwanted, unauthorized,
unconsented phone calls from Defendant's numbers, including
(830)896-8050 and (830)896-8050, in her cellular telephone number
ending in 8357.
Plaintiff asserts that those persistent and unwanted phone calls
from Defendants have caused him actual harm, such as aggravation,
anxiety, emotional distress, increased risk of personal injury
resulting from the distraction caused by phone calls, invasion of
privacy, and many more.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, actual damages, reasonable
attorney's fees and costs.
World Finance Corporation is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
Joseph S. Davidson, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: +1 630-575-8181
Emails: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com
WPB HOSPITALITY: Holmes Sues Over Misclassification of Dancers
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARQUISHA HOLMES, individually, and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. WPB HOSPITALITY, LLC d/b/a SPEARMINT RHINO
GENTLEMAN'S CLUB, and KATHY VERCHER, individually, Case No.
9:20-cv-80617-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 8, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants misclassify their employees as independent contractors,
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants required and/or permitted
her and hundreds of other individuals to work as an exotic
"entertainer" and/or dancer at the Defendants' adult entertainment
club but refused to compensate them at the applicable minimum wage
rate. In fact, the Plaintiff contend, the Defendants refused to
compensate them at all for the hours they worked. She adds that the
dancers' only compensation was in the form of tips from club
patrons.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages owed to her and all
other similarly situated current and former employees of the
Defendants, who worked at Spearmint Rhino Gentleman's Club, at any
time during the three-year period before the complaint was filed up
to the present.
WPB Hospitality is in the cabaret business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
805 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 301
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
- and -
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 327-5355
E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
ZOOM VIDEO: Cullen Sues Over Illegal Personal Data Disclosure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Cullen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-02155 (C.D. Cal., March 30, 2020), seeks damages and
equitable relief in violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Consumer Privacy Act.
Zoom's chief product, "Zoom Meetings," provides online video
conferencing platform which includes remote conferencing services,
online meetings, chat and mobile collaboration. Cullen claims that
Zoom failed to properly safeguard the personal information of its
users as it collects the personal information of its users and
allegedly discloses it to third parties. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq.
WEXLER WALLACE LLP
333 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 565-7692
Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
Email: mjt@wexlerwallace.com
- and -
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
Jason K. Keener, Esq.
WEXLER WALLACE LLP
55 West Monroe, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
Email: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
jkk@wexlerwallace.com
ZOOM VIDEO: Taylor Sues over Personal Info Disclosure to Facebook
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL TAYLOR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:20-cv-02170-SVK (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2020) is a class
action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, public
disclosure of private facts, and violations of California Business
and Professional Code, California Consumer Privacy Act, and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff has downloaded, installed,
and accessed the iOS version of the Zoom app by using his Apple
iPhone. However, Motherboard reported on March 26, 2020 that the
iOS version of the Zoom mobile app was sending customer personal
identifiable information (PII) to Facebook without customer
authorization or customer consent. Zoom would connect to Facebook's
Graph API upon downloading and opening of the app.
Allegedly, Zoom violated its promises to its customers to protect
their privacy and security when it shared their PII with third
parties like Facebook; and breached their expectations of privacy
for failing to obtain their permission for doing so.
The complaint asserts that Defendant's conduct were a substantial
factor in causing the harm suffered by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages, including
compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages.
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. is a video communication provider,
offering a cloud platform for video and audio conferencing,
collaboration, chat, and webinars. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hassan A. Zavareeri, Esq.
Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel: (202)973-0900
Fax: (202)973-0950
Emails: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
[*] GMS Receives Proceeds as Part of Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
GMS Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended January 31, 2020, that in February 2020, the Company received
proceeds as part of a class action legal settlement.
The Company expects to record other income related to the
settlement of approximately $12.0 million during the three months
ending April 30, 2020.
The settlement had no impact on the results of operations for the
three and nine months ended January 31, 2020.
Founded in 1971, GMS Inc. is a distributor of specialty building
products including wallboard, suspended ceilings systems, or
ceilings, steel framing and other complementary specialty building
products. The company purchases products from a large number of
manufacturers and then distribute these goods to a customer base
consisting of wallboard and ceilings contractors and homebuilders
and, to a lesser extent, general contractors and individuals. The
company operates a network of more than 260 distribution centers
across the United States and Canada. The company is based in
Tucker, Georgia.
*********
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 ***