/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200511.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, May 11, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 94 Headlines ADELPHI UNIVERSITY: Shak Suit Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Refuses to Refund Unused Passes, Farmer Claims ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Flannery Antitrust Suit Over E-Cigs Trade AS ROMA: Faces Feldman Shareholder Suit in Delaware Chancery Ct. ASCEND LABORATORIES: Metformin Has High NDMA Level, Mantalis Says AXOGEN INC: Motion to Dismiss Einhorn Class Suit Still Pending BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Shareholders' Bid to Revive Suit Still Pending BILL GRAHAM: Court Certifies 2 Classes in Kihn Suit BOWMAN CONSULTING: Turnbull Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA BRISTOL-MYERS: No Trial Date for Remaining Claims in Suit v Celgene BRISTOL-MYERS: Seeks to Dismiss Amended CheckMate-026 Class Suit BRISTOL-MYERS: Thalomid and Revlimid Antitrust Litigation Underway BURGER KING: 4 Suits over Sherman Act Violations Consolidated C PEPPER LOGISTICS: Sued by Flinn for Misclassifying Drivers CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Faces Milkboy Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Seeks to Drop Melucci Securities Class Suit DELTA DENTAL: Swiecinski Antitrust Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois DISH AMERICA: Faces Smith Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages DISPOSALL INC: Thomas Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Friedman Suit Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees EDOARDO MELONI: Dr. Newman Seeks to Certify Class EVENFLO COMPANY: Faces Brinkerhoff Class Suit in S.D. Ohio FEDEX FREIGHT: Settlement in Emetoh Suit Gets Prelim. Approval FITNESS INT'L: Winters Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls FLOWERS FOODS: Appeals M.D. Fla. Decision in Martins FLSA Suit FM JANITORIAL: Vondergathen Suit Seeks Back Wages Under FLSA FOCUSINC INT'L: Stein Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA and NYLL FORBES SECURITY: Faces Harrington Suit in California Super. Ct. FORESTERS LIFE: Violates California Insurance Code, Siino Alleges GC SERVICES: Jackson Appeals Memorandum and Order to 2nd Circuit GEMSTONE SUPERMARKETS: Santiagos Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Hachem Class Suit Still Pending GENERAL ELECTRIC: Houston Class Suit Remains Stayed GENERAL ELECTRIC: Still Defends Mahar Securities Action in New York GENERAL ELECTRIC: Still Faces Bezio Suit in New York State Court HARTFORD FINANCIAL: GCDC Sues Over Denial of COVID-19 Coverage HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Refuses to Pay COVID-19 Losses, Pigment Says HARTFORD FINANCIAL: SA Sues Over Denial of Insurance Coverage HILCO REDEVELOPMENT: Faces Solis Civil Rights Suit in N.D. Ill. ISS FACILITY: Zamano Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under Labor Code JELD-WEN HOLDING: Cambridge Retirement System Class Suit Underway JELD-WEN HOLDING: Still Faces Interior Molded Doors Antitrust Suit JP MORGAN: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Filed in "Muha" KAUFF'S INC: Conchado Seeks to Certify Tow Truck Drivers Class KBR INC: Hearing on Appeal in Suit vs. Former Subsidiary Underway LEXINGTON INSURANCE: Zwillo V Sues Over Refusal to Pay Claims LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Laborers' Fund Appeals Order to 3rd Cir. MACRO COMPANIES: Guillory Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers MEDICAL SOLUTIONS: Buford Labor Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval METLIFE INC: 9th Cir. Dismisses Appeal in Martin Suit vs. MLIC METLIFE INC: Owens Suit v. Metropolitan Life in N.D. Ga. Settled METLIFE INC: Still Faces Parchmann Class Action in New York METLIFE INC: Westland Police & Fire Retirement Lawsuit Underway METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: 1st Cir. Appeal Filed in DeCapua TCPA Suit MGT CAPITAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for May 27 MICRO FOCUS: Bid to Drop Securities Suit in New York Still Pending MICRO FOCUS: Forsyth Class Action in California Remains Stayed MICRO FOCUS: Jackson Class Action in N.D. Georgia Still Stayed MICRO FOCUS: Prelim. Approval Hearing for Araiza Pact Held MICRO FOCUS: Securities Class Action in California Still Stayed MICROSOFT CORP: McFadden Sues Over Defective Xbox One Controllers MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Prero Sues in New York Alleging FDCPA Violation NESTLE WATERS: Fails to Provide Adequate COBRA Notice, York Says NEW YORK: Thomas Prisoner Suit Moved From S.D. to N.D. New York NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Abrahams Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Stern Sues in E.D.N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation OASIS LEGAL: Davis Appeals S.D. Georgia Decision to 11th Circuit ONE TOUCH: Stevens Sues to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Filing of 3rd Amended SEPTA Securities Suit OKd PARSLEY ENERGY: Jagged Peak Energy Merger--Related Suits Dismissed PHILADELPHIA, PA: Brown Suit Asks Home Confinement for Detainees PICK & PACK: Saavedra Sues to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit Trial in April 2022 PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Pending in Oklahoma PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Still Awaiting 2nd Amended Complaint in "Hogan" PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Still Faces Consolidated Plant Workers Class Suit PREMIERE CREDIT: Faces Staniland FDCPA Class Suit in New Jersey RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Still Defends 2 Antitrust Class Action Complaints RELIASTAR LIFE: Advance Trust's COI Litigation Underway RITE AID: Monmouth County Files Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania RP ON-SITE LLC: Brown Sues in E.D. Virginia Over FCRA Violation RSCR CALIFORNIA: Pending Class Certification Bid Declared Moot RUSH STREET: Faces Stewart Wage and Hour Suit in N.D. Illinois SABER HEALTHCARE: Bartels Suit Seeks to Certify Class SECURITY LIFE: Still Faces Advance Trust COI Class Suit in Colo. SEI INVESTMENTS: Awaits Court's Okay over Stevens Suit Settlement SEI INVESTMENTS: Still Defends Stanford Trust-Related Suits SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Agar Suit vs. SNI Moves into Discovery SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Appeal in Lewis Suit Still Pending SIMON BROTHERS: Court Conditionally Certifies Collective Action STEWARD MELBOURNE: Hauser Appeals M.D. Florida Order to 11th Cir. TDL GROUP: Suit over Canadian Competition Act Breaches Underway TEVA PHARMA: Appeal in Aggrenox(R) Antitrust Suit Pending TEVA PHARMA: Class Suit Over Lamictal Patent Remains Stayed TEVA PHARMA: Niaspan Indirect Buyers' Bid for Class Status Pending TEVA PHARMA: Settlement in Provigil(R) Suit Awaits Court OK TEVA PHARMA: Still Defends Pennsylvania MDL over Antitrust Matters TEVA PHARMA: Still Defends Venlafaxine-Related Class Suits TEVA PHARMA: Still Faces Antitrust Actions over Lidoderm Settlement TEVA PHARMA: Still Faces Antitrust Claims over Cinacalcet TEVA PHARMA: Still Faces Antitrust Class Suits over Intuniv Deal TRANSUNION RENTAL: Hector Suit Moved From Virginia to Georgia TRISTATE LOGISTICS: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Bryant FLSA Suit UMPQUA BANK: Wrongfully Charges OD and NSF Fees, Hayes Alleges UNILEVER US: Nunez Sues Over Misleading Sale of Breyers Ice Cream UNITED PARCEL: Court Strikes Bid for Class Certification UNITED STATES: Grinis Asks for Safety of Prisoners at FMC Devens UNITED STATES: Samma Sues in D.D.C. Seeking Review of DoD Actions UNITED STATES: Sec. Wolf Appeals Decision in Doe Migrant Suit UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Carrone Labor Suit Removed to D. New Jersey UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Ritter Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees VALARIS PLC: Still Faces Zhang Suit over Securities Law Breaches VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Still Defends Wolther Class Suit in California VOYA FINANCIAL: Still Defends Goetz Class Action in Delaware VOYA FINANCIAL: Still Defends Zhou Class Suit in Colorado WARNER MUSIC: Williams Appeals C.D. California Ruling to 9th Cir. WEST SHORE BANK: Singleton Sues Over Charging of Overdraft Fees WESTFIELD INSURANCE: Equity Pursues Rights Under Business Policy WILHELMINA INT'L: Continues to Defend Shanklin and Pressley Suits ZIMMER BIOMET: Shah Class Certification Motion Remains Pending ZOOM VIDEO: Simins Sues Over Failure to Deliver Promised Privacy ********* ADELPHI UNIVERSITY: Shak Suit Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Erik Shak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ADELPHI UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01951 (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2020), seeks to recover refund for tuition and fees paid for the Spring 2020 academic semester at the Adelphi University. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all people, who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at the Adelphi University, and who, because of the Defendant's response to the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic, lost the benefit of the education for which they paid, and/or the educational and related services and facilities for which they paid, without having their tuition and fees refunded to them. On March 10, 2020, Adelphi provided a written update to its student body notifying them that because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, all on-campus classes would be canceled beginning on March 11, 2020. The update further stated that Adelphi would offer all classes in an online format beginning on March 23, 2020. Since March 11, 2020, Adelphi has not held any in-person classes. Classes that have continued have been offered solely in an online format, with no in-person instruction. Moreover, on March 16, 2020, Adelphi provided an urgent written notice to resident students and their families that effective immediately, all resident students were directed to move out and return home as soon as possible. As a result, Adelphi has not delivered the educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that the Plaintiff and the putative class contracted and paid for, according to the complaint. The online learning options being offered to Adelphi students are subpar in practically every aspect compared to in-person learning, including due to lack of facilities, equipment, materials, and access to faculty. Students have been deprived of the opportunity for collaborative learning and in-person dialogue, feedback, and critique, including but not limited to loss of clinical rotation learning opportunities. The Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to a refund of tuition and fees for in-person educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that Adelphi has not provided, says the complaint. Even if Adelphi had to cancel in-person classes, the Plaintiff's and the putative class members' payments for in-person services have been improperly retained. The Plaintiff is a full-time, undergraduate Adelphi student, and paid his tuition for the Spring 2020 semester. The Defendant is a private university in Garden City, New York, where its main campus is located.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com - and - Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ste. 220 Miami, FL 33133-5402 Phone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 Email: sweetcot@bursor.com ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Refuses to Refund Unused Passes, Farmer Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE T. FARMER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ALTERRA MOUNTAIN COMPANY U.S. INC. and IKON PASS INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01175-STV (D. Colo., April 27, 2020), arises from Alterra's refusal to refund the unusable portion of the Season Passes or Ikon Passes for the 2019-20 ski season after Alterra closed its ski resorts early due to the COVID-19 pandemic According to the complaint, Alterra closed the ski resorts it owns on March 14, 2020, with nearly two months left in the ski season. Similarly, the other resorts included with the Ikon Passes closed around the same time. The Plaintiff contends that he and class members were unable to use the remaining value in their passes. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' conduct breaches their contract with passholders, is unfair, unlawful, and unconscionable, and unjustly enriches the Defendants at the expense of their customers. The Plaintiff brings this action in order to secure partial refunds for each and every similarly situated customer that the Defendants have wronged by refusing to issue partial refunds for Season Passes and Ikon Passes with unused days, when Alterra closed its resorts starting on March 15, 2020. Alterra provides skiing facilities. The Company owns and operates mountain resorts and offers heli-skiing adventure tours, as well as provides helicopter access to skiable terrain. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (888) 711-9975 E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com - and - Nyran Rose Rasche, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. John D. Scheflow, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312-782-4880 Facsimile: 312-782-4485 E-mail: nrasche@caffertyclobes.com nhagman@caffertyclobes.com jscheflow@caffertyclobes.com - and - Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 205 N. Monroe St. Media, PA 19063 Telephone: 215-864-2800 E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Flannery Antitrust Suit Over E-Cigs Trade ------------------------------------------------------------- MALLORY FLANNERY v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC., AND JUUL LABS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02891 (N.D. Cal., April 27, 2020), is brought under the Sherman Act on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated seeking damages and injunctive relief for the Defendants' alleged concerted restraint trade of electronic cigarette. The Defendants in this antitrust class action illegally agreed that Altria Group would invest $12.8 billion in Juul Labs and stop competing with Juul in the market for closed-system electronic cigarette, according to the complaint. Altria's sudden and collusive departure from the market, along with its marketing and distribution support for Juul, allocated the market for e-cigarettes to Juul, unlawfully increasing its market power. The Plaintiff alleges that after months of fitful negotiations, Altria agreed to Juul's demand. Juul and Altria reached an anticompetitive agreement in which Altria bought a 35% interest in Juul for a generous $12.8 billion. In return, Altria walked away from its own e-cigarette business and stopped competing with Juul. Altria was an established incumbent firm in the nicotine and tobacco field. Altria's Marlboro product was the biggest selling cigarette for over 45 years. During the last decade, declining traditional tobacco sales encouraged Altria's interest in new vapor-based nicotine products. In 2013, Altria began e-cigarette work, bringing its MarkTen e-cigarette to market. By mid-2017, the MarkTen gained the second highest share of this market. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff says, Juul entered the e-cigarette market with a splash, launching its new, closed-system Juul product in 2015. Juul's growing sales captured first-place e-cigarette market share by January 2018, challenging Altria's market share.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Steven N. Williams, Esq. Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq. Anupama K. Reddy, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC. 601 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com swilliams@saverilawfirm.com kquackenbush@saverilawfirm.com areddy@saverilawfirm.com - and - W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Craig S. Davis, Esq LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (651) 339-0981 E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com hmsilton@locklaw.com csdavis@locklaw.com - and - J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com AS ROMA: Faces Feldman Shareholder Suit in Delaware Chancery Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against AS Roma SPV GP, et al. The case is captioned as Daniel Feldman, John Charles Pope Revocable Trust, Jonathan Wyatt Gruber, and Tierney Family Investors, LLC, on Behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. AS Roma SPV GP, LLC; James J. Pallotta; Raptor Holdco, LLC; Richard A. D'Amore; Shamrock Holdings of California, Inc.; The Ruane Irrevocable GST Trust of 2007, Case No. 2020-0314 (Del. Ch., April 27, 2020). The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties. The Defendants are doing business in investment industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter B Ladig, Esq. Brett McCartney, Esq. Sarah Andrade, Esq. BAYARD PA PO Box 25130 600 North King St., Suite 400 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 429-4220 E-mail: sandrade@bayardlaw.com ASCEND LABORATORIES: Metformin Has High NDMA Level, Mantalis Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- STELIOS MANTALIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ASCEND LABORATORIES, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-04329-BRM-JAD (D.N.J., April 15, 2020), arises from Ascend's manufacturing, distribution, and sale of the generic medication metformin that contains dangerously high levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine, a carcinogenic and liver-damaging impurity. Metformin is a prescription medication that has been sold under brand names, such as Glucophage. Metformin is used to control high blood sugar in patients with type 2 diabetes. The Plaintiff contends that Ascend's manufacturing process has caused metformin to contain dangerously high levels of NDMA. NDMA is a semivolatile organic chemical. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NDMA "is a member of N-ni-trosamines, a family of potent carcinogens." While NDMA is not currently produced in the United States other than for research purposes, it was formerly used "in production of liquid rocket fuel," among other uses. On March 2, 2020, Valisure, an online pharmacy registered with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and Food & Drug Administration, detected high levels of NDMA in specific batches of prescription drug products containing metformin. This included metformin manufactured by Ascend. According to the complaint, Ascend had not yet issued a recall of metformin and continues to tout on its Web site that it is "committed to quality and safety." However, these representations are false, as the Defendant's metformin medication contains alleged carcinogenic impurity NDMA. Ascend operates as a pharmaceutical company. The Company offers capsules, cream, tablets, nasal spray, ointment, and powder.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Neal J. Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com ltfisher@bursor.com ndeckant@bursor.com AXOGEN INC: Motion to Dismiss Einhorn Class Suit Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The defendants are awaiting the court's decision on their motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Einhorn v. Axogen, Inc., et al., No. 8:19-cv-00069 (M.D. Fla.), according to AxoGen, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. On January 9, 2019, Plaintiff Neil Einhorn, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws against Axogen, Inc., certain of its directors and officers ("Individual Defendants"), and Axogen's 2017 Offering Underwriters and 2018 Offering Underwriters (collectively, with the Individual Defendants, the "Defendants"), captioned Einhorn v. Axogen, Inc., et al., No. 8:19-cv-00069 (M.D. Fl.). Plaintiff asserts that Defendants made false or misleading statements in connection with the Company's November 2017 registration statement issued regarding its secondary public offering in November 2017 and May 2018 registration statement issued regarding its secondary public offering in May 2018, and during a class period of August 7, 2017 to December 18, 2018. In particular, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants issued false and misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company aggressively increased prices to mask lower sales; (2) that the Company's pricing alienated customers and threatened the Company's future growth; (3) that ambulatory surgery centers form a significant part of the market for the Company's products; (4) that such centers were especially sensitive to price increases; (5) that the Company was dependent on a small number of surgeons whom the Company paid to generate sales; (6) that the Company's consignment model for inventory was reasonably likely to lead to channel stuffing; (7) that the Company offered purchase incentives to sales representatives to encourage channel stuffing; (8) that the Company's sales representatives were encouraged to backdate revenue to artificially inflate metrics; (9) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls to prevent such channel stuffing and backdating of revenue; (10) that the Company's key operating metrics, such as number of active accounts, were overstated; and (11) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Axogen was served on January 15, 2019. On February 4, 2019, the court granted the parties' stipulated motion which provided that Axogen is not required to file a response to the complaint until thirty days after Plaintiff files a consolidated amended complaint. On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, and on July 22, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed opposing papers on August 12, 2019. The Court held a status hearing on September 11, 2019 and stayed all deadlines regarding the parties' obligations to file a case management report. On December 4, 2019 the parties presented oral arguments and are currently awaiting the court's ruling. AxoGen, Inc. provides surgical solutions for physical damage or transection to peripheral nerves. The company provides its products to hospitals, surgery centers, and military hospitals in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and other European countries, and internationally. AxoGen, Inc. is headquartered in Alachua, Florida. BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Shareholders' Bid to Revive Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Biglari Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Indiana Supreme Court has yet to review a lower court's decision dismissing a shareholder litigation. On January 29, 2018, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported class action complaint against the Company and the members of the Company's Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton County, Indiana. The shareholder generally alleges claims of breach of fiduciary duty by the members of the Company's Board of Directors and unjust enrichment to Sardar Biglari as a result of the dual class structure. On March 26, 2018, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported class action complaint against the Company and the members of the Company's Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton County, Indiana. This shareholder generally alleges claims of breach of fiduciary duty by the members of the Company's Board of Directors. This shareholder sought to enjoin the shareholder vote on April 26, 2018 to approve the dual class structure. On April 16, 2018, the shareholder withdrew a motion to enjoin the shareholder vote on April 26, 2018. On May 17, 2018, the shareholders who filed the January 29, 2018 complaint and the March 26, 2018 complaint filed a new, consolidated complaint against the Company and the members of the Company's Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton County, Indiana. The shareholders generally allege claims of breach of fiduciary duty by the members of the Company's Board of Directors and unjust enrichment to Mr. Biglari arising out of the dual class structure. The shareholders seek, for themselves and on behalf of all other shareholders as a class, a declaration that the defendants breached their duty to the shareholders and the class, and to recover unspecified damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and an award of their attorneys' fees and other costs. On December 14, 2018, the judge of the Superior Court of Hamilton County, Indiana issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the shareholders' lawsuits. On January 11, 2019, the shareholders filed an appeal of the judge's order dismissing the lawsuits. On December 4, 2019, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a unanimous decision affirming the trial court's decision to dismiss the shareholder litigation. On January 20, 2020, the shareholders filed a petition to transfer with the Indiana Supreme Court seeking review of the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Company opposed the petition. The Indiana Supreme Court has not ruled upon the petition to transfer. Biglari Holdings Inc., through its subsidiaries, primarily operates and franchises restaurants in the United States. The company owns, operates, and franchises restaurants under the Steak n Shake and Western Sizzlin names. The company was formerly known as The Steak n Shake Company and changed its name to Biglari Holdings Inc. in April 2010. Biglari Holdings Inc. was founded in 1934 and is based in San Antonio, Texas. BILL GRAHAM: Court Certifies 2 Classes in Kihn Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as GREG KIHN, ET AL. v. BILL GRAHAM ARCHIVES, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 17-cv-05343-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order: 1. granting the motion for class certification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) with respect to these classes: Composer Class defined as: "all owners of the musical compositions encompassed in sound recordings and audiovisual works of non-studio performances reproduced, performed, distributed, or otherwise exploited by Defendants during the period from September 14, 2014, to the present"; and Performer Class defined as: "all persons whose non-studio live musical performances are captured in the recordings of sounds or sounds and images which have been reproduced, performed, distributed, or otherwise exploited by Defendants during the period from September 14, 2014, to the present"; 2. directing the Defendants to provide class lists identifying the members of the Composer and Performer Classes to the Plaintiffs no later than May 15, 2020; and 3. directing the Parties to meet and confer on these issues and submit a single joint brief on the issues of subclassing and notice, preferably with side-by-side comparisons of their proposals on issues as to which they cannot reach agreement. The joint brief shall be no more than 15 pages and shall be filed by June 12, 2020. Judge Rogers said, "the Court finds the concerns expressed in Dukes inapplicable. The damages the Composer and Performer Classes seek would not result in individualized injunctive relief. Barrett v. Wesley Fin. Grp., LLC, No. 13CV554-LAB (KSC), 2015 WL 12910740, at 7 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2015). Due process concerns are diminished where a Rule 23(b)(3) class is also certified. Thus, the Court finds certification of the classes under Rule 23(b)(2) to be appropriate as well." Judge Rogers adds that the Court will entertain any arguments for sub-classing, whether by the Exploitation Agreement covering the recording(s) or performer(s), or by other criteria. Likewise, the Court will consider the parties' proposals for the best notice practicable to the members of the classes." The case arises from the Defendants' exploitation of audio and video recordings of live musical performances, and the musical compositions performed therein, from the 1950s to the 1990s. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants distributed and sold in thousands of recordings acquired from a dozen private collections -- recordings that captured live performances spanning several decades, made by concert producers and sound engineers without the performers' authorization.[CC] BOWMAN CONSULTING: Turnbull Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Turnbull and Norma Dean-Clarkson, on their own behalf and others similarly situated v. BOWMAN CONSULTING GROUP, LTD., INC., a Virginia corporation, and AEROTEK, INC., a Maryland corporation, Case No. 0:20-cv-60864-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 28, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime compensation and all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Defendants violated the FLSA by requiring the Plaintiffs to perform work "off the clock" and failing to pay them the full extent of their overtime compensation, according to the complaint. The Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to unpaid overtime compensation from the Defendants for all hours worked by them in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, and are also entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as Customer Outreach Specialists ("COS"). BOWMAN CONSULTING GROUP, LTD., INC. is a Virginia corporation, with a principal place of business in Reston, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Camar Jones, Esq. Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Logan Pardell, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 Email: cjones@shavitzlaw.com gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com aquiles@shavitzlaw.com BRISTOL-MYERS: No Trial Date for Remaining Claims in Suit v Celgene ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that no trial date has been set for the claims that survived the Court's order in the securities class action against its wholly-owned subsidiary, Celgene. Beginning in March 2018, two putative class actions were filed against Celgene and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Celgene Securities Class Action"). The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions concerning (1) trials of GED-0301, (2) Celgene's 2020 outlook and projected sales of Otezla, and (3) the new drug application for Ozanimod. The Court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel for the putative class. In February 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint in full. In December 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss in part and granted the motion to dismiss in part (including all claims arising from alleged misstatements regarding GED-0301). Although the Court gave the plaintiff leave to re-plead the dismissed claims, it elected not to do so, and the dismissed claims are now dismissed with prejudice. No trial date has been set for the claims that survived the Court's order. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York. BRISTOL-MYERS: Seeks to Dismiss Amended CheckMate-026 Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company has sought the Court's order dismissing the amended complaint in the class action suit related to CheckMate-026 clinical trial in lung cancer, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. Since February 2018, two separate putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of California and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against BMS, BMS's Chief Executive Officer, Giovanni Caforio, BMS's Chief Financial Officer at the time, Charles A. Bancroft and certain former and current executives of BMS. The case in California has been voluntarily dismissed. The remaining complaint alleges violations of securities laws for BMS's disclosures related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial in lung cancer. In September 2019, the Court granted BMS's motion to dismiss, but allowed the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. BMS has moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York. BRISTOL-MYERS: Thalomid and Revlimid Antitrust Litigation Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bristol-Myers Squibb Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that no trial date has been set in the consolidated antitrust class action against its wholly-owned subsidiary, Celgene, related to Thalomid and Revlimid. The parties in the lawsuit previously reached a settlement under which all the putative class plaintiff claims would be dismissed with prejudice. However, Celgene exercised its right to terminate the settlement agreement in December 2019, after certain third-party payors who were members of the settlement class refused to release their potential claims and participate in the settlement. Beginning in November 2014, certain putative class action lawsuits were filed against Celgene in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Celgene violated various antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract for the alleged purpose of preventing a generic manufacturer from securing its own supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient, (b) allegedly refusing to sell samples of Thalomid and Revlimid brand drugs to various generic manufacturers for the alleged purpose of bioequivalence testing necessary for aNDAs to be submitted to the FDA for approval to market generic versions of these products, (c) allegedly bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits in order to allegedly delay approval for proposed generic versions of Thalomid and Revlimid, and/or (d) allegedly entering into settlements of patent infringement lawsuits with certain generic manufacturers that allegedly have had anticompetitive effects. The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and putative classes of third-party payers, are seeking injunctive relief and damages. The various lawsuits were consolidated into a master action for all purposes. In October 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of two damages classes under the laws of thirteen states and the District of Columbia and a nationwide injunction class. Celgene filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion and a motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing all state law claims where the plaintiffs no longer seek to represent a class. In October 2018, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Celgene's motion for judgment on the pleadings. In December 2018, the plaintiffs filed a new motion for class certification, which Celgene opposed. In July 2019, the parties reached a settlement under which all the putative class plaintiff claims would be dismissed with prejudice. In December 2019, after certain third-party payors who were members of the settlement class refused to release their potential claims and participate in the settlement, Celgene exercised its right to terminate the settlement agreement. No trial date has been set. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York. BURGER KING: 4 Suits over Sherman Act Violations Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- Four class action complaints against Burger King Worldwide, Inc. and Burger King Corporation related to alleged violations of Sherman Act have been consolidated, according to Restaurant Brands International Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. On October 5, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against Burger King Worldwide, Inc. ("BKW") and Burger King Corporation ("BKC") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Jarvis Arrington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On October 18, 2018, a second class action complaint was filed against the Company, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Monique Michel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On October 31, 2018, a third class action complaint was filed against BKC and BKW in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Geneva Blanchard and Tiffany Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On November 2, 2018, a fourth class action complaint was filed against the Company, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Sandra Muster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. These complaints allege that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring clause in the standard form franchise agreement all Burger King franchisees are required to sign. Each plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages for himself or herself and other members of the class. These actions have been consolidated. Restaurant Brands International Inc. is the sole general partner of Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership ("Partnership"), which is the indirect parent of The TDL Group Corp. ("Tim Hortons"), Burger King Worldwide, Inc. ("Burger King") and Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. ("Popeyes"). The Company is based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. C PEPPER LOGISTICS: Sued by Flinn for Misclassifying Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID FLINN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. C PEPPER LOGISTICS LLC, and LANTER DELIVERY SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02215-JAR-KGG (D. Kan., April 27, 2020), arises from Defendants' misclassification of their drivers as independent contractors. The Plaintiff contends that he and other drivers hired by C Pepper in Kansas and throughout the United States clearly were and are employees under the law, but C Pepper willfully misclassifies them as independent contractors. He adds that by misclassifying them as independent contractors, C Pepper unlawfully shifts the burden of paying the employer's share of payroll taxes from itself to its drivers, and violates numerous other legal obligations it owes to its drivers based on their status as employees. On April 4, 2019, Mr. Flinn began working as a truck driver for C Pepper in Kansas. C Pepper is a DOT-registered motor carrier that provides trucking and transfer services. Lanter provides overnight unattended delivery service of time-sensitive parts for major auto, agriculture, and heavy-duty truck original equipment manufacturers and industrial supply and equipment distributors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Boyd A. Byers, Esq. Jeremy E. Koehler, Esq. FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP 1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100 Wichita, KS 67206-4466 Telephone: (316) 291-9796 Facsimile: (866) 559-6541 E-mail: bbyers@foulston.com jkoehler@foulston.com CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Faces Milkboy Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. The case is styled as MILKBOY CENTER CITY LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, THE CINCINNATI CASUALTY COMPANY, THE CINCINNATI INDEMNITY COMPANY, CINCINNATI FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-02036 (E.D. Pa., April 27, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as insurance contract. The Cincinnati Insurance Company provides insurance products and underwriting services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq. BARRACK RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Sq. 2001 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 963-0600 Email: jgolan@barrack.com CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as IRMA GOMEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00592 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Seeks to Drop Melucci Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated has moved to dismiss the securities class action complaint initiated by Nicholas Melucci in California, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Company said, "On March 14, 2019, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Nicholas Melucci (Melucci v. Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01372-LHK). The complaint named us and certain of our executive officers as defendants asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleges that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose adverse facts about our business, operations, and prospects. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from August 2, 2017 to February 5, 2019 and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest and attorneys' fees. On October 7, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The lead plaintiff's consolidated complaint was filed on December 6, 2019. We moved to dismiss the class action complaint on January 27, 2020, but cannot predict the outcome of this matter." Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated discovers, develops, and commercializes drugs for the treatment of severe metabolic, oncologic, and psychiatric disorders in the United States. Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Menlo Park, California. DELTA DENTAL: Swiecinski Antitrust Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as David J. Swiecinski, DDS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DELTA DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Case No. 1:20-cv-03913 (Filed March 10, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 27, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-02539 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Elaine E. Bucklo. The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's alleged 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. David J. Swiecinski, DDS, is a dental services provider located in Pitman, New Jersey. 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: Simon B. Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. Charles J. Kocher, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 Facsimile: (215) 754-4443 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com ckocher@smbb.com DISH AMERICA: Faces Smith Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Corey Smith, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DISH AMERICA CORPORATION, Case No. 4:20-cv-01497 (S.D. Tex., April 28, 2020), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime compensation. According to the complaint, the Defendant required the Plaintiff work more than forty hours in a workweek without overtime compensation. The Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff as independent contractors instead of as employees. By misclassifying them as independent contractors, the Defendant illegally denied the Plaintiff compensation at time and one half their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff performed work for the Defendant as an installer from May 2012 to February 2020. The Defendant is a company that installs Dish Network cable and internet equipment in residences.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: Dfoty@hftrialfirm.com DISPOSALL INC: Thomas Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vanessa Thomas, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DISPOSALL, INC., Case No. 6:20-cv-00718-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla., April 27, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff routinely works (and worked) in excess of 40 hours per workweek but was not paid overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. Plaintiff Thomas was employed by the Defendant as a Waste Disposal Driver from March 2018 until August 2018. DisposAll provides portable toilets, biomedical waste removal services, roll-off containers (dumpsters) in multiple capacities, as well as compactors and balers for virtually any waste, refuse, and recycling requirements throughout the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 North Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: cliff@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Friedman Suit Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH FRIEDMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:20-cv-05147 (D.N.J., April 27, 2020), seeks refund of tuition and fees. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all people, who paid tuition and fees for the Winter and/or Spring 2020 academic Terms at Drexel University, and who, because of Drexel' response to the COVID-19 pandemic, lost the benefit of the education for which they paid, and/or the services for which their fees were paid, without having their tuition and fees refunded to them. The Plaintiff contends that she and the putative class are entitled to a refund of tuition and fees for in-person educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that the Defendant has not provided. Even if Drexel claims it did not have a choice in canceling in-person classes, it nevertheless has improperly retained funds for services it is not providing, she adds. Since March 16, 2020, Drexel has not held any in-person classes. Classes that have continued have only been offered in an online format, with no in-person instruction. Ms. Friedman is an undergraduate student at Drexel's Westphal College of Media Arts & Design studying in the Entertainment and Arts Management Program with a concentration in theater. She paid $17,382 in tuition and fees to the Defendant for the Winter 2020 term and $17,382 for the Spring 2020 term. Drexel is a large private university, with an enrollment of approximately 25,000 students. The University is organized into 27 colleges and offers more than 80 degree options for undergraduate students as well as more than 120 graduate and certificate programs. Drexel also operates an online program offering more than 150 graduate and undergraduate courses online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Obergfell, Esq. Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com swestcot@bursor.com EDOARDO MELONI: Dr. Newman Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as HOWARD NEWMAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. EDOARDO MELONI, P.A. d/b/a THE MELONI LAW FIRM, Case No. 0:20-cv-60027-UU (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting his motion for class certification of: "all persons (a) with a Florida address, (b) to whom Edoardo Meloni, P.A. d/b/a The Meloni Law Firm mailed an initial debt collection communication not returned as undeliverable, (c) in connection with the collection of a debt incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, (d) between January 6, 2019 and January 6, 2020, (e) which demanded payment on the subject debt within 30 days of the date the communication was mailed to that person"; 2. appointing him as class representative; and 3. appointing Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC as class counsel. Dr. Newman seeks relief for himself and for all other Florida consumers who received similar debt collection letters from the Defendant. He brings claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to hold the Defendant accountable for its failures to provide adequate disclosures under the law. The Defendant is a law firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. James L. Davidson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 7601 N. Federal Hwy., Suite A-230 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com EVENFLO COMPANY: Faces Brinkerhoff Class Suit in S.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evenflo Company, Inc. The case is styled as Kristen Brinkerhoff, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Evenflo Company, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00163-WHR (S.D. Ohio, April 27, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as other fraud. Evenflo Company, Inc., is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts and principally engages in the design, research and development, manufacturing, marketing and sale of Evenflo Baby and ExerSaucer branded juvenile products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq. SAHPIRO, HABER & URMY, LLP 53 State St. Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 439-3939 Fax: (617) 439-0134 Email: imcloughlin@shulaw.com FEDEX FREIGHT: Settlement in Emetoh Suit Gets Prelim. Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THEODORE A. EMETOH, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FEDEX FREIGHT, INC., an Arkansas corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-07272-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne G. Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, granted the Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23 based upon the terms set forth in the First Amended Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release. The Court finds that the settlement as proposed through the Amended Motion and Amended Settlement and Release Agreement appears to be fair and reasonable and to provide significant benefit to the Settlement Classes. Named Plaintiff Theodore A. Emetoh is appointed as Class Representative, and the Named Plaintiff's counsel, Shaun Setareh and William M. Pao of the Setareh Law Group is appointed Class Counsel. The proposed settlement class defined in the settlement is provisionally certified for purposes of the settlement only. The proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement, and the date and location of the final approval hearing are approved. The Final Approval Hearing is set for July 21, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. The Court approved, as to form and content, the Notice of Class Action Settlement, as well as the procedure for settlement class members to participate in, to opt out of, and to object to, the settlement as set forth in the Class Notice. The Court directed the mailing of the Class Notice Packet to all the settlement class members by First-Class Mail. The Court ordered the following Implementation Schedule for further proceedings: a. Deadline for Defendants to submit Settlement Class Member contact information to Settlement Administrator - March 16, 2020 [30 days after preliminary approval] b. Deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail the Class Notice Packet to Settlement Class Members - March 25, 2020 [40 days after preliminary approval] c. Deadline for Settlement Class Members to postmark Requests for Exclusion, Objection to settlement and disputes regarding the number of workweeks - May 11, 2020 [45 days after mailing of Class Notice Packet] d. Deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlements - June 16, 2020 [30 days before the Final Fairness and Approval Hearing] e. Final Fairness and Approval Hearing - July 21, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/cfzMyH from Leagle.com. Theodore A. Emetoh, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh -- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group, Alexandra Rochelle McIntosh -- alex@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group & William Matthew Pao -- william@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group. FedEx Freight, Inc., an Arkansas corporation, Defendant, represented by Keith Adam Jacoby -- kjacoby@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Linda Nguyen Bollinger -- lbollinger@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Sandra Colene Isom, FedEx Freight, Inc. & Sophia Behnia -- sbehnia@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.. FITNESS INT'L: Winters Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ Richard Winters, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fitness International, LLC d/b/a L.A. Fitness, Case No. 2:20-cv-00826-SMB (D. Ariz., April 28, 2020), seeks damages resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby, invading the Plaintiff's privacy. According to the complaint, the Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant did not possess the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system on his cellular telephone. Further, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number has been on the National Do-Not-Call Registry since at 30 days prior to receiving such calls. The Defendant continued to call the Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA. The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Mesa, Arizona. The Defendant is a mortgage banker.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: 800-400-6808 Fax: 800-520-5523 Email: david@kazlg.com ryan@kazlg.com FLOWERS FOODS: Appeals M.D. Fla. Decision in Martins FLSA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Flowers Foods, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's ruling issued in the lawsuit entitled Daniel Martins v. Flowers Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-03145-MSS-JSS, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The appellant's brief is due on or before May 20, 2020. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks overtime compensation, declaratory relief, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Daniel Martins performed delivery and merchandising services to local retailers of bakery and snack food products manufactured or sold by Flowers. The appellate case is captioned as Daniel Martins v. Flowers Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-11378, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee DANIEL MARTINS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. Chanelle Ventura, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 8151 Peters Rd., Ste. 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com - and - Adeash AJ Lakraj, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 191 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 4200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 965-1909 Defendants-Appellants FLOWERS FOODS, INC., FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF BRADENTON, LLC, FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF VILLA RICA, LLC, FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF MIAMI, LLC, FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF JACKSONVILLE and FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF THOMASVILLE, LLC, are represented by: Nathan J. Allen, Esq. Kevin Patrick Hishta, Esq. Calvin Garner Sanford, Jr., Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC 191 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 4800 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 881-1300 - and - Christopher M. Cascino, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC 155 N Wacker Dr., Ste. 4300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 558-1220 - and - Santen Hanrahan, Esq. Benjamin R. Holland, Esq. Margaret Santen Hanrahan, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC 201 S College St., Ste. 2300 Charlotte, NC 28244 Telephone: (704) 342-2588 - and - Helen Anne Palladeno, Esq. Kevin Douglas Zwetsch, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC 100 N Tampa St., Ste. 3600 Tampa, FL 33602-5867 Telephone: (813) 221-7449 - and - Michael Dean Ray, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D. RAY 124 S Miami Ave. Miami, FL 33130-1605 Telephone: (305) 377-9000 FM JANITORIAL: Vondergathen Suit Seeks Back Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Darcy Vondergathen and Andre Grover, and all others similarly situated v. FM Janitorial Services, Inc. No. 2, Jose Rodriguez and Maria Joya, Case No. 5:20-cv-00160-FL (E.D.N.C., April 15, 2020), seeks payment of back wages and an equal amount of liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs for workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division investigated FM Janitorial and concluded that they had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay its employees overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, but when FM Janitorial did not agree to voluntarily pay back wages, USDOL decided not to pursue collecting the wages through filing a lawsuit. The Plaintiffs and their coworkers worked for the restaurant staffing company, FM Janitorial Services, Inc. The Defendants are the staffing company. The Individual Defendants owned and operated the staffing company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clermont F. Ripley, Esq. Carol L. Brooke, Esq. NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER P.O. Box 28068 Raleigh, NC 27611 Telephone: 919-856-2154 E-mail: clermont@ncjustice.org. carol@ncjustice.org FOCUSINC INT'L: Stein Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA and NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------ Naftali Stein v. Moshe Greenfeld, and Focusinc International Corp., Case No. 1:20-cv-01929 (E.D.N.Y., April 27, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees seeking to recover unpaid compensation and liquidated damages. Mr. Stein was employed as a professional recruiter at the Corporate Defendant on November 6, 2012. The Corporate Defendant is in the business of recruiting workers for businesses. Mr. Greenfeld is an owner, officer and/or agent of the Corporate Defendant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2525 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com FORBES SECURITY: Faces Harrington Suit in California Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forbes Security, Inc. The case is captioned as MICHAEL HARRINGTON, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. FORBES SECURITY, INC. and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC20584155 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., April 15, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Garrett L. Wong. A Case Management Conference will be held on Sept. 16, 2020. Forbes Security is a computer software company based in San Rafael, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Andrew Grover, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 543-1305 Facsimile: (415) 543-7861 E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com FORESTERS LIFE: Violates California Insurance Code, Siino Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Siino, Individually and on Behalf of the Class; v. FORESTERS LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY COMPANY, a New York Corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-02904-KAW (N.D. Cal. April 28, 2020), is brought to recover for injuries and damages resulting from the Defendant's violations of the California Insurance Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Foresters refuses to comply with mandatory provisions of the California Insurance Code, as well as California common law regulating the lapse and termination of life insurance policies. Since January 1, 2013, Foresters and other related entities have systematically and purposely failed to provide certain classes of policy owners, insureds, assignees and others, proper notices of pending lapse or termination, according to the complaint. Foresters has failed to notify thousands of policy owners of their right to designate someone to receive critical notices and information regarding life insurance, despite being required to do so on an annual basis. Ultimately, the Defendant has robbed thousands of their customers and beneficiaries of the investment in such policies, policy benefits, as well as the security intended to be provided from such insurance. As a result, Foresters has failed to properly administer policies, evaluate the status of payments due under policies and pay claims to beneficiary for policies improperly lapsed or terminated, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual, policy owner, and named insured. Foresters Life Insurance and Annuity Company is a New York Company, registered to do business in California and is licensed by the California Department of Insurance to sell life insurance here in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex M. Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 Email: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org - and - Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq. Georg M. Capielo, Esq. Sarah Ball, Esq. WINTERS & ASSOCIATES 8489 La Mesa Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 Phone: (619) 234-9000 Fax: (619) 750-0413 Email: jackbwinters@earthlink.net gcapielo@einsurelaw.com sball@einsurelaw.com GC SERVICES: Jackson Appeals Memorandum and Order to 2nd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff LaToya Jackson filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum & Order dated February 29, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled Jackson v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Case No. 18-cv-5763, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. GC Services Limited Partnership provides accounts receivable and customer care solutions to public and private sector organizations. It offers first party receivable programs, including cure programs, early stage collections, and pre charge-off collections; third party receivables management programs, such as post charge-off collections and skip tracing services. The appellate case is captioned as Jackson v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Case No. 20-1206, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LaToya Jackson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 1 Grand Central Place 60 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (646) 459-7971 Facsimile: (646) 459-7973 Email: jkj@legaljones.com Defendant-Appellee GC Services Limited Partnership is represented by: Emily Bab Kirsch, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 549-0421 GEMSTONE SUPERMARKETS: Santiagos Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alida Urizar Santiagos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GEMSTONE SUPERMARKETS INC. d/b/a KEY FOOD SUPERMARKETS, DAVID MANDELL, and RAYMOND NEGRON, Case No. 1:20-cv-01934 (E.D.N.Y., April 27, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked hours in excess of 40 per workweek but was not paid overtime wages, as required by the FLSA and the NYLL, according to the complaint. The Defendants paid the Plaintiff and other non-exempt, non-managerial employees of Gemstone at "straight-time" rates, thereby, failing to pay them overtime wages for hours worked over 40 per workweek. The Defendants also engaged in a practice of time-shaving by rounding the hours worked by the Plaintiff and the Supermarket Workers down to the nearest half hour for purposes of calculating their compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a stocker in the meat department at the Key Food Supermarket. Gemstone Supermarkets Inc. is a New York corporation that owns, operates, and does business as Key Food Supermarkets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Galen C. Baynes, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 583-9500 Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com baynes@pechmanlaw.com GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Hachem Class Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company's motion to dismiss the remaining claims in the "Hachem case" remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. Since November 2017, several putative shareholder class actions under the federal securities laws have been filed against GE and certain affiliated individuals and consolidated into a single action currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the Hachem case). In October 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a fifth amended consolidated class action complaint naming as defendants GE and current and former GE executive officers. It alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to insurance reserves and accounting for long-term service agreements and seeks damages on behalf of shareholders who acquired GE stock between February 27, 2013 and January 23, 2018. As reported by the Class Action Reporter on November 15, 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss, and in August 2019 the court dismissed a majority of the claims, including all of the claims related to insurance reserves. The Company disclosed in its Form 10-K that it filed a motion to dismiss in December 2019. General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Houston Class Suit Remains Stayed --------------------------------------------------- The "Houston case" against General Electric Company, among other defendants, remains stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the "Hachem case" pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. In October 2018, a putative class action (the Houston case) was filed in New York state court naming as defendants GE, certain GE subsidiaries and current and former GE executive officers and employees. It alleges violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of senior notes issued in 2016 and rescission of transactions involving those notes. This case has been stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the Hachem case. General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Still Defends Mahar Securities Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company continues to face the Mahar case in New York state court, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Company said, "In July 2018, a putative class action (the Mahar case) was filed in New York state court naming as defendants GE, former GE executive officers, a former member of GE's Board of Directors and KPMG. It alleged violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements related to insurance reserves and performance of GE's business segments in GE Stock Direct Plan registration statements and documents incorporated therein by reference and seeks damages on behalf of shareholders who acquired GE stock between July 20, 2015 and July 19, 2018 through the GE Stock Direct Plan. In February 2019, this case was dismissed. In March 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended derivative complaint naming the same defendants. In April 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In October 2019, the court denied GE's motion to dismiss and stayed the case pending the outcome of the Hachem case. In November 2019, the plaintiffs moved to re-argue to challenge the stay, and GE cross-moved to re-argue the denial of the motion to dismiss and filed a notice of appeal." General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Still Faces Bezio Suit in New York State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company continues to face the Bezio securities complaint, as amended, in New York state court, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. In June 2018, a lawsuit (the Bezio case) was filed in New York state court derivatively on behalf of participants in GE's 401(k) plan (the GE Retirement Savings Plan (RSP)), and alternatively as a class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired GE stock between February 26, 2013 and January 24, 2018, alleging violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements and omissions related to insurance reserves and performance of GE's business segments in a GE RSP registration statement and documents incorporated therein by reference. In November 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended derivative complaint naming as defendants GE, former GE executive officers and Fidelity Management Trust Company, as trustee for the GE RSP. In January 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss, and in November 2019, the court dismissed the remaining claims and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. In December 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended derivative complaint, and in January 2020, GE filed a motion to dismiss. General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. HARTFORD FINANCIAL: GCDC Sues Over Denial of COVID-19 Coverage -------------------------------------------------------------- GCDC LLC d/b/a GCDC GRILLED CHEESE BAR, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., a corporation, AND SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD, a corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-01094-TJK (D. Colo., April 27, 2020), arises from the Defendants' refusal to cover business losses relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. The lawsuit arises from the counter-measures taken by the District of Columbia requiring the closure of many businesses and restricting almost all public activities in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. GCDC filed a claim with its business insurance carrier, the Defendants, and was denied coverage on the basis of indecipherable exclusions and endorsements added unilaterally to its policy, says the complaint. GCDC and other restaurants similarly situated bought full-spectrum, comprehensive insurance for their businesses--not just for damage to their physical premises and equipment. These restaurants believed that they had comprehensive coverage that would apply to business interruptions under circumstances like these, where they have done everything right to protect their businesses and the public. Such coverage is important, if not vital, because profit margins in the restaurant industry are slim and reserve funds tend to be low. Hence, business interruptions are a particular concern of this industry. The Plaintiff contends that had the Defendants wanted to exclude the risks of a pandemic--and the necessary public health counter-measures that would mandate business closures and population-wide social distancing--they should have done so plainly, as they did with numerous other risks. But they did not. The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief, damages and insurance coverage owed under policies issued by the Defendant. GCDC is an eatery located in prime Pennsylvania Avenue. Hartford Financial is a United States-based investment and insurance company. Sentinel operates as an insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew N. Friedman, Esq. Victoria S. Nugent, Esq. Julie Selesnick, Esq. Geoffrey Graber, Esq. Eric Kafka, Esq. Karina G. Puttieva, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com vnugent@cohenmilstein.com jselesnick@cohenmilstein.com ggraber@cohenmilstein.com ekafka@cohenmilstein.com kputtieva@cohenmilstein.com - and - Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Andre M. Mura, Esq. Karen Barth Menzies, Esq. Amy M. Zeman, Esq. Steve Lopez, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com amm@classlawgroup.com kbm@classlawgroup.com amz@classlawgroup.com sal@classlawgroup.com HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Refuses to Pay COVID-19 Losses, Pigment Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pigment Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. and SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Case No. 3:20-cv-00794-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal., April 28, 2020), seeks a declaratory judgment that Hartford is contractually obligated to pay business interruption losses incurred due to the Plaintiff's and other class members' compliance with COVID-19 Civil Authority Orders. The Plaintiff and other businesses nationwide purchased commercial property insurance to ensure that they would not be forced to close their doors for good if they were shuttered temporarily by an unanticipated crisis. Such a crisis is now upon us, but Hartford and other insurers are refusing to pay the claims, the Plaintiff avers. Despite the provision of business interruption coverage in these policies, the Plaintiff argues, the Defendants are denying their obligation to pay for business income losses and other covered expenses incurred by policyholders for the physical loss and damage to the insured property arising from COVID-19 Civil Authority Orders put in place as a precaution to slow the contagion. The Plaintiff now brings this action on behalf of a Nationwide Class and a California Sub-Class of policyholders, who purchased standard Hartford commercial property insurance to insure property in the United States and California, respectively, where such policies provide for business income loss and extra expense coverage and do not exclude coverage for pandemics, and who have suffered losses due to measures put into place by a COVID-19 Civil Authority Order. Pigment operates several retail stores in San Diego County that sell artisan-crafted home goods, furniture, and plants and host community workshops and events. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut. The Company owns subsidiaries, directly and indirectly, that issue, among other things, property insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benny C. Goodman III, Esq. Rachel L. Jensen, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619/231-1058 Fax: 619/231-7423 Email: bennyg@rgrdlaw.com rachelj@rgrdlaw.com - and - Paul J. Geller, Esq. Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561/750-3000 Fax: 561/750-3364 Email: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com - and – Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 367-7100 Fax: 631/367-1173 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Fax: 973/994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com ltaylor@carellabyrne.com - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 77 Water Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 584-0700 Fax: 212/584-0799 Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com sweiss@seegerweiss.com HARTFORD FINANCIAL: SA Sues Over Denial of Insurance Coverage ------------------------------------------------------------- SA HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, 1000 MADISON AVENUE LLC, ASTORIA CAKES LLC, CAFE FFOCACCIA, INC., REALTEK LLC, SA MIDTOWN LLC, BAILEY'S RESTAURANT LLC, SA SPECIAL EVENTS, INC., SASE LLC, EIGHTY THIRD AND FIRST LLC, 265 LAFAYETTE RISTORANTE LLC, FELICE GOLD STREET LLC, SA 61 ST MANAGEMENT LLC, SA YORK AVE LLC, SA THIRD AVE CAFE LLC, SABF LLC, FELICE CHAMBERS LLC, and FELICE WATER STREET LLC on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and SENTINAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, Case No. 1:20-cv-03258 (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2020), alleges that the Defendants are denying the obligation to pay for business income losses and other covered expenses incurred by policyholders for the physical loss and damage to the insured property from measures put in place by the civil authorities to stop the spread of COVID-19. The lawsuit seeks declaratory judgment that affirms that the COVID-19 pandemic and the corresponding response by civil authorities to stop the spread of the outbreak triggers coverage, has caused physical property loss and damage to the insured property, provides coverage for future civil authority orders that result in future suspensions or curtailments of business operations, and finds that the Defendants are liable for the losses suffered by policyholders. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a proposed class of policyholders, who paid premiums in exchange for business insurance policies that included lost business income and extra expense coverage. The Defendants and most insurance companies have issued all-risk commercial property insurance policies with business interruption coverage. On March 11, 2020, World Health Organization Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared the COVID-19 outbreak a worldwide pandemic. On March 16, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and members of the national Coronavirus Task Force issued to the American public guidance, styled as "30 Days to Slow the Spread" for stopping the spread of COVID-19. Hartford is a United States-based investment and insurance company. Sentinel Insurance operates as an insurance company. Sentinel provides property and casualty insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. SEEGER WEISS 77 Water Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Paul J. Geller, Esq. Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 HILCO REDEVELOPMENT: Faces Solis Civil Rights Suit in N.D. Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hilco Redevelopment LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Antonio Solis and Juan Solis, Juan Rangel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hilco Redevelopment LLC; HRE Crawford LLC; Heneghan Wrecking & Excavating Co.; Controlled Demolitions, Inc.; V3 Companies, Ltd.; Commercial Liabilities Partners LLC; Marine Technology Solutions LLC; and Morgan/Harbour LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02348 (N.D. Ill., April 15, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Martha M. Pacold. The lawsuit alleges violation of civil rights. Hilco Redevelopment provides infrastructure construction services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan I. Loevy, Esq. Arthur R. Loevy, Esq. Cindy Tsai, Esq. Danielle Hamilton, Esq. John Thomas Hazinski, Esq. Julie Marie Goodwin, Esq. Michael I Kanovitz, Esq. Renee Spence, Esq. Scott R. Rauscher, Esq. Steven Edwards Art, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd FL Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 E-mail: jon@loevy.com arthur@loevy.com cindy@loevy.com hamilton@loevy.com hazinski@loevy.com julie@loevy.com mike@loevy.com spence@loevy.com scott@loevy.com steve@loevy.com ISS FACILITY: Zamano Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN ZAMANO v. ISS FACILITY SERVICES, INC.; ISS FACILITY SERVICES CALIFORNIA, INC.; ISS FACILITY SERVICES HOLDING INC.; TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED; TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA, INC.; TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV15833 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 24, 2020), is a class action complaint filed by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former aggrieved employees seeking civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to pay for all hours worked at minimum wage and overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay, failed to authorize or permit legally compliant first meal periods, and failed to authorize or permit legally compliant rest periods in violation of the Labor Code. ISS Facility was founded in 2006. The Company's line of business includes providing facilities support management and consulting services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Anwar D. Burton, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com aburton@lelawfirm.com JELD-WEN HOLDING: Cambridge Retirement System Class Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. is facing a putative class action lawsuit styled, Cambridge Retirement System v. JELD-WEN Holding, Inc., et al., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. JELD-WEN Holding said, "On February 19, 2020, Cambridge Retirement System filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company, current and former Company executives and various Onex-related entities alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants and Onex-related entities. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The Company has not yet been served with the complaint but has reviewed the allegations. The Company believes the claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend against the action. Because the lawsuit is in the very initial stages, no assessment as to the likelihood or range of any potential adverse outcome can be made at this time." JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. JELD-WEN HOLDING: Still Faces Interior Molded Doors Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. continues to defend itself in the case styled, In Re: Interior Molded Doors Antitrust Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Company said, "On October 19, 2018, Grubb Lumber Company, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit against us and one of our competitors in the doors market, Masonite Corporation ("Masonite"), in the Eastern District of Virginia. We subsequently received additional complaints from and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of interior molded doors. The suits have been consolidated into two separate actions, a Direct Purchaser Action and an Indirect Purchaser Action. The suits allege that Masonite and we violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and, in the Indirect Purchaser Action, related state law antitrust and consumer protection laws, by engaging in a scheme to artificially raise, fix, maintain or stabilize the prices of interior molded doors in the United States. The complaints seek unquantified ordinary and treble damages, declaratory relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company believes the claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend against the actions. On September 18, 2019, the court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the lawsuits in their entirety and granted the defendants' motions to dismiss various state law claims and to limit all claims to a four-year statute of limitations. As a result, the plaintiffs' damages period is limited to the four-year period between 2014 and 2018. At this early stage of the proceedings, we are unable to conclude that a loss is probable or to estimate the potential magnitude of any loss in the matters, although a loss could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, consolidated financial position or cash flows." JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. JP MORGAN: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Filed in "Muha" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CHARLOTTE MUHA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA and TRANS UNION LLC,, Case No. 2:20-cv-00591 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com KAUFF'S INC: Conchado Seeks to Certify Tow Truck Drivers Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as YOSBREY CONCHADO, DAVID DEVITO, ANTONIO STURGIS, and AHMAD JONES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. KAUFF'S, INC., a foreign corporation, d/b/a Kauff's Transportation, Kauff's Transportation Systems, and Kauff's Towing and Transportation, GUARDIAN FLEET SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Kauff's Transportation, Kauff's Transportation Systems, and Kauff's Towing and Transportation, and FRANCIS GEOFFREY RUSSELL a/k/a GEOFFREY RUSSELL, a/k/a GEOFF RUSSELL, individually, Case No. 9:20-cv-80344-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order conditionally certifying the case as a collective action and facilitating notice to the proposed class consisting of: "all current and former tow truck drivers employed by the Defendants throughout the state of Florida and not properly paid overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 and employed for any length of time since February 2017 (three years prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit)." The Plaintiffs in this case seek to recoup overtime compensation and other damages. Kauff's was founded in 1997. The company's line of business includes furnishing automotive services.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel R. Levine, Esq. PADULA BENNARDO LEVINE, LLP E-Mail: DRL@PBL-Law.com 3837 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 544-8900 Facsimile: (561) 544-8999 The Defendants are represented by: Melissa S. Zinkil, Esq. E-Mail: melissa.zinkil@akerman.com Akerman LLP 777 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 1100 West Tower West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 653-5000 Facsimile: (561) 659-6313 - and - John D. Cox, Esq. Scott D. Spiegel, Esq. LYNCH COX GILMAN & GOODMAN, PSC 500 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 2100 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 589-4215 Facsimile: (502) 589-4994 E-Mail: jcox@lcgandm.com sspiegel@lcgandm.com KBR INC: Hearing on Appeal in Suit vs. Former Subsidiary Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- KBR, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal in the class action suit initiated by former employees of the company's former Chadian subsidiary, Subsahara Services, Inc. (SSI), remains pending. A hearing was set for February 28, 2020. In May 2018, former employees of the Company's former Chadian subsidiary, Subsahara Services, Inc. (SSI), filed a class action suit claiming unpaid damages arising from the ESSO Chad Development Project for Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) dating back to the early 2000s. Exxon is also named as a defendant in the case. The SSI employees previously filed two class action cases in or around 2005 and 2006 for alleged unpaid overtime and bonuses. The Chadian Labour Court ruled in favor of the SSI employees for unpaid overtime resulting in a settlement of approximately US$25 million which was reimbursed by Exxon under its contract with SSI. The second case for alleged unpaid bonuses was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court of Chad. The current case claims US$122 million in unpaid bonuses characterized as damages rather than employee bonuses to avoid the previous Supreme Court dismissal and a 5-year statute of limitations on wage-related claims. SSI's initial defense was filed and a hearing was held in December 2018. A merits hearing was held in February 2019. In March 2019, the Labour Court issued a decision awarding the plaintiffs approximately US$34 million including a US$2 million provisional award. SSI and Exxon have appealed the award and requested suspension of the provisional award which was approved on April 2, 2019. Exxon and SSI filed a submission to the Court of Appeal on June 21, 2019. The court has set a hearing for February 28, 2020. The Company said, "At this time we do not believe a risk of material loss is probable related to this matter, and therefore we have not accrued any loss provisions. SSI is no longer an existing entity in Chad or the United States. Further, we believe any amounts ultimately paid to the former employees related to this adverse ruling would be reimbursable by Exxon based on the applicable contract." KBR, Inc. is a global engineering, construction, and services company supporting the energy, petrochemicals, government services, and civil infrastructure sectors. The Company offers a wide range of services through two business segments, Energy and Chemicals (E&C) and Government and Infrastructure (G&I). The company is based in Houston, Texas. LEXINGTON INSURANCE: Zwillo V Sues Over Refusal to Pay Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Zwillo V, Corp. d/b/a Westport Flea Market Bar and Grill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE CO., Case No. 4:20-cv-00339-RK (W.D. Mo., April 27, 2020), is brought for declaratory judgment and breach of contract arising from the Defendant's refusal to pay claims related to COVID-19 as required by its property insurance agreements it sold to the Plaintiff and other businesses. The Plaintiff purchased an all-risk commercial property insurance policy from the Defendant to protect it in the event of property loss and business interruption. COVID-19 and the resulting response by state and local governments have caused physical loss to the Plaintiff's property and have interrupted the Plaintiff's business, according to the complaint. Yet, the Defendant has refused to honor its promise to provide the protection that the Plaintiff purchased. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is not unique. The insurance industry appears to be taking a uniform approach to the current pandemic: deny coverage even when the policy they drafted and offered to insureds, and the policy paid for by the insureds, does not contain an exclusion for pandemic-related losses. The Plaintiff's policy with the Defendant is one such policy and exemplifies the broken promise from insurance companies across the country. The Plaintiff owns and operates the Westport Flea Market Bar and Grill, a Kansas dining establishment. The Plaintiff estimates that its revenues are down at least 80% because of COVID-19 and the Stay at Home Orders. The Defendant has caused material harm to the Plaintiff and the proposed class by refusing coverage under the Policy, says the complaint. Lexington Insurance Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. Bradley T. Wilders, Esq. Curtis Shank, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 714-7100 Email: stueve@stuevesiegel.com wilders@stuevesiegel.com shank@stuevesiegel.com - and - J. Kent Emison, Esq. LANGDON & EMISON LLC 911 Main Street PO Box 220 Lexington, MO 64067 Phone: (660) 259-6175 Fax: (660) 259-4571 Email: kent@lelaw.com - and - John J. Schirger, Esq. Matthew W. Lytle, Esq. Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq. MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC 4520 Main Street, Suite 1570 Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: 816-561-6500 Facsimile: 816-561-6501 Email: jschirger@millerschirger.com mlytle@millerschirger.com jfeierabend@millerschirger.com - and - Richard F. Lombardo, Esq. Dawn M. Parsons, Esq. Michael F. Barzee, Esq. Rachael D. Longhofer, Esq. SHAFFER LOMBARDO SHURIN, P.C. 2001 Wyandotte Street Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: 816-931-0500 Fax: 816-931-5775 Email: rlombardo@sls-law.com dparsons@sls-law.com mbarzee@sls-law.com rlonghofer@sls-law.com LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Laborers' Fund Appeals Order to 3rd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Laborers Local #231 Pension Fund, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Laborers Local #231 Pension v. Rory Cowan, et al., Case No. 1-17-cv-00478, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks damages sustained, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lionbridge and an affiliate of private equity firm H.I.G. Capital L.L.C. engaged in a merger in which Lionbridge stockholders received $5.75 per share in cash and Lionbridge became a wholly owned subsidiary of HIG. Rory J. Cowan served as CEO of Lionbridge during the merger. The merger agreement values the Company at about $356 million. In advocating the merger, the Defendants espoused financial projections that completely ignored concrete business plans and a valuation of the company that was based on those projections which analysts estimate at close to a billion. The appellate case is captioned as Laborers Local #231 Pension v. Rory Cowan, et al., Case No. 20-1844, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LABORERS LOCAL NO. 231 PENSION FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al., are represented by: Peter B. Andrews, Esq. David M. Sborz, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER 3801 Kennett Pike, Building C, Suite 305 Greenville, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504-4957 E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com Defendants-Appellees RORY J. COWAN, HIG CAPITAL LLC, LBT ACQUISITION INC., LBT MERGER SUB INC., and LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES INC., are represented by: Deborah S. Birnbach, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER 100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 570-1339 E-mail: dbirnbach@goodwinlaw.com – and – David John Teklits, Esq. MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL 1201 North Market Street, 16th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 351-9292 – and – Anne S. Gaza, Esq. YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR 1000 North King Street, Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 571-6727 – and – Adam T. Humann, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 – and – Elena C. Norman, Esq. YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR 1000 North King Street, Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 571-6600 – and – Joshua Z. Rabinovitz, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS 300 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2284 – and – Robert M. Vrana, Esq. YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR 1000 North King Street, Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 571-6726 MACRO COMPANIES: Guillory Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ROBERT GUILLORY, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. MACRO COMPANIES, INC. OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA DELAWARE d/b/a MACRO OIL COMPANY, INC., Case No. 6:19-cv-01298-MJJ-PJH (W.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting conditional certification of the following defined putative class and authorizing Notice to be sent to the class: "United States based drivers/laborers employed by Macro who worked for Macro in the U.S. Virgin Islands from approximately October 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 and who were paid a day rate during that time period and specifically excluding any such driver/laborer who participated in the prior U.S. Department of Labor settlement as reflected in the Summary of Unpaid Wages Form WH-56 executed by Macro's representative." The Plaintiff further asks the Court to authorize the following schedule: -- 30 days from entry of order approving notice to Potential Class Members: Defendant to provide to Plaintiff’s counsel in Excel (.xlsx) format the following information regarding all Putative Class Members: full name; last known address(es) with city, state, and zip Code; last known e-mail addresses; beginning date(s) of employment and ending date(s) of employment (if applicable) in the U.S. Virgin Islands. -- 20 days from Class Counsel's receipt of the Excel Spreadsheet Listing from Defendant: Plaintiff's Counsel shall send a copy of the Court-approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class Members by First Class U.S. Mail and e-mail. Plaintiff's counsel shall also submit to counsel for Defendant a list of each Putative Class Member with the date of mailing to each person. -- 30 days from initial mailing and e-mailing Notice and Consent Forms to Potential Class Members: Plaintiff's Counsel shall send an identical Notice and Consent Form to Potential Class Members by the same methods as the initial Notice. -- 60 days from mailing of Notice and Consent Forms to Potential Class Members: The Putative Class Members shall have 60 days from the date of mailing of Notice and Consent Forms to return their signed Consent forms to Plaintiff's Counsel for filing with the Court. Founded in 1929, Macro Oil Company, Inc. is a multifaceted corporation that is dedicated to providing any and all services related to the distribution of petroleum [CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713 352-1100 Facsimile: 713 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq. Adam R. Credeur, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN 417 W. University Avenue (70506) P.O. Box 4325 Lafayette, La. 70502 Telephone: 337-235-5294 Facsimile: 337-235-1095 E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com adam@kwdejean.com MEDICAL SOLUTIONS: Buford Labor Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LAURA BUFORD, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., a Nebraska limited liability corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive. Defendants, Case No. 4:18-CV-04864-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District California granted the Parties' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the proposed Settlement, as embodied in the terms of the Joint Stipulation, is preliminarily approved as a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement of this case that is in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members, in light of the factual, legal, practical, and procedural considerations raised by the case. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 2699(l)(2), the proposed settlement of claims under PAGA with respect to both the Settlement Class and the SAG also is approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate and in furtherance of the PAGA statutes. The Joint Stipulation is incorporated by reference into the Order and is preliminarily adopted as an Order of the Court. Solely for the purpose of the settlement, the Court preliminarily and conditionally certified the stipulated Settlement Class as defined in the Joint Stipulation. To the extent the definition of the Settlement Class differs from the class definition alleged in the First Amended Complaint, any and all class claims not specifically included in the Joint Stipulation are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff Laura Buford is preliminarily appointed as Class Representative; and Zachary Crosner, Michael Crosner and J. Kirk Donnelly of Crosner Legal, P.C., are preliminarily appointed as Class Counsel. CPT Group, Inc. is appointed as Claims Administrator. The Parties' proposed plan for class notice and settlement administration is approved and adopted and the proposed Notice forms and Opt Out form are approved. The Court will hold a fairness hearing on July 21, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. All supporting papers, including the Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees and costs, will be filed no later than 35 calendar days before the Fairness Hearing. A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/4CVdMd from Leagle.com. Laura Buford, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and all aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, represented by Michael R. Crosner -- mike@crosnerlegal.com -- Crosner Legal, PC, David Michael Watson -- david@crosnerlegal.com -- Crosner Legal, PC & Zachary Miles Crosner -- zach@crosnerlegal.com -- Crosner Legal PC. Medical Solutions, L.L.C., a limited liability corporation, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Dawson Sulzer, Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP, Anthony David Sbardellati, Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP, Matthew Scholl -- mscholl@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP, Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum -- skrollrosenbaum@constangy.com -- Constangy Brooks Smith and Prophete LLP & Sayaka Karitani -- skaritani@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP. METLIFE INC: 9th Cir. Dismisses Appeal in Martin Suit vs. MLIC -------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs' appeal from the ruling in the case styled, Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, filed December 17, 2015), has been dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all California persons who have been charged compound interest by MLIC in life insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last four years. Plaintiffs allege that MLIC has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging compound interest on life insurance policy and premium loans without the borrower authorizing such compounding, and that this constitutes an unlawful business practice under California law. Plaintiffs assert causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified amount. On April 12, 2016, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal on December 2, 2019. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York. METLIFE INC: Owens Suit v. Metropolitan Life in N.D. Ga. Settled ---------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a trial court has approved the settlement of the class action suit styled, Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014). Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of persons for whom MLIC established a Total Control Account ("TCA") to pay death benefits under an ERISA plan. The action alleged that MLIC's use of the TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies violated MLIC's fiduciary duties under ERISA. On September 27, 2016, the court denied MLIC's summary judgment motion in full and granted plaintiff's partial summary judgment motion. On September 29, 2017, the court certified a nationwide class. As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter, the court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement on July 29, 2019, in which MLIC has agreed to pay US$80 million to resolve the claims of all class members. The settlement does not include or constitute an admission, concession, or finding of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing by MLIC. On November 19, 2019, the court approved the settlement. The Company accrued the full amount of the settlement payment in prior periods and the payment was made. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York. METLIFE INC: Still Faces Parchmann Class Action in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. continues to defend itself in the putative class action styled, Parchmann v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (E.D.N.Y., filed February 5, 2018), according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. Plaintiff filed this putative class action seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common stock from February 27, 2013 through January 29, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc., its Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, and its Chief Financial Officer violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false and/or misleading financial statements. Plaintiff alleges that MetLife's practices and procedures for estimating reserves for certain group annuity benefits were inadequate, and that MetLife had inadequate internal control over financial reporting. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Defendants intend to defend this action vigorously. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York. METLIFE INC: Westland Police & Fire Retirement Lawsuit Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that it remains a defendant in a class action suit styled, City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12, 2012). Plaintiff filed this class action on behalf of a class of persons who either purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between February 9, 2011, and October 6, 2011, or purchased or acquired MetLife, Inc. common stock in the Company's August 3, 2010 offering or the Company's March 4, 2011 offering. Plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have purportedly been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York. METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: 1st Cir. Appeal Filed in DeCapua TCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff David DeCapua filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in his lawsuit styled DeCapua v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 1:18-cv-00590-WES, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Providence. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), by using an automated telephone dialing system ATDS to send thousands of automated telemarketing text messages without first obtaining the prior express written consent of recipients. The Defendant has moved to dismiss the Class Action Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and, alternatively, to stay proceedings pending forthcoming guidance on the definition of an ATDS from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The appellate case is captioned as DeCapua v. Metrop. Propty & Cas. Ins. Co., Case No. 20-1454, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID DECAPUA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Evan J. Ballan, Esq. Daniel Morris Hutchinson, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 275 Battery St., 29th Flr. San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com eballan@lchb.com – and – Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq. Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. MEYER WILSON CO., LPA 1320 Dublin Road, Ste. 100 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 224-6000 Email: mboyle@meyerwilson.com mwilson@meyerwilson.com – and – Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson St., 8th Flr. New York, NY 10013-1413 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com – and – Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Ave. Providence, RI 02908-0000 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com Defendant-Appellee METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Debra Lee Bogo-Ernst, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606-0000 Telephone: (312) 701-7403 – and – Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006-1101 Telephone: (202) 263-3328 - and - Dana M. Horton, Esq. ROBINSON & COLE LLP One Financial Plaza Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 709-3300 MGT CAPITAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for May 27 ------------------------------------------------------------- MGT Capital Investments, 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 the hearing to consider final approval of the settlement of a securities class action has been scheduled for May 27, 2020. In September 2018 and October 2018, various shareholders of the Company filed putative class action lawsuits against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and certain of its individual officers and shareholders, alleging violations of federal securities laws and seeking damages (the "2018 Securities Class Actions"). The 2018 Securities Class Action followed and referenced the allegations made against the Company's Chief Executive Officer and others in the SEC Action. The first putative class action lawsuit was filed on September 28, 2018, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and alleges that the named defendants engaged in a pump-and-dump scheme to artificially inflate the price of the Company's stock and that, as a result, defendants' statements about the Company's business and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at relevant times. The second putative class action was filed on October 9, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and makes similar allegations. On May 28, 2019, the parties to the 2018 Securities Class Actions entered into a binding settlement term sheet, and on September 24, 2019, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement. On August 7, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the first class action filed a notice and order of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, and on October 11, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the second class action filed in the federal court in New York an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. On December 17, 2019, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. A hearing on final approval of the settlement has been scheduled for May 27, 2020. MGT Capital Investments, Inc. engages in bitcoin mining operations in the Wenatchee Valley area of central Washington. At March 30, 2018, it owned and operated approximately 500 miners located in a leased facility in Quincy, Washington; and 4,200 miners located in a leased facility in Sweden, as well as operated approximately 2,100 miners in the Sweden location. The company was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Durham, North Carolina. MICRO FOCUS: Bid to Drop Securities Suit in New York Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ The defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case, In re Micro Focus International plc Securities Litigation, pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, remains pending, according to Micro Focus International plc's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the 12 months ended October 31, 2019. In re Micro Focus International plc Securities Litigation is another putative class action on behalf of holders of Micro Focus ADS filed on May 23, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Micro Focus and certain current and former directors and officers, among others. On July 26, 2018, the court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act and of the Exchange Act. On September 30, 2019 the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On November 4, 2019, Micro Focus and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. That motion is pending before the Court. Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company, develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United Kingdom. MICRO FOCUS: Forsyth Class Action in California Remains Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- Micro Focus International plc said in its Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the 12 months ended October 31, 2019, that the stay in the class and collective action styled, Forsyth, et al. vs. HP Inc. and HPE, is still in place. This purported class and collective action was filed on August 18, 2016 and an amended (and operative) complaint was filed on December 19, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against HP Inc. and HPE alleging defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the California Business and Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them with younger workers. Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide collective action under the ADEA comprised of all individuals aged 40 and older who had their employment terminated by an HP entity pursuant to a work force reduction ("WFR") plan on or after December 9, 2014 for individuals terminated in deferral states and on or after April 8, 2015 in non-deferral states. Plaintiffs also seek to certify a Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all persons 40 years of age or older employed by defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012. On September 20, 2017, the Court granted the defendants' motions to compel arbitration and administratively closed the case pending resolution of the arbitration proceedings. During the period from November 30, 2017, through the present, the named and opt-in plaintiffs who signed separation agreements that include class action waiver and mandatory arbitration provisions filed arbitration demands. On December 22, 2017, defendants filed a motion to stay the case pending arbitrations which was granted on February 6, 2018. The claims of the arbitration opt-ins have been resolved or dismissed from the District Court case. Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended complaint on January 27, 2020. The stay of the litigation remains in place. Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company, develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United Kingdom. MICRO FOCUS: Jackson Class Action in N.D. Georgia Still Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- Micro Focus International plc said in its Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the 12 months ended October 31, 2019, that the parties in the class action suit styled, Jackson, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, are continuing to discuss a potential settlement. No further appellate briefing schedule has been set and the stay in the Northern District of Georgia remains in place. This putative nationwide class action was filed on July 24, 2017 in United States District Court in San Jose. Plaintiffs purport to bring the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated African-Americans and individuals over the age of forty. Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of racial and age discrimination in lay-offs and promotions. On September 29, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add an additional plaintiff and a claim alleging that defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination in hiring. On January 12, 2018, defendants moved to transfer the matter to the United States District Court in the Northern District of Georgia. Defendants also moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds and to strike certain aspects of the proposed class definition. On July 11, 2018, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss this action for improper venue, and also partially dismissed and struck certain claims without prejudice to re-filing in the appropriate venue. On July 23, 2018, plaintiffs re-filed their lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On August 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of the Northern District of California action with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 15, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay their lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia, which was granted by the court. On October 1, 2018, the Georgia court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion to stay and administratively close the Georgia action until the Ninth Circuit appeal is decided. The parties are continuing to discuss a potential settlement, no further appellate briefing schedule has been set, and the stay in the Northern District of Georgia remains in place. Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company, develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United Kingdom. MICRO FOCUS: Prelim. Approval Hearing for Araiza Pact Held ---------------------------------------------------------- The hearing for the preliminary approval of the settlement of the case styled, Araiza vs. HP Inc. and HPE, was set for May 8, 2020, according to Micro Focus International plc's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the 12 months ended October 31, 2019. On December 29, 2015, former PPS (HP Inc.) employee Daniel Araiza filed a California class action against HP Inc. and HPE in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Plaintiff alleges failure to (a) compensate Field Technical Support Representatives with minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked, (b) failure to pay exempt and non-exempt employees all accrued vacation and/or floating holidays upon separation of employment, (c) to provide meal breaks, and (d) derivate claims for inaccurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, unfair business practices, and Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") penalties. Plaintiff sought to certify three groups of California employees from December 29, 2011 to the present. The parties participated in settlement discussions and settled the lawsuit on March 19, 2019, subject to court approval. Plaintiff filed its motion for preliminary approval and the preliminary approval hearing is set for May 8, 2020. Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company, develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United Kingdom. MICRO FOCUS: Securities Class Action in California Still Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- The stay in the case styled, In re Micro Focus International plc Securities Litigation, remains in place, according to Micro Focus International plc's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the 12 months ended October 31, 2019. In re Micro Focus International plc Securities Litigation is a putative class action on behalf of holders of Micro Focus filed on March 28, 2018, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo against Micro Focus International plc and certain current and former directors and officers, among others. Five additional purported holders of Micro Focus ADS filed putative class actions in the same court, and the court consolidated all cases. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act. The court has stayed this lawsuit pending disposition of a similar lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company, develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United Kingdom. MICROSOFT CORP: McFadden Sues Over Defective Xbox One Controllers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Donald McFadden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-00640 (W.D. Wash., April 28, 2020), is brought to redress the Defendant's violation of Washington Consumer Protection Act with regard to its wireless Microsoft-brand Xbox One controllers, which are defective. According to the complaint, the potentiometer within the joystick component--the mechanism that translates the physical movement of the thumbstick into movement within the video game--contains a design flaw such that the wiper component of the potentiometer scrapes resistive material off a curved track, which then adheres to the wiper causing unwanted electrical contact, or movement, without input from the user. Once this damage occurs, the joystick registers phantom input or stick drift, thwarting accurate gameplay. Accurate gameplay is the central purpose of video game controllers. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has been made aware of the defect through online consumer complaints beginning as early as 2014. The Defendant was also aware of this defect through its own records of complaints and warranty requests, as well as its own pre-release testing. Despite this knowledge, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendant failed to disclose the defect and routinely refuses to repair the controllers without charge when the defect manifests. He adds that unlike the warranty on their Xbox game consoles, which lasts a year, the warranty on their controllers is just 90 days. As a result of the Defendant's unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices, owners of wireless, Microsoft-brand Xbox One controllers, including the Plaintiff, have suffered an ascertainable loss, according to the complaint. As a result of Microsoft's deceptive conduct, the Plaintiff paid more for the wireless, Xbox One controllers than they are worth than they would have had Defendant disclosed the defect; spent money and time repairing and managing defective controllers and/or buying replacement controllers; and otherwise have been harmed by the Defendant's conduct. The Plaintiff purchased wireless, Microsoft-brand Xbox One controllers. Microsoft Corporation is incorporated in the state of Washington and maintains its principal place of business in Redmond, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cindy Heidelberg, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON TOWNSEND, PLLC 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670 Seattle, Washington 98104 Phone: 206-652-8660 Fax: 206-652-8290 Email: cheidelberg@bjtlegal.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E., Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Fax: (202) 800-2730 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Prero Sues in New York Alleging FDCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP. The case is styled as Aron Prero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP, Case No. 7:20-cv-03278 (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn LLP was founded in 1962. The Company's line of business includes providing full service legal advice.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC 285 Passaic St. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (347) 668-9326 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com NESTLE WATERS: Fails to Provide Adequate COBRA Notice, York Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ryon York, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-00973 (M.D. Fla., April 28, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff and the putative class adequate notice of their right to continued health care coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985. The Defendant, the plan sponsor and plan administrator of the Nestle Waters North American Holdings Group Benefit Plan ("the Plan"), has repeatedly violated COBRA by failing to provide participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice, as prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health insurance coverage following an occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by the statute, the Plaintiff contends. According to the complaint, the Defendant's COBRA notice violates the COBRA. The Defendant's COBRA notice is not written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan participant because it attempts to scare individuals away from electing COBRA by including an ominous warning suggesting that the submission of even "incomplete" information when electing COBRA may result in civil, or even criminal, penalties. Additionally, the Defendant's COBRA notice also violates the COBRA because it includes conflicting information on when the COBRA continuation coverage form is actually due. The Defendant's COBRA form also violates the COBRA because it fails to sufficiently identify the Plan Administrator. As a result of these violations, which threaten Class Members' ability to maintain their health coverage, the Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and other appropriate relief as provided by law. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant as a logistics resource in November 2016, and he worked in this capacity until January 8, 2019, and was a participant in the Plan prior to his termination. The Defendant is a foreign corporation with its headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Main Number: 813-224-0431 Direct Dial: 813-386-0995 Facsimile: 813-229-8712 Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com NEW YORK: Thomas Prisoner Suit Moved From S.D. to N.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned 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, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on April 27, 2020. The Clerk of the Northern District of New York assigned Case No. 9:20-cv-00472-GLS-ATB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as prisoner civil rights. Anthony J. Annucci is the Acting Commissioner New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Harriman State Campus. The Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Auburn Correctional Facility, in Auburn, New York, appears pro se.[BN] NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Abrahams Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location Services, LLC. The case is styled as Nechama Abrahams, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01931 (E.D.N.Y., April 27, 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: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Phone: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Stern Sues in E.D.N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location Services, LLC. The case is styled as Rayi Stern, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01932 (E.D.N.Y., April 27, 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: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Phone: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com OASIS LEGAL: Davis Appeals S.D. Georgia Decision to 11th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Lizzie Davis, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's ruling in the lawsuit entitled Lizzie Davis, et al. v. Oasis Legal Finance Operating, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00022-DHB-BKE, in the United States Southern District of Georgia. The appellate case is captioned as Lizzie Davis, et al. v. Oasis Legal Finance Operating, et al., Case No. 20-11364, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The appellant's brief is due on or before May 18, 2020. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought on behalf of putative class members, who entered into loan agreements with the Oasis Defendants. The Plaintiffs claim that their loan agreements violate state usury laws. The case was removed to the Georgia District Court on April 28, 2017. The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and to strike the class allegations of the complaint on May 5, 2017. The Defendants Oasis Legal Finance Holding Company, LLC and Oasis Legal Finance Operating Company, LLC also filed a separate motion to dismiss, arguing that they are not parties to the transactions at issue in the case. The District Court has not ruled on this latter motion because the case has been stayed pending appeal. On November 15, 2017, the Georgia District Court denied the Oasis Defendants' motion to dismiss upon its finding and conclusion that the forum selection clause and the class action waiver clause in the loan agreements are void as against Georgia public policy. The Oasis Defendants appealed this decision. On August 28, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's Order denying the motion to dismiss and the motion to strike the class allegations.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LIZZIE DAVIS, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, et al., are represented by: C. Dorian Britt, Esq. Jeremy S. McKenzie, Esq. KARSMAN MCKENZIE & HART 21 W Park Ave. Savannah, GA 31401 Telephone: (912) 480-9999 – and – Robert Bartley Turner, Esq. SAVAGE TURNER DURHAM 102 E Liberty St., 8th Floor Savannah, GA 31401 Telephone: (912) 231-1140 E-mail: bturner@savagelawfirm.net Defendants-Appellees OASIS LEGAL FINANCE OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, et al., are represented by: William M. McErlean, Esq. Christine Skoczylas, Esq. Abby Ammons Vineyard, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP 1 N Wacker Dr., Ste. 4400 Chicago, IL 60606-2833 Telephone: (312) 357-1313 Email: wmcerlean@btlaw.com christine.skoczylas@btlaw.com abby.vineyard@btlaw.com – and – Michael R. Hackett, Esq. Timothy W. Mungovan, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE 1 International Place Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 526-9600 Email: mhackett@proskauer.com tmungovan@proskauer.com ONE TOUCH: Stevens Sues to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Ian Stevens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ONE TOUCH DIRECT, LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-00968 (M.D. Fla., April 28, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Florida common law. The Defendant has enforced a uniform company-wide policy wherein it improperly required its non-exempt hourly call-center employees, like the Plaintiff, to perform work off-the-clock and without pay, according to the complaint. Although the Plaintiff and routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant in customer service in Tampa, Florida, since October 2019. One Touch Direct, Inc., operates call centers throughout the United States customer support/engagement services to its business clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 867-4791 Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 North Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: cliff@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Filing of 3rd Amended SEPTA Securities Suit OKd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Plaintiff, v. ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:12-cv-00993 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Yvette Kane of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ("SEPTA")'s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. The case is a purported class action alleging securities violations in connection with Defendant Orrstown's early 2010 public offering of approximately 1.4 million shares of Orrstown common stock, which raised almost $40 million dollars. Following a series of revelations regarding Orrstown's financial condition, Orrstown reported significant losses for the fourth quarter of 2011, and on March 15, 2012, filed its 2011 Annual Report, which disclosed that it had a "material weakness" in its internal controls and had failed to implement a structured process with appropriate controls to ensure that updated loan ratings were incorporated timely into the calculation of the Allowance for Loan Losses. Orrstown further admitted that, as of March 2012, it had failed to fully remediate its material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting relating to loan ratings and its impact on the allowance for loan losses. On March 23, 2012, Orrstown and its Board of Directors revealed that they had entered into an agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, and a consent order with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Banking, requiring them, inter alia, to revise their underwriting and credit administration policies and strengthen their credit risk management practices. On May 12, 2012, SEPTA, on behalf of two classes, filed the purported class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) against Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. and Orrstown Bank ("Orrstown Defendants"), and several additional individual Defendants associated with Orrstown. On March 4, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), adding as Defendants Orrstown's auditor, Smith Elliott Kearns & Co., LLC ("SEK"), and Janney Montgomery Scott, LLC and Sandler O'Neill & Partners L.P. ("Underwriter Defendants"), the underwriters involved in the Offering, and alleging that the Defendants issued materially untrue and/or misleading statements and omissions in violation of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") and the Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint asserted claims on behalf of two classes: (1) the "Securities Act Class," which consists of persons and/or entities who purchased Orrstown common stock pursuant to, or traceable to, Orrstown's Feb. 8, 2010 registration statement and March 23, 2010 prospectus supplement issued in connection with Orrstown's Offering in March 2010 and were damaged thereby; and (2) the "Exchange Act Class," which consists of all persons or entities who purchased Orrstown common stock on the open market between March 15, 2010 and April 5, 2012 and were damaged thereby. SEPTA acquired Orrstown stock pursuant to the offering documents for the March 2010 Offering and also purchased Orrstown common stock on the open market during the class period. After extensive briefing, the Court dismissed SEPTA's Securities and Exchange Act claims against all the Defendants for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. With permission of the Court, SEPTA filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") against the same Defendants, which focused exclusively on alleged materially false and/or misleading statements made by the Defendants in the offering documents and through the class period pertaining to the effectiveness of the Orrstown Defendants' internal controls over underwriting of loans, risk management, financial reporting and compliance with banking regulations. All the Defendants filed motions to dismiss, and while those motions were pending, on Sept. 27, 2016, Orrstown filed a "Notice of Subsequent Event in Further Support of their Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint." On Dec. 7, 2016, the Court granted SEK and the Underwriter Defendants' motions to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part the Orrstown Defendants' and additional individual Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court concluded that the allegations of the SAC, coupled with the SEC Order, support an inference that Orrstown failed to maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls through the relevant time period -- second quarter 2010 through 2011 -- and that such failure resulted in inaccuracies in financial reporting during that time. Specifically, as to the Securities Act claims asserted in the SAC (counts one through four), the Court granted the motions to dismiss all such claims upon the Court's finding that the SAC failed to allege facts supporting a reasonable inference that the representations and certifications in Orrstown's 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K, which was incorporated by reference in the Offering documents, as to the effectiveness of its "internal controls over financial reporting" were materially false and/or misleading when made. As to the Exchange Act claims asserted in the SAC, the Court granted the motions as to the claims asserted against SEK (count six) and all individual Defendants, with the exception of Quinn, Everly, and Embly. It denied the motions as to the SAC's Exchange Act claims against the Orrstown Defendants. After the entry of a case management order in January of 2017, the parties initiated discovery. Shortly thereafter, the Orrstown Defendants communicated to SEPTA their stated intent to withhold documents from production because they potentially contain confidential supervisory information, which is protected from disclosure under the limited bank examination privilege provided by regulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Pennsylvania Department of Banking without the express consent of the Regulators, thereby initiating a lengthy process whereby SEPTA and the Orrstown Defendants sought to facilitate the Regulators' review of the relevant documents in aid of the Regulators' decision as to whether to assert the bank examination privilege over potential CSI contained in the documents that were the subject of SEPTA's document requests. In connection with that process, the Court held a status conference with the parties in August of 2017, resulting in the issuance of an amended Case Management Order. In an effort to monitor the status of the Regulators' review of the relevant documents, the Court held another status conference with the parties in February of 2018, and ultimately granted the parties' concurred-in motion to continue the pending case management deadlines awaiting the outcome of the Regulators' review of the relevant documents. Thereafter, the parties filed a Joint Status Report with the Court on May 2, 2018, reporting that the parties had participated in an April 2018 conference call with the Regulators to discuss the status of the Regulators' review of the potential CSI documents. In that Joint Status Report, all parties agreed that the withheld documents may be released to SEPTA only under the following conditions: (1) should the Regulators consent to the production of them to SEPTA, or (2) "in the event that the Regulators withhold consent, the Court determines either that the privilege does not apply, or the Court determines that good cause exists to override the privilege." (Id. at 2.) Subsequent to the filing of that Joint Status Report, the Court held a status conference with the parties on May 10, 2018, and scheduled another status conference for Aug. 17, 2018. Unsatisfied with the Regulators' process to review potential CSI documents to determine whether to assert the bank examination privilege over any of the documents sought by SEPTA from the Orrstown Defendants and third parties, and immediately prior to the scheduled status conference in August of 2018, SEPTA filed a motion to compel seeking an order from the Court compelling production of all documents under review by the Regulators. After briefing on the motion, the Court denied SEPTA's motion by Memorandum and Order. Thereafter, SEPTA filed the instant Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, along with the proposed Third Amended Complaint, a supporting declaration, and a supporting brief. In its motion, SEPTA seeks leave to file a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") that reasserts claims previously dismissed by the Court's Dec. 7, 2016 Order against several individual Defendants associated with Orrstown, as well as Orrstown's auditor, SEK, and the Underwriter Defendants. In its motion, SEPTA maintains that discovery produced in this case in late 2018 has revealed evidence supporting the amendment of the SAC to include the previously dismissed Securities Act claims against the Orrstown Defendants, several individual Defendants, SEK, and the Underwriter Defendants. SEPTA's motion also seeks to reassert the previously dismissed Exchange Act claims against four individual Defendants associated with Orrstown and SEK. Orrstown filed a brief in opposition to SEPTA's motion, as did SEK, and the Underwriter Defendants. After receiving permission from the Court, SEPTA filed a consolidated reply brief. The motion has been fully briefed. Upon consideration of the arguments of the parties and the relevant authorities cited to the Court, and noting that no party has cited to the Court a controlling case addressing whether Rule 54(b) or Rule 15(a) applies to a motion for leave to amend seeking to reassert previously dismissed claims against previously dismissed parties, Judge Kane is persuaded that it is appropriate to apply the traditional Rule 15 analysis to SEPTA's motion, which does not ask the Court to reconsider its analysis of the SAC as contained in its December 7, 2016 Memorandum and Order, but seeks to assert new factual allegations addressing previously-identified pleading deficiencies. Moreover, the Judge is persuaded that the two cases relied on by the Defendants in support of their argument that the Rule 54(b) standard should apply to SEPTA's motion are distinguishable from the instant case. Accordingly, she will evaluate SEPTA's motion for leave to amend under the traditional Rule 15(a) analysis. The various Defendants argue that several grounds exist here to overcome the general principle embodied in Rule 15, which provides that leave to amend should be "freely" given; specifically, they maintain that SEPTA's motion is (1) unduly delayed, (2) unduly prejudicial, and (3) futile. The Court is persuaded that SEPTA has not unduly delayed the filing of its motion, where it asserts that the documents upon which the TAC is based were produced to it only in November of 2018, after the Orrstown Defendants agreed to produce documents predating 2010, and in light of the volume of documents produced and the complexity of the issues in the case. In addition, even though the case has been pending for some time, the Court notes that in light of the delay in these proceedings related to the FRB review of potential CSI documents withheld from production to SEPTA, the case is procedurally still in a relatively early stage. The Court next turns to the issue of prejudice, which is the "touchstone" regarding the potential denial of a motion for leave to amend. The Court is persuaded that the Orrstown Defendants cannot demonstrate that they will be unfairly disadvantaged by the filing of the TAC, in light of SEPTA's representation that the majority of the allegations in the TAC were derived from Orrstown's own documents, which were revealed to SEPTA only much later through discovery. The fact that the claims against Orrstown in the proposed TAC are based largely on documents produced by Orrstown weighs against any finding of prejudice. Ultimately, for all of these reasons, the Court concludes that the Defendants have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that they would be unfairly disadvantaged or deprived of the opportunity to present facts or evidence, sufficient to justify denial of SEPTA's motion for leave to amend. The Court next addresses the Defendants' arguments regarding futility. In light of its conclusion that, pursuant to Rule 54(b), the previous dismissal of claims against the various Defendants did not end the "action" against them as to the claims initially brought by way of the FAC for purposes of the statutes of repose or limitation, the Judge is persuaded that Rule 15(c)'s relation back provision permitting an amended pleading asserting a new claim to "relate back" to the date of the original pleading is inapplicable. SEPTA seeks to reassert the same claims against the same parties in the same action that was initiated by way of the FAC and, despite the partial dismissal of claims, was not ended by way of the Court's Dec. 7, 2016 Order. Accordingly, for all of these reasons, the Court finds that futility does not provide a basis for denial of SEPTA's motion for leave to amend. For all of these reasons, Judge Kane granted SEPTA's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/vw26Qw from Leagle.com. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Tiffany J. Cramer -- tiffanycramer@chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, Timothy N. Mathews -- TimothyMathews@chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, Benjamin F. Johns -- benjohns@chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, Kimberly M. Donaldson Smith -- kimdonaldson@chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP & Nicholas E. Chimicles -- nick@chimicles.com -- CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP. Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., Orrstown Bank, Thomas R. Quinn, Jr., Bradley S. Everly & JEFFREY W. EMBLY, Defendants, represented by David J. Creagan, White and Williams, LLP, David E. Edwards, White and Williams LLP & Justin K. Fortescue, White and Williams LLP. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Amicus, represented by George Michael Thiel, U.S. Attorney's Office. PARSLEY ENERGY: Jagged Peak Energy Merger--Related Suits Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs in the six stockholder lawsuits, including putative class actions, related to Parsley Energy, Inc.'s merger with Jagged Peak Energy Inc. has voluntarily dismissed their cases following the Company and Jagged Peak's filing of supplemented acquisition proxy statement, according to Parsley Energy's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. Following the Company's and Jagged Peak's filing with the SEC of a joint proxy statement/prospectus (the "Jagged Peak Acquisition Proxy Statement") for the solicitation of proxies in connection with the special meetings to be held in connection with the Jagged Peak Acquisition, six purported stockholders of Jagged Peak (the "Jagged Peak Plaintiffs") filed separate complaints (including several putative class actions complaints, on behalf of themselves and all owners of Jagged Peak's common stock, other than defendants and related or affiliated persons) against Jagged Peak and the directors of Jagged Peak. The six complaints (collectively referred to as the "Stockholder Actions") are captioned as follows: Eric Sabatini v. Jagged Peak Energy Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02114 (D. Del.); Jean-Pierre Enguehard v. Jagged Peak Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 2019-cv-34328 (Distr. Ct., Denver, CO) (the "Enguehard Action"); Kelly Small v. Jagged Peak Energy Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-10698 (S.D.N.Y.); Sherrie Wynne v. Jagged Peak Energy Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03281 (D. Colo.); Mark Prinzel v. Jagged Peak Energy Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-10886 (S.D.N.Y.); and Stephen Bushansky v. Jagged Peak Energy Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-3433 (D. Colo.). The Stockholder Actions alleged that, among other things, the Jagged Peak Acquisition Proxy Statement failed to disclose certain allegedly material information in violation of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 14a-9 under the Exchange Act. The Enguehard Action further alleged that the directors of Jagged Peak failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties in connection with the Jagged Peak Acquisition by purportedly initiating a process to sell Jagged Peak in a transaction that undervalues Jagged Peak. The complaints sought injunctive relief enjoining the Jagged Peak Acquisition and damages and costs, among other remedies. On January 2, 2020, the Company and Jagged Peak each filed a Current Report on Form 8-K that supplemented the Jagged Peak Acquisition Proxy Statement with certain disclosures responsive to allegations made by the Jagged Peak Plaintiffs. Following these filings, all of the Stockholder Actions were voluntarily dismissed by the Jagged Peak Plaintiffs. Parsley Energy, Inc., an independent oil and natural gas company, engages in the acquisition, development, production, exploration, and sale of crude oil and natural gas properties in the Permian Basin in West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico. The company was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Austin, Texas. PHILADELPHIA, PA: Brown Suit Asks Home Confinement for Detainees ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY BROWN, MYLES HANNIGAN, and ANTHONY HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SEAN MARLER, in his capacity as Warden of the Federal Detention Center of Philadelphia, Case No. 2:20-cv-01914-AB (E.D. Pa., April 15, 2020), seeks temporary release to home confinement for the Plaintiffs and other detainees at elevated risk from COVID-19. The lawsuit raises an urgent challenge to the confinement of more than 1,000 pretrial detainees and sentenced inmates at the Federal Detention Center of Philadelphia. The Petitioners contend that the facility has been slow to adopt the basic life-saving precautions that have become familiar parts of life beyond its walls. As of the filing of the lawsuit, conditions in the FDC remain appallingly hospitable to the spread of COVID-19, the Plaintiffs say. They add that Detainees are crowded two per cell; staff members come and go with scant screening for symptoms or personal protective equipment; and conditions are unsanitary. Detainees have no meaningful ability to take the most fundamental precautions recommended by federal, state, and local officials and public-health experts: social distancing, minimizing the number of people with whom one physically interacts, frequent and thorough handwashing, and regular disinfecting of commonly touched surfaces, according to the complaint. The Petitioners have, thus, filed this class action petition for writs of habeas corpus and class complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. FDC Philadelphia is a United States Federal prison in Center City, Philadelphia.[BN] The Petitioners are represented by: Mary M. McKenzie, Esq. Benjamin D. Geffen, Esq. PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER 1500 JFK Blvd., Suite 802 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: 215-627-7100 E-mail: mmckenzie@pubintlaw.org bgeffen@pubintlaw.org - and - Jim Davy, Esq. 2362 E. Harold Street Philadelphia, PA 19125 Telephone: 609-273-5008 E-mail: jimdavy@gmail.com - and - Linda Dale Hoffa, Esq. Margaret Spitzer Persico, Esq. DILWORTH PAXSON LLP 1500 Market St., Suite 3500E Philadelphia, PA 19102-2101 Telephone: 215-275-7000 Facsimile: 215-575-7200 E-mail: lhoffa@dilworthlaw.com PICK & PACK: Saavedra Sues to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Alberto Saavedra, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PICK & PACK PRODUCE INC., (D/B/A LYDIG PICK & PACK) YOON JAI LEE, Case No. 1:20-cv-03326 (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the Wage Theft Prevention Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly works for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving appropriate overtime compensation for any of the hours that they worked. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping as required by the FLSA and the NYLL. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants packing and cleaning fruit at their Bronx Location. The Defendants operate a produce company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL PC 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Website: www.FightForUrRights.com PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit Trial in April 2022 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Trial date for the class action suit styled, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, is scheduled for April 4, 2022, according to Pilgrim's Pride Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019. Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of purported federal class action lawsuits styled as In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against PPC and 13 other producers by and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and unfair competition laws. The complaints seek, among other relief, treble damages for an alleged conspiracy among defendants to reduce output and increase prices of broiler chickens from the period of January 2008 to the present. The class plaintiffs have filed three consolidated amended complaints: one on behalf of direct purchasers and two on behalf of distinct groups of indirect purchasers. Between December 8, 2017 and October 22, 2019, 32 individual direct action complaints (Affiliated Foods, Inc., et al. v. Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-08850; Sysco Corp. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00700; U.S. Foods Inc. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00702; Action Meat Distributors, Inc., et al. v. Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-03471; Jetro Holdings, LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04000; Associated Grocers of the South, Inc., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-4616; The Kroger Co., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04534; Ahold Delhaize USA, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05351; Samuels as Trustee In Bankruptcy for Central Grocers, Inc. et al., v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05341; W. Lee Flowers & Company, Inc. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05345; BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05877; United Supermarkets LLC, et al. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-06693; Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-06316 (transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on September 17, 2018, following Defendants' successful motion to transfer); Shamrock Foods Company, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-7284; Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00245; Quirch Foods, LLC, f/k/a Quirch Foods Co. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-08511; Sherwood Food Distributors, L.L.C., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00354, Hooters of America, LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00390, Darden Restaurants, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00530; Associated Grocers, Inc., et al. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00638; Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01283; Conagra Brands, Inc., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02190, Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02758; Save Mart Supermarkets v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02805; Walmart Inc., et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03915 (transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on June 11, 2019, following Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to transfer); Services Group of America, Inc. v. Tyson Food, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-04194; Restaurants of America, Inc., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-04824; Anaheim Wings, d/b/a Hooters of Anaheim, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-05229; Amigos Meat Distributors, LP, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-05424; PJ Food Service, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-6141; The Golub Corporation, et al. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, et al., Case No. 19-cv-06955; and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-01605 (transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico)) were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by individual direct purchaser entities naming PPC as a defendant, the allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action complaints. The Court has ordered the parties to coordinate scheduling of the direct action complaints with the class complaints with any necessary modifications to reflect time of filing. Discovery will be consolidated. On June 21, 2019, the DOJ filed a motion to intervene and stay discovery in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation for a period of six months. Following a hearing on June 27, 2019, on June 28, 2019, the Court granted the government's motion to intervene, ordering a limited stay first until September 27, 2019, and then, following a subsequent request for an extension by the DOJ, to June 27, 2020. On July 1, 2019, the DOJ issued a subpoena to PPC in connection with its investigation. PPC is currently in the process of complying with the subpoena. On December 18, 2019, the Court reset the date for the lifting of the stay to March 31, 2020. On January 29, 2020, the Court issued a scheduling order through trial, which contemplates class certification briefing and related expert reports proceeding from June 18, 2020 to November 25, 2020, the close of all merits fact discovery on December 18, 2020, and summary judgment briefing and related expert reports proceeding from January 15, 2021 to August 10, 2021. The Court has set a trial date of April 4, 2022. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing, marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of JBS S.A. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Pending in Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride Corporation continues to face an Oklahoma lawsuit over alleged price-fixing of broiler chicken grower, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019. On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler chicken farmers was brought against PPC and four other producers in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to reduce competition for grower services and depress the price paid to growers. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Sherman Act and the Packers and Stockyards Act and seek, among other relief, treble damages. The complaint was consolidated with a subsequently filed consolidated amended class action complaint styled as In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS (the "Grower Litigation"). The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2017. The Court initially held oral argument on January 19, 2018, during which it considered and granted only certain other defendants' motions challenging jurisdiction. Oral argument on the remaining pending motions in the Oklahoma court occurred on April 20, 2018. In addition, on March 12, 2018, the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division ("Bankruptcy Court") enjoined the plaintiffs from litigating the Grower Litigation complaint as pled against PPC because allegations in the consolidated complaint violate the confirmation order relating to PPC's bankruptcy proceedings in 2008 and 2009. Specifically, the 2009 bankruptcy confirmation order bars any claims against PPC based on conduct occurring before December 28, 2009. On March 13, 2018, PPC notified the trial court of the Bankruptcy Court's injunction. On January 6, 2020, the Court held a motion hearing and denied the pending Rule 12 motion and lifted the stay on discovery. The Court also set a briefing schedule for the plaintiffs to file a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint in light of the Bankruptcy Court's injunction. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend was due on January 27, 2020, and Defendants' response was due on February 18, 2020. A status conference was set for April 6, 2020. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing, marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of JBS S.A. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Still Awaiting 2nd Amended Complaint in "Hogan" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019, that Patrick Hogan has not yet filed a Second Amended Complaint in his class action suit. On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased shares of PPC's stock between February 21, 2014 and October 6, 2016, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against PPC and its named executive officers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC's SEC filings contained statements that were rendered materially false and misleading by PPC's failure to disclose that (1) PPC colluded with several of its industry peers to fix prices in the broiler-chicken market as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, (2) its conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws, (3) PPC's revenues during the class period were the result of illegal conduct and (4) that PPC lacked effective internal control over financial reporting. The complaint also states that PPC's industry was anticompetitive and seeks compensatory damages. On April 4, 2017, the Court appointed another stockholder, George James Fuller, as lead plaintiff. On May 11, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which extended the end date of the putative class period to November 17, 2017. PPC and the other defendants moved to dismiss on June 12, 2017, and the plaintiff filed its opposition on July 12, 2017. PPC and the other defendants filed their reply on August 1, 2017. On March 14, 2018, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and issued final judgment in favor of PPC and the other defendants. On April 11, 2018, the plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court's decision and for permission to file a Second Amended Complaint. PPC and the other defendants filed a response to the plaintiff's motion on April 25, 2018. On November 19, 2018, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and granted plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. The Company said, "As of the date of these financial statements, the plaintiff has not yet filed a Second Amended Complaint." Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing, marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of JBS S.A. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Still Faces Consolidated Plant Workers Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pilgrim's Pride Corporation continues to face an amended complaint in the consolidated class action suit representing a nationwide class of processing plant production and maintenance workers, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019. Between August 30, 2019 and October 16, 2019, four purported class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against PPC and a number of other chicken producers, as well as WMS (Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company) and Agri Stats. The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of processing plant production and maintenance workers ("Plant Workers"). They allege that the defendants conspired to fix and depress the compensation paid to Plant Workers in violation of the Sherman Act and seek damages from January 1, 2009 to the present. The four cases are Jien v. Perdue Farms, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-2521; Earnest v. Perdue Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 19-cv-02680; Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 19-cv-02960; and Avila v. Perdue Farms, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-cv-03018 (together, the "Wages Litigation"). On November 12, 2019, the Court ordered the consolidation of the four cases for pretrial purposes. The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on November 22, 2019. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs informed the defendants and the Court they would be amending their complaint, which they did on December 20, 2019. The consolidated amended complaint asserts largely similar allegations to the pleadings in the consolidated complaint extended to include more class members and turkey processors as well as chicken. The defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint were due on March 2, 2020, with oppositions due on April 24, 2020 and replies on May 21, 2020. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing, marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of JBS S.A. PREMIERE CREDIT: Faces Staniland FDCPA Class Suit in New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premiere Credit of North America, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as TRACY A. STANILAND, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. PREMIERE CREDIT OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC; STEVEN TODD STURGEON; SARAH SIPE DEMOSS; PROGRESS ONE FINANCIAL, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 2:20-cv-04351-CCC-MF (D.N.J., April 15, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Claire C. Cecchi. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Premiere Credit offers financial services. The Company provides accounts receivable management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave., Ste. 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Still Defends 2 Antitrust Class Action Complaints ------------------------------------------------------------------ RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that it intends to "vigorously" defend itself against all claims in two putative class action suits over alleged violations of federal antitrust law. In March and April of 2019, three putative class action complaints were filed against National Association of Realtors ("NAR"), Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc, RE/MAX Holdings, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. The first was filed on March 6, 2019, by plaintiff Christopher Moehrl in the Northern District of Illinois. The second was filed on April 15, 2019, by plaintiff Sawbill Strategies, Inc., also in the Northern District of Illinois. These two actions have now been consolidated. A third action was filed by plaintiffs Joshua Sitzer and four other individual plaintiffs in the Western District of Missouri. The complaints (collectively "Moehrl/Sitzer suits") make substantially similar allegations and seek substantially similar relief. The plaintiffs allege that a NAR rule requires brokers to make a blanket, non-negotiable offer of buyer broker compensation when listing a property, resulting in inflated costs to sellers in violation of federal antitrust law. They further allege that certain defendants use their agreements with franchisees to require adherence to the NAR rule in violation of federal antitrust law. Amended complaints add allegations regarding buyer steering and non-disclosure of buyer-broker compensation to the buyer. Additionally, plaintiffs in the action filed by Sitzer et al allege violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. By agreement, RE/MAX, LLC was substituted for RE/MAX Holdings as defendant in the actions. Among other requested relief, plaintiffs seek damages against the defendants and an injunction enjoining defendants from requiring sellers to pay the buyer broker. The Company intends to vigorously defend against all claims. RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. is one of the world's leading franchisors in the real estate industry, franchising real estate brokerages globally under the RE/MAX(R) brand, and mortgage brokerages within the U.S. under the Motto Mortgage(R) brand. RE/MAX is a global franchisor of real estate brokerage services with more than 125,000 agents operating in over 110 countries and territories. The company is based in Denver, Colorado. RELIASTAR LIFE: Advance Trust's COI Litigation Underway ------------------------------------------------------- Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that it will "vigorously" defend the cost of insurance litigation styled, Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. ReliaStar Life Insurance Company (USDC District of Minnesota, No. 1:18-cv-02863) (filed October 5, 2018). The litigation is a putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges that the Company's universal life insurance policies only permitted the Company to rely upon the policyholders' expected future mortality experience to establish the cost of insurance, and that as projected mortality experience improved, the policy language required the Company to decrease the cost of insurance. Plaintiff alleges that the Company did not decrease the cost of insurance as required, thereby breaching its contract with its policyholders, and seeks class certification. The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the complaint to be without merit, and will defend the lawsuit vigorously. Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is based in New York, New York. RITE AID: Monmouth County Files Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RITE AID CORPORATION, et al. The case is styled as COUNTY OF MONMOUTH, Diane Scavello, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RITE AID CORPORATION, RITE AID HDQTRS. CORP., Case No. 2:20-cv-02024-KSM (E.D. Pa., April 27, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Rite Aid Corporation operates a retail drugstore chain in various states and the District of Columbia. The Company sells prescription drugs, as well as other products such as nonprescription medications, health and beauty aids, and cosmetics.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 500 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com RP ON-SITE LLC: Brown Sues in E.D. Virginia Over FCRA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RP On-Site, LLC. The case is styled as Terry Brown, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals v. RP On-Site, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00482-AJT-JFA (E.D. Va., April 27, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. RP ON-SITE LLC is in the Computer Related Services, N.E.C. industry in Richardson, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 424-7576 Fax: (703) 591-0167 Email: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com RSCR CALIFORNIA: Pending Class Certification Bid Declared Moot -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CHRISTINE ANDERSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. RSCR CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation; RES-CARE CALIFORNIA, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS RCCA SERVICES, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:18-cv-02474-JAK-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order declaring as moot a pending motion for class certification. Based on a review of the Parties' Joint Status Report, the Court amended its Scheduling Order as follows: May 15, 2020: Deadline for Plaintiff to serve an updated expert report and file updated motion for class certification. June 30, 2020: Deadline for Defendant to depose N/A named Plaintiff and serve its expert report. July 15, 2020: Response to motion for class certification. Aug. 31, 2020: Reply to motion for class certification. Dec. 31, 2020: Last day to participate in a settlement conference/mediation. Jan. 25, 2021: Hearing on motion for class certification. Jan. 25, 2021: Post Mediation Status Conference and Status Conference on deadlines for further nonexpert and expert discovery and filing of motions RSCR is an intermediate care facility for tyhe mentally retarded in Louisville, Kentucky.[CC] RUSH STREET: Faces Stewart Wage and Hour Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- Branden P. Stewart, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RUSH STREET GAMING, LLC and MIDWEST GAMING & ENTERTAINMENT, LLC d/b/a RIVERS CASINO, Case No. 1:20-cv-02566 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The case concerns two types of wage and hour violations: (i) the Defendants failed to pay minimum wage to tipped employees in compliance with the FLSA, by paying a sub-minimum direct cash wage and claiming a tip credit without providing notice of the provisions of the FLSA; and (ii) the Defendants directly deducted the cost of dry cleaning employer-required uniforms from the wages of their employees in violation of the FLSA and the IMWL. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an employee at Rivers Casino located in Des Plaines, Illinois, as a table games dealer and dual rate supervisor. Rush Street operates a hub and spoke employment structure whereby, Rush Street, at the operational center of the wheel, has spokes leading out to each of its individual casino subsidiaries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: 312-419-1025 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: 816-714-7101 Email: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com - and - Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq. McCLELLAND LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068-1170 Phone: (816) 781-0002 Facsimile: (816) 781-1984 Email: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com SABER HEALTHCARE: Bartels Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as EDWARD BARTELS, Administrator of the ESTATE OF JEANNE T. BARTELS, and JOSEPH J. PFOHL C, Executor of the Estate of Bernice C. Pfohl, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, SABER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, LLC, FRANKLIN OPERATIONS, LLC d/b/a FRANKLIN MANOR ASSISTED LIVING CENTER, SMITHFIELD EAST HEALTH HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a GABRIEL MANOR ASSISTED LIVING CENTER, and QUEEN CITY AL HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a THE CROSSINGS AT STEELE CREEK, Case No. 5:16-cv-00283 (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons who were private pay residents at Saber's Special Care Units at Franklin Manor Assisted Living Center, Gabriel Manor Assisted Living Center, and/or The Crossings at Steele Creek through the final disposition of this action"; Excluded from the class are: (a) any judge or magistrate presiding over this action and members of their immediate families; (b) any Defendant and its legal representatives; and (c) all persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Classes. 2. designating Edward Bartels, Administrator of the Estate of Jeanne T. Bartels, and Joseph J. Pfohl, Executor of the Estate of Bernice C. Pfohl as Representative Plaintiffs for the Class; 3. appointing Whitfield Bryson, LLP and Gugenheim Law Offices, P.C. as Class Counsel. Saber Healthcare operates as a skilled nursing facility. The company provides skilled nursing services, therapy services, behavioral services, psychological and chemical dependency services. Saber Healthcare offers ongoing assessments, staff training and continuing education.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew E. Lee, Esq. Andrew D. Hathaway, Esq. Jeremy R. Williams, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP 900 West Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: 919-600-5000 E-mail: Matt@whitfieldbryson.com Drew@whitfieldbryson.com Jeremy@whitfieldbryson.com - and - Stephen J. Gugenheim, Esq. GUGENHEIM LAW OFFICES, P.C. 118 St. Mary's St. Raleigh, NC 27605 Telephone: 919-836-5551 Facsimile: 919-836-5550 E-mail: Steve@gugenheimlaw.com SECURITY LIFE: Still Faces Advance Trust COI Class Suit in Colo. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Voya Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that it continues to face the cost of insurance litigation styled, Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. Security Life of Denver (USDC District of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-01897) (filed July 26, 2018). This litigation is a putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges that two specific types of universal life insurance policies only permitted the Company to rely upon the policyholder's expected future mortality experience to establish and increase the cost of insurance, but the Company instead relied upon other, non-disclosed factors not only in the administration of the policies over time, but also in the decision to increase insurance costs beginning in approximately October 2015. Plaintiff alleges a breach of contract and seeks class certification. The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is based in New York, New York. SEI INVESTMENTS: Awaits Court's Okay over Stevens Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- SEI Investments Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the class action suit initiated by Gordon Stevens is awaiting the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's decision regarding the approval of a settlement agreement. On September 28, 2018, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Gordon Stevens, individually and as the representative of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the SEI Capital Accumulation Plan (the "Plan") naming the Company and its affiliated and/or related entities SEI Investments Management Corporation, SEI Capital Accumulation Plan Design Committee, SEI Capital Accumulation Plan Investment Committee, SEI Capital Accumulation Plan Administration Committee, and John Does 1-30 as defendants (the "Stevens Complaint"). The Stevens Compliant seeks unspecified damages for defendants' breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA with respect to selecting and monitoring the Plan's investment options and by retaining affiliated investment products in the Plan. Although SEI believes its defenses against the plaintiff's allegations were valid, the Company agreed to settle this matter in the very early stages of the litigation in order to avoid the high cost of protracted class-action litigation and internal distractions such cases bring. The written settlement agreement was submitted to the Court on July 26, 2019, and is a matter of public record. A Preliminary Approval Order approving the settlement agreement was issued by the Court. A fairness hearing to approve the settlement agreement was held on December 18, 2019. The parties are currently waiting for the Court's decision regarding the approval of the settlement agreement. The Company said it expects the financial impact of the settlement agreement to be immaterial. SEI Investments Company is a publicly owned asset management holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides wealth management, retirement and investment solutions, asset management, asset administration, investment processing outsourcing solutions, financial services, and investment advisory services to its clients. SEI Investments Company was founded in 1968 and is based in Oaks, Pennsylvania. SEI INVESTMENTS: Still Defends Stanford Trust-Related Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- SEI Investments Company and its subsidiary continue to face several lawsuits related to the role of SEI Private Trust Company in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust Company, according to SEI Investments' Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. SEI has been named in seven lawsuits filed in Louisiana courts; four of the cases also name SPTC as a defendant. The underlying allegations in all actions relate to the purported role of SPTC in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust Company. The complaints allege that SEI and SPTC participated in some manner in the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford International Bank so as to be a "seller" of the certificates of deposit for purposes of primary liability under the Louisiana Securities Law or so as to be secondarily liable under that statute for sales of certificates of deposit made by Stanford Trust Company. Two of the actions also include claims for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy, and a third also asserts claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act, and conspiracy. The procedural status of the seven cases varies. The Lillie case, filed originally in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, was brought as a class action and is procedurally the most advanced of the cases. SEI and SPTC filed exceptions, which the Court granted in part, dismissing claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and permitting the claims under the Louisiana Securities Law to go forward. On March 11, 2013, newly-added insurance carrier defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. On August 7, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the matter to the Northern District of Texas where MDL 2099, In re: Stanford Entities Securities Litigation ("the Stanford MDL"), is pending. On September 22, 2015, the District Court on the motion of SEI and SPTC dismissed plaintiffs' claims for primary liability under Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to dismiss plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law based on the allegations pled by plaintiffs. On November 4, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under Section 712(D) of the Louisiana Securities Law. Consequently, the only claims of plaintiffs remaining in Lillie are plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability against SEI and SPTC under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law. On May 2, 2016, the District Court certified the class as being "all persons for whom Stanford Trust Company purchased or renewed Stanford Investment Bank Limited certificates of deposit in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009". Notice of the pendency of the class action was mailed to potential class members on October 4, 2016. On December 1, 2016, a group of plaintiffs who opted out of the Lillie class filed a complaint against SEI and SPTC in the United States District Court in the Middle District of Louisiana ("Ahders Complaint"), alleging claims essentially the same as those in Lillie. In January 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the Ahders proceeding to the Northern District of Texas and the Stanford MDL. During February 2017, SEI and SPTC filed their response to the Ahders Complaint, and in March 2017 the District Court for the Northern District of Texas approved the stipulated dismissal of all claims in this Complaint predicated on Section 712(D) or Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law. In both cases, as a result of the proceedings in the Northern District of Texas, only the plaintiffs' secondary liability claims under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law remain. Limited discovery and motions practice have occurred, including SEI and SPTC's filing of a dispositive summary judgment motion in the Lillie proceeding. On January 31, 2019, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remanded the Lillie and Ahders proceedings to the Middle District of Louisiana. On July 9, 2019, the District Court issued an order granting SEI's Summary Judgment Motion to dismiss the remaining Section 714(B) claim in the Lillie proceeding and denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Continuance of SEI and SPTC's Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d). On July 16, 2019, SEI and SPTC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d) in the Ahders proceeding to have the remaining Section 714(B) claim dismissed. On July 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial as to the July 9, 2019 Ruling and Order (ECF 146) by the Honorable Brian A. Jackson denying a continuance of SEI's Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d) in the Lillie proceeding. The Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion and entered a Final Judgment in favor of SEI and SPTC on August 15, 2019. On August 27, 2019, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the District Court's dismissal of the Lillie matter. On November 20, 2019, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a Motion in Support of the Notice of Appeal with the Fifth Circuit in the Lillie matter. On January 17, 2020, SEI and SPTC timely filed their brief in opposition to the Plaintiffs-Appellants' motion for appeal in the Lillie Matter. On January 24, 2020, the District Court issued an order granting SEI's Summary Judgment Motion to dismiss the remaining Section 714(B) claim in the Adhers proceeding. On February 7, 2020, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed their reply brief with the Fifth Circuit in the Lillie matter. Another case, filed in the 23rd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension, also was removed to federal court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Northern District of Texas and the Stanford MDL. The schedule for responding to that Complaint has not yet been established. Two additional cases remain in the Parish of East Baton Rouge. Plaintiffs filed petitions in 2010 and have granted SEI and SPTC indefinite extensions to respond. No material activity has taken place since. In two additional cases, filed in East Baton Rouge and brought by the same counsel who filed the Lillie action, virtually all of the litigation to date has involved motions practice and appellate litigation regarding the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA). The matters were removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and consolidated. The court then dismissed the action under SLUSA. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that order, and the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Court of Appeals judgment on February 26, 2014. The matters were remanded to state court and no material activity has taken place since that date. SEI Investments said, "While the outcome of this litigation remains uncertain, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Because of uncertainty in the make-up of the Lillie class, the specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the relative lack of discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with respect to the foregoing lawsuits." SEI Investments Company is a publicly owned asset management holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides wealth management, retirement and investment solutions, asset management, asset administration, investment processing outsourcing solutions, financial services, and investment advisory services to its clients. SEI Investments Company was founded in 1968 and is based in Oaks, Pennsylvania. SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Agar Suit vs. SNI Moves into Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled, Agar v. Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC, has now moved into discovery phase after an unsuccessful early mediation in the case in December 2019, according to Sensient Technologies Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. On March 29, 2019, Calvin Agar (Agar), a former employee, filed a Class Action Complaint in Stanislaus County Superior Court against Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI). On May 22, 2019, Agar filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint against SNI (the Complaint). Agar alleges that SNI improperly reported overtime pay on employees' wage statements, in violation of the California Labor Code. The Complaint alleges two causes of action, and both concern the wage statements. The Complaint does not allege that SNI failed to pay any overtime due to Agar or any of the putative class or group members. The Complaint merely challenges the manner in which SNI has reported overtime pay on its wage statements. SNI maintains that it has accurately paid Agar and the putative class members for all overtime worked, and that they have not experienced any harm. SNI further maintains that the format of its wage statements does not violate the requirements of state law or any specific guidance from California decisional law, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or the California Labor Commissioner's Office. Finally, SNI contends that certain of the state law claims are subject to mandatory individual arbitration. SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint on July 10, 2019. The parties participated in an early mediation in the case in December 2019, which was not successful. The case will now move into the discovery phase. SNI continues to evaluate the developing legal authority on this issue. SNI intends to vigorously defend its interests, absent a reasonable resolution. Sensient Technologies Corporation, incorporated on December 7, 1882, is a manufacturer and marketer of colors, flavors and fragrances. The Company uses technologies at facilities around the world to develop specialty food and beverage systems, cosmetic and pharmaceutical systems, specialty inks and colors, and other specialty and fine chemicals. The company is based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Appeal in Lewis Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------- The Sherwin-Williams Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the case styled, Mary Lewis v. Lead Industries Association, et al., are awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois on the defendants' appeal. In Mary Lewis v. Lead Industries Association, et al. pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, parents seek to recover the cost of their children's blood lead testing against the Company and three other defendants that made (or whose alleged corporate predecessors made) white lead pigments. The Circuit Court has certified a statewide class and a Chicago subclass of parents or legal guardians of children who lived in high-risk zip codes identified by the Illinois Department of Health and who were screened for lead toxicity between August 1995 and February 2008. Excluded from the class are those parents or guardians who have incurred no expense, liability or obligation to pay for the cost of their children's blood lead testing. In 2017, the Company and other defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the three named plaintiffs have not paid and have no obligation or liability to pay for their children's blood lead testing because Medicaid paid for the children of two plaintiffs and private insurance paid for the third plaintiff without any evidence of a co-pay or deductible. The Circuit Court granted the motion, but on September 7, 2018, the Appellate Court reversed with respect to the two plaintiffs for whom Medicaid paid for their children's testing. Defendants filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Illinois for discretionary review. By order entered January 31, 2019, that court allowed defendants' petition for leave to appeal. The defendants filed their opening brief in the Supreme Court of Illinois on April 11, 2019, to which the plaintiffs filed a response brief on June 17, 2019. The defendants filed their reply brief on July 15, 2019. Oral argument was held before the Supreme Court of Illinois on November 14, 2019, and the parties are awaiting the decision. The Sherwin-Williams Company develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells paints, coatings, and related products to professional, industrial, commercial, and retail customers. It was founded in 1866 and is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. SIMON BROTHERS: Court Conditionally Certifies Collective Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as GEORGE GREGG v. SIMON BROTHERS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-CV-513 (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Jonker entered an order: 1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action for the following collective action group: "all hourly-paid intrastate drivers and mechanics that work/worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more workweeks within the last three years for Defendants, but were not compensated at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked"; 2. approving the Plaintiff's proposed Class Notice and proposed Consent to join the collective action; 3. authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to send notice, in the form provided for in ECF No. 27-2, to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by Defendant's counsel by U.S. mail and text message. 4. authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to send a post card reminder notice via mail and text message to putative class members at the half-way point in the notice period; 5. authorizing the putative class members to electronically sign and return the Consent to Join the Collective Action form; and 6. directing the Defendant to disclose to Plaintiff the names, position held, last known address, dates of employment, and cell phone number in electronic and importable format, within 14 days of the date of this Order. Simon Brothers specializes in diesel service and repair, pool water delivery and grain Transportation.[CC] STEWARD MELBOURNE: Hauser Appeals M.D. Florida Order to 11th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Lawrence Hauser filed an appeal from a court ruling in his lawsuit styled Lawrence Hauser v. Steward Melbourne Hospital, et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-01150-CEM-EJK, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint alleges that the Defendants improperly charged emergency room facility fees to individuals, who were provided emergency care after presenting at an emergency room facility operated by the Defendants or one of their affiliates since May 1, 2017. The appellate case is captioned as Lawrence Hauser v. Steward Melbourne Hospital, et al., Case No. 20-11377, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LAWRENCE HAUSER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Barry L. Kramer, Esq. BARRY L. KRAMER LAW OFFICE 9550 S Eastern Ave., Ste. 253 Las Vegas, NV 89123 Telephone: (702) 778-6090 - and - Jared Michael Lee, Esq. JACKSON LEE, PA 1981 Longwood Lake Mary Rd., Ste. 1001 Longwood, FL 32750 Telephone: (407) 477-4401 Facsimile: (407) 477-4949 Email: jared@jacksonleepa.com service@jacksonleepa.com Defendants-Appellees STEWARD MELBOURNE HOSPITAL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and STEWARD HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, are represented by: Christopher MacNeil Murphy, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, LLP 444 W Lake St., Ste. 4000 Chicago, IL 60606-0029 Telephone: (312) 984-6307 - and - Kamal Sleiman, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, LLP 333 Se 2nd Ave., Ste. 4500 Miami, FL 33131-2184 Telephone: (305) 329-4420 Facsimile: (305) 675-8403 Email: ksleiman@mwe.com TDL GROUP: Suit over Canadian Competition Act Breaches Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- The TDL Group Corp. continues to defend itself against a class action complaint initiated by Samir Latifi over alleged violations of the Canadian Competition Act, according to Restaurant Brands International Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. In July 2019, a class action complaint was filed against The TDL Group Corp. ("TDL") in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by Samir Latifi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The complaint alleges that TDL violated the Canadian Competition Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring clause in the standard form franchise agreement all Tim Hortons franchisees are required to sign. The plaintiff seeks damages and restitution, on behalf of himself and other members of the class. Restaurant Brands International Inc. is the sole general partner of Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership ("Partnership"), which is the indirect parent of The TDL Group Corp. ("Tim Hortons"), Burger King Worldwide, Inc. ("Burger King") and Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. ("Popeyes"). The Company is based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. TEVA PHARMA: Appeal in Aggrenox(R) Antitrust Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------- In the antitrust case related to Aggrenox(R), the appeal of the end payer plaintiffs who opted out of a court-approved settlement remains pending in the Second Circuit, according to Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. Since November 2013, numerous lawsuits have been filed in various federal courts by purported classes of end payers for, and direct purchasers of, Aggrenox(R) (dipyridamole/aspirin tablets) against Boehringer Ingelheim ("BI"), the innovator, and several Teva subsidiaries. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the settlement agreement between BI and Barr entered into in August 2008 violated the antitrust laws. A multidistrict litigation has been established in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. On April 11, 2017, the Orange County District Attorney filed a complaint for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law based on the Aggrenox(R) patent litigation settlement. Teva has settled with the putative classes of direct purchasers and end payers, as well as with the opt-out direct purchaser plaintiffs, and with two of the opt-out end payer plaintiffs. A provision with respect to the settlements was included in the financial statements and settlement amounts were subsequently paid in full. The district court overruled certain objections to the end payer settlement, including objections made by the Orange County District Attorney, and approved the settlement. The District Attorney subsequently appealed the court's approval to the Second Circuit, but that appeal was dismissed in December 2019 and the District Attorney also subsequently dismissed the April 2017. Opt-outs from the end payer class also appealed certain aspects of the court's approval order to the Second Circuit and that appeal remains pending. Annual sales of Aggrenox(R) were approximately US$340 million at the time of the settlement and approximately US$455 million at the time Teva launched its authorized generic version of Aggrenox(R) in July 2015. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. TEVA PHARMA: Class Suit Over Lamictal Patent Remains Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action related to the settlement of patent litigation involving lamotrigine (generic Lamictal(R) ) entered into in February 2005 is still stayed pending the outcome of an appeal in the case. The Company said, "In February 2012, two purported classes of direct-purchaser plaintiffs sued GSK and Teva in New Jersey federal court for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their settlement of patent litigation involving lamotrigine (generic Lamictal(R) ) entered into in February 2005. The plaintiffs claim that the settlement agreement unlawfully delayed generic entry and seek unspecified damages. In December 2012, the court dismissed the case, but in June 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. In December 2018, the court granted the direct-purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On March 18, 2019, the appeals court granted the defendants' petition for immediate appellate review and the district court has stayed the litigation pending the outcome of the appeal. Annual sales of Lamictal(R) were approximately US$950 million at the time of the settlement and approximately US$2.3 billion at the time Teva launched its generic version of Lamictal(R) in July 2008." Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. TEVA PHARMA: Niaspan Indirect Buyers' Bid for Class Status Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has yet to rule on the indirect purchasers' pending motion for class certification in the antitrust suit related to Niaspan(R) (extended release niacin). In April 2013, purported classes of direct purchasers of, and end payers for, Niaspan(R) (extended release niacin) sued Teva and Abbott for violating the antitrust laws by entering into a settlement agreement in April 2005 to resolve patent litigation over the product. A multidistrict litigation has been established in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Throughout 2015 and in January 2016, several individual direct purchaser opt-out plaintiffs filed complaints with allegations nearly identical to those of the direct purchaser class and, in August 2019, the district court certified the direct-purchaser class, although the court has yet to rule on the indirect purchasers' pending motion for class certification. In October 2016, the District Attorney for Orange County, California, filed a similar complaint, which has since been amended, in California state court, alleging violations of state law. Defendants moved to strike the District Attorney's claims for restitution and civil penalties to the extent not limited to alleged activity occurring in Orange County. The Superior Court denied that motion. The Court of Appeal subsequently reversed the decision and review of the Appellate Court decision is now pending before the California Supreme Court. Annual sales of Niaspan(R) were approximately US$416 million at the time of the settlement and approximately US$1.1 billion at the time Teva launched its generic version of Niaspan(R) in September 2013. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. TEVA PHARMA: Settlement in Provigil(R) Suit Awaits Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Company's settlement agreement with the State of California in a class action suit related to Provigil(R) is pending final court approval. In April 2006, certain subsidiaries of Teva were named in a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case alleges that the settlement agreements entered into between Cephalon, Inc., now a Teva subsidiary ("Cephalon"), and various generic pharmaceutical companies in late 2005 and early 2006 to resolve patent litigation involving certain finished modafinil products (marketed as PROVIGIL(R)) were unlawful because they had the effect of excluding generic competition. The case also alleges that Cephalon improperly asserted its PROVIGIL patent against the generic pharmaceutical companies. The first lawsuit was filed by a purported class of direct purchasers. Similar complaints were also filed by a purported class of indirect purchasers, certain chain pharmacies and by Apotex, Inc. (collectively, these cases are referred to as the "Philadelphia Modafinil Action"). Separately, Apotex challenged Cephalon's PROVIGIL patent and, in October 2011, the court found the patent to be invalid and unenforceable based on inequitable conduct. Teva has either settled or reached agreements in principle to settle with all of the plaintiffs in the Philadelphia Modafinil Action. Additionally, Cephalon and Teva reached a settlement with 48 state attorneys general, which was approved by the court on November 7, 2016, and on July 23, 2019, reached a settlement with the State of California, which is pending final court approval. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. TEVA PHARMA: Still Defends Pennsylvania MDL over Antitrust Matters ------------------------------------------------------------------ Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to face a multi-district litigation over antitrust matters in Pennsylvania court, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. Beginning on March 2, 2016, numerous complaints have been filed in the United States on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of several generic drug products, as well as several individual direct and indirect purchaser opt-out plaintiffs. These complaints, which allege that the defendants engaged in conspiracies to fix prices and/or allocate market share of generic products have been brought against various manufacturer defendants, including Teva and Actavis. The plaintiffs generally seek injunctive relief and damages under federal antitrust law, and damages under various state laws. On April 6, 2017, these cases were transferred to the Pennsylvania MDL. Additional cases were transferred to that court and the plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints on August 15, 2017. On October 16, 2018, the court denied certain of the defendants' motions to dismiss as to certain federal claims, and on February 15, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss as to certain state law claims. On July 18, 2019, certain individual plaintiffs commenced a civil action in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against many of the defendants in the Pennsylvania MDL, including Teva and Actavis, but no complaint has been filed and the case has been placed in deferred status. On November 13, 2019, several counties in New York commenced a civil action against many of the defendants in the Pennsylvania MDL, including Teva and Actavis, and the complaint has been transferred to the Pennsylvania MDL. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. TEVA PHARMA: Still Defends Venlafaxine-Related Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to face lawsuits over alleged violations of antitrust laws related to its settlement of patent litigation involving extended release venlafaxine (generic Effexor XR(R)) entered into in November 2005, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Company said, "In December 2011, three groups of plaintiffs sued Wyeth and Teva for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their settlement of patent litigation involving extended release venlafaxine (generic Effexor XR(R)) entered into in November 2005. The cases were filed by a purported class of direct purchasers, by a purported class of indirect purchasers and by certain chain pharmacies in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs claim that the settlement agreement between Wyeth and Teva unlawfully delayed generic entry. In October 2014, the court granted Teva's motion to dismiss in the direct purchaser cases, after which the parties agreed that the court's reasoning applied equally to the indirect purchaser cases. Plaintiffs appealed and, in August 2017, the Third Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded for further proceedings. Annual sales of Effexor XR(R) were approximately US$2.6 billion at the time of settlement and at the time Teva launched its generic version of Effexor XR(R) in July 2010." Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. TEVA PHARMA: Still Faces Antitrust Actions over Lidoderm Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to defend itself against legal proceedings related to Lidoderm(R) (lidocaine transdermal patches), according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. In November 2013, a putative class action was filed in Pennsylvania federal court against Actavis, Inc. and certain of its affiliates, alleging that Watson's 2012 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. relating to Lidoderm(R) (lidocaine transdermal patches) violated the antitrust laws. Additional lawsuits containing similar allegations followed on behalf of other classes of putative direct purchaser and end-payer plaintiffs, as well as retailers acting in their individual capacities, and those cases were consolidated as a multidistrict litigation in federal court in California. On February 21, 2017, the court granted both the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' and the direct purchaser plaintiffs' motions for class certification. Teva settled the multidistrict litigation with the various plaintiff groups in the first quarter of 2018, a provision was included in the financial statements and settlement amounts were subsequently paid in full. The FTC also filed suit to challenge the Lidoderm(R) settlement, initially bringing antitrust claims against Watson, Endo and Allergan in Pennsylvania federal court in March 2016. The FTC later voluntarily dismissed those claims and refiled them (along with a stipulated order for permanent injunction to settle its claims against Endo) in the same California federal court in which the private multidistrict litigation was pending. On February 3, 2017, the State of California filed its own complaint against Allergan and Watson, and that complaint was also assigned to the California federal court presiding over the multidistrict litigation. On February 22, 2019, the FTC dismissed its claims against Actavis and Allergan, in exchange for Teva's agreement to amend the Modafinil Consent Decree. On July 23, 2019, Teva and the State of California also reached a settlement agreement. On September 16, 2019, end-payers Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan filed their own lawsuit against Watson, and other defendants, in Michigan state court. That lawsuit was subsequently removed to federal court and remains pending. On January 24, 2020, the State of Mississippi filed a lawsuit against Teva and Watson in Mississippi state court, which also remains pending. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. TEVA PHARMA: Still Faces Antitrust Claims over Cinacalcet --------------------------------------------------------- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to face antitrust lawsuits related to a January 2019 settlement agreement resolving patent litigation over cinacalcet (generic Sensipar(R)), according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. In January 2019, generic manufacturer Cipla Limited filed a lawsuit against Amgen in Delaware federal court, alleging, among other things, that a January 2, 2019 settlement agreement between Amgen and Teva, resolving patent litigation over cinacalcet (generic Sensipar(R)), violated the antitrust laws. In March 2019, Cipla Limited amended its complaint to name Teva as an additional defendant, and putative classes of direct-purchaser and end-payer plaintiffs have also filed antitrust lawsuits (which have since been consolidated in federal court in Delaware) against Amgen and Teva related to the January 2, 2019 settlement. Both Cipla Limited and the putative class plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief and the defendants moved to dismiss their claims on October 15, 2019. Those motions remain pending. Annual sales of Sensipar(R) in the United States were approximately US$1.4 billion at the time Teva launched its generic version of Sensipar(R) in December 2018, and at the time of the January 2, 2019 settlement. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. TEVA PHARMA: Still Faces Antitrust Class Suits over Intuniv Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that in the class actions related to Shire's 2013 patent litigation settlement over ADHD drug Intuniv(R) (guanfacine) matters, the indirect purchasers' petition for immediate appellate review on their denied bid for class certification remains pending while the various summary judgment motions of the certified direct purchasers class are also pending. Since November 2016, several putative indirect purchaser and direct purchaser class actions were filed in federal courts in Wisconsin, Massachusetts and Florida against Shire U.S., Inc. and Shire LLC (collectively, "Shire"), Actavis and Teva, alleging that Shire's 2013 patent litigation settlement with Actavis related to the ADHD drug Intuniv(R) (guanfacine) violated various state consumer protection and antitrust laws. All cases are now in Massachusetts federal court. In August 2019, the court denied the indirect purchasers' motion for class certification, and they filed a petition for immediate appellate review, which remains pending. In September 2019, the court granted the direct purchasers' motion for class certification and the parties filed various summary judgment motions, which remain pending. Annual sales of Intuniv(R) were approximately US$335 million at the time of the settlement and approximately US$327 million at the time Actavis launched its generic version of Intuniv(R) in 2014. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. TRANSUNION RENTAL: Hector Suit Moved From Virginia to Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as KAILA HECTOR and WILLIAM AIRD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TRANSUNION RENTAL SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00790 (Filed Jan. 21, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on April 27, 2020. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01794-JPB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge e J. P. Boulee. The case is a consumer class action for damages, costs and attorneys' fees brought against the Defendant based on its widespread violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Defendant is a consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Craig Marchiando, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com - and - Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. Joseph C. Hashmall , Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 43 SE Main Street, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net jhashmall@bm.net The Defendant is represented by: Albert E. Hartmann, Esq. Travis Aaron Sabalewski, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 10 S. Wacker Dr., 40th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 207-2821 Facsimile: (312) 207-6400 E-mail: ahartmann@reedsmith.com tsabalewski@reedsmith.com TRISTATE LOGISTICS: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Bryant FLSA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs SAMANTHA SANDERS, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in the lawsuit styled Jayce Bryant, et al. v. Tristate Logistics of Arizona, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01552-SMB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a courier/warehouse worker from March 2016 through July 2016. The appellate case is captioned as Jayce Bryant, et al. v. Tristate Logistics of Arizona, et al., Case No. 20-15725, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants Randy Hagelback, Chris Kooiman, Donald Kooiman and Samantha Sanders' Mediation Questionnaire is due on April 28, 2020; -- Appellants Randy Hagelback, Chris Kooiman, Donald Kooiman and Samantha Sanders' opening brief is due on June 15, 2020; -- Appellees Bon Air Trust, C&A Holdings LLC, Jorge, Carlos Jorge, Tristate Logistics LLC, Tristate Logistics of Arizona LLC and Tristate Logistics of Nevada LLC's answering brief is due on July 14, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants, SAMANTHA SANDERS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by: Jason Barrat, Esq. Michael Zoldan, Esq. ZOLDAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 14500 N Northsight Blvd., Suite 213 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Telephone: (480) 442-3410 – and – Clifford Phillip Bendau, II, Esq. THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Telephone: (480) 382-5176 Defendants-Appellees TRISTATE LOGISTICS OF ARIZONA LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, et al., are represented by: Keith Anson Call, Esq. SNOW CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU 10 Exchange Place Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 322-9144 UMPQUA BANK: Wrongfully Charges OD and NSF Fees, Hayes Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- SHANTE HAYES, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. UMPQUA BANK and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 3:20-cv-00684-AC (D. Ore. April 27, 2020), alleges that Umpqua wrongfully charged the Plaintiff and the proposed class members overdraft fees and non-sufficient funds fees. The class action seeks monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive relief due to Umpqua's policy and practice of charging multiple Non-Sufficient Funds Fees and/or NSF fees followed by an overdraft fee on the same electronic item, a practice which breaches Umpqua's contracts with its customers, who include the Plaintiff and the members of the class. The Plaintiff is a resident of Portland, Oregon, and had a checking account with Umpqua. Umpqua is a bank with its headquarters located in Portland, Oregon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John M. Coletti, Esq. PAULSON COLETTI TRIAL ATTORNEYS PC 1022 NW Marshall Street, Ste. 450 Portland, OR 97209 Telephone: (503) 226.6361 E-mail: john@paulsoncoletti.com - and - Richard D. McCune, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP 3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (909) 557.1250 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com - and - Taras Kick, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC 815 Moraga Drive Los Angeles, CA 90049 Telephone: (310) 395.2988 E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com - and - Kevin Roddy, Esq. 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Telephone: (732) 636 8000 E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com UNILEVER US: Nunez Sues Over Misleading Sale of Breyers Ice Cream ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Nunez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-03846 (C.D. Cal., April 27, 2020), seeks to stop Unilever's alleged false and misleading marketing practices with regard to Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice Cream. Unilever falsely and misleadingly markets Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice Cream to consumers as containing only vanilla flavor from vanilla (i.e. the vanilla plant) and not from non-vanilla sources, according to the complaint. Unfortunately for consumers, this is untrue, as much of the vanilla flavor comes from non-vanilla plant sources. In fact, Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice Cream has, at most, only a trace of real vanilla and what consumers taste is vanilla flavor provided by non-vanilla sources. Rather than only containing real vanilla, Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice Cream contains non-vanilla flavors and vanilla enhancers which are not disclosed, contrary to the legal requirements and expectations of reasonable consumers. Unilever charges a price premium for Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice Cream. The Plaintiff says he would not have purchased or paid more for Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice Cream had Plaintiff realized that much, if not all, of the vanilla flavor came from non-vanilla plant sources. He would not have purchased nor paid more for Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice Cream had he known that it does not exclusively contain flavor derived from vanilla beans. The Plaintiff purchased Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice Cream in California. Unilever is one of the world's largest food and consumer packaged goods companies, and it produces and markets ice cream products in the United States and throughout the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Phone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 Email: mreese@reesellp.com - and - George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515 Los Angeles, CA 90211 Phone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 Email: ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com UNITED PARCEL: Court Strikes Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Andrew Dominguez v. United Parcel Service, Co., et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-01162-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order: 1. granting the Defendant's ex parte application to strike motion; 2. striking the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; 3. setting briefing scheduling for revised motion for class certification; and 4. directing the Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be issued (in chambers). The Court said, "The Plaintiff shall file a new motion for class certification, if any, no later than May 18, 2020. The Defendant shall oppose the new motion no later than May 25, 2020; and any reply shall be filed no later than June 1, 2020. The hearing on the new motion will be June 15, 2020. The Parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding (1) whether the new motion advances theories of liability not asserted in the FAC and (2) whether Plaintiff can certify a class premised on claims not asserted in the FAC. If they are unable to resolve those issues among themselves, they shall brief any outstanding issues for the Court's decision in their class certification papers." United Parcel is an American multinational package delivery and supply chain management company.[CC] UNITED STATES: Grinis Asks for Safety of Prisoners at FMC Devens ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER GRINIS, MICHAEL GORDON, and ANGEL SOLIZ, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. STEPHEN SPAULDING, Warden of Federal Medical Center Devens, and MICHAEL CARVAJAL, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, in their official capacities, Case No. 1:20-cv-10738-GAO (D. Mass., April 15, 2020), seeks to vindicate the constitutional rights of those imprisoned at Camp Devens and, in so doing, to protect their safety and improve public health amid COVID-19 pandemic. Camp Devens, a U.S. military installation established during World War I, was not the first place to see an influenza outbreak in 1918, but it was one of the hardest hit; more than 15,000 people were infected, and more than 800 died, according to the complaint. A century later, Devens faces a similar catastrophe. Devens now hosts a Federal Bureau of Prisons medical center and satellite camp that hold over 1,000 men, including some of America's most elderly, sick, and medically vulnerable prisoners. The Plaintiffs contend that those prisoners are acutely at risk of illness and death due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and any outbreak at the prison will imperil not only them, but also BOP staff and the surrounding community. FMC Devens is a United States federal prison in Massachusetts for male inmates requiring specialized or long-term medical or mental health care.[BN] The Petitioners are represented by: William W. Fick, Esq. Daniel N. Marx, Esq. Amy Barsky, Esq. FICK & MARX LLP 24 Federal Street, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: 857-321-8360 E-mail: wfick@fickmarx.com dmarx@fickmarx.com abarsky@fickmarx.com - and - Matthew R. Segal, Esq. Jessie J. Rossman, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC. 211 Congress Street Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 482-3170 E-mail: msegal@aclum.org jrossman@aclum.org The Defendants are represented by: U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Attn: Civil Process Clerk One Courthouse Way Boston, MA 02210 - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 UNITED STATES: Samma Sues in D.D.C. Seeking Review of DoD Actions ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States Department of Defense, et al. The case is styled as Angie Samma, Abner Bouomo, Ahmad Isiaka, Michael Perez, Jane Doe 1-2, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, MARK ESPER, Secretary of Defense, in his official capacity, Case No. 1:20-cv-01095-ESH (D.D.C., April 27, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as "Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision." The cause of suit is stated as "Judicial Review of Agency Actions." The United States Department of Defense is an executive branch department of the federal government charged with coordinating and supervising all agencies and functions of the government directly related to national security and the United States Armed Forces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Hafetz, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 549-2500 Email: jhafetz@aclu.org UNITED STATES: Sec. Wolf Appeals Decision in Doe Migrant Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Chad F. Wolf, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Jane Doe, et al. v. Chad Wolf, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00250-DCB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Tucson. Chad F. Wolf is the Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs allege inadequate and inhumane conditions in the Border Patrol's migrant detention facilities in southern Arizona. In January 2016, U.S. District Court Judge David Bury approved the class action status of the lawsuit. The certification motion was filed by several civil- and immigration-rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, on behalf of two unnamed women, who were detained and Norlan Flores, who has been detained twice. The appellate case is captioned as Jane Doe, et al. v. Chad Wolf, et al., Case No. 20-15741, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by May 20, 2020; -- Transcript is due on June 19, 2020; -- Opening brief of Appellants Mark A. Morgan, Manuel Padilla, Jr., Rodney S. Scott, Jeffrey Self and Chad F. Wolf is due on July 30, 2020; -- Appellees Norlan Flores and Jane Doe's answering brief is due on August 31, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JANE DOE, # 1; JANE DOE, # 2; and NORLAN FLORES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Elisa Della-Piana, Esq. LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS 131 Steuart Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (510) 847-3001 E-mail: edellapiana@lccr.com – and – Alvaro M. Huerta, Esq. Linton Joaquin, Attorney, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 3450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 108-62 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 674-2829 E-mail: joaquin@nilc.org – and – Mary A. Kenney, Esq. Karolina Joanna Walters, Esq. AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL 1331 "G" Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Email: mkenney@immcouncil.org – and – Jack Williford Londen, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7415 – and – Colette Reiner Mayer, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 755 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018 Telephone: (650) 813-5600 – and – Louise Stoupe, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Shin-Marunouchi Building 5-1 Marunouchi 1-Chome Chiyoda-ku, 29th Floor Tokyo, Japan Telephone: 81-3-3214-6522 Facsimile: 81-3-3214-6512 E-mail: lstoupe@mofo.com Defendants-Appellants, CHAD F. WOLF, Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., are represented by: Michael Anthony Celone, Esq. Sarah Fabian, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 305-5033 – and – Katelyn Masetta-Alvarez, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 450 5th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 305-0137 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Carrone Labor Suit Removed to D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELE CARRONE v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC., LEE VALENTA, and JASON DREFAHL, Case No. MON-L-001081-20, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on April 27, 2020. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-05138 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and the New Jersey Equal Pay Act, and wrongfully discharged her in violation of New Jersey public policy. The Plaintiff seeks to recover back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees, together with interest and costs of suit, injunctive/remedial relief, and any other relief the Court deems reasonable and just. UnitedHealth Group is an American for-profit managed health care company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. It offers health care products and insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew A. Luber, Esq. MCOMBER, MCOMBER & LUBER 39 East Main Street Marlton, NJ 08053 The Defendants are represented by: Stephanie J. Peet, Esq. Andrew D. La Fiura, Esq. Timothy M. McCarthy, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Three Parkway 1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1350 Philadelphia, PA 19102 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Ritter Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Noah Ritter, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 3:20-cv-02925 (N.D. Cal., April 28, 2020), seeks refunds of the amount the Plaintiff is owed on a pro-rata basis, as a result of the Defendant's decision to close campus, constructively evict students, and transition all classes to an online/remote format as a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease. While closing campus and transitioning to online classes was the right thing for the Defendants to do, this decision deprived the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class from recognizing the benefits of in-person instruction, housing, meals, access to campus facilities, student activities, and other benefits and services in exchange for which they had already paid fees and tuition. The Defendants have either refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition, housing, meals, fees and other costs that the Defendants are no longer providing, or have provided inadequate and/or arbitrary reimbursement that does not fully compensate the Plaintiff and members of the Class for their loss, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has paid substantial tuition for the Spring 2020 semester either out of pocket or by utilizing student loan financing or otherwise. The University of California is the multi-campus public university system for the state of California, consisting of 10 constituent institutions throughout the state.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Bohren BOHREN LAW 501 W. Broadway Suite 800 San Diego CA 92101 Phone: (619) 433-2803 Email: yanni@bohrenlaw.com - and - Eric M. Poulin, Esq. Roy T. Willey IV, Esq. ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 614-8888 Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com roy@akimlawfirm.com VALARIS PLC: Still Faces Zhang Suit over Securities Law Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- Valaris PLC continues to defend itself in a class action initiated by Xiaoyuan Zhang, a purported Valaris shareholder, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Company said, "On August 20, 2019, plaintiff Xiaoyuan Zhang, a purported Valaris shareholder, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Valaris shareholders against Valaris plc and certain of our executive officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws. The complaint cites general statements in press releases and SEC filings and alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to disclose material information regarding the performance of our ultra-deepwater segment, among other things. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a class of investors who purchased Valaris plc shares between April 11, 2019 and July 31, 2019. Under applicable law, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. We anticipate that an amended complaint will be filed in the second quarter of 2020. We strongly disagree and intend to vigorously defend against these claims. At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or the extent of any resulting liability." Valaris PLC provides offshore contract drilling services. The Company owns, operates, and manages rig fleets and provides drilling services. Valaris serves customers globally. The company is based in London, England. VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Still Defends Wolther Class Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------------- Veeco Instruments Inc. is still facing the consolidated class action suit styled, Wolther v. Maheshwari et al., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. On June 8, 2018, an Ultratech shareholder who received Veeco stock as part of the consideration for the Ultratech acquisition filed a purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Wolther v. Maheshwari et al., Case No. 18CV329690, on behalf of himself and others who purchased or acquired shares of Veeco pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus which Veeco filed with the SEC in connection with the Ultratech acquisition (the "Wolther Action"). On August 2 and August 8, 2018, two purported class action complaints substantially similar to the Wolther Action were filed on behalf of different plaintiffs in the same court as the Wolther Action. These cases have been consolidated with the Wolther Action, and a consolidated complaint was filed on December 11, 2018. The consolidated complaint seeks to recover damages and fees under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for, among other things, alleged false/misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus relating to the Ultratech acquisition, relating primarily to the alleged failure to disclose delays in the advanced packaging business, increased MOCVD competition in China, and an intellectual property dispute. Veeco is defending this matter vigorously. Veeco Instruments Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, sells, and supports semiconductor and thin film process equipment primarily to make electronic devices worldwide. Veeco Instruments Inc. was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Plainview, New York. VOYA FINANCIAL: Still Defends Goetz Class Action in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------ The putative class action styled, Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, remains ongoing, according to Voya Financial, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The litigation, Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC District of Delaware, No. 1:17-cv-1289) (filed September 8, 2017), is a putative class action in which plaintiff, a participant in a 401(k) plan, seeks to represent other participants in the plan as well as a class of similarly situated plans that "contract with [Voya] for recordkeeping and other services." Plaintiff alleges that "Voya" breached its fiduciary duty to the plan and other plan participants by charging unreasonable and excessive recordkeeping fees, and that "Voya" distributed materially false and misleading 404a-5 administrative and fund fee disclosures to conceal its excessive fees. The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously. Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is based in New York, New York. VOYA FINANCIAL: Still Defends Zhou Class Suit in Colorado --------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action styled, Zhou v. Voya Financial, Inc. and Security Life of Denver, is still ongoing, according to Voya Financial, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The litigation, Zhou v. Voya Financial, Inc. and Security Life of Denver (USDC District of Colorado, No. 1:19-cv-02781)(filed September 27, 2019), is a putative class action in which the plaintiff alleges that the Company did not properly administer certain universal life insurance policies. The plaintiff claims that the Company did not timely credit interest earned on the payment of her premiums and incorrectly calculated the amount of interest that the Company credited to her account. In addition to the class allegations, the lawsuit alleges breach of contract and conversion and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously. Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is based in New York, New York. WARNER MUSIC: Williams Appeals C.D. California Ruling to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Leonard Williams filed an appeal from a court ruling in his lawsuit styled Leonard Williams, et al. v. Warner Music Group Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-09691-RGK-PJW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff alleges that Warner Bros. Records and its subsidiaries have not paid the full amount of royalties due to artists in connection with the digital streaming of sound recordings in foreign countries. The appellate case is captioned as Leonard Williams, et al. v. Warner Music Group Corporation, et al., Case No. 20-55419, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by May 21, 2020; -- Transcript is due on June 22, 2020; -- Appellants The Lenny Williams Production Company and Leonard Williams' opening brief is due on July 30, 2020; -- Appellees Warner Bros. Records, Inc. and Warner Music Group Corporation's answering brief is due on August 31, 2020; -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LEONARD WILLIAMS, an individual, and THE LENNY WILLIAMS PRODUCTION COMPANY, a California corporation, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Douglas L. Johnson, Esq. Neville Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP 439 North Canon Drive, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 975-1080 Facsimile: (310) 975-1095 E-mail: djohnson@jjllplaw.com njohnson@jjllplaw.com - and - Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. Nicole Ramirez, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: kiesel@kiesel.law koncius@kiesel.law - and - Clifford Harris Pearson, Esq. Bobby Pouya, Esq. Daniel Leon Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON SIMON WARSHAW & PENNEY, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Email: cpearson@pswlaw.com bpouya@pswlaw.com dwarshaw@pswlaw.com Defendants-Appellees, WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, and WARNER BROS. RECORDS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 2-10, are represented by: Sean Ashley Commons, Esq. Sheri Porath Rockwell, Esq. Rollin Ransom, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West 5th Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 896-6010 WEST SHORE BANK: Singleton Sues Over Charging of Overdraft Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Singleton, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WEST SHORE BANK CORP., Case No. 1:20-cv-00356-JTN-SJB (W.D. Mich., April 27, 2020), arises from the Defendant's routine policy and practice of charging its customers multiple overdraft or returned item fees for a single transaction. The Defendant contracted with the Plaintiff to charge one Overdraft or Returned Item Fee for a single "item" or "transaction" that caused their account to become negative, according to the complaint. Notwithstanding these contractual provisions, which limit the number of Overdraft or Returned Item Fees the Defendant may charge, the Defendant routinely charged the Plaintiff and the Class multiple Overdraft or Returned Item Fees for a single item or transaction. In doing so, the Defendant breached its contractual promises and violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendant's policies and practices, the Plaintiff and the Class were injured by the Defendant in an amount to be determined at trial, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of the City of Ludington, County of Mason, Michigan, and held a checking account with the Defendant. The Defendant is engaged in the business of providing banking services to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Jason J. Thompson, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com jthompson@sommerspc.com - and - Timothy J. Becker, Esq. Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. Jennell K. Shannon, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Phone: 612-436-1800 Fax: 612-436-1801 Email: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com jrusch@johnsonbecker.com jshannon@johnsonbecker.com WESTFIELD INSURANCE: Equity Pursues Rights Under Business Policy ---------------------------------------------------------------- EQUITY PLANNING CORPORATION, On behalf of itself and all those similarly situated businesses and entities v. WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. CV-20-932122 (Ohio Com. Pleas, April 27, 2020), seeks declaration of rights and fulfillment of obligations under a commercial/business owner policy issued by Westfield. Equity says that it insured itself under a commercial/business owner policy issued by Westfield. Equity faithfully paid policy premiums to Westfield, specifically to provide additional coverage for "Business Income and Extra Expense Coverage" in the event of business closures by order of civil authority. Equity adds that under the Policy, insurance is extended to apply to the actual loss of business income sustained and the actual, necessary and reasonable extra expenses incurred when access to the Property is specifically prohibited by order of Civil Authority as the direct result of a covered loss to property in the immediate area of Plaintiffs Property. The covered physical loss includes loss of use and/or loss of utilization of the properties. The Plaintiff contends that COVID-19's actual or suspected physical presence at or in the vicinity of its Properties prevents it from making full use of the Property, especially in cases where the businesses renting from it must close in part or in full. Under the terms and conditions of the Policy, this kind of loss constitutes a physical loss to the Property in that there has been a loss of use and/or utilization of the Property, says the complaint. Equity engages in the commercial real estate business, leasing, administration, and management for numerous real estate entities throughout Ohio and multiple other states, wherein tenants lease its properties. Westfield is a property and casualty insurer, with its principal place of business in Westfield Center, Ohio, and sells insurance in Ohio and throughout the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Connick, Esq. CONNICK LAW, LLC 25550 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 101 Beachwood OH 44122 Telephone: 216-364-0512 Facsimile: 216-609-3446 E-mail: tconnick@connicklawllc.com WILHELMINA INT'L: Continues to Defend Shanklin and Pressley Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wilhelmina International, 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 the parties in the class action suits initiated separately by Alex Shanklin and Shawn Pressley, continue to await the court's decision on the motions for class certification and summary judgment. The Company believes the claims asserted in the Shanklin and Pressley Litigations are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend the actions. On October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others, including Louisa Raske, Carina Vretman, Grecia Palomares and Michelle Griffin Trotter (the "Shanklin Litigation"), in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske (the "Raske Litigation"). The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of contract and unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include other model management companies, advertising firms, and certain advertisers. On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other defendants also filed motions to dismiss. On August 11, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wilhelmina and other of the model management defendants. Separately, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims asserted therein against the model management defendants, and stating that the case "may involve matters in the public interest." The judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case. Plaintiffs retained substitute counsel, who filed a Second and then Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs' management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The Third Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff models were at all relevant times employees, and not independent contractors, of the model management defendants, and that defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several respects, including, among other things, by allegedly failing to pay the models the minimum wages and overtime pay required thereunder, not maintaining accurate payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs with full explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom were computed. The Third Amended Complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the court deems proper. On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most of the plaintiffs' claims. The Court entered a decision granting in part and denying in part Wilhelmina's motion to dismiss on May 26, 2017. The Court (i) dismissed three of the five New York Labor Law causes of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of action, in their entirety, and (ii) permitted only the breach of contract causes of action, and some plaintiffs’ remaining two New York Labor Law causes of action to continue, within a limited time frame. The plaintiffs and Wilhelmina each appealed, and the decision was affirmed on May 24, 2018. On August 16, 2017, Wilhelmina timely filed its Answer to the Third Amended Complaint. On June 6, 2016, another putative class action lawsuit was brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and others, including Roberta Little (the "Pressley Litigation"), in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation, and asserting identical, although more recent, claims as those in the Shanklin Litigation. The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially the same types of claims as in the Shanklin action, was filed on August 16, 2017. Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on September 29, 2017, which was granted in part and denied in part on May 10, 2018. Some New York Labor Law and contract claims remain in the case. Pressley has withdrawn from the case, leaving Roberta Little as the sole remaining named plaintiff in the Pressley Litigation. On July 12, 2019, the Company filed its Answer and Counterclaim against Little. On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation (except Raske) and the Pressley Litigation filed motions for class certification on their contract claims and the remaining New York Labor Law Claims. On July 12, 2019, Wilhelmina filed its opposition to the motions for class certification and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment against Shanklin, Vretman, Palomares, Trotter and Little, and a motion for summary judgment against Raske. Wilhelmina's reply papers in further support of its summary judgment motions were filed on October 23, 2019. The motions for class certification and summary judgement were argued on December 4, 2019, and the parties are awaiting decision. The Company believes the claims asserted in the Shanklin and Pressley Litigations are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend the actions. Wilhelmina International, Inc. primarily engages in the fashion model management business. It specializes in the representation and management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other talent to various clients, including retailers, designers, advertising agencies, print and electronic media and catalog companies. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. ZIMMER BIOMET: Shah Class Certification Motion Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification of the case, Shah v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al., is still pending. On December 2, 2016, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Shah v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al.), naming the Company, one of the Company's officers and two of the Company's now former officers as defendants. On June 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a corrected amended complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those previously named, current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors, one additional officer, and the underwriters in connection with secondary offerings of the Company's common stock by certain selling stockholders in 2016. On October 6, 2017, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the underwriters without prejudice. On October 8, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those current and former officers and Board members previously named, certain former stockholders of the Company who sold shares of the Company's common stock in secondary public offerings in 2016. The Company and its current and former officers and Board members named as defendants are sometimes hereinafter referred to as the "Zimmer Biomet Defendant group". The former stockholders of the Company who sold shares of the Company's common stock in secondary public offerings in 2016 are sometimes hereinafter referred to as the "Private Equity Fund Defendant group". The second amended complaint relates to a putative class action on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between June 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016. The second amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions about the Company's compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regulations and the Company's ability to continue to accelerate the Company's organic revenue growth rate in the second half of 2016. The defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss on December 20, 2017, plaintiffs filed their omnibus response to the motions to dismiss on March 13, 2018 and the defendants filed their respective reply briefs on May 18, 2018. On September 27, 2018, the court denied the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group's motion to dismiss in its entirety. The court granted the Private Equity Fund Defendant group's motion to dismiss, without prejudice. On October 9, 2018, the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group filed a motion (i) to amend the court's order on the motion to certify two issues for interlocutory appeal, and (ii) to stay proceedings pending appeal. On February 21, 2019, that motion was denied. On April 11, 2019, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. On June 20, 2019, the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group filed its response. The plaintiffs' motion remained pending as of February 18, 2020. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and other relief. The Company said, "Although we believe this lawsuit is without merit, during a mediation in December 2019, plaintiffs and defendants, along with Zimmer Biomet's insurers, reached a settlement in principle to resolve the claims. We have made an accrual for the proposed settlement that we expect to be fully covered by our insurers." Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures, and markets musculoskeletal healthcare products and solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. It operates through four segments: Spine, less Asia Pacific; Office Based Technologies; Craniomaxillofacial and Thoracic; and Dental. The company was formerly known as Zimmer Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. in June 2015. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Warsaw, Indiana. ZOOM VIDEO: Simins Sues Over Failure to Deliver Promised Privacy ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stacey Simins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-02893-VKD (N.D. Cal., April 27, 2020), alleges that Zoom has failed to deliver private and secure video conferencing to its customers. According to the complaint, among other things, Zoom has long marketed the service as being protected with end-to-end, 256-bit encryption, and has emphasized that it takes concrete steps to ensure privacy and security for its users. But in reality, Zoom has failed to deliver private and secure video conferencing. The level of encryption Zoom provides is far less robust than what it promised, and a wide variety of security failings have jeopardized Zoom-users' privacy, the Plaintiff alleges. She contends that these failings have enabled bad actors to join meetings without permission, to access web cameras surreptitiously, and to access many thousands of recorded Zoom meetings stored online. All the while, Zoom has actively shared information about its users with Facebook, despite failing to disclose that practice in its privacy policy, she asserts. Ms. Simins own a dance studio, where she teaches burlesque dance and pole dance. Ms. Simins's studio was closed to in-person classes as a result of the state's shelter-in-place order due to COVID-19. After Ms. Simins began using Zoom, uninvited men joined some of her classes on Zoom. The attackers were intimidating and harassing to Ms. Simins's clients. On at least one occasion, Ms. Simins had to cancel a session as a result, according to the complaint. As a result, Ms. Simins says, her students have refused to join more classes because of their fear over future incidents, and her business has suffered as a result. Ms. Simins continues to pay for Zoom, but she continues to worry about Zoom's security flaws. Had Ms. Simins known about Zoom's security flaws prior to purchasing it, she would not have paid for Zoom, says the complaint. Ms. Simins purchased a paid Zoom license in order to provide practice sessions for her clients. Zoom provides a video-conferencing service called Zoom Meetings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Andre Mura, Esq. Amanda M. Karl, Esq. Jeffrey Kosbie, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 Email: ehg@classlawgroup.com amm@classlawgroup.com amk@classlawgroup.com jbk@classlawgroup.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***