/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200512.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, May 12, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 95
Headlines
ADS ALLIANCE: Stephens Sues to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Iverson TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
AFSCME: Masuo Appeals D. Oregon Ruling in Civil Rights Suit
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Roseville Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D. Cal.
ALL AMERICAN FACILITY: Flete Seeks to Certify Clerical Staff Class
ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Faces Cleaver Suit Over Unused Ikon Passes
AMAZON.COM INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Tice Class Suit
AO SMITH: Bid to Dismiss Birmingham Retirement Plan's Suit Pending
ARIZONA: Raftopoulous-Johnson Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
ASPEN AMERICAN: Faces Berkseth-Rojas Suit Over Coverage Claims
BANK OF AMERICA: Gilder Alleges Discriminatory Background Check
BAYPORT CREDIT UNION: Barker Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees
BEYER & ASSOCIATES: Rodriguez Suit Seeks to Certify Class
BP WEST COAST: J. Court Seeks Protective Order to Stop Deposition
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Final Certification of FLSA Collective Sought
CALIFORNIA: Jones Appeals N.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit
COLUMBIA MIYABI: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Rich FLSA Suit
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Thompson Seeks to Certify Class Action
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Coyle Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
COUNTRY THUNDER: Faces Fitzpatrick Suit Over Breach of Contract
CRANDALL DRILLING: Faces Sposato Suit Over Upaid Overtime Wages
CRESCENT DRILLING: Court Cond. Certified Oilfield Workers Class
CRESTWOOD TRANSPORTATION: Underpays Drivers, Mendes Claims
DARKTRACE: Class Action Settlement Wins Initial Approval
DEFENSE TAX: Wang Suit Seeks to Certify Class
DELTA AIRLINES: Rojas Appeals D. Md. Ruling to Fourth Circuit
DIN TAI: Garcia Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under FLSA & Labor Code
FIFTH THIRD: Cert. of Breach of Contract & TILA Classes Sought
FM JANITORIAL: Underpays Dishwashers, Vondergathen et al Claim
FORT DEARBORN: Fails to Pay Overtime for Operators, Harrison Says
GAIN CAPITAL: Franchi Sues over Misleading Proxy Statement
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Birnbaum et al. Suit Still Pending
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Drop Varga Class Suit Remains Pending
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Still Defends Class Suit over ERISA Breaches
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Still Faces Tri-State Class Suit in Delaware
GNC HOLDINGS: Amavizca Sues over Fake Glucosamine Sulfate Product
GREWAL LAW: Cunningham Sues Over Abusive Telemarketing Practices
HARRY'S NURSES: Files Cert. Petition in Gayle FLSA Class Suit
HERTZ CORP: Fails to Give Meal & Rest Periods, McChristion Claims
HOST INT'L: Improperly Defers Retirement Pay, Frankenstein Claims
IANTHUS CAPITAL: Finch Sues Over 62% Decline in Share Price
IANTHUS CAPITAL: Riback Sues over Stock Losses, False Statements
IAS LOGISTICS: 7th Circuit Appeal Filed in Jones Employment Suit
JACK IN THE BOX: Szwanek Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Drive Thrus
JOAMAR INC: Russo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
JOHN STEWART COMPANY: Faces Bryant Labor Suit Over Unpaid Wages
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Noohi Fraud Suit in C.D. California
KELLOGG CO: Calif. Class Suit over Product Statements Continues
LAZY DOG RESTAURANTS: Sypherd Sues Alleging Age Discrimination
LEE ESTOCK: Motion for Class Certification Dismissed as Moot
LEGACY PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Phillips Claims
LIFE INSURANCE: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Cert. Ruling in Walker Case
LUCKIN INVESTOR: Sterckx Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to S.D.N.Y.
MANKIN LAW GROUP: Brockman Sues Over Abusive Debt Collection Acts
MARATHON PETROLEUM: Morrison et al Seek Non-Prorated Bonuses
MDL 2244: Vroman v. DJD Medical Case Moved to N.D. Texas
MDL 2591: Heartland Corn v. Syngenta Seeds Moved to Kansas
MDL 2606: Handley v. Daiichi Sankyo Moved to District of New Jersey
MDL 2627: Chaudhary v. Lumber Liquidator Moved to E.D. Virginia
MDL 2734: Estelle v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Moved to N.D. Florida
MDL 2738: Weaver, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Moved to New Jersey
MDL 2804: 20 National Prescription Opiate Suits Moved to N.D. Ohio
MDL 2833: Court Denies Motion to Transfer 2 Suits vs. Devos, et al.
MDL 2873: Court Denies DuPont's Bid to Transfer 8 Suits vs. 3M Co.
MDL 2873: Court Vacates Conditional Transfer Order on Kovach v USA
MDL 2875: Bokhari v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Moved to New Jersey
MDL 2875: Court Vacates Conditional Transfer Order for "Garrison"
MDL 2885: Conditional Transfer Order for Graves v. 3M Vacated
MDL 2913: Eisenhauer, Lewis Actions Moved to N.D. California
MDL 2913: Lindstrom Suit Moved to Northern District of California
MDL 2929: Court Denies Bid to Transfer 5 Suits vs Quincy Bioscience
MDL 2930: Novartis Pharmaceuticals' Patent Suits Moved to Delaware
MDL 2931: 14 Delta Dental Antitrust Suits Moved to N.D. Illinois
MDL 2932: Court Denies Bid to Move 8 Wells Fargo Mortgage Lawsuit
MDL 2933: 6 FCRA Suits Transferred to Northern District of Georgia
MDL 2933: Lewis v. Transunion Over Credit Reports Consolidated
MDL 2934: Court Denies Joel Snider's Bid to Centralize 4 Actions
MDL 2935: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 5 Patent & Contract Suits
METLIFE INC: MLIC Still Defends Julian & McKinney Class Action
METLIFE INC: Still Defends Atkins Suit over Group Annuity Contracts
MIKE SLAGLE: Amended Bid for Class Classification Denied
MISSION ROAD: Bid to Certify Collins Collective Action Denied
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Reyes et al Sue Over Steep Inspection Fees
NEW YORK: Appeals S.D.N.Y Judgment in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit
NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Civil Rights Suit
NEXTGEN LEADS: Faces Deg Suit Over Unlawful Solicitation Calls
NORTHLAND GROUP: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Maher FDCPA Suit
NTI SERVICES: Morse Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
OAKLAND, MI: Cameron Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
OHIO ASSOCIATION: Court Denied Bid for Class Cert. in "Littler"
OPTIMA HEALTH: Misclassifies Utilization Reviewers, Edwards Claims
OWNERS INSURANCE: Denies Coverage Claim, Bridal Expressions Says
PELICAN WASTE: Verrett Seeks Certification of Collective Action
PENN NATIONAL: Cruz-Perez Sues Over Breach of FLSA, IMWL & IWPCA
PER SE GROUP: Fowler Seeks Overtime Pay for Hourly Staff
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Suit Seeks to Certify Class & SubClasses
RBC CAPITAL: Still Defends Forex Trading Suits in Canada and US
RCI HOSPITALITY: Misclassifies Dancers, Bazaldua and Phillips Say
RMLS SHOP: Court Cond. Certified Class of Server Employees
SARASOTA, FL: Abelson Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
SBM SITE: Faces Parhman Class Suit in California Superior Court
SENTINEL INSURANCE: Prato Seeks Proper Benefits for Policyholders
SHIPT INC: Sued by Hearl for Misclassifying Personal Shoppers
SIGNAL HILL: Underpays Auditors, Butler Claims
SOUTHERN COMPANY: Faces Shiflett FLSA Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
SPRINT SOLUTIONS: Gorss TCPA Suit Seeks Class Certification
STONEMOR GP: Lehman-Clements Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Stiching Appeals Judgment in Securities Suit
TENET HEALTHCARE: Maderazo Suit Nixed by Court-Approved Settlement
TEVA PHARMA: Bid to Consolidate Securities Suits Pending
TEVA PHARMA: Direct Buyers' Claims Pending in AndroGel Litigation
TEVA PHARMA: Still Faces Antitrust Suits over Namenda IR
TEVA PHARMA: Still Faces Opioids Suits in State and Federal Courts
THERAPEUTIC HEMP: Berger Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
TO-RISE LLC: Final Certification of Class Sought in Lora Action
TRADEWEB MARKETS: Bids to Nix Treasuries Antitrust Lawsuit Pending
TRAVEL RESORTS: Harris Alleges Abusive Telemarketing Practices
U.S. IMMIGRATION: Class Cert. of Immigration Detainees Sought
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Cal. App. Affirms Pricing Cases Dismissal
UNITED OF OMAHA: Appeals C.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit
UNITED STATES: Faces Infinity Civil Rights Suit in Maryland
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Refuses to Refund Tuition & Fees, Doe Says
VOLUME SERVICES: Court Conditionally Certifies Settlement Class
VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Barnes COI Litigation
WELLS FARGO: PTS Sues Over Priority of Small Businesses' PPP Loan
WESTINGHOUSE AIR: Reaches MOU to Settle MDL in W.D. Pennsylvania
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Natural Gas Price Index Class Suits Pending
WRIGHT MEDICAL: 72 Unresolved Suits over PROFEMUR at Dec. 29
WRIGHT MEDICAL: SEC Solicitation Statement Lacks Info, Curtis Says
WRIGHT MEDICAL: William Grubb Sues Over Stryker Acquisition
ZOOM VIDEO: Fails to Take Data Security Precautions, Jimenez Says
[^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class
*********
ADS ALLIANCE: Stephens Sues to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Stephens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ADS ALLIANCE DATA SYSTEMS, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-02152-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, April 29, 2020), is brought to
recover overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
Although the Plaintiff has routinely worked in excess of 40 hours
per workweek, the Plaintiff has not been paid overtime of at least
one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per workweek, according to the complaint. The Defendant
knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate the Plaintiff for
all hours worked each workweek and the proper amount of overtime on
a routine and regular basis during the relevant time periods.
The Plaintiff was employed by ADS in Akron, Ohio, from October 2017
until April 2019.
ADS provides customer relations services as well as debt collection
services for its business clients, such as J. Crew, Ulta Beauty and
Pottery Barn throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.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
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Iverson TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JED B. IVERSON, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS v. ADVANCED
DISPOSAL SERVICES, INC., and ADVANCED DISPOSAL SERVICES SOLID WASTE
MIDWEST, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00867-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla. Filed ),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"all persons: (1) whose cell phone numbers, (2) ADS
obtained from a third party, according to its TRUX
records, (3) with whom there is no contract listed in its
TRUX records, and (4) who were called via ADS's Five
system between July 11, 2014 and the present using a pre-
recorded voice message, according to ADS's Five9 records";
and
2. appointing himself as class representative and his
attorneys as class counsel, and grant such other relief
deemed just.
The Plaintiff contends that ADS knows it calls persons without
first getting their prior express consent because it acquires their
telephone numbers from other trash-removal companies as part of its
business expansion program. He adds that his expert confirmed more
than 35,000 of these numbers are cell phone numbers. Further, the
call records show ADS made approximately 140,000 pre-recorded voice
calls to more than 21,000 of these cellular numbers where ADS's
"customer" records show it acquired the number from a third party,
and had no signed contract with the called party.
Advanced Disposal offers waste disposal, collection and recycling
services for residential, commercial, industrial and construction
customers.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
Michael S. Hilicki, Esq.
KEOGH LAW, LTD
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: 312-726-1092
Facsimile: 312-726-1093
E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com
mhilicki@keoghlaw.com
- and -
Christopher P. Martineau, Esq.
Christopher A. Johnston, Esq.
JOHNSTON | MARTINEAU, P.L.L.P.
2233 Hamline Avenue North, Suite 102
Roseville, MN 55113
Telephone: (612) 767-7790
Facsimile: (612) 379-0480
E-mail: cmartineau@jmlegal.com
cjohnston@jmlegal.com
- and -
Max Story, Esq.
MAX STORY LAW
328 2nd Avenue N., Suite 100
Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
E-mail: max@storylawgroup.com
AFSCME: Masuo Appeals D. Oregon Ruling in Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Steven Masuo, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their lawsuit styled Steven Masuo, et al. v. AFSCME, et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01685-SI, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon, Portland.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to end union officials' "window period" policies that block
thousands of workers from exercising their constitutional right
under the U.S. Supreme Court Janus decision to refrain from
financially supporting a union.
The case was filed at the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon by ten public employees with free legal
representation from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work
Legal Defense Foundation and the Freedom Foundation. The lawsuit
names as defendants Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Local 503, Oregon Public Employees Union; American Federation of
State, Local, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 75; and the
employers who continue to extract money from the workers' wages
under the "window period" policies without the workers' consent.
The appellate case is captioned as Steven Masuo, et al. v. AFSCME,
et al., Case No. 20-35355, 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 26, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on June 23, 2020;
-- Appellants Gloria Carlson, Jacyn Gallagher, Lindsey Hart,
Craig Leech, Steven Masuo, Matthew Puntney, Bryan Quinlan,
Marina Shadrin, Misty Staebler and Betty Sumega's opening
brief is due on August 3, 2020;
-- Appellees AFSCME, Local 3336, American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO, Association of Engineering Employees of Oregon,
City of Cornelius Employees Union, AFSCME Local 189, Marion
Employees Association, Local 294 of Oregon Public Employees
Union, Multnomah County Employees Union, Local 88, AFSCME,
AFL-CIO, National Education Association of the United
States, Oregon AFSCME Council 75, Oregon Education
Association, Oregon Public Employees Union (OPEU), Linn
County Local 390, Service Employees International Union
Local 503, Oregon Public Employees Union, Service Employees
International Union, CTW, CLC, Southern Oregon Bargaining
Council and Three Rivers Education Association's answering
brief is due on September 2, 2020; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants STEVEN MASUO, et al., on behalf of themselves
and prospective classes of similarly situated individuals, are
represented by:
James G. Abernathy, Esq.
Rebekah Millard, Esq.
FREEDOM FOUNDATION
P.O. Box 552
Olympia, WA 98507
Telephone: (360) 956-3482
- and -
Milton L. Chappell, Esq.
NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC.
8001 Braddock Road
Springfield, VA 22160
Telephone: (703) 770-3329
Defendants-Appellees AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, et al., are
represented by:
James S. Coon, Esq.
SWANSON, THOMAS, COON & NEWTON
820 Southwest Second Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 228-522
- and -
Scott A. Kronland, Esq.
Amanda Christine Lynch, Esq.
Matthew John Murray, Esq.
P. Casey Pitts, Esq.
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94108
- and -
Margaret S. Olney, Esq.
BENNETT HARTMAN MORRIS & KAPLAN, LLP
210 SW Morrison Street
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 546-9634
- and -
Jason M. Weyand, Esq.
TEDESCO LAW GROUP, LLC
12780 SE Stark Street
Portland, OR 97233
Telephone: (541) 377-1708
- and -
Jeffrey William Burritt, Esq.
NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
1201 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036-3290
Telephone: (202) 822-7231
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Roseville Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF ROSEVILLE EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., JOSEPH M. HOGAN and
JOHN F. MORICI, Case No. 1:20-cv-01822 (Filed March 2, 2020), 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
California (San Francisco) on April 28, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-02897-MMC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney.
The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on behalf of purchasers of Align common stock between April
24, 2019, and July 24, 2019. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants made numerous materially misleading statements
emphasizing the growth and performance of the Company's operations
in China.
The Plaintiff purchased Align common stock during the class
period.
Align is a medical device company that designs, manufactures, and
markets devices to treat misaligned teeth. The Company's principal
products are its line of Invisalign (TM) clear dental
aligners.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
Noam Mandel, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: 631 367-7100
Facsimile: 631 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
noam@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
79 Alfred Street
Detroit, MI 48201
Telephone: 313 578-1200
Facsimile: 313 578-1201
E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Caz Hashemi, Esq.
Doru Gavril, Esq.
Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq.
Sheryl Shapiro Bassin, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Telephone: (650) 493-9300
Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
E-mail: CHASHEMI@WSGR.COM
dgavril@wsgr.com
isalceda@wsgr.com
sbassin@wsgr.com
ALL AMERICAN FACILITY: Flete Seeks to Certify Clerical Staff Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CEASAR FLETE, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. ALL AMERICAN FACILITY
MAINTENANCE INC., A Florida Profit Corporation, and CHRISTOPHER
BREWER, individually, Case No. 0:19-cv-61536-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. granting the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify
collective action and facilitate notice to potential class
members on behalf of:
"any and all non-exempt customer service/clerical
employees of Defendant who were not paid full and proper
overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week, as a result of Defendants' illegal "Fluctuating
Workweek" as well as common policies and practices of: (a)
manipulating employee pay from salary to hourly in varying
weeks when it suited Defendants to avoid the payment of
overtime wages; (b) requiring employees to work "off the
clock" for "on call time," and during what was supposed to
be "meal breaks" without properly accounting or
compensating employees for same as overtime hours worked";
2. directing the Defendants to produce to Plaintiff a list of
all similarly situated "non-exempt customer
service/clerical employees” within the last three years;
3. approving the proposed "Notification" letter to be sent to
all similarly situated employees company wide; and
4. approving the proposed "Notice of Consent to Join” form,
which similarly situated employees can complete, sign, and
file with the Court.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs who have come forward to
participate in this case, prior to any notice being issued, are
former non-exempt customer service/clerical employees of Defendants
who were not paid time and one-half overtime wages for each hour
they worked over 40 during a workweek while employed with the
Defendants.
Specifically, the Defendants required the Plaintiff, Opt-In
Plaintiffs, and the putative class, to regularly work in excess of
40 hours per workweek, however, the Defendants failed to pay full
and proper overtime at one and one-half their regular rate of pay
for such hours. Instead, Defendants utilized an illegal
"Fluctuating Workweek” methodology, whereby they paid the
Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiffs, and the putative class "half-time"
for all overtime hours. This practice violates the Fair Labor
Standards Act, because the Plaintiff's, Opt-In Plaintiff's, and the
putative class were paid regular (straight-time) compensation which
varied from week-to-week.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103
Davie, FL 33324
Telephone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Faces Cleaver Suit Over Unused Ikon Passes
------------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA CLEAVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALTERRA MOUNTAIN COMPANY and IKON PASS INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-01186-RBJ (D. Colo., April 28, 2020), seeks relief for the
Defendants' customers nationwide that purchased Ikon Passes for the
2019-2020 season who, as of March 15, 2020, had not used up the
days remaining on their Ikon Passes.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have breached their
contracts with Class members, as well as unjustly enriched itself
by retaining passholder fees of hundreds of thousands of
consumers--while denying passholders all access to all of
Defendants' mountain resorts.
On March 14, 2020, Alterra announced the closure of all of its
North American resorts. Around the same time, other Ikon resorts
announced their closure. This closure happened well before the end
of the ski season, the complaint says.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Colorado, who purchased an Ikon Pass
for the 2019-2020 season. She could not use her Ikon Pass,
including on several planned spring ski trips at Alterra ski
resorts.
Alterra owns ski resorts in Colorado and around North America. Ikon
Pass, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located
at 3501 Wazee St., in Denver, Colorado, and is a fully-owned
subsidiary of Alterra. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig R. Valentine, Esq.
NORTON FRICKEY, P.C.
2301 E. Pikes Peak Ave., Suite 205
Colorado Springs, CO 80909
Telephone: (719) 634-6450
Facsimile: (719) 634-6807
E-mail: craig@coloradolaw.com
- and -
Stuart M. Paynter, Esq.
THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM, PLLC
1200 G Street NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (844) 204-9965
Facsimile: (866) 734-0622
E-mail: stuart@paynterlaw.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Tice Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Hayley Tice v. Amazon.com, Inc., et
al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01311-SVW-KK, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Riverside.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
targets Amazon's unlawful recording, permanent storage, analysis,
and use of the voices and conversations of adult Californians
communicating with or otherwise heard by Amazon's Alexa recording
devices.
According to the complaint, every time Plaintiff used the Echo Dot
Device to communicate with Alexa, Amazon recorded her voice and
communications and permanently stored those recordings on its
servers. It may also have analyzed some or all of these.
The appellate case is captioned as Hayley Tice v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 20-55432, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellants Amazon.com, Inc. and a2z Development Center,
Inc.'s opening brief is due on June 16, 2020;
-- Appellee Hayley Charmaine Tice's answering brief is due on
July 16, 2020
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee HAYLEY CHARMAINE TICE, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, is represented
by:
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
Adam J. Levitt, esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
- and -
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Robert K. Shelquistm, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Defendants-Appellants AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., are represented
by:
Molly Melcher, Esq.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC.
1455 Market Street, 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone: (415) 842-3500
- and -
Armen Nercess Nercessian, Esq.
Tyler Griffin Newby, Esq.
Laurence F. Pulgram, Esq.
FENWICK & WEST LLP
555 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 875-2300
AO SMITH: Bid to Dismiss Birmingham Retirement Plan's Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint in the case styled, City of Birmingham Retirement and
Relief System v. A. O. Smith Corporation, et al., remains pending,
according to A. O. Smith Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
On May 28, 2019, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin against the Company and certain of its current or former
officers. Subsequently, on November 22, 2019, a consolidated
amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff. This action,
now captioned as City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v.
A. O. Smith Corporation, et al., asserts securities fraud claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 ("Exchange Act"), and seeks damages and other relief based
upon the allegations in the complaint.
On January 24, 2020, A. O. Smith and the other defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a
claim. Their motion is currently pending.
A. O. Smith Corporation, incorporated on July 9, 1986, operates
through two segments: North America and Rest of World. The
Company's Rest of World segment primarily consists of China, Europe
and India. Both segments manufacture and market comprehensive lines
of residential and commercial gas, gas tankless and electric water
heaters, as well as water treatment products. Both segments
primarily manufacture and market in their respective regions of the
world. The company is based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
ARIZONA: Raftopoulous-Johnson Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
TACIA RAFTOPOULOUS-JOHNSON and STEVEN A. JOHNSON on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. ARIZONA BOARD OF
REGENTS, Case No. 2:20-cv-04399-BRM-ESK (D.N.J., April 27, 2020),
is brought on behalf of all people, who paid tuition and fees for
the Spring 2020 academic semester at Arizona State University, and
who, because of ABOR's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, lost the
benefit of the education for which they paid, and/or the services
or which their fees were paid, without having their tuition and
fees refunded to them.
On March 11, 2020, ABOR, through ASU's President Michael Crow
announced via email that because of the global COVID-19 pandemic,
all in-person classes would be suspended effective March 16, 2020.
The announcement informed students that all classes would instead
be held remotely through online formats.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant has not delivered the
educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that
Ms. Raftopoulous-Johnson, Mr. Johnson, and the putative class
contracted and paid for. The Plaintiffs assert that the online
learning options being offered to ASU students are subpar in
practically every aspect, from the lack of facilities.
ASU is one of the country's largest public universities, with an
enrollment of approximately 90,000 students. The University is
organized into 17 colleges and offers 35 degree options for
undergraduate students as well as more than 400 graduate and
certificate programs. ASU also operates an online program with an
enrollment of more than 38,000.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
Joseph I. Marchese, 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
jmarchese@bursor.com
swestcot@bursor.com
ASPEN AMERICAN: Faces Berkseth-Rojas Suit Over Coverage Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIE JO BERKSETH-ROJAS DDS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00948-D (N.D. Tex., April 17,
2020) arises from the refusal of the Defendant to pay its insureds
including the Plaintiff under its Practice Income, Civil Authority,
Extra Expense, and Sue and Labor coverages for losses suffered due
to COVID-19, any executive orders by civil authorities that have
required the necessary suspension of practice, and any efforts to
prevent further property damage or to minimize the suspension of
practice and continue operations.
Plaintiff was forced to suspend or reduce her practice at Rojas
Family Dental due to COVID-19 (a.k.a. the "coronavirus" or
"SARS-CoV-2") and the resultant Executive Orders issued by the
Governor of Minnesota that non-emergency or elective dental care
that requires Personal Protective Equipment ("PPE") be postponed
indefinitely, as well as in order to take necessary steps to
prevent further damage and minimize the suspension of business and
continue operations.
In the Income Coverage Form for its insured, Aspen did not exclude
or limit coverage for losses from viruses. Losses due to COVID-19
are a Covered Cause of Loss under Aspen policies. Aspen also agreed
to pay for its insureds' actual loss of Practice Income sustained
due to the necessary suspension of practice during the "period of
restoration" caused by direct physical damage, subject to a Valued
Daily Limit. Aspen agreed to "pay for loss of practice income that
occurs within 12 consecutive months after the date of direct
physical damage."
Aspen American Insurance Company is an admitted insurance carrier
incorporated and domiciled in the State of Texas, with its
principal place of business in Rocky Hill, Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
Ralph D. McBride, Esq.
Alex J. Brown, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
10940 West Sam Houston Parkway North, Suite 100
Houston, TX 77064
Telephone: (713) 659-5200
Email: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com
alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
– and –
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
Mark Hamill, Esq.
Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
dferri@dicellolevitt.com
mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
lreasons@dicellolevitt.com
– and –
Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
Mark Abramowitz, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
7556 Mentor Avenue
Mentor, OH 44060
Telephone: (440) 953-8888
Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com
kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com
mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com
– and –
Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
One South Pinckney Street, Suite
930 Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 286-2302
Email: tburns@bbblawllp.com
jbowen@bbblawllp.com
jbair@bbblawllp.com
fbowen@bbblawllp.com
– and-
Douglas Daniels, Esq.
DANIELS & TREDENNICK
6363 Woodway, Suite 700
Houston, TX 77057
Telephone: (713) 917-0024
Email: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Gilder Alleges Discriminatory Background Check
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIE GILDER, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00522-UNA (D. Del., April 20, 2020) is an action brought by
the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
against Bank of America for violations of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 as a result of discriminatory background check
policy and practice. Plaintiff also filed this action against Bank
of America for Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic
Relations.
Plaintiff applied for the position of Collections and Recovery
Specialist within Bank of America in or around late September 2017.
Plaintiff was qualified for the position for which he was hired but
he received a letter from Bank of America on September 22, 2017
stating "he may be denied a position with Bank of America based on
information obtained from the FBI and/or possible additional court
research."
According to the complaint, Defendant wrongly discriminated against
Plaintiff due to his race in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. Defendant tortiously interfered with
Plaintiff's Prospective Economic Relations when it intentionally
and wrongfully rescinded his employment offer.
The Defendant rescinded Plaintiff's employment pursuant to its
background check policy, which has a disparate impact on African
American individuals and is neither job related nor consistent with
business necessity.
Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michele D. Allen, Esq.
Emily A. Biffen, Esq.
ALLEN & ASSOCIATES
4250 Lancaster Pike Suit 230
Wilmington, DE 19805
Telephone: (302) 234-8600
Facsimile: (302) 234-8602
Email: michele@allenlaborlaw.com
emily@allenlaborlaw.com
BAYPORT CREDIT UNION: Barker Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
IRWIN BARKER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BAYPORT CREDIT UNION, and DOES 1-100,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00195-AWA-LRL (E.D. Va., April 17,
2020) is a class action brought by Plaintiff to assert claims in
his own right, and in his capacity as the class representative of
all other persons similarly situated after Defendant wrongfully
charged Plaintiff and the Class Members overdraft fees and
Non-Sufficient Funds ("NSF") fees.
The complaint seeks monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive
relief due to, inter alia, BayPort's policy and practice of 1)
assessing an overdraft or NSF fee on transactions when there was
enough money in the checking account to cover (pay for) the
transactions presented for payment; and 2) charging repeat NSF fees
on the same electronic item. The charging of such overdraft and NSF
fees breaches BayPort's contracts with its members, who include
Plaintiff and the members of the Class.
The charging for such overdraft fees also violates federal law.
The Defendant failed to describe its actual overdraft service in
its Opt-In Agreement by, inter alia, failing to describe accurately
in its Opt-In Agreement the actual method by which BayPort
calculates its overdraft fees, and because BayPort also violated or
did not fulfill other prerequisites of the Electronic Fund Transfer
Act, before charging overdraft fees for automated teller machine
(ATM) and non-recurring debit card transactions.
Bayport Credit Union is a member-owned, full-service financial
institution with branches in Virginia and headquartered in Newport
News, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey A. Breit, Esq.
Justin M. Sheldon, Esq.
Kevin Biniazan, Esq.
BREIT CANTOR GRANA BUCKNER
7130 Glen Forest Drive, Ste. 400
Richmond, VA 23226
Telephone: (757) 622-6000
Facsimile: (757)299-8022
Email: jeffrey@breitcantor.com
jsheldon@breitcantor.com
kbiniazan@breitcantor.com
– and –
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
David C. Wright, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 557-1275
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
Email: rdm@mccunewright.com
dcw@mccunewright.com
– and –
Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
231 N. Main Street, Suite 20
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 307-6116
Facsimile: (618) 307-6161
Email: ejk@mccunewright.com
BEYER & ASSOCIATES: Rodriguez Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MELINDA RODRIGUEZ,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BEYER & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01677-WCG (E.D. Wisc.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"all natural persons to whom Beyer & Associates, LLC
mailed a written communication to the Complaint to an
address in the State of Wisconsin during a period
beginning November 13, 2018 and ending December 4, 2019";
and
2. appointing herself to represent the putative class
members; and
3. appointing her attorneys, Stern Thomasson LLP, as class
counsel.
The Plaintiff contends that Beyer mailed an initial collection
letter to her, which was dated August 30, 2019, and which sought to
collect an alleged debt. The Letter is a template letter that Beyer
uses to collect debts from Wisconsin residents. The Letter failed
to clearly and accurately identify the name of the creditor to whom
the Debt was owed. She adds that by failing to clearly or
accurately identify the creditor to whom the debt is owed as
required by 15 U.S.C. section 1692g(a)(2), Beyer left
unsophisticated consumers, like her, in doubt as to whom the
alleged debt is owed and whether it was legitimate.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
Philip D. Stern, Esq.
Francis R. Greene, Esq.
Katelyn B. Busby, Esq
STERN THOMASSON LLP
150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
Telephone: (973) 379-7500
E-mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com
philip@sternthomasson.com
francis@sternthomasson.com
katelyn@sternthomasson.com
BP WEST COAST: J. Court Seeks Protective Order to Stop Deposition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as PERSIAN GULF INC.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. BP
WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.; TESORO REFINING &
MARKETING COMPANY LLC; EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC (D/B/A SHELL OIL
PRODUCTS US); EXXONMOBIL REFINING & SUPPLY COMPANY; VALERO
MARKETING AND SUPPLY COMPANY; CONOCOPHILLIPS; ALON USA ENERGY, INC.
and DOES 1-25, inclusive, the Defendants, and JAMIE COURT, the
Nonparty, Case No. 2:20-mc-00039, the nonparty Jamie Court moves
the Court for an order:
1. granting a protective order precluding a deposition of
himself, or in the alternative to limit the scope of such
deposition;
2. requiring the Defendants to pay Consumer Watchdog's
attorney's fees and costs incurred as a result of the
deposition subpoena served on him, including the
preparation of this Motion and supporting documents.
Consumer Watchdog certifies that on March 9, 2020, it conferred in
good faith with counsel for Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and Tesoro Refining
and Marketing Company, LLC, appearing on behalf of all the
Defendants, in an effort to resolve the dispute without court
action, but was unable to reach agreement.
Mr. Jamie Court is the President of the charitable non-profit
organization Consumer Watchdog.
Consumer Watchdog advocates for taxpayer and consumer interests,
with a focus on insurance, health care, political reform, privacy
and energy.
BP West provides oil exploration and production services.
Chevron provides energy services. Tesoro Refining refines and
markets petroleum products. The Defendants are doing business in
the oil and petroleum industry.[BN]
Nonparty Jamie Court is represented by:
Jerry Flanagan, Esq.
Benjamin Powell, Esq.
Daniel L. Sternberg, Esq.
CONSUMER WATCHDOG
6330 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 250
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (310) 392-0522
Facsimile: (310) 861-0862
E-mail: jerry@consumerwatchdog.org
ben@consumerwatchdog.org
danny@consumerwatchdog.org
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Final Certification of FLSA Collective Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MAXWELL D. KOZLOV and
BENJAMIN D. BOSIS, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals v. BROWN UNIVERSITY IN PROVIDENCE IN THE STATE
OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS, alias, Case No.
1:19-cv-00028-JJM-LDA (D.R.I.), the Parties ask the Court for an
order:
1. granting final certification of the Fair Labor Standards
collective class for settlement purposes only;
2. granting final approval of the proposed Settlement
Agreement;
3. conditionally dismissing the matter with prejudice, no
interest, no costs, subject to and conditioned upon the
Defendants' full and timely compliance with the provisions
of the approved Settlement Agreement, in particular, the
distribution of the Gross Settlement Proceeds; and,
4. reserving jurisdiction over the within action to enforce
the Settlement Agreement.
The collective class was preliminarily approved by the Court on
October 2, 2019.
Brown University is a private Ivy League research university in
Providence, Rhode Island.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard A. Sinapi, Esq.
Chloe A. Davis, Esq.
2374 Post Road, Ste. 201
Warwick, RI 02886
Telephone: (401) 739-9690
E-mail: ras@sinapilaw.com
cad@sinapilaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael E. Jusczyk, Esq.
Barry J. Miller, Esq.
Hillary Massey, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Two Seaport Lane, Ste. 300
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 946-4800
E-mail: mjusczyk@seyfarth.com
bmiller@seyfarth.com
hmassey@seyfarth.com
CALIFORNIA: Jones Appeals N.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Forrest Lee Jones, et al., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Forrest Jones, et al. v. Ralph Diaz,
et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-07814-JSW, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Oakland.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
seeking a remedy for two years during which they and all other
people sentenced to an indeterminate life term for a nonviolent
third strike offense were deprived of their early parole
eligibility in violation of the California and United States
Constitutions.
All California prisoners convicted and sentenced for nonviolent
crimes--including those sentenced under California's "Three Strikes
and You're Out" Law--were made eligible for early parole
consideration in January 2017 by amendments to the state
constitution enacted as part of Proposition 57, the Public Safety
and Rehabilitation Act of 2016. Despite these amendments to the
state constitution, officials of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation categorically stripped nonviolent
third strike offenders of this eligibility until January 2019, the
Plaintiffs argue.
The Defendants' regulations, which categorically excluded inmates
sentenced under the Three Strikes law from parole consideration
under Section 32, stripped all nonviolent third strike offenders of
access to the "fair procedures" that the Due Process Clause
requires. The Plaintiffs now seek compensation for the harm caused
by this violation of their constitutional rights and for the two
years they waited to obtain the parole eligibility that
California's voters had granted them by enacting Section 32.
The Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons, who remain
incarcerated because the Defendants refused for two years to start
holding parole hearings for them, also seek to avoid an additional
three years of delay under the schedule that the Defendants have
set for clearing the resulting backlog of their hearings.
The appellate case is captioned as Forrest Jones, et al. v. Ralph
Diaz, et al., Case No. 20-15795, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellants Dennis Barnes, Rodrigo Ruben Escarcega and
Forrest Lee Jones' opening brief is due on June 25, 2020;
-- Appellees Ralph Diaz and Scott Kernan's answering brief is
due on July 27, 2020;
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants FORREST LEE JONES, RODRIGO RUBEN ESCARCEGA
and DENNIS BARNES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Michael William Bien, Esq.
Ernest Galvan, Esq.
ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD, LLP
101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-1738
Telephone: (415) 433-6830
Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
Email: mbien@rbgg.com
egalvan@rbgg.com
Defendants-Appellees RALPH DIAZ, Secretary of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, in his individual and
official capacities, and SCOTT KERNAN, in his individual capacity,
are represented by:
Jeffrey Thomas Fisher, Esq.
Cassandra Jean Shryock, Esq.
AGCA-OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 510-3568
COLUMBIA MIYABI: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Rich FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Christopher Rich, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling issued in their lawsuit styled Christopher Rich, et al. v.
Columbia Miyabi Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02148-BHH, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina at Charleston.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Christopher Rich, et al. v.
Columbia Miyabi Inc., Case No. 20-1486, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants CHRISTOPHER RICH, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:
Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
BRUCE E. MILLER LAW OFFICE
147 Wappoo Creek Drive
Charleston, SC 29412
Telephone: (843) 579-7373
Facsimile: (843) 614-6417
E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com
Defendants-Appellees COLUMBIA MIYABI INC., et al., are represented
by:
Molly Hughes Cherry, Esq.
NEXSEN PRUET, LLC
P. O. Box 486
Charleston, SC 29402-0000
Telephone: (843) 577-9440
E-mail: mcherry@nexsenpruet.com
- and -
Allan Riley Holmes, Sr., Esq.
GIBBS & HOLMES
P. O. Box 938
Charleston, SC 29402-0938
Telephone: (843) 722-0033
Facsimile: (843) 722-0114
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Thompson Seeks to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DORINDA J. THOMPSON, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. COMMUNITY
CONNECTIONS INCORPORATED, an Idaho corporation, Case
No.2:19-cv-0300-BRW (D. Idaho), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:
1. certifying case as a class action; and
2. equitably tolling the statute of limitations.
Community Connections was founded in 1985. The company's line of
business includes providing one or more of a wide variety of
individual and family social, counseling, welfare, or referral
services, including refugee, disaster, and temporary relief
services.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kammi Mencke Smith, Esq.
WINSTON & CASHATT, LAWYERS, a
250 Northwest Boulevard, Suite 206
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
Telephone: (208) 667-2103
Facsimile: (208) 765-2121
E-mail: kms@winstoncashatt.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Peter C. Erbland, Esq.
LAKE CITY LAW GROUP PLLC
435 W Hanley Ave.
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815
Telephone: 208 664-8115
E-mail: perbland@lclattorneys.com
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Coyle Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
-------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN COYLE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
CONTEXTLOGIC, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-00907
(C.D. Cal., April 28, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes
and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited
automated text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Defendant has violated TCPA by using an automatic telephone
dialing system to bombard consumers' mobile phones with
non-emergency advertising and marketing text messages without prior
express written consent, the complaint says.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant sent him two unsolicited,
automated text messages on Dec. 10, 2019, and another two text
messages on Dec. 17, 2019, to his telephone number.
The Defendant operates http://www.wish.com/,an online mobile
shopping platform, which enables customers to purchase products
from merchants all over the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Yana A. Hart, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: 800 400 6808
Facsimile: 800 520 5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
yana@kazlg.com
COUNTRY THUNDER: Faces Fitzpatrick Suit Over Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Country Thunder
Holdings. The case is captioned as Jacqueline A. Fitzpatrick, on
Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, and the
General Public and Acting in the Public Interest v. Country Thunder
Holdings, LLC; Country Thunder Florida, LLC; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-03571-MWF-AGR (C.D. Cal., April 17,
2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald.
The lawsuit demands $5 million in damages alleging breach of
contract.
Country Thunder is a music festival brand that hosts several
concerts in North America each year.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael G. Geragos, Esq.
GERAGOS LAW GROUP
888 West 6th Street, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 232-1363
Facsimile: (888) 800-2949
E-mail: michael@geragoslaw.com
matthew@geragoslaw.com
- and -
Reza Sina, Esq.
SINA LAW GROUP
3727 West Magnolia Boulevard, No. 277
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (310) 957-2057
Facsimile: (425) 409-0763
E-mail: reza@sinalawgroup.com
CRANDALL DRILLING: Faces Sposato Suit Over Upaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Sposato, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Crandall Drilling & Pump Service, LLC, and Howard
Crandall, Case No. 1:20-cv-01197 (D. Colo., April 29, 2020), is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Act,
and Colorado Minimum Wage as a result of the Defendants' failure to
pay the Plaintiff lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiff and others regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
week throughout their tenure with the Defendants. The Defendants
paid the Plaintiff one and one-half times his base hourly rate for
some hours worked over 40 in each week, but not for all hours
worked over 40 in each week, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from September 2015
until January 2020 as a foreman.
The Defendant's primary business is providing water well services,
such as drilling and pump repair.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
April Rheaume, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: april@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
CRESCENT DRILLING: Court Cond. Certified Oilfield Workers Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RITZ JOHN HOEFLEIN III and
RAUL SOLIS III v. CRESCENT DRILLING AND PRODUCTION, INC., CRESCENT
DRILLING FOREMAN, INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-01194-FB-ESC (E.D. Tex.),
the Hon. Judge Elizabeth S.Chestney entered an order:
1. granting in part Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification and court-authorized notice;
2. conditionally certifying a class of:
"all oilfield workers who provided services to or on
behalf of Crescent Drilling & Production and/or Crescent
Drilling Foreman and were staffed to Sanchez Oil & Gas
Corporation or Pioneer Natural Resources Company during
the past 3 years who were classified as independent
contractors and paid on a day-rate basis with no
overtime"; and
3. requiring the Parties within 14 days after entry of the
Order, on or before May 5, 2020, to meet and confer
regarding the substance of Plaintiff's proposed notice and
to submit to the Court their proposed notice for approval
in light of this Order. If the parties successfully reach
an agreement regarding the notice, they should notify the
Court of the same. If there are portions of the notice on
which the parties do not agree, the parties should clarify
which portions of the notice are agreed and which are
disputed, and for the latter, the parties should brief
their respective positions to the Court for resolution.
The Court said, "The Court agrees with the Defendants on this
point, that a class encompassing oilfield workers with differing
job titles and assignments to diverse customers would not serve the
overarching case-management purposes of conditional certification
under the FLSA. Nonetheless, the Plaintiffs have established that a
more limited class of oilfield workers is entitled to notice of
this lawsuit, as the Plaintiffs' declarations establish that there
is a class of similarly situated workers who are victim to a single
pay policy. The Court will therefore limit the class to those
workers staffed to Sanchez and Pioneer, where Plaintiffs worked."
The case is a putative collective action filed under the Fair Labor
Standards Actto recover unpaid overtime compensation.
Crescent Drilling offers engineering and project management
services to cover all functions required for an operator to manage
onshore and offshore properties.[CC]
CRESTWOOD TRANSPORTATION: Underpays Drivers, Mendes Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHRISTINA MENDES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRESTWOOD TRANSPORTATION
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-01358 (S.D. Tex., April 16, 2020)
arises from Defendant's alleged willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a driver from January 2018
to December 2019 and was paid on an hourly basis and on a biweekly
basis by direct deposit.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of
40 hours per week. But, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff for the
hours she worked in excess of 40 per week at a rate not less than
one and one-half times the regular rate at which she was employed.
Allegedly, Defendant failed to maintain accurate time and pay
records for Plaintiff as required by the FLSA and continue its
unlawful pay practice.
Plaintiff seeks to recover back wages, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees and costs.
Crestwood Transportation LLC is a trucking business that provides
distribution of crude oil, condensate, water and natural gas
liquids products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Centre
440 Louisiana St., Suite 675
Houston, TX 77002-1063
Tel: (713)222-6775
Fax: (713)222-6739
Emails: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
curt@mooreandassociates.net
DARKTRACE: Class Action Settlement Wins Initial Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as NICHOLAS DER-HACOPIAN v.
DARKTRACE, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-06726-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam entered an order:
1. granting Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement; and
2. directing the Parties to meet and confer and stipulate to
a schedule of dates for each of the following event (and
shall be submitted to the Court within seven days of the
date of this Order):
-- Deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail notice
to all putative Class Members.
-- Filing deadline for attorneys’ fees and costs motion.
-- Filing deadline for incentive payment motion.
-- Deadline for Class Members to opt-out or object to
settlement and/or application for attorneys’ fees and
costs and incentive payment.
-- Filing deadline for final approval motion.
-- Final fairness hearing and hearing on motion.
The key terms of the parties' settlement are:
Class Definition:
The Settlement Class is defined as:
"all applicants for employment with and employees of
DarkTrace from whom DarkTrace obtained the individual's
consent to procure a consumer report using a form document
substantially similar to the authorization form signed by
Plaintiff; and procured or caused to be procured a consumer
report, as defined by the FCRA, between November 5, 2016 and
the date the Final Judgment and Order approving this
Settlement Agreement is entered by the Court.
Settlement Benefits:
The parties have agreed to both non-monetary and monetary
relief.
Cy Pres Distribution:
Settlement checks that are undeliverable or not cashed within
60 days of mailing will be void and those funds will be
donated to "a recipient to be agreed to by the parties."
Class Notice:
A third-party settlement administrator will mail the "Notice
of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Hearing" to class
members by regular mail within 30 days of the Court's order
preliminarily approving the settlement.
Opt-Out Procedure:
The deadline for a class member to submit a request for
exclusion is 60 days after the date of the Notice mailing
Incentive Award:
The Plaintiff as class representative may apply for incentive
award of no more than $15,000.
Attorneys' Fees and Costs:
Class Counsel may file an application for attorneys’ fees not
to exceed $150,000.[CC]
DEFENSE TAX: Wang Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CHEN WANG, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DEFENSE TAX GROUP
INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. 2:20-cv-01193-CJC-MRW (C.D. Cal.,
Filed Feb. 6, 2020), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying a class; and
2. granting the Plaintiff leave to take discovery to identify
members of the class and determine the amount of damages
they are entitled to prior to the entry of final judgment.
Defense Tax is a tax relief company based in Los Angeles,
California.[CC]
Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative are:
Michael R. Parker, Esq.
M.R. PARKER LAW, APC
6700 Fallbrook Ave, Suite 207
West Hills, CA 91307
Telephone: (818) 334-5711
Facsimile: (818) 394-6448
E-mail: michael@mrparkerlaw.com
DELTA AIRLINES: Rojas Appeals D. Md. Ruling to Fourth Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Noel Moran Rojas, et al., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in their lawsuit entitled Noel Rojas v. Delta Airlines,
Inc., Case No. 8:19-cv-00665-GJH, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland at Greenbelt.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a
continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to artificially
fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of passenger air
transportation, by uniformly and unlawfully including a charge for
the Tax to Exempt Travelers on flights between the United States
and Mexico, in violation of the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiffs are Mexican citizens, who now live or previously
lived in the United States. They represent a putative class of
primarily Mexican citizens who, like the Plaintiffs themselves,
flew to Mexico from the United States as ticketed passengers on one
or more of the Defendants' airlines.
The appellate case is captioned as Noel Rojas v. Delta Airlines,
Inc., Case No. 20-1480, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Noel Moran Rojas, Miguel Hilarion Jimenez,
Olivia Isabel Gonzales, Mayra Luisa Castillo Casteneda, LuzMaria
Armendaiz De Arroyo, Patricio Mercado, Alexandra Almanza, Ruben
Alfonso Arroyo, and Teresa Estrada-Jimenez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Stephen W. Abbott, Esq.
Brent T. Caldwell, Esq.
Christopher Faucett, Esq.
Matthew J.M. Prebeg, Esq.
PREBEG, FAUCETT & ABBOTT, PLCC
8441 Gulf Freeway
Houston, TX 77017
Telephone: (832) 743-9260
E-mail: sabbott@pfalawfirm.com
- and -
Jason H. Kim, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
E-mail: jkim@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Morrow, Esq.
John D. Sheppard, Esq.
MORROW & SHEPPARD LLP
3701 Kirby Drive
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 489-1206
- and -
Tejinder Singh, Esq.
GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL, P.C.
7475 Wisconsin Avenue
Bethesda, MD 20814
Telephone: (202) 362-0636
Defendants-Appellees DELTA AIRLINES, INCORPORATED, et al., are
represented by:
Solesse L. Altman, Esq.
Frank M. Lowrey, IV, Esq.
BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE
3900 IBM Tower, 1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309-4501
Telephone: (404) 881-4111
E-mail: altman@bmelaw.com
lowrey@bmelaw.com
- and -
Timothy Francis Maloney, Esq.
Alyse Lauren Prawde, Esq.
JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, PA
6404 Ivy Lane
Greenbelt, MD 20770-0000
Telephone: (301) 220-2200
- and -
Sondra A. Hemeryck, Esq.
Patricia Brown Holmes, Esq.
Eli Joseph Litoff, Esq.
RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP
3 1st National Plaza
70 West Madison Street
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 417-8700
- and -
Gregory Keith Wells, Esq.
SHADOAN MICHAEL & WELLS, LLP
108 Park Avenue
Rockville, MD 20850-0000
Telephone: (301) 762-5150
- and -
Molly M. Barron, Esq.
Sadik Huseny, Esq.
Anna M. Rathbun, Esq.
Daniel M. Wall, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
555 11th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1304
Telephone: (202) 637-2200
- and -
J. Gordon Cooney, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
- and -
Humburto Padilla Gonzalez, Esq.
Jared A. Wilkerson, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
1000 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 890-5164
- and -
Raechel Keay Kummer, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1 Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (202) 373-6001
- and -
Milton Roy Goldberg, Esq.
Brandon R. Nagy, Esq.
Tracey Michelle Ohm, Esq.
STINSON LLP
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 728-3005
- and -
Noah A. Brumfield, Esq.
Jaime Manuel Crowe, Esq.
J. Mark Gidley, Esq.
Jaclyn I. Phillips, Esq.
WHITE & CASE, LLP
701 13th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-0000
Telephone: (202) 626-3698
DIN TAI: Garcia Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under FLSA & Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUANA GARCIA, individually and acting on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. DIN TAI FUNG RESTAURANT, INC.,
DIN TAI FUNG (SF) RESTAURANT, LLC, SELENA SOTO, and ANTONIO [LNU]
individually; and DOES 1 through 40, inclusive, Case No.
5:20-cv-02919 (N.D. Cal., April 28, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' alleged systemic failure to pay California non-exempt
employees, including Plaintiff and the Class, their overtime wages
and minimum wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to compensate her
and similarly situated employees at a rate not less than one and
one-half times the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek. As a direct and proximate result of
Defendants' failure to pay proper wages under the FLSA, they
incurred general damages in the form of lost overtime wages.
The Defendants operate restaurants in Santa Clara, Santa Monica,
and Torrance, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
Juan Gamboa, Esq.
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
Oakland, CA 94612-3547
Telephone: (510) 832-9999
Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
JGamboa@TheMMLawFirm.com
FIFTH THIRD: Cert. of Breach of Contract & TILA Classes Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash
Advance Litigation, Case No. 1:12-cv-00851-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. certifying classes:
Breach of Contract Class:
"all persons in the United States who enrolled in Fifth
Third's Early Access Loan Program prior to May 1, 2013 and
took out at least one Early Access Loan" ; and
Truth in Lending Act (TILA) Class:
"all persons in the United States who were enrolled in
Fifth Third's Early Access Loan Program from August 3,
2011 through April 30, 2013."
Specifically excluded from the putative Classes are the
Defendant, any entities in which the Defendant has a
controlling interest, any of the Defendant's parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, employees
and members of such persons' immediate families, and the
presiding judge(s) in this case, their staff, and his,
her, or their immediate family.
2. appointing themselves as representatives of the Classes;
and
3. appointing Hassan Zavareei of Tycko & Zavareei, Stuart E.
Scott of Spangenberg Shibley & Liber LLP, and Jason
Whittemore of Wagner McLaughlin, P.A. as counsel for the
Classes pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1).
This case arises from a putative nationwide class action alleging a
widespread and serious breach of contract and violation of the
Truth in Lending Act involving one of Ohio's largest banks, Fifth
Third Bank.
Fifth Third is a bank headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, at Fifth
Third Center. It is the principal subsidiary of Fifth Third
Bancorp, a bank holding company.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Anna A. Haac, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
ahaac@tzlegal.com
- and -
Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 696-3232
Facsimile (216) 696-3924
E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com
- and -
Jason K. Whittemore, Esq.
WAGNER MCLAUGHLIN, PA
601 Bayshore Blvd., Suite 910
Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: (813)-225-4000
Facsimile: (813) 225-4010
E-mail: Jason@wagnerlaw.com
FM JANITORIAL: Underpays Dishwashers, Vondergathen et al Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DARCY VONDERGATHEN and ANDRE GROVER, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FM JANITORIAL SERVICES, INC. #2,
JOSE RODRIGUEZ and MARIA JOYA, Defendants, Case No.
4:20-cv-00064-FL (E.D.N.C., April 16, 2020) arises from Defendants
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as Dishwashers, Vondergathen
from 2016 through 2019 and Grover in 2018 and 2019.
According to the complaint, Plaintiffs regularly worked more than
40 hours per week, often working in excess of 60 hours per week.
The restaurants where Plaintiffs worked as dishwashers paid
Defendant at a higher rate for the hours worked by Plaintiffs and
Defendants then paid Plaintiffs. However, Defendants did not pay
that higher overtime rate to Plaintiffs or their coworkers, and did
not provide them with any sort of pay statement that said what the
pay period was, the number of hours worked during that pay period,
or their hourly rate.
Jose Rodriguez and Maria Joya own and operate FM Janitorial
Services, Inc.
FM Janitorial Services, Inc. is a staffing company which supplies
workers to various restaurants. [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
Tel: (919) 856-2154
Emails: clermont@ncjustice.org
carol@ncjustice.org
FORT DEARBORN: Fails to Pay Overtime for Operators, Harrison Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES HARRISON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. FORT DEARBORN COMPANY Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-02425 (N.D. Ill., April 20, 2020) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff on behalf all other similarly situated collective
members, to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of Defendant's
willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendant has violated the wage laws by engaging in illegal
policies and practices of altering and shaving time off hourly
factory workers' time records, thereby failing to compensate them
of overtime at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the
regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 per week.
Harrison was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid printing press
operator from approximately July 2015 through approximately May 28,
2019 at Defendant's Palm City, Florida plant.
Fort Dearborn Company is a prime label supplier to the consumer
goods marketplace and operates 20 facilities around the United
States and Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 810
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
E-Mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
GAIN CAPITAL: Franchi Sues over Misleading Proxy Statement
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ADAM FRANCHI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GAIN CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC.,
JOSEPH A. SCHENK, GLENN H. STEVENS, TOM BEVILACQUA, CHRISTOPHER W.
CALHOUN, ALEX GOOR, DOUG RHOTEN, CHRISTOPHER S. SUGDEN, and PETER
QUICK, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00519-UNA (D. Del., April 17,
2020) arises from Defendants' alleged violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiff owns GAIN Capital common stock.
According to the complaint, the Board of Directors of GAIN Capital
have caused the Company to enter into the Merger Agreement with
INTL FCStone on February 26, 2020 in which GAIN Capital
stockholders will receive $6.00 in cash for each share of GAIN
Capital common stock they own. However, in the proxy statement
filed on April 10, 2020 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction, material
information were omitted which renders the Proxy Statement false
and misleading.
The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to disclose
information regarding the Company's financial projections, the
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor GCA Advisors
LLC, and whether the Company entered into any confidentiality
agreements. Also, the omitted information are important to
stockholders in deciding how to vote on the Proposed Transaction.
Plaintiff and the Class claim that they were threatened with
irreparable harm because of the false and misleading statements in
the Proxy Statement.
Joseph A. Schenk is Chairman of the Board of GAIN Capital
Holdings.
Glenn H. Stevens is the President, Chief Executive Officer, and a
director of the Company.
Tom Bevilacqua, Christopher W. Calhoun, Alex Goor, Doug Rhoten,
Christopher S. Sugden, and Peter Quick are Board of Directors of
the Company.
GAIN Capital Holdings, Inc. provides trading technology and
execution services to retail and institutional investors worldwide.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302)295-5310
Fax: (302)654-7530
Emails: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and –
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Tel: (484)324-6800
Fax: (484)631-1305
Email: rm@maniskas.com
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Birnbaum et al. Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company's motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint in the consolidated Birnbaum and Sheet Metal Workers
Local 17 Trust Fund suit 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.
In February 2019, two putative class actions (the Birnbaum case and
the Sheet Metal Workers Local 17 Trust Funds case) were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
naming as defendants GE and current and former GE executive
officers.
In April 2019, the court issued an order consolidating these two
actions.
In June 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated
complaint. It alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged misstatements
regarding GE's H-class turbines and goodwill related to GE's Power
business. The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of shareholders who
acquired GE stock between December 4, 2017 and December 6, 2018.
In August 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint.
In September 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.
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: Bid to Drop Varga Class Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company's motion to dismiss the Varga class action
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New
York is still 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.
In December 2018, a putative class action (the Varga case) was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New
York naming GE and a former GE executive officer as defendants in
connection with the oversight of the GE RSP.
It alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by failing
to advise GE RSP participants that GE Capital insurance
subsidiaries were allegedly under-reserved and continued to retain
a GE stock fund as an investment option in the GE RSP. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of GE RSP
participants and beneficiaries from January 1, 2010 through January
19, 2018 or later.
In April 2019, 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.
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Still Defends Class Suit over ERISA Breaches
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company continues to defend itself in a
consolidated class suit related to the GE Retirement Savings Plan,
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.
"Four putative class action lawsuits have been filed regarding the
oversight of the GE RSP, and those class actions have been
consolidated into a single action in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts. The consolidated complaint names as
defendants GE, GE Asset Management, current and former GE and GE
Asset Management executive officers and employees who served on
fiduciary bodies responsible for aspects of the GE RSP during the
class period. Like similar lawsuits that have been brought against
other companies in recent years, this action alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA in their
oversight of the GE RSP, principally by retaining five proprietary
funds that plaintiffs allege were underperforming as investment
options for plan participants and by charging higher management
fees than some alternative funds. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages on behalf of a class of GE RSP participants and
beneficiaries from September 26, 2011 through the date of any
judgment. In August and December 2018, the court issued orders
dismissing one count of the complaint and denying GE's motion to
dismiss the remaining counts. We believe we have defenses to the
claims and are responding accordingly."
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 Tri-State Class Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company continues to defend itself in the
Tri-State case, wherein an amended consolidated complaint was filed
in December 2019, 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 August 2019, a putative class action (the Tri-State case) was
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming as defendants GE and
the former Board of Directors of Baker Hughes Incorporated (BHI).
It alleges fraud, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty,
and aiding and abetting breaches of duty of disclosure by GE based
on allegations regarding financial statements that GE provided the
former BHI board, management and shareholders in connection with
BHI's merger with GE's Oil and Gas Business in July 2017. The
plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of BHI shareholders during the
period between October 7, 2016 and July 5, 2017.
In October 2019, the City of Providence filed a complaint
containing allegations substantially similar to those in the
Tri-State complaint.
The cases were consolidated in November 2019, and in December 2019,
the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint which is
similar to the prior complaints but does not include fraud claims
against GE.
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.
GNC HOLDINGS: Amavizca Sues over Fake Glucosamine Sulfate Product
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICO AMAVIZCA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GNC HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-03545 (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of California Unfair
Competition Law, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and
California False Advertising Law.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff purchased bottles of
"Glucosamine Sulfate 550," GNC's private label 550mg Glucosamine
Sulfate product, over the past 4 years. Plaintiff believed that the
product labels accurately represented the contents of the packaged
supplements. However, when Plaintiff sent some of GNC's Glucosamine
Sulfate 550 which he has purchased in or around May 2019 to a
laboratory for analysis in March 2020, the lab result found no
trace of Glucosamine Sulfate that is contrary to the claims on the
product label.
The complaint claims that Plaintiff has suffered damage and
detriment as a result of GNC's misrepresentations, and will
continue to be harmed by having no sustainable means of verifying
the contents of the GNC Glucosamine Sulfate Products.
Plaintiff demands a combination of damages and injunctive relief.
GNC Holdings, Inc. is one of the foremost nationwide retailers of
dietary supplements and routinely markets and sells its products in
Los Angeles County. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq.
Danielle L. Manning, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (310)201-9150
Fax: (310)201-9160
Emails: jrotter@glancylaw.com
dmanning@glancylaw.com
- and –
Carl L. Stine, Esq.
Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
Antoinette A. Adesanya, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212)759-4600
Fax: (212)486-2093
Emails: cstine@wolfpopper.com
minsley-pruitt@wolfpopper.com
aadesanya@wolfpopper.com
GREWAL LAW: Cunningham Sues Over Abusive Telemarketing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. GREWAL LAW; WEITZ & LUXENBERG,
P.C.; and SGMS, INC. dba LEGAL CONVERSION CENTER, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-03674 (C.D. Cal., April 21, 2020) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, seeking damages and any other available legal
or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendants, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related regulations,
specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading
Plaintiff's privacy.
The Defendants contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in -7262 in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff
to purchase Defendants' services, beginning in or around January
2020, using automatic telephone dialing system. Defendant Legal
Conversion Center directly called Plaintiff for the purposes of
generating leads in the Roundup litigation, by way of cold calling
consumers using an automated telephone dialing system.
As part of their campaign to solicit their services to clients,
Grewal Law and Weitz & Luxenberg hired Legal Conversion Center to
generate clients on the firm's behalf. Legal Conversion Center then
did so in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
acting on behalf of the other Defendants.
Plaintiff has never sought the services of counsel for purpose of
bringing a Roundup claim and did not provide prior express consent.
Moreover, Plaintiff has no relationship with any of the three
defendants that would permit direct attorney solicitations by
telephone of this nature under the Model Rules, or to create an
established business relationship.
Grewal Law is a full-service law firm, providing clients with
personalized and reliable legal representation.
Weitz & Luxenberg is a large personal injury and medical
malpractice law firm headquartered in New York, specializing in
asbestos litigation.
Legal Conversion Center is a call center base in Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
HARRY'S NURSES: Files Cert. Petition in Gayle FLSA Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Harry's Nurses Registry and Harry Dorvilier filed with
the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of
certiorari in the matter styled HARRY'S NURSES REGISTRY, HARRY
DORVILIER, Petitioners v. CLAUDIA GAYLE, Individually, On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated and as Class Representative, et al.,
Respondents, Case No. 19-1210.
Response is due on May 13, 2020.
Petitioners Harry's Nurses Registry and Harry Dorvilier petition
for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case titled
Gayle, et al. v. Harry's Nurses Registry, et al., Case No. 18 3472,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The question presented is: Is the finding that the employer has
violated Section 206 or Section 207 of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq, a condition precedent that must
occur before an employee's private right of action is triggered
under Section 216(b)?
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
This is an action by nurses claiming alleged unpaid overtime from a
nursing staffing company and its owner.
This litigation began in 2007, when a nurse named Claudia Gayle,
and other nurses recruited to join Ms. Gayle's lawsuit, sued Mr.
Dorvilier and his company under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 (West) et. seq, claiming they were
due unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and (for plaintiffs'
counsel who started the lawsuit) attorneys' fees.
A central issue in the litigation was whether the nurses who sued
were employees entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA. Defendants
contended that they were not; that Harry's Nurses acted as a
referral service, not an employer, and that the FLSA therefore did
not apply to the plaintiffs' claims. The District court ruled that
the nurses were employees under the FLSA, however, granting
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and entering judgments
against defendants for $931,959.39 (in compensatory damages plus
attorneys' fees).
The Defendants appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the
judgment. Gayle v. Harry's Nurses Registry, Inc., 594 F. App'x 714,
716 (2d Cir. 2014). Defendant petitioned for a writ of certiorari,
but this Court denied the petition. Harry's Nurses Registry, Inc.
v. Gayle, 135 S. Ct. 2059 (U.S., May 04, 2015). The litigation
continued over enforcement of the judgment. Defendants contended
that plaintiffs' counsel did not properly collect the judgment,
moving in the District court to remedy the improper collection by
plaintiffs' counsel and to impose sanctions on plaintiffs' counsel
for counsel's charged improper accounting of the monies collected
(defendants contended that plaintiffs' counsel effectively "double
dipped" on the counsel fees to which he was entitled and thereby
collected from defendants more than was legally owed under the
FLSA). Plaintiffs' counsel opposed defendants' motion. Following
receipt of a Report and Recommendations by United States Magistrate
Court Judge Marilyn Go, and objections thereto by the parties, the
District court, by Order and Decision of September 30, 2018,
adopted in full the 9 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations
and denied the Defendants' motion for sanctions and related
relief.
The Defendants appealed the District court's order, but the Court
of Appeals affirmed the decision. In affirming the District court's
decision to deny relief to defendants on the charged improper
collection of the judgment by plaintiffs' counsel, the Court of
Appeals noted and relied on the prior grant of summary judgment for
plaintiffs in the litigation and entry of judgments for plaintiffs
against defendants for the unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees afforded by the FLSA on which the plaintiff nurses
rested their claims for relief.[BN]
Defendants-Petitioners Harry's Nurses Registry and Harry Dorvilier
are represented by:
Michael James Confusione
Counsel of Record
HEGGE & CONFUSIONE
P.O. Box 366
Mullica Hill, NJ 08062
Email: mc@heggelaw.com
HERTZ CORP: Fails to Give Meal & Rest Periods, McChristion Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juwana McChristion, an individual v. The Hertz Corporation, a
Delaware corporation, dba Hertz Car Rental; and DOES 1-50
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV16211 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 28, 2020), is brought under the California Labor Code on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all other employees similarly situated
alleging that the Defendants failed to provide meal and rest
periods.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants required her and other
employees similarly situated, to service between 150 to 200 cars a
day to successfully launch "QUICK TURN" program started by the
company. She adds that as a result of the 150-200 cars quota she
was not provided her daily 10-minute breaks and uninterrupted meal
breaks from April 1, 2018, to August 13, 2018.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's manager, Chris Burns,
orally promised the Plaintiff and other employees that in lieu of
the daily 10 minute breaks and 30 minute lunch breaks, the
Defendants will reward them gift cards from Target worth $50.00 per
day should the quota of servicing 150 200 cars per day be satisfied
by them.
The Plaintiff alleges that on July 1, 2018, she started complaining
to the Defendants that despite reaching the daily quota she has not
been rewarded by Chris Burns the promised gift cards from Target
worth $50.00 per day.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as Vehicle Service
Attendant from December 2016 to August 13, 2018.
Hertz is an American car rental company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo Y. Merluza, Esq.
Antony A. Thomassian, Esq.
MERLUZA LAW, APC
3435 Wilshire Blvd., 27th
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 380-9888
Facsimile: (213) 380-5397
E-mail: ricardo0merluzalaw.com
HOST INT'L: Improperly Defers Retirement Pay, Frankenstein Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAN FRANKENSTEIN, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the HMSHOST 401(k) RETIREMENT
SAVINGS PLAN AND TRUST v. HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC.; HMSHOST 401(k)
RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN AND TRUST RETIREMENT COMMITTEE; COLEMAN
LAUERBACH; and DOES NO. 1-10, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown,
Case No. 8:20-cv-01100-PJM (D. Md., April 28, 2020), arises from
the Defendants' refusal to properly defer compensation paid to the
Plaintiff and other participants of the HMSHost 401(k) Retirement
Savings Plan and Trust pursuant to the express terms of the Plan.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants refused, and continue to
refuse, to comply with the terms of the Plan with respect to his
and the Class's rights to contribute a portion of their reported
tips to the Plan based on their deferral elections, and receive
benefits based on those contributions. He alleges that the
Defendants failed to prudently consider their interpretation and
administration of a Plan participant's right to defer reported
tips. Instead, he adds, the Defendants appear to have simply
adopted an arbitrary position denying Plan participants' rights to
defer reported tips based on Host International's tax withholding
practices, thereby, risking the qualified status of the Plan.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover the benefits due him and the Class
under the express terms of the Plan; to enforce his and the Class's
rights under the terms of the Plan; to hold the Defendants liable
to the Plan for their breaches of fiduciary duties; for injunctive
and declaratory relief; and for all other appropriate relief under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The Plan had more than $300 million in assets with almost 19,000
active and more than 21,000 total participants as of December 31,
2018.
The Plaintiff is a participant of the Plan and has been employed by
Host International since July 5, 2011.
Host International is a Delaware corporation with its current
headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland. The Company provides catering
services to travelers, offering prepared meals and other food,
beverages and merchandise at airports, on toll roads, restaurants,
and other travel and entertainment venues. Retirement Committee
has the full and complete authority, responsibility, and control
over the management, administration, and operation of the Plan
pursuant to the Plan Document. Coleman Lauerbach is the Vice
President of Human Resources at Host International.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq.
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
San Francisco, CA 94133
Telephone: (415) 429-5272
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com
IANTHUS CAPITAL: Finch Sues Over 62% Decline in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
DONALD W. FINCH, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, -against- iANTHUS CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC.,
GOTHAM GREEN PARTNERS, HADLEY C. FORD, JULIUS JOHN KALCEVICH, and
JASON ADLER, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03135 (S.D.N.Y., April
20, 2020) is a federal class action on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of iAnthus, who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock between May 14, 2018 and April 6, 2020,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
In May 2018, the Company entered into the $50 million 2018
Debenture Agreement with GGP. Among other things, that agreement
provided for the withholding and escrow of $5,722,222.22 from the
2018 Debenture proceeds to pay one year's interest on the 2018
Debentures in the event of an iAnthus default.
On September 30, 2019, iAnthus and GGP entered into the Amended
Debenture Agreement, which provided an additional $20 million to
the Company. The Amended Debenture Agreement included the provision
from the 2018 Debenture Agreement that provided for the withholding
and escrow of $5,722,222.22 to pay one year's interest under the
Amended Debenture Agreement in the event of an iAnthus default.
On April 6, 2020, iAnthus issued a press release announcing that it
did not make the applicable interest payments to GGP under the
Amended Debenture Agreement, due on March 31, 2020. The Company
ascribed its inability to make the payments to the "decline in the
overall public equity cannabis markets, coupled with the
extraordinary market conditions that began in Q1 2020 due to the
novel coronavirus known as COVID-19 ("COVID-19") pandemic" that
caused liquidity constraints for iAnthus. The Company stated that
it had "attempted in good faith to negotiate with the holders of
the Secured Debentures for temporary relief of interest payments,
but the parties were not able to reach a satisfactory agreement"
and, as a result, "iAnthus and its subsidiaries did not fund the
March 31, 2020 interest payment totaling $4.4 million to the
holders of the Secured Debentures and Unsecured Debentures. . . ."
On news of the default, the price of the Company's common stock
fell 62% from a close of $0.469 per share on April 3, 2020, the
last trading day before the announcement, to a close of $0.179 per
share on April 6, 2020, on unusually high trading volume.
According to the complaint, Defendants' materially false and
misleading statements concerning the withholding, escrow and
intended use of the $5,722,222.22 in proceeds in the 2018 Debenture
Agreement and the Amended Debenture Agreement were publicly
disclosed and available on the CSA System for Electronic Document
Analysis and Retrieval ("SEDAR"). The members of the Class
reasonably relied on Defendants' materially false and misleading
statements concerning the intended use and availability of the
escrowed funds to protect against an event of default in connection
with the Company's interest obligations to GGP. If such funds had
been released pursuant to the terms of the Escrow Agreement, were
exhausted and/or were otherwise unavailable for payment of the
March 2020 interest payments to GGP, Defendants intentionally, or
recklessly, failed to disclose such information rendering the
earlier statements concerning the availability of the escrowed
funds materially false and misleading.
iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, provides financing and related
management and advisory services to state-licensed operators
engaged in the cultivation, manufacturing, and dispensing of
cannabis in states throughout the United States.
Gotham Green Partners is a California-based private equity firm
that focuses on deploying capital into cannabis and
cannabis-related enterprises. GGP manages a diversified portfolio
of investments, investing across the cannabis value chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 683-3516
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: sdr@rigrodskylong.com
tjm@rigrodskylong.com
– and –
Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
GRABAR LAW OFFICE
1735 Market Street Suite 3750
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 507-6085
Facsimile: (267) 507-6048
Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com
IANTHUS CAPITAL: Riback Sues over Stock Losses, False Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM RIBACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. iANTHUS CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC., GOTHAM GREEN
PARTNERS, HADLEY C. FORD, JULIUS JOHN KALCEVICH, and JASON ADLER,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03044 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
Plaintiff and the Class have acquired iAnthus common stock between
May 14, 2018 and April 6, 2020.
According to the complaint, iAnthus is heavily leveraged because it
is dependent upon equity and debt financing to fund its aggressive
expansion plans throughout the U.S. The company entered into a $50
million Debenture Agreement with GGP in May 2018 and an additional
$20 million Amended Debenture Agreement on September 30, 2019.
However, iAnthus announced on April 6, 2020 that it did not make
the applicable interest payments to GGP under the Amended Debenture
Agreement due on March 31, 2020 because there was a decline in the
overall public equity cannabis markets, coupled with the
extraordinary market conditions that began in Q1 2020 due to the
novel coronavirus known as COVID-19 pandemic that caused liquidity
constraints for iAnthus.
Consequently, the price of the Company's common stock fell.
The complaint asserts that since Ford and Kalcevich have direct and
indirect influence and control in the decision-making of the
Company, the content and dissemination of the 2018 Debenture
Agreement and the Amended Debenture Agreement that were executed by
them were allegedly false and misleading in connection with the
Interest Payment Escrow, thereby violating the Federal securities
laws.
Hadley C. Ford is the co-founder of iAnthus.
Julius John Kalcevich is the Chief Financial Officer of iAnthus.
Jason Adler is the Managing Partner of GGP.
iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. is a holding company which provides
Shareholders with diversified exposure to best-in-class licensed
cannabis cultivators, processors and dispensaries throughout the
U.S.
Gotham Green Partners (GGP) is a private equity firm that focuses
on deploying capital into cannabis and cannabis-related
enterprises. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Timothy J. Macfall, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 683-3516
Fax: (302) 654-7530
Emails: sdr@rigrodskylong.com
tjm@rigrodskylong.com
- and –
Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
GRABAR LAW OFFICE
1735 Market St., Suite 3750
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (267) 507-6085
Fax: (267) 507-6048
Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com
IAS LOGISTICS: 7th Circuit Appeal Filed in Jones Employment Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant IAS Logistics DFW, LLC, filed a petition for permission
to appeal from the District Court's Remand Order dated April 15,
2020, in the lawsuit styled LARHONDA JONES, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated individuals v. IAS LOGISTICS DFW,
LLC, d/b/a Pinnacle Logistics Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02510, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
The complaint alleges violations of Illinois' Biometric Information
Privacy Act ("BIPA") and sought statutory damages of $1,000 per
negligent violation alleged. Specifically, Ms. Jones alleges that
Pinnacle violated BIPA by: (1) failing to provide a retention
schedule and guideline for permanently destroying biometric
information as required under 740 ILCS Section14/15(a); (2) failing
to inform her in writing that her information was collected and
stored, as required under 740 ILCS Section 14/15(b)(1); (3) failing
to inform her in writing of the purpose and length of time for
which her information was being collected, stored, and used, as
required under 740 ILCS Section 14/15(b)(2); and (4) failing to
obtain a written release before collecting, using, and storing her
biometric information, as required under 740 ILCS Section
14/15(b)(3).
The appellate case is captioned as Jones v. IAS Logistics DFW, LLC,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff Larhonda Jones, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:
David J. Fish, Esq.
John C Kunze, Esq.
Kimberly A. Hilton, Esq.
Mara Ann Baltabols, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
200 E. Fifth Ave., Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Telephone: (630) 355−7590
Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
kunze@fishlawfirm.com
khilton@fishlawfirm.com
mara@fishlawfirm.com
Defendant IAS Logistics DFW, LLC doing business as Pinnacle
Logistics, is represented by:
Richard Patrick McArdle, Esq.
Danielle M. Kays, Esq.
Joseph A Donado, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 460−5000
Email: rmcardle@seyfarth.com
dkays@seyfarth.com
jdonado@seyfarth.com
JACK IN THE BOX: Szwanek Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Drive Thrus
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Szwanek and James Lopez II, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. JACK IN THE BOX, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-02953 (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2020), seeks to put an end to
the systemic civil rights violations committed by the Defendant in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act against
visually-impaired people in the United States.
Jack in the Box denies the visually-impaired equal access to the
goods and services that Jack in the Box provides during
"late-night" operating times at thousands of their restaurants
throughout the United States, according to the complaint. In an
effort to increase profits and make their products available to the
public for longer periods of time, Jack in the Box restaurants
offer "late-night" hours. During these late evening and early
morning operating times, patrons are not allowed to physically
enter Jack in the Box restaurants and must access Jack in the Box
products and services via "drive-thru" windows.
These drive-thrus are only accessible by motor vehicle and are the
exclusive means by which a customer can independently purchase Jack
in the Box products during late-night hours. Despite being
accessible to the general public, Jack in the Box drive thrus lack
any meaningful accommodation for visually-impaired individuals who
are unable to operate motor vehicles, says the complaint. Since
they are unable to drive, and because it is not safe for them to
walk through the drive-thru, visually-impaired individuals are
totally precluded from accessing the Defendant's products during
late-night hours.
The Plaintiffs' eyesight has been compromised and the condition
renders them unable to legally operate a motor vehicle.
The Defendant owns, operates and/or leases the well-known chain of
restaurants known as "Jack in the Box."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
William H. Beaumont, Esq.
BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
New Orleans, LA 70119
Phone: (504)534-5005
Email: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
whb@beaumontcostales.com
- and -
Glenn M. Goffin, Esq.
920 Beach Park Blvd., #39
Foster City, CA 94404
Phone: (415) 845-8556
Email: ggoffin@glenngoffinlaw.com
JOAMAR INC: Russo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Noemi Russo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JOAMAR, INC. dba CANDY CAT TOO, a California
Corporation; SAUL PEREZ, an individual; INDALECIO J. PEREZ, JR., an
individual; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-10, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-03939 (C.D. Cal., April 29, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for damages due to the Defendants' evasion of the
mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was denied minimum wage
payments and denied overtime as part of the Defendants' scheme to
classify the Plaintiff and other dancers/entertainers as
"independent contractors." The Defendants also illegally absconded
with the Plaintiff's tips.
The Plaintiff began working as a dancer for the Defendants in the
prior three years to the filing of this Complaint.
The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility
located at Canoga Park, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
Jacob J. Ventura, Esq.
KRISTENSEN, LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Phone: (310) 507-7924
Facsimile: 310-507-7906
Email: john@kristensenlaw.com
jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
jacob@kristensenlaw.com
JOHN STEWART COMPANY: Faces Bryant Labor Suit Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
KNAKALIA BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JOHN STEWART COMPANY, a California Corporation; JACK D.
GARDNER, an individual; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No.
CGC-20-584180 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., April 17, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by
improperly calculating and failing to pay all amounts due to the
Plaintiff and class members for wages earned, including minimum and
overtime wages.
The Plaintiff was employed by JSC from January 1, 2019, until May
29, 2019, as a non-exempt onsite property manager.
JSC owned the apartment complex, located in Panorama City, where
the Plaintiff was the onsite property manager. The Plaintiff was
the only onsite manager for 55 units.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake Jones, Esq.
Zachary Crosner, Esq.
Brittany Armstrong, Esq.
Michael Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
433 N. Camden Dr., Suite 400
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 496-5818
Facsimile: (818) 700-9973
E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com
brittany@ecrosnerlegal.com
mike@crosneriegal.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Noohi Fraud Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson and Johnson
Consumer Inc. The case is captioned as Narguess Noohi,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. Johnson and Johnson Consumer Inc. and Does
1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-03575-TJH-JEM (C.D. Cal., April
17, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr.
The lawsuit alleges violation of fraud-related laws.
Johnson & Johnson engages in the research and development of
products. The company provides products for newborns, babies,
toddlers, and mothers, including cleansers, skin care,
moisturizers, hair care, diaper care, sun protection, and nursing
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
21550 Oxnard Street Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
KELLOGG CO: Calif. Class Suit over Product Statements Continues
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action against Kellogg Company related to statements made
on packaging for certain products continues, as the plaintiff
failed to gain the Northern District of California's approval of a
settlement, according to Kellogg's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 28, 2019.
In 2016, a class action complaint was filed against Kellogg in the
Northern District of California relating to statements made on
packaging for certain products.
In August 2019, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff regarding
certain statements made on the Company's products and ordered the
parties to conduct settlement discussions related to all matters in
dispute.
On October 21, 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion to the Court to
approve a settlement. Subsequent to the end of the year, the Court
denied without prejudice the plaintiff's motion to approve the
settlement.
Kellogg said, "As of December 28, 2019, the Company concluded that
the contingency related to the unfavorable ruling was probable and
estimable, resulting in a liability being recorded. This
litigation, including any potential settlement, is not expected to
have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial
statements. The Company will continue to evaluate the likelihood
of potential outcomes as the litigation continues."
Kellogg Company manufactures and markets ready-to-eat cereal and
other convenience foods. The Company's products include cereals,
cookies, crackers, toaster pastries, cereal bars, fruit snacks,
frozen waffles, and veggie foods. Kellogg markets its products in
the United States, Canada, and other countries throughout the
world. The company is based in Battle Creek, Michigan.
LAZY DOG RESTAURANTS: Sypherd Sues Alleging Age Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cathy Sypherd, Patricia Brummett, and Kimberly Watt, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LAZY DOG
RESTAURANTS, LLC, a California Corporation; and DOES 1-50, Case No.
5:20-cv-00921 (C.D. Cal., April 29, 2020), is brought under the
Fair Employment and Housing Act and Age Discrimination in
Employment Act to correct the Defendants' unlawful employment
practices on the basis of age and to provide appropriate relief to
a class of unidentified individuals, who were denied employment by
the Defendants because of their age.
The Defendants have unlawfully subjected a class of aggrieved
applicants of front of the house hostesses, servers, and bartenders
and other publicly visible nonmanagerial positions ("Covered
Positions") to an ongoing pattern or practice of discriminatory
failure to hire such persons because of their age, 40 years and
older (hereafter "the protected age group"), according to the
complaint. The Defendants have unlawfully maintained hiring
policies and practices for giving preference to younger employees
that result in the disproportionate employment of younger
applicants.
As a result of these biases against older workers, older servers
and older workers in restaurant facing positions, who are equally
or more qualified, have been systematically excluded from
employment opportunities that are afforded to other individuals,
who work for Lazy Dog, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are individuals over the age of 40 years.
Lazy Dog is a casual diner founded in 2003, and operates in eight
States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey L. Hogue, Esq.
Tyler J. Belong, Esq.
HOGUE & BELONG
170 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 238-4720
Fax: (619) 238-5260
Email: jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com
tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com
LEE ESTOCK: Motion for Class Certification Dismissed as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as WESLEY A. MASSEY v. LEE
ESTOCK, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00659-SPB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Susan Paradise Baxter entered an order:
1. granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint
without leave to further amend;
2. dismissing as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification;
3. dismissing as moot the Plaintiff's motion to Preserve
Evidence and Prevent Spoliation; and
4. directing the Clerk to mark "CLOSED" the civil action.[CC]
LEGACY PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Phillips Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT PHILLIPS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LEGACY PIZZA, LLC d/b/a PIZZA HUT, a Georgi
Corporation and KAMRAN KURANI, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01608 (N.D. Ga., April 15, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly paid pizza
delivery driver from approximately June 2017 to October 2019.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff consistently worked
approximately 40 hours or more per pay period during his employment
with Defendants, with the majority of his time spent on the road
making deliveries. Also, Defendants required their delivery drivers
to bear the "out-of-pocket" expenses, including gasoline, vehicle
depreciation, insurance, maintenance, and repairs. Allegedly,
Defendants failed to fully reimburse their drivers for the full
amount of their driving expenses, thereby also failing to paid them
complete minimum wage compensation.
Kamran Kurani is the owner of Legacy Pizza and has substantial
control over terms and conditions of drivers' work.
Legacy Pizza, LLC d/b/a Pizza Hut operates approximately 8 Pizza
Hut restaurant franchises in Georgia and Alabama. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
P.O. Box 4979
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Tel: (407)420-1414
Fax: (407)245-3401
Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
LIFE INSURANCE: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Cert. Ruling in Walker Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit issued an Opinion
affirming the District Court's Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification in the case captioned JOYCE WALKER; KIM
BRUCE HOWLETT; MURIEL SPOONER; TALINE BEDELIAN; OSCAR GUEVARA, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
THE SOUTHWEST, a Texas corporation,
Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Nos. 19-55241, 19-55242. (9th
Cir.)
Plaintiffs argue that Life Insurance of the Southwest's (LSW)
illustrations of potential earnings violate California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL) because they do not define or detail the
meaning of policy column headings reading Guaranteed Values at
2.00% and Guaranteed Values at 2.50%. Plaintiffs also allege the
illustrations promised to eliminate a certain administrative fee
after ten years, and that the illustrations fail to describe this
nonguaranteed element in violation of California law. Plaintiffs
allegedly relied on the illustrations in deciding to purchase
policies.
Plaintiffs proposed two alternative class definitions, both
describing California residents who purchased certain LSW policies
during a specified period. The narrower of the two classes was
limited to recipients of pre-application illustrations:
All persons who purchased a Provider Policy or Paragon Policy from
Life Insurance Company of the Southwest that was issued between
September 24, 2006 and April 27, 2014, who resided in California at
the time the Policy was issued, and who received an illustration on
or before the date of policy application.
The district court certified the narrow class over the same
objection LSW advanced in 2012 and 2013 regarding the
later-decertified class: that Plaintiffs' claims were incapable of
class-wide proof because the court would have to individually
establish each Plaintiff's receipt of a pre-application
illustration. LSW argued that certification would be improper under
Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because
individualized questions predominated over class-wide ones.
The court rejected LSW's concern and responded to it, in part by
citing our decision in Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d
1121, 1133 (9th Cir. 2017), which clarified that Rule 23 neither
provides nor implies that demonstrating an administratively
feasible way to identify class members is a prerequisite to class
certification.
Defendant appeals the class certification order.
LSW asks the Ninth Circuit to reverse the district court's
certification order. It alleges the district court committed legal
error by (1) misapplying Briseno and (2) manipulating the class
definition to certify the narrower of Plaintiffs' two proposed
classes even though individualized issues predominate over common
ones in contravention of Rule 23(b)(3).
LSW articulates two specific concerns, neither of which changes the
Appellate Court's decision to affirm.
First, LSW argues that (1) Briseno had no impact on Rule 23(b)(3)'s
predominance requirement, and (2) the district court improperly
relied on Briseno in declining to consider certain issues as part
of its predominance analysis.
The Ninth Court agrees with LSW's reading of Briseno but conclude
that the district court's apparent misunderstanding of the case
wrought no legal error.
In Briseno, the Appellate Court considered a narrow issue: whether
consumers, bringing fraud claims against ConAgra for allegedly
misleading cooking-oil labels, needed to demonstrate that there is
an administratively feasible means of identifying absent class
members before reaching Rule 23(a) and (b)'s class-certification
requirements.
ConAgra argued that absent consumers would not be able to reliably
identify themselves as class members and opposed certification on
that basis.
The Appellate Court rejected ConAgra's argument. The Appellate
Court concluded that a freestanding administrability requirement
would conflict with the plain language of Rule 23, because the rule
sets forth exhaustive factors a district court must consider in
deciding whether to certify a class none of them a freestanding
administrability requirement.
The Appellate Court further determined, in support of our holding,
that Rule 23 already calls upon the district court to consider the
likely difficulties of managing a class action as part of its
comparative superiority analysis, thereby rendering a separate
administrability requirement superfluous.
The Ninth Circuit shares LSW's concern that the district court may
have misapplied Briseno to preclude consideration of certain issues
under predominance. The court in 2013 decertified a class, which
appears to have been identical in composition to the class at issue
here, based on predominance problems. It reversed course in 2018,
ostensibly based on Briseno.
In the relevant part of its certification order, the district court
rejected LSW's argument that predominance is lacking because
determining pre-application receipt requires individualized
inquiries by relying on that case.
The district court's reliance on Briseno is concerning but,
ultimately, inconsequential. The reliance in the end did not
prevent the court from undertaking a legally correct
class-certification analysis. The court properly considered the key
exposure issue whether the allegations supported a reliance
presumption, under predominance, holding they did. In the context
of superiority, the court further analyzed the logistical
difficulties inherent in identifying class members by establishing
plaintiff-by-plaintiff exposure to LSW's illustrations. This
analysis conforms with Briseno and class-certification law more
broadly.
The court's reliance on Briseno caused no legal error, rules the
Ninth Circuit.
Second, LSW objects to the class definition. It argues the district
court avoided analyzing the key predominance question, whether
class members were exposed to the illustrations in part by limiting
class membership to pre-application illustration recipients and
thereby improperly embedding the exposure issue into the class
definition. The argument is unpersuasive. LSW cites no directly
supportive authority, and the contention directly conflicts with
Ninth Circuit precedent obligating district courts to tailor class
definitions in a way that avoids predominance issues.
The more apt and complicated question, we think, is whether a
district court can, as it did here, define a class in a way that
automatically gives rise to a presumption of reliance. This
question appears to be one of first impression in our circuit. In
our prior UCL class-certification cases, the Appellate Court have
relied on allegations and evidence establishing class-wide
dissemination of alleged misrepresentations to determine whether a
presumption of reliance applies.
Can a class definition, which extends membership only to those who
were exposed to alleged misrepresentations, automatically trigger
the presumption? The Appellate Court cannot think of any good
reason why not, or any evils that allegations and evidence of
class-wide dissemination could cure that a class definition
cannot.
The Appellate Court similarly declines to grapple with other
related questions lurking in the background including the extent to
which a district court must engage with argument or evidence
offered to rebut an established presumption of reliance. LSW's
appeal concerns a specific issue: whether the district court
considered the right questions under the predominance analysis. It
does not raise a related issue, which the Appellate Court would
review for abuse of discretion if properly raised: whether the
district court reached the right answers.
Plaintiffs also challenge the certification decision, arguing that
the district court erroneously excluded approximately one quarter
of Plaintiffs' desired class, consisting of policyholders who
received only batch illustrations and not pre-application
illustrations.
The Appellate Court do not reach the merits of Plaintiffs'
argument, because their attempted appeals of the district court's
certification and reconsideration orders are untimely and
procedurally improper, respectively.
Appealing a certification decision is usually straightforward: a
party must petition this Court for permission to appeal within
fourteen days of the district court order.
Second, if the reconsideration order materially changes the
original certification decision, the reconsideration order itself
as distinct from the original decision becomes appealable.
Plaintiffs in such a case effectively are entitled to more time to
petition for appeal after they file, and the district court rules
on, their motion for reconsideration.
Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit AFFIRMED.
The full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's March 23, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/vo3p5jj from Leagle.com
Noah A. Levine - noah.levine@wilmerhale.com - (argued), Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, New York, New York; Andrea J.
Robinson - andrea.robinson@wilmerhale.com - and Timothy J. Perla
-timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com - Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
LLP, Boston, Massachusetts; Matthew T. Martens -
matthew.martens@wilmerhale.com - Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jonathan A. Shapiro -
jonathan.shapiro@bakerbotts.com - Baker Botts LLP, San Francisco,
California; for Defendant-Appellant.
Brian P. Brosnahan - bbrosnahan@cornerlaw.com - (argued),
Cornerstone Law Group, San Francisco, California; Lyn R. Agre -
lagre@kasowitz.com - Margaret A. Ziemianek -
mziemianek@kasowitz.com - and Veronica Nauts l -
vnauts@kasowitz.com - Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, San Francisco,
California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Xavier Becerra , Attorney General; Diane S. Shaw , Senior Assistant
Attorney General; Lisa W. Chao , Supervising Deputy Attorney;
Office of the Attorney General, Los Angeles, California; for Amicus
Curiae Ricardo Lara, Insurance Commissioner of the State of
California.
LUCKIN INVESTOR: Sterckx Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Christophe Sterckx, Michael
Bergenholtz, Vijaya Gopu, and Nirmala Gopu, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Luckin Investor Group,
et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01677 (Filed March 2, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Foley Square) on April 28, 2020.
The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-03304-UA to the proceeding.
The case was brought on behalf of persons or entities, who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Luckin securities
from May 17, 2019, through April 2, 2020, seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Act of 1933 and
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiffs purchased Luckin securities during the Class Period
and were economically damaged thereby.
Luckin purports to engage in the retail sale of freshly brewed
drinks, and pre-made food and beverage items in the People's
Republic of China.
The Defendants include Mike Farhat; Xin Huang; Chunwei Zuo; Majid
Hajizadeh Bashy; Boston Retirement System; Amrik Hira; Fulton
County Employees Retirement System; Sjunde Ap-Fonden; Louisiana
Sheriff's Pension & Relief Fund; Wei Zuo; Jimmy Chan; Leonard Ross;
HAPNEY Investment Management LLC; Mohsen Sajjadieh; Marc Nehorayan;
Satyanarayana Kanchanapalli; John Hickey; Regent Mercantile
Holdings Limited; James Sproul; Li Tutang; Khaled Abdullah
Almdamegh; Chesi Assets Limited Group; Luckin Coffee Inc.; Jenny
Zhiya Qian; Reinout Hendrik Schakel; Charles Zhengyao Lu; Jian Liu;
Jinyi Guo; Hui Li; Erhai Liu; Credit Suisse Securities (USA)
L.L.C.; Morgan Stanley & Co L.L.C.; China International Capital
Corporation Hong Kong Securities Limited; Haitong International
Securities Company Limited; KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc.; and
Needham & Company, LLC.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
- and -
Jackson S. Davis, Esq.
COHEN TAUBER SPIEVACK & WAGNER P.C.
420 Lexington Avenue, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10170
Telephone: (212) 586-5800
Facsimile: (212) 586-5095
E-mail: jdavis@ctswlaw.com
- and -
Kim Elaine Miller, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
250 Park Avenue, Suite 2040
New York, NY 10177
Telephone: (212) 696-3732
Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
E-mail: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
7 Times Square, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 789-1340
Facsimile: (212) 205-3961
E-mail: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com
- and -
Richard W. Gonnello, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
- and -
Shannon Lee Hopkins, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
Stamford, CT 06905
Telephone: (203) 992-4523
E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
- and -
Leslie Alan Blau, Esq.
BLAU & MALMFELDT
566 West Adams Street, Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: (312) 443-1600
Facsimile: (312) 443-1665
E-mail: blaulaw@gmail.com
- and -
Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com
- and -
Steven Bennett Singer, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
4 West Red Oak Lane, Suite 312
White Plains, NY 10604
Telephone: (914) 437-8551
Facsimile: (888) 631-3611
E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com
- and -
Gerald Harlan Silk, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1282
Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com
- and -
David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP (LI)
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
155 Federal Street, Suite 1303
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com
- and -
Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Esq.
ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY LLP
One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
New York, NY 10119
Telephone: (212) 279-5050
Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
E-mail: jabraham@aftlaw.com
- and -
Laurence Jesse Hasson, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD, LLP
10 East 40th Street
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 779-1414
Facsimile: (212) 779-3218
E-mail: lhasson@bernlieb.com
- and -
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Peter G. Safirstein, Esq.
SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP
350 Fifth Avenue, 59th floor
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 201-2845
Facsimile: (212) 201-2858
E-mail: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com
- and -
Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Christopher Joseph Keller, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW & RUDOFF LLP
100 Park Avenue, 12th Flr.
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 907-0853
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
- and -
Francis P. McConville, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005-1108
Telephone: (212) 907-0650
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: fmcconville@labaton.com
MANKIN LAW GROUP: Brockman Sues Over Abusive Debt Collection Acts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAMBERLY T. BROCKMAN, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MANKIN LAW GROUP, P.A., Defendant, Case No.
8:20-cv-00893 (M.D. Fla., April 17, 2020) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for
the benefit of Florida consumers who have been the subject of debt
collection efforts by the Defendant.
The case centers on Defendant's failure to effectively provide the
disclosures required by the law in its initial written
communications to Florida consumers, or within five days
thereafter.
The Plaintiff is obligated, or allegedly obligated, to pay a debt
owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due, a creditor other than
Defendant, which arises from a transaction in which the money,
property, insurance, or services that are the subject of the
transaction were incurred primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes—namely, assessments due to a community
association.
According to the complaint, at the time Defendant attempted to
collect the Debt from Plaintiff, the Debt was in default, or
Defendant treated the Debt as if it were in default from the time
that Defendant acquired it for collection.
The Defendant uses instrumentalities of interstate commerce or the
mails in a business the principal purpose of which is the
collection of any debts, or to regularly collect or attempt to
collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due, or asserted to
be owed or due, another.
Mankin Law Group, P.A. is a law firm with principal offices in
Pinellas County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Davidson, Esq.
Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Telephone: (561) 826-5477
Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com
MARATHON PETROLEUM: Morrison et al Seek Non-Prorated Bonuses
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL J. MORRISON and DANA HARVEY, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARATHON PETROLEUM
COMPANY LP, ANDEAVOR LLC, and MAHI LLC, Defendants, Case No.
5:20-cv-00480 (W.D. Tex., April 17, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) for their alleged breach of
contract.
Plaintiffs were employees of Andeavor. Morrison served as the
Senior Vice President for Marketing for over 2 years, whereas
Harvey served as Director of Business Insurance for over 15 years.
According to the complaint, after an S-4 Registration Statement was
filed by Marathon with SEC on July 20, 2018 following its merger
with Andeavor, Marathon provided Plaintiffs with 2018 Incentive
Compensation Statements on Marathon letterhead which clearly stated
that Plaintiffs would receive non-prorated 2018 bonuses. Marathon
has agreed to pay full non-prorated 2018 Incentive Compensation
Program (ICP) bonuses to certain eligible employees to incentivize
them to work tirelessly through the merger's closing and toward the
combined company's long-term goals.
However, Plaintiffs were involuntarily terminated without cause,
Morrison on October 3, 2018 and Harvey on October 12, 2018.
The complaint asserts that Marathon breached its agreements with
Plaintiffs by refusing to pay them their full 2018 non-prorated ICP
bonuses despite Plaintiffs repeated demand to Marathon to fulfill
its promise.
Mahi LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Marathon.
Andeavor LLC operates as petroleum refining company.
Marathon Petroleum Company LP provides oil refining, marketing, and
pipeline transportation services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephanie A. Rzepka, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
405 Main Street, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77002
Tel: 281-657-0730
Fax: 281-657-0739
Email: stephanie.rzepka@tuckerellis.com
- and –
Scott J. Stitt, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
175 South Third St., Suite 520
Columbus, OH 43215
Tel: 614-358-9304
Fax: 614-358-9712
Email: scott.stitt@tuckerellis.com
- and –
Chelsea M. Croy Smith, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
950 Main Ave., Suite 1100
Cleveland, OH 44113
Tel: 216-696-5756
Fax: 216-592-5009
Email: Chelsea.croy@tuckerellis.com
MDL 2244: Vroman v. DJD Medical Case Moved to N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., PINNACLE HIP IMPLANT
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2244, Judge Ellen Segal
Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
entered an order transferring the action styled, VROMAN v. DJD
MEDICAL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-12314, from District of
Massachusetts to the Northern District of Texas and, with the
consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable James E.
Kinkeade for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
Plaintiff in the District of Massachusetts action (Vroman) moves
under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally
transferring her action to MDL No. 2244. DePuy defendants oppose
the motion.
After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Huvelle finds that
this action involves common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2244, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Transfer also is warranted for the reasons set out in
the Panel's order directing centralization. In that order, the
Panel held that the Northern District of Texas was an appropriate
Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions as to
alleged injuries from DePuy's Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System hip
implants. Plaintiff in Vroman claims that he suffered injuries
related to the implantation of a DePuy Pinnacle Acetabular Cup
System hip implant, which he alleges caused pain, high blood
chromium and cobalt levels, and ultimately required revision
surgery. Vroman thus falls within the MDL's ambit.
Plaintiff argues that transfer is inappropriate because federal
jurisdiction is lacking over his action. The Panel consistently
has held that the pendency of jurisdictional objections does not
warrant vacatur. Plaintiff can present his motion for remand to
the transferee judge.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/xRprcs
MDL 2591: Heartland Corn v. Syngenta Seeds Moved to Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: SYNGENTA AG MIR162 CORN LITIGATION, MDL No.
2591, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the
action styled, HEARTLAND CORN PRODUCTS v. SYNGENTA SEEDS, LLC, ET
AL., C.A. No. 0:19-3060, from the District of Minnesota to the
District of Kansas and, with the consent of that court, assigned it
to the Honorable John W. Lungstrum for inclusion in the coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Syngenta defendants move to transfer under Section 1407(c) the
District of Minnesota action (Heartland Corn) to the District of
Kansas for inclusion in MDL No. 2591. Plaintiff opposes transfer.
After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Huvelle finds this
action involves common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2591, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Transfer is warranted for the reasons set out in the
Panel's order directing centralization. In that order, the Panel
held that the District of Kansas was the appropriate transferee
forum for actions sharing allegations regarding Syngenta's decision
to commercialize the MIR162 genetically modified corn trait in the
absence of Chinese approval to import corn with that trait. This
action falls within the MDL's ambit because it involves alleged
injuries arising from Syngenta's commercialization of MIR162 corn.
In opposing transfer, plaintiff, an ethanol producer, argues that
the MDL is significantly advanced and that transfer would not serve
Section 1407's purposes. Plaintiff's arguments are not persuasive.
This MDL is undoubtedly nearing its conclusion after a class
settlement was finalized in December 2018. Nevertheless, the
factual overlap of Heartland with the MDL is extensive, which is
not surprising considering that plaintiff opted out of that
settlement. The Panel routinely transfers opt-out actions to the
MDL in which a class has been certified, and opting out of an MDL
settlement is not a valid reason to vacate transfer of otherwise
factually-related actions. Judge Huvelle sees no reason to deviate
from this practice here. Litigation of the three remaining cases
in the MDL remains ongoing – the claims of exporter Trans Coastal
are set for trial in October 2020, exporter Delong is set for a
February 2021 trial, and no schedule has issued yet in the third
action.
Because the MDL is substantially advanced, the transferee judge may
determine, based on his independent review of the record, that
there are few efficiencies to including Heartland in the remaining
MDL schedule. If he finds at any point that Heartland's continued
inclusion in the MDL does not further Section 1407's purposes,
Judge Huvelle encourages him to suggest a Section 1407 remand of
the action to the District of Minnesota, which can be accomplished
with a minimum of delay.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/t8Ddyd
MDL 2606: Handley v. Daiichi Sankyo Moved to District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: BENICAR (OLMESARTAN) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2606, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order
transferring the action styled, HANDLEY, ET AL. v. DAIICHI SANKYO,
INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:20-00067, from the Western District of
Oklahoma to the District of New Jersey, and, with the consent of
that court, assigned it to the Honorable Robert B. Kugler for
inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Defendants Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., and Daiichi Sankyo US Holdings,
Inc., move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407(c) to transfer the Western
District of Oklahoma action (Handley) to the District of New Jersey
for inclusion in MDL No. 2606. The Handley plaintiffs oppose the
motion.
After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Huvelle finds that
the Handley action involves common questions of fact with actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2606, and that transfer will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions in the
MDL "share factual issues arising from allegations that taking
Benicar, Benicar HCT, or Azor may cause serious gastrointestinal
injury." A review of the 90+ page "Class Action Petition" filed in
Handley leaves no doubt that the action shares multiple factual
issues with the previously-centralized actions.
In opposition to transfer, the Handley plaintiffs argue that the
MDL is essentially over. This argument is unavailing. Although
the litigation is undeniably nearing its end, more than a dozen
actions remain pending. Transfer will inure to the Handley
plaintiffs' benefit, as it will place their action before a judge
uniquely familiar with claims involving the subject drugs.
Transfer also should facilitate plaintiffs' access to the enormous
amount of discovery taken in the MDL, as well as avoid the
possibility of unnecessarily duplicative and burdensome discovery
and other pretrial proceedings taking place in the Western District
of Oklahoma court.
The Handley plaintiffs' suggestion that transfer somehow will
infringe on their due process rights also is not well taken.
Section 1407 transfer does not alter, much less diminish, the
character of a transferred action, or impinge on a plaintiff's
ability to fully and fairly litigate his or her claims.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/qlQymn
MDL 2627: Chaudhary v. Lumber Liquidator Moved to E.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: LUMBER LIQUIDATORS CHINESE-MANUFACTURED
FLOORING PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2627, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order
transferring the action styled, CHAUDHARY, ET AL. v. LUMBER
LIQUIDATOR, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-5812, from the Eastern
District of New York to the Eastern District of Virginia and, with
the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable Anthony J.
Trenga for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of New York action (Chaudhary)
move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally
transferring their action to MDL No. 2627. Defendant Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., opposes the motion.
After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Huvelle finds that
this action involves common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2627, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Moreover, transfer is warranted for the reasons
discussed in the Panel's order directing centralization. In that
order, the Panel held that the Eastern District of Virginia was an
appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual
questions concerning the sale and marketing of Chinese-manufactured
laminate flooring by defendant Lumber Liquidators. Plaintiffs
alleged that their laminate flooring emits illegal and unsafe
levels of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, despite being marketed
as compliant with regulations of the California Air Resources Board
and other applicable regulations. Plaintiffs in Chaudhary bring
claims concerning alleged injuries arising from the installation of
Lumber Liquidators Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring, which
plaintiffs allege emitted excessive levels of benzene and
formaldehyde. This action clearly falls within the MDL's ambit.
Plaintiffs oppose transfer, arguing that transfer will cause them
inconvenience and hardship, particularly because travel to the
transferee court will be costly. These arguments do not weigh
heavily against transfer. In deciding issues of Section 1407
transfer, the Panel looks to the overall convenience of the parties
and witnesses in the litigation as a whole. The transferee court
has presided over several personal injury cases and is deeply
familiar with this litigation, which is nearing conclusion.
Plaintiffs are unlikely to endure the personal inconvenience of
traveling to the transferee district, "since Section 1407 transfer
is for pretrial proceedings only, there is usually no need for the
parties and witnesses to travel to the transferee district for
depositions or otherwise."
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/3S3gmy
MDL 2734: Estelle v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Moved to N.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ABILIFY (ARIPIPRAZOLE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2734, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order
transferring the action styled, ESTELLE v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB
COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:20-00354, from the District of
Minnesota to the Northern District of Florida and, with the consent
of that court, assigned it to the Honorable M. Casey Rodgers for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiff in the Estelle action, who is proceeding pro se, moves
under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order that conditionally
transferred Estelle to the Northern District of Florida for
inclusion in MDL No. 2734. Defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
and Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc., oppose the motion.
In opposing transfer, plaintiff argues that federal subject matter
jurisdiction over Estelle is lacking and, therefore, transfer to
the MDL is not warranted. Such jurisdictional issues generally do
not present an impediment to transfer. Plaintiff can present his
remand arguments to the transferee judge.
Plaintiff also contends that his action shares insufficient common
questions of fact with the actions in MDL No. 2734 to warrant
transfer. This argument lacks merit. Plaintiff alleges that he
developed compulsive behaviors -- including compulsive gambling,
shopping, eating, and hypersexuality -- after being prescribed
Abilify and that these behaviors ceased when he stopped taking
Abilify. This is precisely the type of allegation at issue in MDL
No. 2734. Plaintiff's convenience and efficiency argument is based
on his flawed assertion that Estelle does not share common
questions of fact with the actions in MDL No. 2734. Therefore,
this argument likewise fails.
After considering the parties' arguments, Judge Huvelle finds that
Estelle involves common questions of fact with the actions
transferred to MDL No. 2734, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the
Judge held that the Northern District of Florida was an appropriate
Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising
from allegations that Abilify (aripiprazole), an atypical
anti-psychotic medication commonly prescribed to treat a variety of
mental disorders, can cause impulse control problems in users.
Like the actions in the MDL, Estelle will involve factual questions
relating to whether Abilify was defectively designed or
manufactured, whether defendants knew or should have known of the
alleged propensity of Abilify to cause compulsive gambling and
other impulsive behaviors in users, and whether defendants provided
adequate instructions and warnings with this product.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/NTZTG2
MDL 2738: Weaver, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Moved to New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2738, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the
action styled, WEAVER, ET AL. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A.
No. 1:20-00261 from the Northern District of Georgia to the
District of New Jersey and, with the consent of that court,
assigned it to the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiffs in the Weaver action move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate
the Panel's order that conditionally transferred Weaver to the
District of New Jersey for inclusion in MDL No. 2738. Defendants
Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., and PTI
Royston, LLC, oppose the motion.
In support of their motion to vacate, plaintiffs argue that federal
subject matter jurisdiction over Weaver is lacking, and that
plaintiffs' pending motion for remand to state court should be
decided before transfer. The Panel has held that such
jurisdictional issues generally do not present an impediment to
transfer. Judge Huvelle is not persuaded that plaintiffs'
jurisdictional objections should be treated differently because
remand purportedly is compelled under controlling case law. The
Panel regularly orders transfer of actions over similar objections,
consistent with the well-established principle that the Panel lacks
the authority under Section 1407 to decide questions going to the
jurisdiction or merits of a case. Likewise, plaintiffs' argument
that Johnson & Johnson has engaged in a pattern of frivolous
removals does not support vacating the conditional transfer order.
Not only does plaintiffs' argument require that the Panel judges
the merit of defendants' removals, but the court best placed to
recognize and address any pattern of frivolous removals is the
transferee court.
Finally, plaintiffs' argument that they will be prejudiced by
transfer is unconvincing. Transfer of an action is appropriate if
it furthers the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a
whole, even if some parties to the action might experience
inconvenience or delay. Plaintiffs can present their remand
arguments to the transferee judge.
Therefore, after considering the argument of counsel, Judge Huvelle
finds that the action involves common questions of fact with the
actions transferred to MDL No. 2738, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the
Judge held that the District of New Jersey was an appropriate
Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising
from allegations that plaintiffs or their decedents developed
ovarian cancer following perineal application of Johnson &
Johnson's talcum powder products (namely, Johnson's Baby Powder and
Shower to Shower body powder). Weaver shares multiple questions of
fact with the actions already in the MDL.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/JRWfSY
MDL 2804: 20 National Prescription Opiate Suits Moved to N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2804, Judge R. David Proctor of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring 20
actions to the Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent of
that court, assigned them to the Honorable Dan A. Polster for
inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiffs in 20 actions move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the
orders conditionally transferring their respective actions to MDL
No. 2804. Various defendants1 oppose the motions.
After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Proctor finds
these actions involve common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2804, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Moreover, transfer is warranted for the reasons set
forth in the Panel's order directing centralization. In that
order, the Panel held that the Northern District of Ohio was an
appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual
questions regarding the allegedly improper marketing and
distribution of various prescription opiate medications into
states, cities, and towns across the country.
Despite some variances among the actions before the Panel, all
share a factual core with the MDL actions: the manufacturer and
distributor defendants' alleged knowledge of and conduct regarding
the diversion of these prescription opiates, as well as the
manufacturers' allegedly improper marketing of the drugs. These
actions therefore fall within the MDL's ambit.
Plaintiffs oppose transfer and principally argue that federal
jurisdiction is lacking over their cases. But opposition to
transfer based on a jurisdictional challenge is insufficient to
warrant vacating conditional transfer of factually related cases.
Several plaintiffs also argue that including their actions in this
large MDL will cause them inconvenience and delay the progress of
their actions. Given the undisputed factual overlap with the MDL
proceedings, transfer is justified in order to facilitate the
efficient conduct of the litigation as a whole.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/rsbAhr
MDL 2833: Court Denies Motion to Transfer 2 Suits vs. Devos, et al.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FEDLOAN STUDENTLOAN SERVICING LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2833, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has denied the co-lead counsel for
plaintiffs and executive committee members' motion to transfer two
actions styled, WEINGARTEN, ET AL. v. DEVOS, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19
02056 (District of District of Columbia) and CHRISTENSEN, ET AL. v.
DEVOS, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19 00509 (District of Utah), to MDL No.
2833.
Co-lead counsel for plaintiffs and executive committee members in
MDL No. 2833 move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407(c) to transfer the
actions listed on Schedule A (District of District of Columbia
Weingarten and District of Utah Christensen) to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania for inclusion in MDL No. 2833. All
parties in Weingarten filed a joint opposition to transfer of that
action. Defendants in Christensen filed a joint opposition to
transfer of that action. Defendant the Utah Higher Education
Assistance Agency alternatively requests that the Panel separate
and remand the claims in Christensen against it. Nelnet Servicing,
LLC, which was a defendant in Christensen, but was dismissed
voluntarily on February 14, 2020, responds that because it was
dismissed, it should not be subject to transfer to the MDL. The
Christensen plaintiffs did not respond to the motion to transfer.
When the Panel granted centralization in MDL No. 2833, the subject
cases involved allegations that common defendant Pennsylvania
Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) harmed participants in
Alternative Loan Repayment Programs by extending the duration of
borrowers' student loans through various means and/or converting
grants to interest bearing loans. The Panel included in the MDL
one action (Ford) that, after the claims against PHEAA had been
dismissed, named only Secretary DeVos and the Department of
Education as defendants, because the claims against them "rel[ied]
upon PHEAA's alleged misconduct and, therefore, it appear[ed] that
Ford w[ould] involve overlapping discovery with the remaining
actions." Plaintiffs in Ford alleged that the government
defendants breached the terms of Teacher Education Assistance for
College and Higher Education (TEACH) grant agreements by imposing
hyper-technical reporting criteria for reporting plaintiffs'
compliance with the terms of the grants, and by converting the
grants to loans when plaintiffs were unable to comply.
After centralization, the MDL plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint that significantly expands the allegations and
claims against the government defendants. In that amended
pleading, plaintiffs allege that PHEAA fails to properly service
Title IV loan programs, including the TEACH grant program; Income
Driven Repayment (IDR) programs, which set borrowers' monthly
student loan payments based on income and family size; and the
Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, which provides
enrolled borrowers who work in public service jobs with loan
forgiveness after 120 qualified payments. Plaintiffs allege the
government defendants: (1) penalize borrowers for technical
mistakes on forms not approved by OMB; (2) fail to submit the
required report on the TEACH grant program to the authorizing
committees; (3) fail to adequately remedy TEACH grants improperly
converted to loans; (4) fail to implement a common policies and
procedures manual for the Direct Loan program; (5) arbitrarily
withdrew the only existing policy memorandum providing guidance to
Direct Loan servicers; (6) fail to use the enforcement tools
available to hold PHEAA accountable for its failures to borrowers;
(7) fail to maintain records transferred from prior loan servicers;
(8) fail to comply with the Congressional mandate when
administering the Temporary Expanded Public Service Loan
Forgiveness (TEPSLF) program; and (9) fail to adhere to federal
internal control standards.
In Weingarten, an association and several individual plaintiffs
allege that the Department of Education fails to evaluate PSLF
applications in accordance with statutory and constitutional
requirements. Specifically, they allege that the Department of
Education fails to engage in reasoned decision-making when
considering PSLF applications or provide an adequate explanation
for its decisions, and it fails to implement a process that
provides borrowers with notice and a meaningful opportunity to be
heard on issues affecting their eligibility for PSLF.
In Christensen, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a putative
nationwide class, in addition to advancing similar claims as to the
Department of Education, also bring claims against PHEAA and two
additional loan servicer groups.3 Plaintiffs claim these loan
servicers gave plaintiffs misleading information or omitted
material information about the PSLF program, causing plaintiffs and
putative class members to believe they were making qualifying PSLF
payments, when in fact they were not.
After considering the parties' arguments, Judge Huvelle is not
persuaded that Section 1407 transfer of these actions to MDL No.
2833 would benefit either the actions or the MDL. The MDL actions
involve allegations regarding the PSLF program, IDR plans, and the
TEACH grant program. Plaintiffs' allegations in Weingarten and
Christensen, by contrast, involve only the PSLF program. At the
same time, Christensen also brings claims against two loan servicer
groups that are not defendants in the MDL. And PHEAA, the common
defendant in the initially centralized actions, is not the focus of
either Weingarten or Christensen. In fact, Weingarten does not
name PHEAA as a defendant.
The Panel created this MDL to adjudicate claims concerning alleged
misconduct by PHEAA regarding its servicing of TEACH grants, IDR
plans, and the PSLF program. There will be some factual overlap
between the MDL actions, and each of Weingarten and Christensen.
But the Panel is not persuaded that inclusion of these two actions
that target different defendants and involve only one loan program
would promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
The Christensen complaint names PHEAA as one of several loan
servicer defendants that allegedly engaged in misconduct, and a
considerable focus of the complaint is the Department of
Education's alleged failures. Transfer of Christensen thus could
lead to an expansion of MDL No. 2833 to include numerous additional
cases asserting similar claims against other loan servicers.
Including these new parties and allegations would greatly expand
the scope of pretrial proceedings in the MDL. The Panel does not
wish to unnecessarily complicate the transferee judge's ability to
efficiently manage this litigation, which was centralized almost
two years ago. Notably, the parties who would be most affected by
the burden of any overlap in discovery among these two actions and
the MDL are defendants, and they oppose transfer.
As the allegations common to Christensen, as well as Weingarten,
and the MDL are limited, Judge Huvelle finds alternatives are
available to the parties and the courts to informally coordinate
pretrial proceedings in order to avoid duplicative proceedings.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/yq0GXt
MDL 2873: Court Denies DuPont's Bid to Transfer 8 Suits vs. 3M Co.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2873, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the DuPont
Defendants' motion to transfer eight actions to MDL No. 2873.
Defendants E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company and The Chemours
Company, LLC (collectively, DuPont) move under 28 U.S.C. Section
1407(c) to transfer the eight Eastern District of New York actions
to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873.
Plaintiffs in those actions oppose the motion.
MDL No. 2873 involves allegations that aqueous film-forming foams
(AFFFs) used at airports, military bases, or other locations to
extinguish liquid fuel fires caused the release of perfluorooctane
sulfonate (PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) into local
groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies. The
complaints in the eight New York actions on the motion to transfer
contain no mention of AFFFs. Instead, plaintiffs -- all of which
are water authorities -- assert claims against DuPont, 3M Company,
and Dyneon LLC1 for the alleged contamination of plaintiffs'
drinking water supplies with PFOS and/or PFOA.
In support of its motion to transfer, DuPont argues that,
regardless of how plaintiffs' claims are constructed, the New York
actions are AFFF actions. Specifically, DuPont argues that
plaintiffs' claims arise out of the alleged discharge of PFOA
and/or PFOS into the recharge area2for Long Island's aquifer
system. This aquifer system is already the subject of an action in
the MDL, which alleges that AFFF use contributed to the
contamination of the aquifer. DuPont contends that plaintiffs'
claims are nearly identical with those in Suffolk County, except
that plaintiffs in the New York actions omit any mention of AFFFs.
DuPont also points to various news and other reports of aviation
and commercial accidents on Long Island in which AFFFs may have
been used to extinguish fires.
DuPont's arguments are not persuasive. The New York actions do not
raise AFFF claims. Indeed, they contain no mention of AFFFs.
Instead, these complaints focus on DuPont's and 3M's manufacture,
marketing, and sale of PFOA and PFOS. Some of this PFOA or PFOS
may have been incorporated into AFFF products that contributed to
the contamination of plaintiffs' groundwater supplies, but at this
point the extent of AFFF involvement in these actions is
speculative.
Additionally, the Panel's past practice in this docket weighs
against transferring these New York actions to MDL No. 2873. The
Panel has transferred several actions in which plaintiffs allege
multiple sources of PFOS and PFOA contamination, including from the
use of AFFFs. The Panel has not, though, transferred to the MDL
actions that do not contain any allegations or claims relating to
AFFF use. Indeed, the Panel recently denied transfer of an action,
Middlesex Water Company, in which the claims were "directed at 3M
and its manufacture, marketing, and sales of PFOS and PFOA, not its
manufacture of AFFF products." In that order, the Panel expressed
its concern that broadening the scope of MDL No. 2873 beyond AFFFs
could render the litigation unwieldy:
"[W]e have no desire to unnecessarily complicate the transferee
judge's task inefficiently managing this litigation, which already
involves a wide range of claims and parties. Given our continued
concern about the manageability of this litigation, a party seeking
transfer of an action that does not on its face raise AFFF claims
bears a significant burden to persuade us that transfer is
appropriate and will not undermine the efficient progress of the
AFFF MDL."
Like Middlesex Water Company, the New York complaints do not on
their face raise AFFF claims, and defendants have not carried their
"significant burden" to persuade Judge Huvelle that transfer of
these non-AFFF actions is appropriate. Defendants' prediction that
discovery in these actions relating to AFFFs will substantially
overlap with discovery conducted in the MDL is conjecture. DuPont
has not yet responded to plaintiffs' complaints. To the extent
there is any potential for duplicative discovery, such overlap is
best minimized through coordination between the parties and the
involved courts. And, should these New York actions evolve into
AFFF cases, the parties or the court at that time can re-notice
them as potential tag-alongs in MDL No. 2873.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/8OUKee
MDL 2873: Court Vacates Conditional Transfer Order on Kovach v USA
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2873, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has vacated the Panel's
conditional transfer order designated as "CTO-23" as it relates to
the action styled, KOVACH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., C.A.
No. 7:19-07065 (Southern District of New York).
Plaintiff in the Southern District of New York Kovach action moves
under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order that conditionally
transferred Kovach to the District of South Carolina for inclusion
in MDL No. 2873. The United States defendants take no position on
the motion. The other defendants named in Kovach did not respond
to the motion and therefore are deemed to have acquiesced to the
motion.
After considering the parties' arguments, Judge Huvelle finds that
Kovach shares questions of fact with the actions previously
transferred to MDL No. 2873, but that transfer under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407 will not serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses or promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. MDL No. 2873 involves allegations that aqueous
film-forming foams (AFFFs) used at airports, military bases, or
other locations to extinguish liquid fuel fires caused the release
of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA) into local groundwater and contaminated drinking water
supplies. Plaintiff in Kovach asserts environmental claims
stemming from an alleged incident of intentional dumping of AFFFs
at Stewart Air National Guard Base in August 1990. Kovach thus
will share certain factual questions with the other actions
centralized in MDL No. 2873.
Even so, the differences between Kovach and the actions in the MDL
are significant. Plaintiff's allegations pertain to a decades-old
intentional dumping incident that does not appear to have been
raised in the MDL. His claims regarding this incident are unique,
as plaintiff alleges that he witnessed the dumping and suffered
retaliation because he reported it to a state environmental
regulator. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, also seeks unique
relief, including retroactive military promotion and retirement
benefits. Kovach, therefore, is likely to present idiosyncratic
case management issues that can be handled more efficiently outside
the MDL. Significantly, no party asks that Kovach be litigated as
part of MDL No. 2873. Transfer of Kovach to MDL No. 2873 thus is
not warranted.
Should the need arise, Judge Huvelle encourages the parties to
employ available alternatives to transfer to minimize the potential
for duplicative discovery and inconsistent pretrial rulings. And,
if Kovach evolves into a more typical AFFF action in which the
common discovery and motion practice would be more efficiently and
conveniently litigated within MDL No. 2873, the parties may again
notice Kovach as a potential tag-along action.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/lkrJEN
MDL 2875: Bokhari v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Moved to New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VALSARTAN, LOSARTAN, AND IRBESARTAN PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2875, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an
order transferring BOKHARI v. TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, ET
AL., C.A. No. 4:19-08045 from the Northern District of California
to the District of New Jersey and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Robert B. Kugler for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiff in the Northern District of California action (Bokhari)
moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the order conditionally
transferring Bokhari to MDL No. 2875. Defendants Torrent
Pharmaceuticals Limited, Torrent Pharma, Inc., Hetero Labs Ltd.,
Hetero USA, Inc., Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Camber), and CVS
Pharmacy Inc. oppose the motion and support transfer.
After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Huvelle finds that
this action involves common questions of fact with the actions
transferred to MDL No. 2875, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Like many of the already-centralized actions,
plaintiff alleges that she purchased generic losartan that
contained carcinogenic nitrosamines and that she suffered injury
and damages as a result.
In opposing transfer, plaintiff principally argues that Bokhari is
unique because it involves losartan rather than valsartan. But the
Panel recently expanded the scope of MDL No. 2875 to include
losartan actions, explaining that "valsartan, losartan, and
irbesartan actions will present common factual questions as to the
cause of the nitrosamine impurities and, in particular, alleged
common defects in the manufacturing process; when defendants knew
or should have known of the impurities; and whether the amounts of
nitrosamines in the medications presented a risk of cancer or other
injuries." Plaintiff argues that this decision was in error
because losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan are distinct drugs with
different factual backgrounds, and including them all in a single
MDL is inefficient. The Panel previously considered these
arguments and rejected them. It also stated the parties can "raise
their concerns about efficiency with the transferee court and
propose measures to address these issues."
Plaintiff's other objections to transfer are unconvincing. She
argues that her California law claims and legal theories do not
overlap with the actions in the MDL. The Panel often has held that
the involvement of allegedly unique state laws is no impediment to
transfer, explaining that "the presence of . . . differing legal
theories is not significant where, as here, the actions still arise
from a common factual core." Plaintiff additionally argues that
her individual personal injury action is not aligned with the class
actions in the MDL. But MDL No. 2875 includes numerous personal
injury actions as well as class actions. The Panel routinely
includes individual and class actions in a single MDL. Plaintiff
then asserts that she will not be represented adequately in the
MDL, as plaintiffs' lead counsel and court-appointed attorney
committees control discovery. The Panel finds plaintiff's concerns
about inadequate representation speculative. Moreover, the Panel
previously has transferred actions over a plaintiff's objections to
court-appointed lead counsel, noting that arguments as to any
alleged deficiencies in the MDL leadership are properly directed to
the transferee court. Lastly, she argues that transfer will be
inconvenient and unjust, due to the travel burden, increased costs,
anticipated delays in discovery, and personal difficulties. The
Panel is sympathetic to plaintiff's concerns, but they do not
justify denial of transfer. The Panel looks to "the overall
convenience of the parties and witnesses, not just those of the
parties to a single action."
A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/Det1fA
MDL 2875: Court Vacates Conditional Transfer Order for "Garrison"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VALSARTAN, LOSARTAN, AND IRBESARTAN PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2875, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has vacated the
Panel's conditional transfer order designated "CTO-16" as it
relates to the action styled, GARRISON v. CAMBER PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:19-12536.
Defendant Legacy Pharmaceutical Packaging, LLC, moves to stay the
order conditionally transferring the Garrison action to MDL No.
2875 until the transferor court rules on its pending motion to
dismiss. Defendants Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Camber) and
Walmart, Inc., oppose the motion and support transfer. Plaintiff
Garrison, who is proceeding pro se, did not respond to the motion.
After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Huvelle concludes
that inclusion of Garrison in MDL No. 2875 at this time would not
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or promote the
just and efficient conduct of the litigation at this time. Without
doubt, this action shares factual questions with the actions in the
MDL. Like many of the already-centralized actions, plaintiff
alleges that he purchased generic losartan that contained
carcinogenic nitrosamines and that he suffered injury and damages
as a result. But after the Panel briefing closed, the magistrate
judge in Garrison recommended that the complaint be dismissed with
prejudice for failure to prosecute. Further proceedings on this
recommendation can take place more efficiently in the Eastern
District of Michigan, which has invested substantial time in
reaching the recommended disposition and has a schedule in place
for completing those proceedings. If any claims remain pending
after those proceedings are done, the parties or the court can
re-notice Garrison as a potential tag-along action.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/JVnvzC
MDL 2885: Conditional Transfer Order for Graves v. 3M Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUGPRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2885, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has vacated the Panel's
conditional transfer order designated as "CTO-46" with respect to
the action styled, GRAVES v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No.
0:19-03094 (District of Minnesota).
Plaintiff in the Graves action moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate
the Panel's order that conditionally transferred the action to the
Northern District of Florida for inclusion in MDL No. 2885.
Defendants 3M Company and Aearo Technologies, LLC, oppose the
motion to vacate.
After considering the argument of counsel, we will grant the motion
to vacate. The actions in MDL No. 2885 arise out of allegations
that defendants' Combat Arms earplugs were defective, causing
plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Like many
plaintiffs in MDL No. 2885, the Graves plaintiff alleges that he
purchased Combat Arms earplugs and, because defendants failed to
warn him of the proper insertion technique, he now suffers from
hearing loss and tinnitus. Graves, therefore, shares factual
questions with the MDL No. 2885 cases. But the District of
Minnesota granted plaintiff's motion to remand to state court on
March 23, 2020, and defendants have appealed the ruling to the
Eighth Circuit. Transferring Graves to the MDL at this time would
undermine efficiency by complicating its procedural posture. If
Graves remains in federal court, the parties should renotify the
Panel of the action’s status as a potential tag-along action.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/nPzp3M
MDL 2913: Eisenhauer, Lewis Actions Moved to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2913, Judge Ellen Segal
Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
entered an order transferring two actions to the Northern District
of California, and, with the consent of that court, assigned them
to the Honorable William H. Orrick III for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The two actions are styled, LEWIS v. JUUL LABS, INC., C.A. No.
1:19-07787 (Northern District of Illinois) and EISENHAUER v. JUUL
LABS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20-00343 (Eastern District of
Pennsylvania).
Plaintiffs in two actions (Eisenhauer and Lewis) separately move
under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's orders conditionally
transferring their respective actions to the Northern District of
California for inclusion in MDL No. 2913. Defendant JUUL Labs,
Inc. (JLI) opposes the motions to vacate.
After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Huvelle finds that
the Eisenhauer and Lewis actions involve common questions of fact
with actions transferred to MDL No. 2913, and that transfer will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions in the
MDL share factual questions arising from allegations that "JLI has
marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed
to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or omits that
JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that
JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their
attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine
addiction." The Eisenhauer and Lewis actions implicate many of
those same questions.
In opposing transfer, the Eisenhauer plaintiff cites the pendency
of his motion for remand to state court, and argues that federal
subject matter jurisdiction over his action is lacking. The Panel
consistently has held, however, that jurisdictional objections are
not an impediment to transfer.
The Lewis plaintiffs' arguments against transfer of their action
also are unpersuasive. Essentially, the Lewis plaintiffs argue
that their action should not be transferred because it is a
second-hand smoke case – i.e., it is brought on behalf of a
putative Illinois class of non-users of JUUL products who allegedly
have been injured by the discharge from those products. But a
review of the Lewis complaint demonstrates that the action shares
multiple factual issues concerning the development, manufacture,
labeling, and marketing of JUUL products, the alleged risks posed
by use of those products, and JLI's knowledge of those risks.
Section 1407 transfer does "not require a complete identity of
parties." Moreover, the MDL already includes actions brought by
municipalities and school districts alleging indirect harm caused
by the use of JUUL products.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/b2QzXT
MDL 2913: Lindstrom Suit Moved to Northern District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2913, Judge Ellen Segal
Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
entered an order transferring the action styled, LINDSTROM v. JUUL
LABS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-00057, from the Western District
of Texas to the Northern District of California, and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable William H. Orrick
III for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
Defendant Axiocore Corporation moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate
the Panel's order conditionally transferring the Lindstrom action
to the Northern District of California for inclusion in MDL No.
2913. In the alternative, Axiocore asks that the Panel separate and
remand the claims against it to the transferor court. Separately,
defendant Evolv, LLC, moves to vacate, in part, the order as to
Lindstrom, and for separation and remand of the claims against
defendants other than JUUL Labs, Inc. (JLI), Pax Labs, Inc., and
Altria Group, Inc. JLI opposes the motions, and Pax Labs and Altria
Group join in JLI's response.
After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Huvelle finds that
the Lindstrom action involves common questions of fact with actions
transferred to MDL No. 2913, and that transfer will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions in the MDL share
factual questions arising from allegations that "JLI has marketed
its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed to attract
minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or omits that JUUL
products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that JUUL
products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their
attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine
addiction." The Lindstrom action implicates those same questions.
Axiocore's and Evolv's arguments against transfer (and for
separation and remand of the claims against them) largely were
addressed in the recent Panel order transferring the Northern
District of Alabama May action to the MDL, over the objections of
defendant Schwartz E-Liquid LLC. Similar to Axiocore and Evolv
here, Schwartz was one of several non-JLI vaping entities sued in
May. In ordering transfer of May, the Panel stated: "The presence
of additional defendants does not bar transfer, because 'transfer
under Section 1407 does not require a complete identity of
parties.'" The Panel noted that other e-cigarette companies already
were defendants in the MDL, and that, in any event, the "seemingly
indivisible nature" of the May plaintiff's claims rendered a
partial transfer "impracticable." The Panel stated that the
transferee judge had "the discretion to employ separate tracks or
other appropriate pretrial techniques to address any issues
specific to the non-JLI defendants, including confidentiality
concerns such as those raised by Schwartz." Id.
Axiocore's and Evolv's attempts to distinguish the Panel's decision
in May fall short. For its part, Axiocore argues that the Lindstrom
plaintiff has not alleged actual use of a JUUL product, that
Axiocore's products are not used in JUUL products, that Axiocore
has no relationship with JLI, and that one of plaintiff's alleged
injuries – lipoid pneumonia – is a condition associated with
use of illicit THC products. The first argument goes to the merits
of plaintiff's claims, and the others fail to recognize that, as in
May, the Lindstrom plaintiff alleges seemingly indivisible injuries
(including addiction, bronchitis, and possible permanent lung
damage) as a result of using defendants' products. Similarly,
Evolv's contention that plaintiff's claims against Evolv and
Axiocore are easily separated from her JUUL-related claims, because
they fall into two distinct timeframes, rests on an untenable
reading of the Lindstrom complaint. Contrary to Evolv's assertion,
the complaint is not readily divisible into two time periods.
Evolv's argument that it would be inconvenienced by transfer also
fails, because the Panel considers the convenience of the parties
and witnesses as a whole in deciding the issue of transfer.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/qpFZuI
MDL 2929: Court Denies Bid to Transfer 5 Suits vs Quincy Bioscience
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: PREVAGEN PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES
LITIGATION (NO. II), MDL No. 2929, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the
Quincy Defendants' motion to centralize pretrial proceedings of
five actions into the Southern District of New York.
Defendants Quincy Bioscience Holding Company, Inc., Quincy
Bioscience, LLC, Prevagen, Inc., Quincy Bioscience Manufacturing,
LLC, Mark Underwood, and Michael Beaman (collectively Quincy
Defendants) move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize
pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Southern District of
New York. The litigation consists of three actions in the Southern
District of New York, one action in the Southern District of
Florida, and one action in the Western District of Texas.
Responding plaintiffs' positions on centralization vary.
Plaintiffs in the Southern District of New York Karathanos and
Vanderwerff actions support centralization in the Southern District
of New York, but only if the MDL also includes a related action in
that district brought by the Federal Trade Commission and the
Attorney General for the State of New York (FTC/NYAG). Plaintiff
in the Southern District of New York Spath action also supports
centralization in the Southern District of New York, and prefers
including the FTC/NYAG action in the MDL, but does not condition
her support on its inclusion. Plaintiffs in the Southern District
of Florida Collins and Western District of Texas Engert actions
oppose centralization. The Collins plaintiffs further argue that
if centralization is ordered over their objections, the Panel
should exclude Collins from the MDL, based on the action's advanced
procedural posture.
This litigation, which involves allegations that defendants falsely
and deceptively marketed Prevagen, a dietary supplement, as
improving memory and providing other cognitive benefits, is before
the Panel for a second time. At the Panel's May 2017 hearing
session, the judge denied these same defendants' motion for
centralization of four actions pending in four districts. At that
time, the subject actions included the FTC/NYAG action, the
Karathanos and Vanderwerff actions (which were then pending in the
Eastern District of New York and the District of New Jersey,
respectively), and an action in the Northern District of California
(Racies). In the Panel's order denying centralization, the judge
cited the following grounds for the denial: (1) there were only
four actions and no tag-alongs, and the Karathanos and Vanderwerff
plaintiffs shared counsel; (2) the Racies action was in an advanced
procedural posture – it had been pending for over two years and
"significant discovery" had taken place; and (3) the common factual
issues did not seem unusually complex, given that the Prevagen
website listed only a single clinical trial of the supplement's
efficacy (the Madison Memory Study), and the report describing that
study and its results was only ten pages long.
After considering the parties' arguments, Judge Huvelle concludes
that centralization is not necessary for the convenience of the
parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct
of this litigation. As the Panel previously has stated, it will
grant a follow-up motion for centralization "only rarely," and upon
a showing of "a significant change in circumstances." The Judge
finds no such change here. There are only five actions in three
districts, and no potential tag-along actions. The Karathanos and
Vanderwerff plaintiffs continue to share counsel (and appear to be
coordinating with the Spath plaintiff's counsel). With the
exception of Western District of Texas Engert, most actions are in
a fairly advanced procedural posture. For example, fact discovery
in Southern District of Florida Collins is set to close on April
10, 2020, and the fact discovery cut-off in FTC/NYAG(which the
Quincy Defendants also state they wish to follow with respect to at
least Karathanos, Vanderwerff, and Spath) recently was extended
from April 30, 2020, to July 31, 2020. And the common factual
issues do not appear to have grown significantly -- in either
number or complexity– since the denial of centralization in
Prevagen I (for example, the Madison Memory Study remains the only
clinical study of Prevagen's effectiveness). Given these
circumstances, the Panel continues to believe that alternatives to
centralization are practicable, and that formal centralization
under Section 1407 is not necessary.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/VFAaTf
MDL 2930: Novartis Pharmaceuticals' Patent Suits Moved to Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ENTRESTO (SACUBITRIL/VALSARTAN) PATENT
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2930, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order
transferring four lawsuits of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
pending in two districts to the District of Delaware and, with the
consent of that court assigned them to the Honorable Leonard P.
Stark for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiff and patentholder Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
(Novartis) moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize
pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the District of
Delaware. This litigation consists of four actions pending in two
districts. The Panel has been notified of one related action in
the District of Delaware. All responding defendants support, or do
not oppose, the motion for centralization.
Novartis filed these actions after the various generic drug
manufacturer defendants submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications
(ANDAs) seeking approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) to make and sell generic versions of Entresto
(sacubitril/valsartan), a prescription drug used in the treatment
of heart failure. The actions on the motion are a series
ofHatch-Waxman3 patent infringement lawsuits, in which Novartis
alleges that each of the defendants has infringed two or more of
the patents covering Entresto by filing ANDAs seeking FDA approval
to market generic versions of Entresto in the United States prior
to expiration of the patents.
On the basis of the papers filed, Judge Huvelle finds that these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the District of Delaware will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation. These actions involve substantially similar
claims that defendants infringed two or more of the Entresto
patents. Centralization is warranted to eliminate duplicative
discovery, prevent inconsistent rulings (particularly with respect
to claim construction and issues of patent validity), and conserve
the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
The Panel recently centralized similar litigations, citing "the
complexity of the allegations and regulatory framework governing
Hatch-Waxman cases, as well as the need for swift progress in
litigation involving the potential entry of generic drugs into the
market." The Panel is persuaded that centralization of these cases
similarly will lead to their efficient resolution.
Judge Huvelle selects the District of Delaware as the transferee
district for these actions. All but one of the five related
actions are pending in this district. The Judge is confident that
the Honorable Leonard P. Stark, who is well-versed in complex
patent litigation, will steer this matter on a prudent course.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/JBnvTp
MDL 2931: 14 Delta Dental Antitrust Suits Moved to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: DELTA DENTAL ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No.
2931, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring 14
actions pending in three districts to the Northern District of
Illinois and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the
Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
Plaintiffs in 11 actions pending in the Northern District of
Illinois move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial
proceedings in the actions in the Northern District of Illinois.
This litigation consists of fourteen actions pending in three
districts. Plaintiffs in all of the actions allege that Delta
Dental insurance plans aggregated unlawful monopsony power in the
market for dental insurance in the United States through their
artificial territorial division of the market among the Delta
Dental insurers. In addition to the actions on the motion, the
parties have notified the Panel of ten related actions pending in
eight districts.
All responding parties either support or do not oppose
centralization. The parties, however, disagree as to the
transferee district. In addition to movants, plaintiff in one
potential tag-along action and the Delta Dental defendants support
centralization in the Northern District of Illinois.
Plaintiffs in the two non-Illinois actions on the motion, as well
as plaintiffs in five potential tag-along actions, suggest
centralization in the District of Minnesota. All but one of these
plaintiffs alternatively suggest the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Plaintiff in another potential tag-along action proposes
centralization in the Northern District of California. Plaintiff
American Dental Association takes no position on the transferee
district.
After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Huvelle finds
that the actions involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual
questions arising from allegations that the Delta Dental defendants
have divided and allocated among themselves dental insurance
markets throughout the nation to eliminate competition. Plaintiffs
allege that defendants abused their monopsony power to:(1) restrict
competition between the Delta Dental insurers when operating under
the "Delta Dental" brand; (2) reduce the amounts of reimbursement
paid by the Delta Dental insurers to dentists and dental practices
who provide services to patients under Delta Dental insurance
plans; and/or (3) restrict competition between the Delta Dental
insurers when operating under non-Delta Dental brands. Plaintiffs
uniformly contend that the alleged conduct violates Section 1 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act, as well as various related state laws.
The actions also are brought on behalf of overlapping putative
nationwide and state classes. Centralization thus will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings
(including with respect to class certification); and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
The Northern District of Illinois is an appropriate transferee
district for this litigation. Half of the related actions
(including the potential tag-along actions) are pending in this
district. Several important defendants are located in or near the
Northern District of Illinois, including Delta Dental Plans
Association -- the association through which defendants allegedly
allocated the dental insurance markets among the Delta Dental
member insurers. Thus, relevant evidence and witnesses likely will
be located in the district. Furthermore, both plaintiffs and
defendants support centralization in the Northern District of
Illinois, which is a geographically central and accessible forum
for this nationwide litigation. And, centralization before the
Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo allows the Panel to assign this
litigation to an able jurist with significant MDL experience.
Judge Huvelle is confident that Judge Bucklo will steer this
litigation on an efficient and prudent course.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/7ZHqf6
MDL 2932: Court Denies Bid to Move 8 Wells Fargo Mortgage Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: WELLS FARGO MORTGAGE MODIFICATION LITIGATION,
MDL No. 2932, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the Plaintiffs' motion to
centralize pretrial proceedings of eight actions pending in seven
districts into the Northern District of California or,
alternatively, the Eastern District of Washington.
Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Washington action move under
28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this
litigation in the Northern District of California or,
alternatively, the Eastern District of Washington. The motion
encompasses eight actions pending in seven districts.
Plaintiff in the Western District of Pennsylvania action joins the
motion. Plaintiffs in two actions pending in the Eastern District
of Kentucky and the Southern District of Ohio suggest
centralization in the Southern District of Ohio and, in their
reply, movants state they do not oppose centralization in that
district. Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California
Hernandez action oppose centralization or, alternatively, suggest
exclusion of Hernandez from pretrial proceedings. Defendant Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. opposes centralization or, alternatively, suggests
centralization in the Southern District of Iowa.
After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Huvelle will deny
the motion. These actions involve common questions of fact
concerning an alleged error in mortgage modification software that
Wells Fargo used to determine borrower eligibility for loan
modifications. The question of centralization presents a close
call, but on balance, the Judge is not persuaded that Section 1407
centralization is necessary for the convenience of the parties and
witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation at this time.
This litigation involves ten actions pending in nine districts, and
five assert at least somewhat overlapping classes of borrowers.
The Northern District of California Hernandez action is far more
advanced than any other, with discovery largely complete, a
nationwide class certified, a motion for partial summary judgment
pending, and until recently, a trial on the horizon. After the
Panel's hearing session, on March 27, 2020, the Hernandez parties
informed the Northern District of California that they had reached
a proposed settlement for the certified class, and they intend to
move for preliminary approval in less than a week. Centralization
at this time could delay a class settlement in the most advanced
action in this litigation and result in little or no benefit to the
class members and other parties. Four of the other actions before
the Panel are brought on behalf of putative classes of borrowers
affected by the alleged software error. While the class certified
in Hernandez does not completely overlap with these other putative
classes, the proposed class settlement may resolve at least some
claims in this litigation if plaintiffs choose to participate in
the settlement. The Panel, therefore, cannot speculate what claims
would remain after completion of a class settlement.
Furthermore, there are alternatives to centralization available to
minimize any overlap in pretrial proceedings, including informal
cooperation and coordination of all actions, or other cooperative
arrangements, such as a stay of the other cases while the
settlement in Hernandez proceeds. Wells Fargo and plaintiffs in
six actions each are represented by common counsel, suggesting that
informal coordination is feasible. Notably, discovery from the
Hernandez action can be made available to plaintiffs in the other
actions.
If alternatives to Section 1407 centralization prove to be
unsuccessful, it may be that a more persuasive case for
centralization could be made. But on the facts now before the
Panel, the Judge is not persuaded that the possible benefits of
centralization outweigh its potential to interfere with the
resolution of some claims in this litigation.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/EfNB8I
MDL 2933: 6 FCRA Suits Transferred to Northern District of Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: TRANSUNION RENTAL SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC.,
FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT (FCRA) LITIGATION, MDL No. 2933, Judge
Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has entered an order transferring six actions to the
Northern District of Georgia and, with the consent of that court,
assigned them to the Honorable J.P. Boulee for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pending there.
Defendants TransUnion LLC and TransUnion Rental Screening
Solutions, Inc. (TURSS) move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to
centralize this litigation, in the Northern District of Georgia.
This litigation consists of six actions pending in four districts,
as listed on Schedule A. Plaintiffs in all actions oppose
centralization. If centralization is ordered, they argue for the
Eastern District of Virginia or the Central District of California
as the transferee district.
After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Huvelle finds that
the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact,
and that centralization in the Northern District of Georgia will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions involve
common factual issues arising from six similar putative nationwide
class actions alleging various errors in tenant screening reports.
Plaintiffs are prospective tenants who allege that criminal or
civil records were misattributed to them due to errors made by
defendants. All actions concern TURSS's policies and procedures
for obtaining, using and reporting such public records on tenant
screening reports. Plaintiffs contend in each action that
defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically 15
U.S.C. Section 1681e(b), by failing to adopt reasonable procedures
to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the information conveyed
in the tenant screening reports. Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery; avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings,
particularly on class certification; and conserve the resources of
the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
In opposing centralization, plaintiffs stress certain differences
among the actions and the circumstances in which they arose. In
particular, plaintiffs contend that the manner in which the errors
in each tenant screening report were made differs from plaintiff to
plaintiff, with two actions alleging misreporting of civil
judgments of eviction and plaintiffs in the remaining four actions
alleging inaccurate reporting of criminal convictions (failure to
match basic information such as reported age, birth date and full
name). Plaintiffs argue that each case can be expected to involve
different data sets, and note that they have tailored their class
definitions to fit each plaintiff's circumstances such that there
is no overlap in the putative classes. But these distinctions and
the variations among the class definitions do not appear
particularly significant. All actions share factual questions
concerning maintenance and operation of the TURSS database and
protocols for determining what public record information is
included in its tenant screening reports. The propriety of TURSS's
exclusion of vendor information as a source in its tenant screening
reports also is a question common to at least three of the six
actions. Moreover, defendants assert that the information at issue
in all actions is stored in the same TURSS databases, so discovery
can be expected to overlap to a significant extent.
Plaintiffs also assert that voluntary cooperation among the parties
would be superior to formal centralization. Although the Panel
encourages the parties to cooperate to the extent possible, it
concludes that creation of an MDL is warranted in these
circumstances. As mentioned, there are six putative nationwide
class actions pending in four districts. And defendant's request
to transfer the Eastern District of Virginia Francis action to the
Northern District of Georgia was denied, which suggests that
similar attempts to proceed before a single judge may be
unsuccessful.
The Panel is persuaded that the Northern District of Georgia is an
appropriate transferee district. The district offers a readily
accessible and convenient transferee forum. Further, one of the
oldest and most advanced actions (Hall) is pending in that district
before Judge J.P. Boulee. Centralization before Judge Boulee
allows the Panel to assign this litigation to an able jurist who
has not yet had the opportunity to preside over an MDL. The Panel
is confident that he will steer this litigation on a prudent
course.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/VBCLfe
MDL 2933: Lewis v. Transunion Over Credit Reports Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL REID LEWIS,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v.
TRANSUNION RENTAL SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00531
(Filed Feb. 3, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on April 28, 2020.
The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01832-JPB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge J. P. Boulee.
The case seeks damages and injunctive relief brought against
Defendant pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the California
Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, and the California Unfair
Competition Law
The Lewis case is being consolidated with MDL 2933 in re:
TRANSUNION RENTAL SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC., FAIR CREDIT REPORTING
ACT (FCRA) LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on. March 30,
2020. The actions involve common factual issues arising from six
similar putative nationwide class actions alleging various errors
in tenant screening reports. The Plaintiffs are prospective tenants
who allege that criminal or civil records were misattributed to
them due to errors made by defendants. All actions concern TURSS's
policies and procedures for obtaining, using and reporting such
public records on tenant screening reports. The Plaintiffs contend
in each action that the Defendants violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act by failing to adopt reasonable procedures to ensure
the maximum possible accuracy of the information conveyed in the
tenant screening reports.
In its March 30, 2020 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact and that
centralization in the Northern District of Georgia will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. The lead case is Case No.
1:20-md-02933-JPB.
The Defendant is a consumer reporting agency that compiles and
maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis. The Defendant
sells consumer reports generated from its database and furnishes
these consumer reports to landlords, who use the reports to make
decisions regarding whether to rent to certain consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 340
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (619) 489-0300
E-mail: bgaldston@bm.net
MDL 2934: Court Denies Joel Snider's Bid to Centralize 4 Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: JOEL SNIDER LITIGATION, MDL No. 2934, Judge
Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has denied Plaintiff Joel Snider's motion to centralize
four actions pending in two districts.
Plaintiff Joel Snider, who is proceeding pro se, moves to
centralize this litigation in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
This litigation consists of four actions pending in two districts.
All responding defendants oppose centralization, specifically, the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections defendants; federal
defendants the United States, the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, and former Acting Attorney General
Matthew Whitaker; mental health provider defendants Karen Kaskie,
Dr. Polmueller; Dr. Pushkalai Pillai, Jennifer Herrold, Dr.
Martinez and Dr. Mahvesh Sheikh; and the Clinton County, Union
County, and Snyder County defendants.
On the basis of the papers filed, Judge Huvelle concludes that
centralization will not serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Although the actions present some factual overlap as
to plaintiff's alleged disabilities, the conditions of his
confinement at various correctional facilities in Pennsylvania, and
the sufficiency of his access to the judicial system, the actions
already are proceeding in an orderly manner in the two districts in
which they are pending.
Where only a minimal number of actions are involved, the proponent
of centralization bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that
centralization is appropriate. Plaintiff has failed to meet that
burden here. Additionally, plaintiff appears to seek
centralization for an improper purpose -- that is, to fix a
perceived mistake in how he filed his actions and to avoid a court
he perceives as "hostile" to his claims. These are not appropriate
grounds for centralization under Section 1407.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/viFa7i
MDL 2935: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 5 Patent & Contract Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ALEXSAM, INC. ('608 & '787) PATENT AND CONTRACT
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2935, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied common
Alexsam, Inc.'s motion to centralize pretrial proceedings of five
actions into the Eastern District of Texas.
Common plaintiff and patentholder Alexsam, Inc., moves under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this
litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. The litigation
consists of five actions pending in the Northern District of
California, the District of Connecticut, the Eastern District of
New York, the Eastern District of Texas, and the District of Utah.
Responding defendants Mastercard International Incorporated, Aetna
Inc., HealthEquity, Inc. WageWorks, Inc., and Simon Property Group,
L.P., oppose centralization.
After considering the parties' arguments, the Panel concludes that
centralization is not necessary for the convenience of the parties
and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. The actions possess a degree of factual commonality:
all are related in some manner to one or both of two expired
Alexsam patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,000,608 and 7,189,787. Both
patents are directed to a multifunction card system capable of
serving various types of prepaid cards, such as phone cards, gift
cards, medical cards, and loyalty cards. There are, however,
significant differences among the actions as well. In each action,
Alexsam sues a single unique defendant (e.g., Aetna is the sole
defendant in the Connecticut action, and Simon Property Group is
the sole defendant in the Texas action). The defendants make
different "accused products," and the same patent claims are not at
issue in all actions. For example, in the California, Connecticut,
and Utah actions, Alexsam alleges that certain medical card
products of WageWorks, Aetna, and HealthEquity, respectively,
infringe claims 32 and 33 of the '608 patent. In the Texas action,
however, Alexsam alleges that different products -- defendant
Simon's gift cards -- infringe different claims of the '608 patent
(specifically, claims 34, 36, 37, 39, 44, 45, 60, 62, 63, 65, and
66). The'787 patent is at issue only in the New York action.
Beyond these differences, the purportedly common issues cited by
Alexsam do not, in fact, appear to be shared by all actions.
Alexsam asserts that all actions involve "essentially identical
issues" concerning a May 2005 agreement in which Alexsam granted
MasterCard a license under the '608 and '787 patents. Alexsam
describes these issues as including matters with respect to the
agreement's scope and whether Mastercard is responsible for certain
"Licensed Transactions," as that term is defined in
theagreement.3Id. Alexsam further asserts that "perhaps the most
important discovery issue" common to the actions is "related to
MasterCard's [sic] Agreement and who and what are covered by its
terms." In the Texas action, however, Simon, the defendant, has not
raised a license defense. According to Simon, the
Alexsam-Mastercard agreement cannot truly be an issue in its case
because Simon did not have a gift card program with Mastercard
until after August 2018, and the '608 patent -- which is the only
patent at issue in Simon -- expired on July 10, 2017.
Even if the agreement with Mastercard does present some factual
issues common to all actions, Alexsam's contention that it requires
significant new discovery related to the nearly 15-year-old
agreement appears questionable. At the inception of the New York
action, in which Alexsam sues Mastercard for breach of the
agreement, the then-presiding judge authorized the parties to
engage in over eight months of discovery, including depositions,
concerning matters relating to the interpretation of the
agreement.
The lengthy litigation history of the two patents further
undermines the case for centralization. According to Alexsam, it
previously has litigated 20 cases involving these patents, and
obtained eight claim construction rulings. It seems all but
certain that during the course of those earlier cases, Alexsam
produced the entire universe of documents in its possession
relating to the two patents. Doing so again in the presently
pending actions is unlikely to pose a significant burden. The
depositions of the patents' common inventor, as well as other
Alexsam witnesses, can be coordinated. And the eight claim
construction rulings are available to the parties and the presiding
judges regardless of centralization.
At bottom, Alexsam's Section 1407 motion appears to be largely
predicated on its dissatisfaction with certain of the magistrate
judge's rulings in the New York action, as well as, relatedly, the
action's progress. Such dissatisfaction, however, is not a factor
in the Section 1407 analysis.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/FHHWKT
METLIFE INC: MLIC Still Defends Julian & McKinney Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) remains a defendant in a
class action lawsuit styled, Julian & McKinney v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., filed February 9, 2017), according to
MetLife, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action on
behalf of themselves and all current and former long-term
disability ("LTD") claims specialists between February 2011 and the
present for alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum
Wage Act.
The suit alleges that MLIC improperly reclassified the plaintiffs
and similarly situated LTD claims specialists from non-exempt to
exempt from overtime pay in November 2013.
As a result, they and members of the putative class were no longer
eligible for overtime pay even though they allege they continued to
work more than 40 hours per week.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as other relief.
On March 22, 2018, the court conditionally certified the case as a
collective action, requiring that notice be mailed to LTD claims
specialists who worked for MLIC from February 8, 2014 to the
present.
MLIC intends 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: Still Defends Atkins Suit over Group Annuity Contracts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. is still facing the putative class action styled,
Atkins et al. v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (D. Nev., filed November 18,
2019), 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.
Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of all
persons due benefits under group annuity contracts but who did not
receive the entire amount to which they were entitled. Plaintiffs
assert claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment, and conversion based on allegations that the defendants
failed to timely pay annuity benefits to certain group annuitants.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified compensatory and punitive 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.
MIKE SLAGLE: Amended Bid for Class Classification Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BENSON MOORE v. MIKE SLAGLE,
et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-242-FDW (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Frank
D. Whitney entered an order:
1. dismissing the amended complaint as frivolous pursuant to
28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i);
2. denying Plaintiff's amended motion for classification of
the class, and denying motion for the appointment of
Counsel to represent the Class; and
3. instructing Clerk to close this case.
The Court said, "the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the
existence of exceptional circumstances that would warrant the
appointment of counsel. To the extent that the Plaintiff argues
that the existence of an unrepresented class is an exceptional
circumstance, this argument is rejected because the Plaintiff has
failed to establish that he can satisfy Rule 23. Therefore, the
Plaintiff's Motions will be denied. This action is dismissed as
frivolous because it is duplicative of case number 1:20-cv-58 and
Plaintiff's pending Motions are denied."[CC]
MISSION ROAD: Bid to Certify Collins Collective Action Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as REBECCA COLLINS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND OF BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. MISSION ROAD
MINISTRIES, Case No. 5:19-cv-00713-FB-ESC (W.D. Tex.), the Hon.
Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney entered an order:
1. denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for
approval and distribution of notice and for disclosure of
contact information and the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of collective action; and
2. dismissing as moot the Defendant's motion to strike and
objections to the plaintiff's evidence supporting the
Plaintiff's motion for approval and distribution of notice
and for disclosure of contact information and objections
to evidence
The Court is unwilling to infer from the statements that Defendant
has a pattern or practice of not properly compensating any Service
Specialists for paperwork they perform outside their
scheduled shifts. The affidavit makes vague, general allegations
about what others may have been told or how they may have been
affected, but there are not substantial allegations that there is a
group of individuals subject to similar improper pay practices. The
Court will permit the Plaintiff, however, to refile the motion
later with more evidentiary support.
The case is a putative collective action seeking overtime
compensation arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act against
Mission Road.
Mission Road owns and operates vocational training centers,
community homes, apartment complexes, and a main campus with
on-site housing that assist children and adults with intellectual
and other developmental disabilities. The Plaintiff worked at one
such center as a Service Specialist.[CC]
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Reyes et al Sue Over Steep Inspection Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GREGORIA SOBERAL-REYES and PAUL REAS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC d/b/a MR. COOPER, Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-00155 (M.D. Fla., April 17, 2020) arises from Defendant's
alleged violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices and
the Fair Debt Collection Practices.
Plaintiffs have mortgage loans owned by FNMA that fell into
default.
According to the complaint, Defendant's mortgage servicing system
automatically orders property inspections of the home every 20-30
days after a homeowner defaults on his or her mortgage. Allegedly,
the Inspection Vendor, who performs the property inspection,
illegally charges consumers far more than $15.00 the actual cost
for each property inspection and which Defendant intentionally
concealed from consumers to avoid dispute. Consumers, including
Plaintiffs, are forced to pay the illegal charges associated with
these inspections to avoid foreclosure.
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC is a debt collector that services
defaulted mortgage loans for Fannie Mae (FNMA). [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
J. Dennis Card Jr., Esq.
CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
721 US Highway 1, Suite 201
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Tel: (561)692-6013
Fax: (305)574-0132
Emails: darren@cloorg.com
DCard@Consumerlaworg.com
- and –
Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
Mark Fistos, Esq.
Candace Phillips, Esq.
ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP
110 Southeast 6th St., STE 2150
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954)989-6333
Emails: jshaw@zpllp.com
mfistos@zpllp.com
cphillips@zpllp.com
- and –
J. Matthew Stephens, Esq.
METHVIN, TERREL, YANCEY,
STEPHENS & MILLER, PC
2201 Arlington Ave. S.
Birmingham, AL 35205
Tel: (205)939-0199
Fax: (205)939-0399
Email: mstephens@mtattorneys.com
NEW YORK: Appeals S.D.N.Y Judgment in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated March 12, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL.
v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY
OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (New York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, filed the action in 1996. The
Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of
the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et
seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain racially
discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to
teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance Baker
Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified the
plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2).
On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
classwide injunctive relief.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of
Education of the City School District, Case No. 20-1262, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee Anthony Manley is represented by:
Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 806-1245
Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:
James Edward Johnson, Esq.
CORPORATION COUNSEL
CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-2500
NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated March 26, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL.
v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY
OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (New York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
classwide injunctive relief.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board, Case
No. 20-1263, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff–Appellee Silvia Fernandez, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Joshua S. Sohn, Esq
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 806-1245
Email: joshua.sohn@dlapiper.com
Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:
James Edward Johnson, Esq.
Corporation Counsel
CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-2500
NEXTGEN LEADS: Faces Deg Suit Over Unlawful Solicitation Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Deg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NextGen Leads, LLC, d/b/a First Quote
Health, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00818-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal., April
21, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeking damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of the Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and
related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call
provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.
The complaint mentions that the Defendant contacted Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -1996, in an
attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services,
beginning in or around May or June 2019 using automatic telephone
dialing system.
The Defendant continued to call Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit
its services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call
provisions of the TCPA. Plaintiff received multiple solicitation
calls from Defendant within a 12-month period.
The Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent"
to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system on his
cellular telephone during all relevant times.
The Defendant illegally contacted Plaintiff and Revocation Class
members via their cellular telephones thereby causing Plaintiff and
Revocation Class members to incur certain charges or reduced
telephone time for which Plaintiff and Revocation Class members had
previously paid by having to retrieve or administer messages left
by Defendant during those illegal calls, and invading the privacy
of said Plaintiff and Revocation Class members.
NextGen Leads, LLC, d/b/a First Quote Health is a lead generating
company based in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste 460
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
– and –
Todd Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
NORTHLAND GROUP: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Maher FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Northland Group Inc. filed an appeal from the District
Court's decision issued in the lawsuit entitled Jennifer Maher v.
Northland Group Inc., Case No. 2-17-cv-02957, in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
originally filed in state court, arises under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Ms. Maher, held a Macy's credit
card, issued by Department Stores National Bank ("DNSB"), a
subsidiary of Citibank, that had an outstanding balance.
Ms. Maher's complaint was filed on March 10, 2017; Northland's
motion to compel, however, was not filed until some 22 months
later, on Jan. 16, 2019. Ms. Maher argues that the motion to compel
arbitration therefore comes too late. By participating in
federal-court litigation, says Ms. Maher, Northland has waived an
arbitral forum.
Balancing all of the factors, Judge McNulty finds that Northland,
by its litigation conduct, has waived arbitration. He does not say
that the case is an egregious one: the delay is 22 months, not four
years; Northland pled the existence of an arbitration agreement as
an affirmative defense in its answer; Northland did not have
physical possession of the relevant Agreement; and there have been
no rulings on the merits of the case.
There are additional factors at play, including a lack of diligence
by Northland that borders on willfulness. The Judge therefore finds
that Northland has, by its participation in the litigation, waived
its right to compel arbitration of Ms. Maher's claims.
Judge McNulty has denied Northland's motion to compel arbitration
and stay the action. An appropriate order accompanies the Opinion.
The appellate case is captioned as Jennifer Maher v. Northland
Group Inc., Case No. 20-1857, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee JENNIFER MAHER, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated, is represented by:
Jason R. D'Agnenica, Esq.
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM
411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 273-7117
- and -
Ronald I. Levine, Esq.
210 River Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 489-7900
Defendants-Appellant NORTHLAND GROUP INC. is represented by:
Aaron R. Easley, Esq.
SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL
3 Cross Creek Drive
Flemington, NJ 08822
Telephone: (908) 237-1660
E-mail: aeasley@sessions.legal
- and -
Daniel C. Fanaselle, Esq.
Daniel McKenna, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 864-8358
E-mail: fanaselled@ballardspahr.com
- and -
Denise L. Plunkett, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR
919 Third Avenue, 37th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 223-0200
NTI SERVICES: Morse Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Morse, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NTI SERVICES, CORP., Case No. 2:20-cv-02173-EAS-EPD
(S.D. Ohio, April 29, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
its failure to pay employees overtime wages, seeking all available
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that he regularly worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek as employees of the Defendant, but was not paid
all overtime premium compensation owed to them under the FLSA by
the Defendant. He adds that the Defendant failed to make, keep, and
preserve records of the required and unpaid work he performed.
The Plaintiff was employed as a cable installer and technician,
whereby he installed and serviced cable products.
The Defendant is a Michigan corporation that does business in Ohio
and engages in the installation and service of cable products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Ste. 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Phone: 614-949-1181
Fax: 614-386-9964
Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
OAKLAND, MI: Cameron Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JAMAAL CAMERON; RICHARD
BRIGGS; RAJ LEE; MICHAEL CAMERON; MATTHEW SAUNDERS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MICHAEL BOUCHARD,
in his official capacity as Sheriff of Oakland County; CURTIS D.
CHILDS, in his official capacity as Commander of Corrective
Services; OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN, Case No. 2:20-cv-10949-LVP-MJH
(E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. certifying a class with three subclasses:
The Class:
"all current and future persons detained at the Oakland
County Jail during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic";
Pre-trial Subclass:
"all current and future persons detained at the Oakland
County Jail during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic who
have not yet been convicted of the offense for which they
are currently held in the Jail";
Post-conviction Subclass:
"all current and future persons detained at the Oakland
County Jail during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic who
are have been sentenced to serve time in the Jail or who
are otherwise in the Jail as the result of an offense for
which they have already been convicted"; and
Medically-Vulnerable Subclass:
"all members of the Jail Class who are also over the age
of fifty, or who, regardless of age, experience an
underlying medical condition that places them at
particular risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19,
including but not limited to (a) lung disease, including
asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g.
bronchitis or emphysema), or other chronic conditions
associated with impaired lung function; (b) heart
disease, such as congenital heart disease, congestive
heart failure and coronary artery disease; (c) chronic
liver or kidney disease (including hepatitis and dialysis
patients); (d) diabetes or other endocrine disorders; (e)
epilepsy; (f) hypertension; (g) compromised immune systems
(such as from cancer, HIV, receipt of an organ or bone
marrow transplant, as a side effect of medication, or
other autoimmune disease); (h) blood disorders (including
sickle cell disease); (i) inherited metabolic disorders;
(j) history of stroke; (k) a developmental disability;
and/or (l) a current or recent (last two weeks)
pregnancy"; and
2. appointing their counsel as class counsel.
The class action seeks to require the Defendants to implement
procedures that provide reasonable medical care for the Plaintiffs
and keep them reasonably safe from contracting communicable disease
while in custody. But some people (constituting the two subclasses)
are so vulnerable to COVID-19 that no procedures could be
implemented fast enough to protect them; these people must be
released immediately, and they seek a writ of habeas corpus
ordering just that.
The Oakland County Sheriff's Office is the largest "full service"
Sheriff's Office in the State of Michigan. Michigan is a state in
the Great Lakes and Midwestern regions of the United States.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Krithika Santhanam, Esq.
Thomas B. Harvey, Esq.
ADVANCEMENT PROJECT NATIONAL OFFICE
1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 850
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 728-9557
E-mail: Ksanthanam@advancementproject.org
Tharvey@advancementproject.org
- and -
Philip Mayor, Esq.
Daniel S. Korobkin, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
Fund of Michigan
2966 Woodward Ave.
Detroit, MI 48201
Telephone: (313) 578-6803
E-mail: pmayor@aclumich.org
dkorobkin@aclumich.org
- and -
Alexandria Twinem, Esq.
CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
1601 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: 202-894-6126
Facsimile: 202-609-8030
E-mail: alexandria@civilrightscorps.org
- and -
Cary S. McGehee, Esq.
Kevin M. Carlson, Esq.
PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER,
BONANNI & RIVERS, PC
117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
Royal Oak, MI 48067
Telephone: 248-398-9800
E-mail: cmcgehee@pittlawpc.com
kcarlson@pittlawpc.com
- and -
Allison L. Kriger, Esq.
LARENE & KRIGER, PLC
645 Griswold, Suite 1717
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 967-0100
E-mail: Allison.kriger@gmail.com
OHIO ASSOCIATION: Court Denied Bid for Class Cert. in "Littler"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Christina Littler v. Ohio
Association of Public School Employees, Case No.
2:18-cv-01745-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison
entered an order:
1. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and
2. granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to
exclude report of David A. Macpherson.
The Court focuses most acutely on the commonality, typicality,
adequacy of representation, predominance, suitability, and
ascertainability requirements. Given the Court's findings that Ms.
Littler's proposed classes cannot clear these hurdles, the Court
need not examine numerosity or adequacy of proposed class counsel.
The Court said, "Ms. Littler is correct that even if Dr.
Macpherson's report contains defects, the entire report should not
necessarily be excluded merely because it has objectionable
aspects. The Court thus analyzes Dr. Macpherson's conclusions to
determine whether any meet the requirements of Rule 702. In doing
so, the Court initially focuses on Dr. Macpherson's first eight
conclusions and finds that they suffer from three main flaws --
they are improper conclusions of law; they are not helpful in
understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue; and they
are conclusory, speculative, reflect no expert methodology, and
demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor."
OAPSE operates as a non profit organization. The Organization
provides transportation services to public and private schools,
public libraries, residential, community, and technical
colleges.[CC]
OPTIMA HEALTH: Misclassifies Utilization Reviewers, Edwards Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, NIKIA EDWARDS, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OPTIMA HEALTH PLAN, and SENTARA HEALTH
PLANS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00192-AWA-LRL (E.D. Va.,
April 16, 2020) arises from Defendants alleged violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Utilization Review
Employee in Virginia from approximately June 2018 to approximately
November 2018.
Plaintiff claims that during her employment with Defendants, she
worked more than 40 hours in one or more individual workweeks
during the last three years. But, because Defendants classified
Plaintiff as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA,
Plaintiff received the same amount of compensation regardless of
the number of hours she worked each week. Allegedly, Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff overtime at one-and-one-half times her
regular rate of pay.
Optima Health Plan and Sentara Health Plans, Inc. are health
insurance companies which provide health plan coverage to
approximately 450,000 members. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Paul M. Falabella, Esq.
BUTLER ROYALS, PLC
140 Virginia St., Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Tel: (804)648-4848
Emails: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com
zev.antell@butlerroyals.com
paul.falabella@butlerroyals.com
- and –
Jack Siegel, Esq.
SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
495 Greenville Ave., Suite 600
Dallas, TX 75206
Tel: (214)790-4454
Email: jack@siegellawgroup.biz
- and –
Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
Houston, TX 77056
Tel: (281)572-0727
Email: travis@hedgpethlaw.com
OWNERS INSURANCE: Denies Coverage Claim, Bridal Expressions Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case BRIDAL EXPRESSIONS LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00833-SO (N.D. Ohio, April 17, 2020)
arises after the Defendant refused to pay its insureds including
the Plaintiff under its Business Income and Extra Expense coverages
for losses suffered due to COVID-19 and efforts to prevent further
property damage or to minimize the suspension of business and
continue operations.
The Plaintiff purchased insurance coverage from Defendant,
including special property coverage, as set forth in Defendant's
Businessowner's Special Property Coverage Form to protect its
business in the event that it suddenly had to suspend operations
for reasons outside of its control. The Defendant's Special
Property Coverage Form provides "Business Income" coverage, which
promises to pay for loss due to the necessary suspension of
operations. The Special Property Coverage Form does not include,
and is not subject to, any exclusion for losses caused by viruses
or communicable diseases unlike many policies that provide Business
Income coverage.
The Defendant has denied Plaintiff's claim under its policy after
it was forced to suspend business due to COVID-19 (a.k.a. the
"coronavirus" or "SARS-CoV-2") as well as to take necessary steps
to prevent further damage and minimize the suspension of business
and continue operations.
Plaintiff Bridal Expressions, located in Mentor, Ohio, has been in
business for close to twenty years, providing wedding dresses,
tuxedos, and other formalwear to its local community. Its existence
is now threatened because of COVID-19.
Owners Insurance Company is an Ohio-based company authorized to
write, sell, and issue insurance policies providing property and
business income coverage in the state.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
Mark Abramowitz, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
7556 Mentor Avenue
Mentor, OH 44060
Telephone: (440) 953-8888
Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com
kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com
mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com
– and –
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
Mark Hamill, Esq.
Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
dferri@dicellolevitt.com
mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
lreasons@dicellolevitt.com
– and –
Mark Lanier, Esq.
Alex Brown, Esq.
Skip McBride, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC
10940 West Sam Houston Parkway North Suite 100
Houston, TX 77064
Telephone: (713) 659-5200
Email: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com
– and –
Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 286-2302
Email: tburns@bbblawllp.com
jbowen@bbblawllp.com
jbair@bbblawllp.com
fbowen@bbblawllp.com
– and -
Douglas Daniels, Esq.
DANIELS & TREDENNICK
6363 Woodway, Suite 700
Houston, TX 77057
Telephone: (713) 917-0024
Email: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com
PELICAN WASTE: Verrett Seeks Certification of Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BRANDON VERRETT Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PELICAN WASTE AND
DEBRIS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01035-GGG-KWR (E.D. La), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting its motion to
certify a collective action and request for notice to putative
class members.
The Defendant offers waste disposal services.[CC]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER , PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: lif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
- and -
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
PENN NATIONAL: Cruz-Perez Sues Over Breach of FLSA, IMWL & IWPCA
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAY CRUZ-PEREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PENN NATIONAL GAMING, INC., and HC JOLIET, LLC d/b/a
HOLLYWOOD CASINO JOLIET, Case No. 1:20-cv-02577 (April 28, 2020),
concerns two unlawful practices at the Defendants' Illinois
casinos, whereby the Defendants violate the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment
and Collection Act.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a table games
dealer.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants deducted from his wages
and all others similarly situated the costs to obtain and
thereafter maintain and renew Illinois Occupational Gaming
Licenses. He adds that the Defendants deducted a 30-minute period
per shift during a span of several months in 2017, from their
wages, however, they were not provided a 30-minute meal period.
The Defendants are owners and operators of gaming establishments
within the State of Illinois, including Hollywood Casino Joliet,
Argosy Casino Alton, and Hollywood Casino Aurora. PNG operates a
hub and spoke employment structure whereby, PNG, 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 W. Washington Street, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: 312-419-1008
Facsimile: 312-419-1025
E-mail: 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
Telephone: 816-714-7100
Facsimile: 816-714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
The Flagship Building
200 Westwoods Drive
Liberty, MO 64068
Telephone: 816-781-0002
Facsimile: 816-781-1984
E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com
PER SE GROUP: Fowler Seeks Overtime Pay for Hourly Staff
--------------------------------------------------------
SHANE FOWLER, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. PER SE GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02395 (N.D. Ill., April 17, 2020) is a class and
collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Superintendent from
October 2017 until June 2018 in Connecticut.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff routinely worked more than 40
hours in a week, but Defendant paid him the same hourly rate for
all hours worked including those hours in excess of 40 hours in a
single workweek.
Allegedly, Defendant paid Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members
using its unlawful "straight time for overtime" payment scheme,
thereby failing to pay them overtime for hours worked in excess of
40 hours per workweek at one-and-one-half times their regular
rates.
Per Se Group, Inc. provides staffing, consulting, and payroll
services for companies in the power, oil and gas, construction, and
manufacturing industries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312) 419-1008
Fax: (312) 419-1025
Emails: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
sarendt@flsalaw.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: 713-352-1100
Fax: 713-352-3300
Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: 713-877-8788
Fax: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Suit Seeks to Certify Class & SubClasses
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as THOMAS REMICK, NADIYAH
WALKER, JAY DIAZ, MICHAEL ALEJANDRO, MICHAEL DANTZLER, ROBERT
HINTON, JOSEPH WEISS, JOSEPH SKINNER, SADDAM ABDULLAH, and JAMES
BETHEA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; and BLANCHE CARNEY, in her official
capacity as Commissioner of Prisons, Case No. 2:20-cv-01959-BMS
(E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting
their motion and certify the Class and Subclasses:
Class:
"all people held in custody within Philadelphia Department
of Prisons, including two Subclasses: (1) persons who, by
reason of age or medical condition, are particularly
vulnerable to injury or death if they were to contract COVID-
19 (Medically-Vulnerable Subclass), and (2) persons who, by
reason of their disability, are particularly vulnerable to
injury or death if they were to contract COVID-19 (Disability
Subclass);
Medically-Vulnerable Subclass:
"all current and future persons in the custody of the PDP who
are 55 or older, as well as all current and future persons
held of any age who have a medical condition that places them
at increased risk of COVID-19 illness, injury, or death,
including (a) lung disease, including who have asthma,
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g. bronchitis or
emphysema), or other chronic conditions associated with
impaired lung function; (b) heart disease, such as congenital
heart disease, congestive heart failure, or coronary artery
disease; (c) chronic liver or kidney disease (including
hepatitis and dialysis patients); (d) diabetes or other
endocrine disorders; (e) epilepsy; (f) hypertension; (g)
compromised immune systems (such as from cancer, HIV, receipt
of an organ or bone marrow transplant, as a side effect of
medication, or other autoimmune disease); (h) blood disorders
(including sickle cell disease); (i) inherited metabolic
disorders; (j) history of stroke; (k) a developmental
disability; and/or (l) a current or recent (last two
weeks) pregnancy"; and
Disability Subclass:
"all current and future persons in the custody of the PDP who
have an impairment that substantially limits one or more of
their major life activities and who are at increased risk of
COVID-19 illness, injury, or death due to their disability or
any medical treatment necessary to treat their disability,
including who have: (a) lung disease, including asthma,
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g. bronchitis or
emphysema), or other chronic conditions associated with
impaired lung function; (b) heart disease, such as congenital
heart disease, congestive heart failure, or coronary artery
disease; (c) chronic liver or kidney disease (including
hepatitis and dialysis patients); (d) diabetes or other
endocrine disorders; (e) epilepsy; (f) hypertension; (g)
compromised immune systems (such as from cancer, HIV, receipt
of an organ or bone marrow transplant, as a side effect of
medication, or other autoimmune disease); (h) blood disorders
and/or (I) developmental disability."
Because the current conditions of confinement within the PDP
facilities create an unreasonable risk of contracting COVID-19 that
may result in substantial risk of severe illness or death, and
because PDP is currently holding Plaintiffs in inhumane conditions
of confinement, the Plaintiffs seek to represent a Class for
declaratory and injunctive relief, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff contends that because Defendants' actions and
policies apply generally to all members of the Class and Subclasses
who seek declaratory and injunctive relief, they meet the
requirements of Rule 23(b)(2), and the Court should grant their
motion and certify the Class and Subclasses.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania's largest city, is notable for its rich
history, on display at the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall and
other American Revolutionary sites. PDP Focuses on rehabilitation
while providing safe, lawful, and humane correctional
facilities.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Su Ming Yeh, Esq.
Matthew A. Feldman, Esq.
PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL
LAW PROJECT
718 Arch St., Suite 304S
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215)-925-2966
E-mail: smyeh@pailp.org
mfeldman@pailp.org
- and -
Nyssa Taylor, Esq.
Witold J. Walczak, Esq.
Hayden Nelson-Major, Esq.
Ali Szemanski, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF PENNSYLVANIA
P.O. Box 60173
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 592-1513
E-mail: ntaylor@aclupa.org
vwalczak@aclupa.org
HNelson-Major@aclupa.org
aszemanski@aclupa.org
- and -
David Rudovsky, Esq.
Jonathan H. Feinberg, Esq.
Susan M. Lin, Esq.
KAIRYS, RUDOVSKY, MESSING,
FEINBERG, & LIN, LLP
718 Arch Street, Suite 501S
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 925-4400
Telephone: drudovsky@krlawphila.com
E-mail: jfeinberg@krlawphila.com
slin@krlawphila.com
- and -
Will W. Sachse, Esq.
Benjamin R. Barnett, Esq.
Mary H. Kim, Esq.
Nicolas A. Novy, Esq.
Theeya Musitief, Esq.
DECHERT LLP
Cira Centre
2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2808
Telephone: (215) 994-2496
E-mail: Will.Sachse@dechert.com
Ben.Barnett@dechert.com
Mary.Kim@dechert.com
Nicolas.Novy@dechert.com
Theeya.Musitief@dechert.com
RBC CAPITAL: Still Defends Forex Trading Suits in Canada and US
---------------------------------------------------------------
RBC Capital Markets, LLC and its indirect parent, Royal Bank of
Canada, continues to defend themselves in Canadian class actions
and one U.S. action that is purportedly brought on behalf of
different classes of plaintiffs alleging collusive behavior in
foreign exchange trading, according to the United States Oil Fund,
LP's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
Beginning in 2015, putative class actions were brought against RBC
Capital and/or Royal Bank of Canada in the U.S., Canada and Israel.
These actions were each brought against multiple foreign exchange
dealers and allege, among other things, collusive behavior in
foreign exchange trading. Various regulators are also conducting
inquiries regarding potential violations of law by a number of
banks and other entities, including RBC Capital, regarding foreign
exchange trading.
In August 2018, the U.S. District Court entered a final order
approving RBC Capital's pending settlement with class plaintiffs.
Certain institutional plaintiffs opted out of participating in the
settlement and have brought their own claims.
The Canadian class actions and one other U.S. action that is
purportedly brought on behalf of different classes of plaintiffs
also remain pending.
RCI HOSPITALITY: Misclassifies Dancers, Bazaldua and Phillips Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA BAZALDUA, a single woman; BRANDY PHILLIPS, a single woman;
and a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NICOLAI
ORCUTT, a single man; JOHN DELEON, a single man; MARI HERNANDEZ, a
single woman; ERIC LANGAN, a single man; RCI HOSPITALITY
HOLDINGS, INC., RCI MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., JAI DINING SERVICES
(LUBBOCK), INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00082-H (N.D. Tex.,
April 17, 2020) alleges that the Defendants unlawfully designate
their exotic dancers as licensees, violate their right to receive
the requisite federal minimum wage for covered nonexempt employees
and violate their right to overtime compensation for each hour
after the first forty (40) they worked in a workweek under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Bazaldua worked as an exotic dancer at Jaguars between
approximately 2011 until approximately June 2018, with a few
months' leave in 2012. She performed under the name, Halo.
Phillips worked as an exotic dancer at Jaguars briefly in December
2017, then in mid-end January 2018 to approximately June 19, 2018.
She performed under the name, Curtis.
RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. is a Houston, Texas-based company
that operates strip clubs, nightclubs, topless gentlemen's clubs,
adult entertainment websites and the military themed Bombshells
restaurant and sports bar chain.
RCI Management Services, Inc. is a management consulting company
based in Texas.
JAI Dining Services (Lubbock), Inc. is a Texas-based dining
services provider.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq.
Clara S. Acosta, Esq.
Stanley Lubin, Esq.
LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C.
221 N. Kansas Street, Suite 700
El Paso, TX 79901
Telephone: (915) 585-8008
Facsimile: (602) 626-3586
Email: nick@lubinandenoch.com
clara@lubinandenoch.com
stan@lubinandenoch.com
RMLS SHOP: Court Cond. Certified Class of Server Employees
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as SHAKURA SLAUGHTER v. RMLS
SHOP OHIO, L.L.C., Case No. 2:19-cv-03812-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an order granting
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification, Opt-In
Identification Discovery, and Court Supervised Notice to Potential
Opt-In Plaintiffs, on behalf of:
"all present and former tipped server employees and other
employees with similar job titles and/or positions of RMLS-
HOP Ohio, L.L.C. at Defendant's Hilliard, Ohio and
Reynoldsburg, Ohio locations during the period of three years
preceding the commencement of this action [September 3, 2016]
to the present."
The Court agrees with the Plaintiff. Based on the facts
highlighted in the Plaintiff's Motion and Reply, the Court finds
that the Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that she is
similarly situated to the putative class.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant classified and
compensated her as an hourly tipped employee. The Defendant paid
her less than the statutory minimum hourly wage by taking a tip
credit. She received from customers to cover the full minimum wage.
She alleges she was paid the same "sub-minimum server wage
regardless of the job duties [she was] required to perform." She
understands that other servers working at the IHOP locations where
she worked were paid the same way.
The Defendant employed the Plaintiff as a server from March 2018 to
July 2018 at an IHOP restaurant in Hilliard, Ohio and from March
2018 to March 2019 at an IHOP restaurant in Reynoldsburg, Ohio. The
Defendant is a corporate entity that owns and operates IHOP
restaurants in Ohio.[CC]
SARASOTA, FL: Abelson Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DESIREE ABELSON v. SARASOTA
COUNTY, FLORIDA, Case No. 8:19-cv-03092-VMC-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act
Collective Action and approving notice to be sent to
members of a class of:
"all current and former employees of Sarasota County,
Florida, who held the positions of "Caseworker II" and
"Caseworker III," who worked overtime but were not paid
the proper amount of overtime wages"; and
2. directing the Defendant to provide Plaintiff's counsel
with the last known addresses of all putative class
members and the telephone number, date of birth, and last
four digits of the social security number of any potential
class members whose notice is returned by the post office,
so that her counsel may provide effective notice to the
class.
The Plaintiff alleges that Sarasota County willfully failed to pay
her and a class of similarly situated employees overtime wages in
accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Sarasota County is a political subdivision of the State of
Florida.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas J. Castellano, II, Esq.
Y. Drake Buckman, II, Esq.
BUCKMAN & BUCKMAN, P.A.
2023 Constitution Boulevard
Sarasota, FL 34231
Telephone: (941) 923-7700
Facsimile: (941) 923-7736
E-mail: nick@buckmanandbuckman.com
attorney@buckmandbuckman.com
SBM SITE: Faces Parhman Class Suit in California Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SBM Site Services
LLC. The case is captioned as DANIEL PARHAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. SBM SITE SERVICES LLC, A
OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE,
Case No. CGC20584177 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., April 17,
2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Garrett L. Wong.
A case management conference will be held on Sep. 16, 2020.
SBM provides building maintenance services. The Company offers
janitorial, housekeeping, warehouse management, plumbing, painting,
paper shredding, fire extinguisher inspections, lighting, carpet
maintenance, pest control, signage designing, and interior plant
maintenance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Ave., Ste. 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-2497
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
E-mail: MMatern@maternlawgroup.com
SENTINEL INSURANCE: Prato Seeks Proper Benefits for Policyholders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arnell Prato, DDS, PLLC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, Case No.
3:20-cv-05402 (W.D. Wash., April 29, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant to ensure that the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are
entitled and for which they paid.
Due to COVID-19 and a state-ordered mandated closure, the Plaintiff
cannot provide dental endodontist services. The Plaintiff intended
to rely on its business insurance to keep its business as a going
concern. The Defendant issued one or more insurance policies to the
Plaintiff, including Spectrum Business Owners Policy and related
endorsements, insuring the Plaintiff's property and business
practice and other coverages, with effective dates of July 30,
2019, to July 30, 2020.
The Defendant's insurance policy issued to the Plaintiff promises
to pay the Plaintiff for "direct physical loss of or physical
damage to" covered property. The Defendant's insurance policy
issued to the Plaintiff includes Business Income Coverage, Extra
Expense Coverage, Extended Business Income Coverage and Civil
Authority Coverage. The Plaintiff paid all premiums for the
coverage when due.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's property sustained
direct physical loss and/or damages related to COVID-19 and/or the
proclamations and orders. The Plaintiff's property will continue to
sustain direct physical loss or damage covered by the Sentinel
policy or policies, including but not limited to business
interruption, extra expense, interruption by civil authority, and
other expenses. The Plaintiff's property cannot be used for its
intended purposes. As a result, the Plaintiff has experienced and
will experience loss covered by the Sentinel policy or policies.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has denied or will deny
all similar claims for coverage.
Arnell Prato, DDS, PLLC, is a dental business with locations at
Tacoma, Washington.
Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited, is an insurance carrier
incorporated and domiciled in Connecticut, with its principal place
of business located in Hartford, Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy Williams Derry, Esq.
Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
Ian S. Birk, Esq.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Irene M. Hecht, Esq.
Maureen Falecki, Esq.
Nathan L. Nanfelt, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-1900
Fax: (206) 623-3384
Email: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
ihecht@kellerrohrback.com
mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com
nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Alison Chase, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone: (805) 456-1496
Fax: (805) 456-1497
Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com
SHIPT INC: Sued by Hearl for Misclassifying Personal Shoppers
-------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HEARL, Individually and on Behalf of all Similarly Situated
Individuals v. SHIPT, INC.; TARGET CORPORATION; AND DOES 1 THROUGH
100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-584170 (Cal. Super., San Francisco
Cty., April 17, 2020), alleges that the Defendants intentionally
misrepresented to personal shopper and delivery drivers for Shipt
that they were independent contractors and, therefore, not entitled
to wages for non-productive time, reimbursements for expenses
incurred in relation to their employment, workers' compensation
insurance benefits, and tax benefits enjoyed by employees.
The class action complaint is brought under the California law for
failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, denial of meal breaks and
rest periods, failure to properly report pay, denial of
reimbursements for business-related expenses, willful
misclassification, failure to indemnify for losses caused by
Shipt's own negligence, unfair competition, negligent interference
with prospective economic advantage, and fraud/intentional
misrepresentation.
The Plaintiff and putative class members worked or continue to work
as Shoppers. Shoppers are dispatched through a mobile phone
application to shop, purchase, and deliver groceries to customers
at their homes and businesses.
Shipt--owned by Target Corporation--is a grocery shopping and
delivery service company whose workers shop for groceries from
various grocery stores, including Target, Vons, Ralphs, PetCo,
Office Depot, BevMo!, and Smart & Final, then deliver them to Shipt
Customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Arns, Esq.
Jonathan E. Davis, Esq.
Shounak S. Dharap, Esq.
THE ARNS LAW FIRM
515 Folsom St., 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94109
Telephone: (415) 495-7800
E-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com
jed@arnslaw.com
ssd@arnslaw.com
SIGNAL HILL: Underpays Auditors, Butler Claims
----------------------------------------------
RICHARD BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIGNAL HILL TELECOM SERVICES U.S., INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00578 (W.D. Wash., April 16, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an auditor from November
2017 until March 2020.
According to the complaint, Defendant required auditors to perform
auditing service to customers which typically involves editing
videos of tower construction, to work until the assigned work is
completed that is often more than 10 hours a day and often must be
completed on their days off. Allegedly, Defendant compensated
auditors, including Plaintiff, by paying them a day rate for all
hours worked regardless of the number of hours they worked in a day
or work week. Thereby, Defendant failed to pay auditors an overtime
premium of 1.5x their regular rate for the hours over 40.
Signal Hill Telecom Services U.S., Inc. provides telecom services
and remote auditing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon R. Sanford, Esq.
JON R. SANFORD, P.A.
Post Office Box 6111
Edmonds, WA 98026
Tel: (479)968-5400
Email: jon@sanfordlawfirm.com
SOUTHERN COMPANY: Faces Shiflett FLSA Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA SHIFLETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE SOUTHERN COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01667-TWT (N.D.
Ga., April 17, 2020), alleges that Southern Company does not pay
overtime to its pipeline inspectors in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Instead, the Plaintiff contends, Southern Company pays these
workers a day rate with no overtime compensation, even though they
work many hours in excess of 40 hours per week. Because this
practice results in non-payment of overtime wages to the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated workers, the Plaintiff brings this
collective action to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages under FLSA.
Mr. Shiflett was employed by Southern Company as a pipeline
inspector.
Southern Company is an energy company with operations in several
states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin T. Holcombe, Esq.
Kris Skaar, Esq.
James M. Feagle, Esq.
Cliff R. Dorsen, Esq.
SKAAR & FEAGLE LLP
133 Mirramont Lake Dr.
Woodstock, GA 30189
Telephone: (770) 427-5600
Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com
jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
David I. Moulton, 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
dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Telecopier: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
SPRINT SOLUTIONS: Gorss TCPA Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GORSS MOTELS, INC.,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons v. SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 3:17-cv-00546-JAM (D. Conn.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class of:
"all persons or entities who were successfully sent one or
more faxes on or about the dates set forth stating: (1) "
Attention Wyndham Hotel Group owners, general managers and
staff members," "Sprint Exclusive iPhone Promotion!," "Now
through December 1 move service from any carrier and receive
a new iPhone 5C," sent November 19, 2013; (2) "Attention
Wyndham Hotel Group owners, general managers and staff
members," "Get the Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 for $49.99!!!!," and
"Get 2 GB of data on any Sprint 4G LTE tablet for $15 a
month," sent December 16, 2013; (3) "Attention Wyndham Hotel
Group owners, general managers and staff members," "Get
Unlimited Data Free for 12 Months!!!!" from "Sprint," sent
July 1, 2014; (4) "Attention Wyndham Hotel owners, general
managers and staff members," and "Get Unlimited Talk, Text
and Data for only $54/month" through "Sprint," sent February
2, 2015; and (5) "Switch to the Sprint Family Share Pack" for
"less than $100/mo," sent August 13, 2015."
In the alternative, if the Court finds it necessary to distinguish
between faxes received on a "stand-alone" fax machine and faxes
received via "online fax service" following the order by the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau of the Federal Communication
Commission in In re Amerifactors Fin. Group, LLC Pet. for Expedited
Declaratory Ruling, CG Docket Nos. 02-278, 05-338, Declaratory
Ruling, 2019 WL 6712128 (CGAB Dec. 9, 2019), then Plaintiffs seek
to certify these classes:
Stand-Alone Fax Machine Class:
"all persons or entities who were successfully sent one or
more faxes via a "stand-alone fax machine" on or about the
dates set forth stating: (1) "Attention Wyndham Hotel Group
owners, general managers and staff members," "Sprint
Exclusive iPhone Promotion!," "Now through December 1 move
service from any carrier and receive a new iPhone 5C," sent
November 19, 2013; (2) "Attention Wyndham Hotel Group owners,
general managers and staff members," "Get the Samsung Galaxy
Tab 3 for $49.99!!!!," and "Get 2 GB of data on any Sprint 4G
LTE tablet for $15 a month," sent December 16, 2013; (3)
"Attention Wyndham Hotel Group owners, general managers and
staff members," "Get Unlimited Data Free for 12 Months!!!!"
from "Sprint," sent July 1, 2014; (4) "Attention Wyndham
Hotel owners, general managers and staff members," and "Get
Unlimited Talk, Text and Data for only $54/month" through
"Sprint," sent February 2, 2015; and (5) "Switch to the
Sprint Family Share Pack" for "less than $100/mo," sent
August 13, 2015"; and
Online Fax Services Class:
"all persons or entities who were successfully sent one or
more faxes via an "online fax service" on or about the dates
set forth stating: (1) "Attention Wyndham Hotel Group owners,
general managers and staff members," "Sprint Exclusive iPhone
Promotion!," "Now through December 1 move service from any
carrier and receive a new iPhone 5C," sent November 19, 2013;
(2) "Attention Wyndham Hotel Group owners, general managers
and staff members," "Get the Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 for
$49.99!!!!," and "Get 2 GB of data on any Sprint 4G LTE
tablet for $15 a month," sent December 16, 2013; (3)
"Attention Wyndham Hotel Group owners, general managers and
staff members," "Get Unlimited Data Free for 12 Months!!!!"
from "Sprint," sent July 1, 2014; (4) "Attention Wyndham
Hotel owners, general managers and staff members," and "Get
Unlimited Talk, Text and Data for only $54/month" through
"Sprint," sent February 2, 2015; and (5) "Switch to the
Sprint Family Share Pack" for "less than $100/mo," sent
August 13, 2015."
This case arises out of 18,915 facsimiles (or Faxes) successfully
sent to Plaintiff and the proposed class on November 19, 2013,
December 16, 2013, July 1, 2014, February 2, 2015, and August 13,
2015, advertising the commercial products and services of Defendant
Sprint Solutions Inc. The Plaintiff alleges that the Faxes violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.
Sprint Solutions was founded in 2002. The company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of electronic parts
and electronic communications equipment.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
rkelly@andersonwanca.com
- and -
Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
85 Miles Avenue
White Plaines, NY 10606
Telephone: (914) 358-5345
Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com
STONEMOR GP: Lehman-Clements Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Lehman-Clements, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. STONEMOR GP LLC, STONEMOR OPERATING LLC,
STONEMOR PARTNERS L.P., STONEMOR INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00911 (N.D.
Ohio, April 29, 2020), is brought to challenge the Defendants'
practice of not paying all wages earned, which violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act, as well as the Ohio Constitution, the Ohio
overtime compensation statute and Ohio's Prompt Pay Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants knew that the demands of
family counselors' and family advisors' jobs required many more
than 40 working hours per week, and, in many cases, mandated that
family counselors and family advisors work more than 40 hours per
week. Yet, the Defendants instructed its family counselors and
family advisors to report fewer hours on their timecards and/or in
the company's electronic timekeeping system than actually worked,
so as to reduce or eliminate recorded compensable regular and
overtime hours.
Thus, in weeks where the Plaintiff was paid on an hourly basis,
they were not paid all wages earned when due, and were often
deprived of minimum wage and/or overtime premiums for those
compensable hours worked but not recorded in timekeeping records,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a family counselor
and/or family advisor from 2010 through 2019.
StoneMor is the second largest owner and operator of cemeteries in
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
2012 West 25th Street, Suite 716
Cleveland, OH 44113
Phone: 216-308-1522
Fax: 888-604-9299
Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com
- and -
Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq.
THE FUCHS FIRM LLC
3961 Silsby Road
University Heights, OH 44113
Phone and Fax: 216-505-7500
Email: josh@fuchsfirm.com
- and -
James J. Hux, Esq.
HUX LAW FIRM, LLC
3 Severance Circle #18147
Cleveland Heights, OH 44118
Phone: (937) 315-1106
Fax: (216) 359-7760
Email: jhux@huxlawfirm.com
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Stiching Appeals Judgment in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Stiching Depository APG Developed Markets Equity Pool
and Stiching Depository APG Fixed Income Credits Pool filed an
appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated March 31, 2020,
entered in the lawsuit entitled RETAIL WHOLESALE DEPARTMENT STORE
UNION LOCAL 338 RETIREMENT FUND, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL, MARGARET M. KEANE, and
BRIAN D. DOUBLES, Case No. 18-cv-1818, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
asserts that Defendants' misrepresentations regarding the Company's
underwriting practices and the impact those changes in underwriting
were having on its private-label card business, violates Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The case is a federal securities class action is brought on behalf
of purchasers of Synchrony common stock between October 21, 2016,
and November 1, 2018, inclusive. Synchrony is the largest provider
of private-label credit cards in the United States. The Company
provides a broad range of credit products through programs
established with leading retailers. Specifically, Synchrony issues
store-branded credit cards from retailers such as Lowe's, Walmart,
Amazon, and The Gap, which promote Synchrony's credit products on
the expectation of increased sales and strengthened customer
loyalty.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: Synchrony Financial, Case
No. 20-1352, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Stiching Depository APG Developed Markets
Equity Pool and Stiching Depository APG Fixed Income Credits Pool
are represented by:
Salvatore Graziano, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1538
E-mail: sgraziano@blbglaw.com
Defendants-Appellees Synchrony Financial, et al., are represented
by:
Jared Gerber, Esq.
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
1 Liberty Plaza
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 225-2507
E-mail: jgerber@cgsh.com
- and -
Meredith Kotler, Esq.
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 277-4000
- and -
James T. Shearin, Esq.
PULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC
850 Main Street, P.O. Box 7006
Bridgeport, CT 06601
Telephone: (203) 330-2240
- and -
Evan I. Cohen, Esq.
FINN DIXON & HERLING LLP
6 Landmark Square
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 325-5000
- and -
Daniel Craig Lewis, Esq.
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 848-8691
TENET HEALTHCARE: Maderazo Suit Nixed by Court-Approved Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation 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 case styled Maderazo, et al. v.
VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et
al., has been dismissed after the court approved the parties'
settlement agreement.
In Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist
Health Systems, et al., filed in June 2006 in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas, a purported class of
registered nurses employed by three unaffiliated San Antonio-area
hospital systems alleged those hospital systems, including the
Company's Baptist Health System, and other unidentified San Antonio
regional hospitals violated Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act by
conspiring to depress nurses' compensation and exchanging
compensation-related information among themselves in a manner that
reduced competition and suppressed the wages paid to such nurses.
The suit sought unspecified damages (subject to trebling under
federal law), interest, costs and attorneys' fees.
In January 2019, the district court issued an opinion denying the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The plaintiffs'
subsequent appeal of the district court's decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was denied in March 2019.
In April 2019, the appellate court denied the plaintiffs' request
for additional review of the district court's ruling, and the
Company learned in August 2019 that the plaintiffs did not request
further review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The plaintiffs advised
the court that they were proceeding on behalf of the three named
individuals.
On November 20, 2019, at court-ordered mediation, the parties
entered into a confidential settlement to resolve the three
plaintiffs' individual claims for an immaterial amount.
In January 2020, the parties executed a settlement agreement, which
the court approved, and the case was dismissed.
Tenet Healthcare Corporation operates as a diversified healthcare
services company. The company operates in three segments: Hospital
Operations and Other, Ambulatory Care, and Conifer. Tenet
Healthcare Corporation was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in
Dallas, Texas.
TEVA PHARMA: Bid to Consolidate Securities Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
The joint motion of the lead plaintiff and the defendants to
consolidate lawsuits pending in the District of Connecticut related
to the "Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation" remains pending,
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.
These cases include:
* A lawsuit initially filed on July 17, 2017, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio derivatively on
behalf of the Teva Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and alternatively
as a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of individuals who
purchased Teva stock through that plan;
* A lawsuit initially filed on August 3, 2017, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut by OZ ELS Master
Fund, Ltd. and related entities;
* Putative securities class actions initially filed on August 21
and 30, 2017, by Elliot Grodko and Barry Baker in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania purportedly on
behalf of purchasers of Teva's securities between November 15, 2016
and August 2, 2017 seeking unspecified damages, legal fees,
interest, and costs;
* Sixteen complaints initially filed between August 2018 and
July 2019, against Teva and current and former officer and director
defendants seeking unspecified compensatory and rescissory damages,
legal fees, costs and expenses; and
* A putative securities class action initially filed on June 21,
2019, by the Employees' Retirement System of the City of St.
Petersburg, Florida in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania purportedly on behalf of purchasers of
Teva's securities between August 4, 2017 and May 10, 2019 seeking
unspecified damages, legal fees, interest, and costs.
On November 6, 2016 and December 27, 2016, two putative securities
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Teva and certain of its current and
former officers and directors. After those two lawsuits were
consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, the court appointed the Ontario Teachers'
Pension Plan Board as lead plaintiff (the "Ontario Teachers
Securities Litigation"). The lead plaintiff then filed a
consolidated amended complaint.
On April 3, 2018, the court dismissed the case without prejudice.
The lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on June 22,
2018, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva's securities
between February 6, 2014 and August 3, 2017.
On September 25, 2019, the court denied in substantial part and
granted in part the defendants' motions to dismiss.
On December 13, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva's securities
between February 6, 2014 and May 10, 2019. The amended complaint
asserts that Teva and certain of its current and former officers
and directors violated federal securities and common laws in
connection with Teva's alleged failure to disclose pricing
strategies for various drugs in its generic drug portfolio and by
making allegedly false or misleading statements in certain offering
materials issued during the class period. The amended complaint
seeks unspecified damages, legal fees, interest, and costs. Also
on December 13, 2019, lead plaintiff and the defendants filed a
joint motion to consolidate with the Ontario Teachers Securities
Litigation related actions against Teva and its current and former
officers and directors that are pending in the District of
Connecticut. That motion is pending before the court.
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: Direct Buyers' Claims Pending in AndroGel Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The claims of direct purchasers challenging both Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Limited's December 2011 settlement with
AbbVie, and a September 2006 patent lawsuit settlement between
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., from which Teva later acquired
certain assets and liabilities, and Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
relating to AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel), remain pending,
according to Teva's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
In September 2014, the FTC sued AbbVie Inc. and certain of its
affiliates ("AbbVie") as well as Teva in federal court in
Philadelphia alleging that they violated the antitrust laws when
they entered into a December 2011 settlement agreement to resolve
the AndroGel(R) patent litigation and a supply agreement under
which AbbVie agreed to supply Teva with an authorized generic
version of TriCor(R). The FTC alleges that Teva agreed to delay
the entry of its generic testosterone gel product in exchange for
entering into the TriCor supply agreement.
In May 2015, the court dismissed the FTC's claim concerning the
settlement and supply agreements, and thus dismissed Teva from the
case entirely. The FTC proceeded with a separate claim against
AbbVie alone and in June 2018, following a bench trial, the court
held that AbbVie had violated the antitrust laws by filing sham
patent infringement lawsuits against both Teva and Perrigo in the
underlying AndroGel patent litigation. The court ordered AbbVie to
pay US$448 million in disgorgement but declined to award injunctive
relief. The FTC filed a notice of appeal as to, among other
things, the district court's May 2015 dismissal of the FTC's claim
against Teva, but in February 2019, the FTC stipulated to dismiss
Teva from its appeal, in exchange for Teva's agreement to amend the
Modafinil Consent Decree.
In August 2019, two groups of direct-purchaser plaintiffs filed
similar claims against AbbVie and Teva, in the same federal court
in Philadelphia where the FTC's claims had been pending. The first
group, comprised of the three direct purchasers that had sought
class certification in the Georgia AndroGel(R) case, were
challenging Teva's December 2011 settlement with AbbVie, but in
December 2019, Teva reached a settlement agreement with these
plaintiffs. The second group, comprised of other direct
purchasers, have filed claims challenging both Teva's December 2011
settlement with AbbVie and the September 2006 AndroGel(R)
settlement between Watson and Solvay. Those claims remain 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 Suits over Namenda IR
--------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to face antitrust
lawsuits related to settlement agreements between Forest
Laboratories, LLC and the generic manufacturers to resolve patent
litigation over Namenda IR(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 May 2015, a purported class of end payers for Namenda IR(R)
(memantine hydrochloride) filed a lawsuit against Forest
Laboratories, LLC ("Forest"), the innovator, and several generic
manufacturers, including Teva.
In November 2019, two additional plaintiffs filed a similar lawsuit
– purportedly as opt-outs from the end payers class – against
the same defendants.
These lawsuits allege, among other things, that settlement
agreements between Forest and the generic manufacturers to resolve
patent litigation over Namenda IR(R) violated the antitrust laws.
Annual sales of Namenda IR(R) at the time of the settlement were
approximately US$1.1 billion and approximately US$550 million at
the time other manufacturers first launched generic versions of
Namenda IR(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: Still Faces Opioids Suits in State and Federal Courts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to defend itself
in various state and federal cases related to opioid sales and
distribution, 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 May 2014, more than 2,000 complaints have been filed with
respect to opioid sales and distribution against various Teva
affiliates, along with several other pharmaceutical companies, by a
number of cities, counties, states, other governmental agencies,
tribes and private plaintiffs (including various putative class
actions of individuals) in both state and federal courts. Most of
the federal cases have been consolidated into a multidistrict
litigation in the Northern District of Ohio ("MDL Opioid
Proceeding") and many of the cases filed in state court have been
removed to federal court and consolidated into the MDL Opioid
Proceeding.
Other cases remain pending in various states. In some
jurisdictions, such as Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas and Utah, certain state court cases have been
transferred to a single court within their respective state court
systems for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
Absent resolutions, trials are expected to proceed in several
states in 2020. A court in New York has set a date, for a
liability trial only, to start in March 2020. A court in
California also set a date for a trial to start in June 2020.
Complaints asserting claims under similar provisions of different
state law, generally contend that the defendants allegedly engaged
in improper marketing and distribution of opioids, including
ACTIQ(R) and FENTORA(R). The complaints also assert claims related
to Teva's generic opioid products.
In addition, approximately 350 complaints have named Anda, Inc.
(and other distributors and manufacturers) alleging that Anda
failed to develop and implement systems sufficient to identify
suspicious orders of opioid products and prevent the abuse and
diversion of such products to individuals who used them for other
than legitimate medical purposes. Plaintiffs seek a variety of
remedies, including restitution, civil penalties, disgorgement of
profits, treble damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.
Certain plaintiffs assert that the measure of damages is the
entirety of the costs associated with addressing the abuse of
opioids and opioid addiction and certain plaintiffs specify
multiple billions of dollars in the aggregate as alleged damages.
In many of these cases, plaintiffs are seeking joint and several
damages among all defendants.
Teva Pharmaceutical said, "An adverse resolution of any of these
lawsuits or investigations may involve large monetary penalties,
damages, and/or other forms of monetary and non-monetary relief and
could have a material and adverse effect on Teva's reputation,
business, results of operations and cash flows."
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.
THERAPEUTIC HEMP: Berger Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY BERGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THERAPEUTIC HEMP, INC. d/b/a 420 CENTRAL,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case
No. 8:20-cv-00762 (C.D. Cal., April 17, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged negligent and
willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff received numerous text
messages on his cellular telephone number ending in -8552, which
was added to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about March 1,
2018, from Defendant's multiple telephone numbers. Allegedly,
Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone and begun
contacting Plaintiff during or about March 2018 in an attempt to
solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's products without
Plaintiff prior express consent to receive such text messages.
Plaintiff asserts that he was harmed by the acts of Defendant by
invading his privacy.
Plaintiff seeks statutory and treble damages and injunctive
relief.
Therapeutic Hemp, Inc. d/b/a 420 Central is a cannabis dispensary.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: 877-619-8966
Fax: 866-633-0228
Emails: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
TO-RISE LLC: Final Certification of Class Sought in Lora Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as EILEEK LORA, JEFFREY GOMEZ,
SERGIO MOSCOSO, BERNARDO MENDOZA, NICHOLAS MITRANO, KEVIN MANCO,
and WILMER MARIN GARCIA, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated v. TO-RISE, LLC and JORGE SALCEDO a/k/a JORGE E.
SALCEDO JR., Case No. 16-cv-03604 (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court for an order:
1. granting final certification of the Class pursuant to
F.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(2) for the purposes of settlement;
2. granting final approval of the Settlement Agreement and
Release appended to the supporting Declaration of William
Cafaro;
3. granting final approval of the collective action
settlement;
4. granting final approval of the class action settlement
pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(2); and
5. granting such other relief as may be fitting and proper in
the judgment of this Court.
To-Rise offers solutions for papper and janitorial supplies.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William Cafaro, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
108 West 39 th Street, Suite 602
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 583-7400
Facsimile: (212) 583-7401
E-mail:BCafaro@CafaroEsq.com
TRADEWEB MARKETS: Bids to Nix Treasuries Antitrust Lawsuit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss the consolidated class action styled, In re
Treasuries Securities Auction Antitrust Litigation, are still
pending, according to Tradeweb Markets Inc.'s Form 10-K/A filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019.
In December 2015, more than 40 substantially similar putative class
action complaints filed by individual investors, pension funds,
retirement funds, insurance companies, municipalities, hedge funds
and banks were consolidated in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York under the caption In re
Treasuries Securities Auction Antitrust Litigation, No.
1:15-md-2673 (S.D.N.Y.) (PGG).
In November 2017, the plaintiffs in these consolidated actions
filed a consolidated amended complaint in which they allege (a) an
"Auction Conspiracy" among primary dealers of United States
Treasury securities in auctions for Treasury securities and in the
"when-issued" and secondary markets for such securities and other
derivative financial products; and (b) a "Boycott Conspiracy" among
certain primary dealers and Tradeweb Markets LLC, Tradeweb IDB
Markets, Inc. and Dealerweb Inc. (collectively, the "Tradeweb
Parties"). The plaintiffs purport to represent two putative
classes: an "Auction Class" consisting of all persons who purchased
Treasuries in an auction, transacted in Treasuries with a dealer
defendant or through an exchange from January 1, 2007 through June
8, 2015, and a "Boycott Class" consisting of all persons who
transacted in Treasury securities in the secondary market with a
dealer defendant from November 15, 2013 to the present.
The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Tradeweb
Parties participated in the alleged "Boycott Conspiracy" through
which certain primary dealers are alleged to have boycotted trading
platforms permitting "all-to-all" trading of Treasury securities.
The complaint asserts claims against the Tradeweb Parties under
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and for unjust enrichment
under state law and seeks to permanently enjoin the Tradeweb
Parties and the dealer defendants from maintaining the alleged
"Boycott Conspiracy" and an award of treble damages, costs and
expenses.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss in February 2018, including a
separate motion to dismiss filed by the Tradeweb Parties. The
motions to dismiss are pending.
The Company said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses to
the claims set forth in the complaint and intend to continue to
vigorously defend our position."
TRAVEL RESORTS: Harris Alleges Abusive Telemarketing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY HARRIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TRAVEL RESORTS OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-14119-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 20, 2020) is a class
action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant to
redress Travel Resorts' repeated violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"), a federal law that was
designed to curtail abusive telemarketing practices.
The Defendant placed unsolicited prerecorded calls to Plaintiff's
and the putative class members' cellular telephones in violation of
the TCPA between January 29, 2020 and March 26, 2020.
These unsolicited calls each featured a prerecorded voice; the
voicemails left on Plaintiff's phone state that the caller
originated from Defendant's "Gift Department" and urges Plaintiff
to call back in order to claim her "gift" from Defendant.
The Defendant did not have Plaintiff's prior express consent to
place such prerecorded voice calls to her cellular telephones.
Travel Resorts of America, Inc.is a travel services company based
in Southern Pines, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
U.S. IMMIGRATION: Class Cert. of Immigration Detainees Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANGEL DE JESUS ZEPEDA RIVAS,
BRENDA RUIZ TOVAR, LAWRENCE MWAURA, LUCIANO GONZALO MENDOZA
JERONIMO, CORAIMA YARITZA SANCHEZ NUNEZ, JAVIER ALFARO, DUNG TUAN
DANG v. DAVID JENNINGS, Acting Director of the San Francisco Field
Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; MATTHEW T.
ALBENCE, Deputy Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties
of the Director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; GEO GROUP, INC.; NATHAN
ALLEN, Warden of Mesa Verde Detention Facility, Case No.
3:20-cv-02731 (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order provisionally certifying a class of:
"all civil immigration detainees at Yuba County Jail (YCJ)
and Mesa Verde ICE Processing Facility (Mesa Verde),
including two subclasses: (1) all civil immigration detainees
at YCJ and (2) all civil immigration detainees at Mesa
Verde."
The proposed class is a quintessential Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) class.
The Defendants have engaged in unconstitutional behavior towards
the entire class. The Defendants control the conditions of every
class member's confinement. And every class member is at imminent
risk of being infected by COVID-19 as a result of those conditions,
says the complaint.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a federal law
enforcement agency under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
principally responsible for immigration and customs enforcement,
with additional responsibilities in countering transnational
crime.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William S. Freeman, Esq.
Sean Riordan, Esq.
Angelica Salceda, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 621-2493
Facsimile: (415) 255-8437
E-mail: wfreeman@aclunc.org
sriordan@aclunc.org
asalceda@aclunc.org
- and -
Manohar Raju, Esq.
Matt Gonzalez, Esq.
Genna Ellis Beier, Esq.
Emilou H. Maclean, Esq.
Francisco Ugarte, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SAN FRANCISCO
555 Seventh Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone: 415-553-9319
Facsimile: 415-553-9810
E-mail: genna.beier@sfgov.org
emilou.maclean@sfgov.org
francisco.ugarte@sfgov.org
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Cal. App. Affirms Pricing Cases Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One
issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned UBER TECHNOLOGIES
PRICING CASES. No. A154694. (Cal. App.)
Plaintiffs appeal to the District Court the dismissal of their
complaint.
Plaintiff Eyad Ariekat, a taxi medallion owner, filed a class
action complaint in March 2017 against Uber in the San Francisco
Superior Court, alleging predatory pricing in violation of the UPA
(Section 17403) and unlawful and unfair business practices in
violation of the UCL (Section 17200). A month later, Yellow Cab
Company Peninsula, Inc. et al., filed a complaint against Uber in
the Santa Clara Superior Court, alleging the same causes of action.
Plaintiffs then filed a first amended complaint, once again
alleging predatory pricing in violation of the UPA and the UCL.
Uber demurred asserting, among other things, that the statutory
exemption set forth in section 17024(1), foreclosed plaintiffs'
claims under the UPA and, in turn, their derivative claims under
the UCL.
Uber maintained the section 17024(1) exclusion precludes the
application of Section 17043 and other UPA provisions, to services
provided by certain private parties that are within the
jurisdiction of the CPUC.
Plaintiffs responded that Uber's argument is based on a misreading
of the statute, and that section 17024(1) only creates an exemption
from UPA claims if the CPUC actually establishes rates for good or
services at issue.
The trial court issued a written order sustaining Uber's demurrer
with leave to amend, ruling section 17024(1), in a straightforward
manner creates the exemption, from below-cost pricing liability, to
entities overtly within the jurisdiction of the CPUC. When
plaintiffs elected not to amend, the court entered a judgment of
dismissal.
Statutory Exemption—Section 17024(1)6
The parties advance on appeal the same arguments they made in the
trial court. Plaintiffs maintain the statutory exemption to the UPA
set forth in section 17240(1), does not apply because the CPUC,
while having the authority to regulate Uber's fares, has not yet
done so. Uber maintains that because the CPUC indisputably has
jurisdiction over it and, indeed, has commenced extended regulatory
proceedings that remain ongoing, the statutory exemption applies.
As the Appellate Court indicated at the outset, three different
federal district court judges in other UPA cases against Uber have
concluded the exemption applies.
The Appeals Court held that, "The statutory exemption to the UPA
with which we are concerned provides: Nothing in this chapter
applies:
To any service, article or product for which rates are established
under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of this
State and sold or furnished by any public utility corporation, or
installation and repair services rendered in connection with any
services, articles or products.
To any service, article or product sold or furnished by a publicly
owned public utility and upon which the rates would have been
established under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities
Commission of this State if such service, article or product had
been sold or furnished by a public utility corporation, or
installation or repair services rendered in connection with any
services, articles or products.
In short, subsection (1) provides an exemption for privately owned
public utility corporations, whereas subsection (2) provides an
exemption for publically owned public utility corporations.
Plaintiffs ground their assertion that the section 17024(1)
exemption is inapplicable on the phrase for which rates are
established under the jurisdiction of the CPUC. In their view, this
language plainly requires that the CPUC must have actually set a
public utility corporation's rates before the exemption applies.
This is underscored, they say, by the different language employed
in subsection (2) pertaining to services provided by a
publicly-owned public utility corporation upon which the rates
would have been established under the jurisdiction of the CPUC had
the services been provided by a privately owned public utility
corporation.
Uber acknowledges the CPUC has not yet exerted its authority, to
tell Uber that its rates are too high or too low, or to otherwise
regulate the actual rate itself, but maintains that is not
determinative. Rather, according to Uber, the pivotal facts are
two-fold. One, the company is subject to the jurisdiction of the
CPUC. And, two, the CPUC has the authority to regulate Uber's rates
should it choose to do so.
As for the slightly different wording of subsections (1) and (2) of
the statutory exemption, Uber maintains it reflects the fact the
CPUC generally lacks jurisdiction over municipally-owned public
utility corporations and subsection (2) extends to these
municipal-owned entities the same UPA exemption provided to
privately owned entities under subsection (1).
Uber has the better view, as the federal district court explained
in Diva Limousine,392 F.Supp.3d 1074, in a particularly thorough
order granting a motion to dismiss UPA below-cost claims against
the company.
The Public Utilities Code expressly provides that it is within the
CPUC's discretion to regulate public utilities within its
jurisdiction, including by setting rates, but that the CPUC is not
required to do so in all instances. The state constitution
similarly provides that the CPUC may fix rates for all public
utilities subject to its jurisdiction.
As Diva Limousine notes, the language of section 17024, like that
of many statutes, is not a paragon of clarity. However, the broader
view of the statutory language that the statutory exemption turns
on the jurisdictional authority of the CPUC to regulate rates, and
not on whether the commission has chosen to exercise its power in a
particular instance is supported by the fact that the statutory
scheme allows the CPUC to consider anticompetitive concerns when
regulating public utility corporations like Uber.
Indeed, given that the CPUC may, but is not required, to set rates,
subsection (2) must focus on whether the CPUC would have the power
to regulate rates were the service being provided by a
privately-owned public entity corporation and not on whether it
would actually exercise that power as the courts have no such
clairvoyance when examining only an analogous context.
Accordingly, to ensure that privately-owned and publicly-owned
public utility corporations are treated the same under the UPA,
that is, to ensure that subsection (1) has the same scope and
breadth as subsection (2) the pivotal issue under subsection (1),
as it is under subsection (2), must be whether the CPUC has the
jurisdiction to establish rates, not whether it has yet chosen to
exercise that jurisdiction in a particular case.
The answer to that pivotal issue here is undisputed, the CPUC has
rate-setting jurisdiction over Uber. Accordingly, the statutory
exemption to the UPA set forth in section 17024(1), applies and the
plaintiffs' UPA claims were properly dismissed, rules the Appeals
Court.
Accordingly, the judgment of dismissal is affirmed.
The full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' March 23, 2020 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/u75xew6 from Leagle.com
Prometheus Partners, LLP, Eduardo G. Roy , 220 Montgomery Street
Suite 1094 San Francisco, CA 94104 Daniel Chris Quintero -
daniel.quintero@prometheus-law.com - John R. Hurley, 220 Montgomery
Street Suite 1094 San Francisco, CA 94104, for Plaintiffs and
Appellants.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Brian C. Rocca -
brian.rocca@morganlewis.com - Thomas M. Peterson
Thomas - peterson@morganlewis.com - Kent M. Roger -
kent.roger@morganlewis.com - Sujal J. Shah-
sujal.shah@morganlewis.com - for Defendant and Respondent.
UNITED OF OMAHA: Appeals C.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant United of Omaha Life Insurance filed an appeal from a
court ruling issued in the lawsuit styled Jennifer Bentley v.
United of Omaha Life Insurance, Case No. 2:15-cv-07870-DMG-AJW, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
focuses on the improper termination of life insurance policies.
The appellate case is captioned as Jennifer Bentley v. United of
Omaha Life Insurance, Case No. 20-55435, 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 26, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on June 22, 2020;
-- Appellant United of Omaha Life Insurance Company's opening
brief is due on August 3, 2020;
-- Appellee Jennifer Bentley's answering brief is due on
September 2, 2020;
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee JENNIFER BENTLEY, as trustee of the 2001 Bentley
Family Trust, and others similarly situated, is represented by:
Steve Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN
1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (213) 330-7150
Email: christopherp@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Paul E. Slater, Esq.
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
55 West Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 641-3200
Email: pes@sperling-law.com
jvanek@vaneklaw.com
- and -
Jason Zweig, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN
555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 752-5455
Email: jasonz@hbsslaw.com
Defendant-Appellant UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:
Larry M. Golub, Esq.
Vivian Orlando, Esq.
Martin Rosen, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
633 West 5th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 680-2800
- and -
Kimberly A. Jansen, Esq.
Joshua Vincent, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 704-3821
UNITED STATES: Faces Infinity Civil Rights Suit in Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States of
America. The case is captioned as Infinity Consulting Group, LLC,
doing business as: Glitz and Glam Jewelry By LJ; and Alvin Vaughn
and others similarly situated v. United States of America; The
United States Small Business Administration; Jovita Carranza, in
her Official Capacity as Administrator of the Small Business
Administration; Steven Mnuchin, in his Official Capacity as United
States Secretary of the Treasury; and United States of America
Department of the Treasury, Case No. 8:20-cv-00981-GJH (D. Md.,
April 17, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge George Jarrod Hazel.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the civil rights laws.
The Department of the Treasury is the national treasury of the
federal government of the United States where it serves as an
executive department.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eli S. Noff, Esq.
Elizabeth Mcdowell Burlington, Esq.
Glen E. Frost, Esq.
Matthew P Kraeuter, Esq.
Sean Patrick Hatley, Esq.
FROST & ASSOCIATES
839 Bestgate Road, Suite 400
Annapolis, MD 21401
Telephone: (410) 497-5947
Facsimile: (888) 235-8405
E-mail: eli.noff@irstaxlitigation.com
elizabeth.burlington@frosttaxlaw.com
glen.frost@irstaxlitigation.com
matt.kraeuter@frosttaxlaw.com
sean.hatley@frosttaxlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Charles E.T. Roberts, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1100 L St. NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 305-8628
Facsimile: (202) 616-8470
E-mail: charles.e.roberts@usdoj.gov
- and -
Alan Carl Lazerow, Esq.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
36 S. Charles St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (410) 209-4873
E-mail: Alan.Lazerow@usdoj.gov
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Refuses to Refund Tuition & Fees, Doe Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00356 (M.D.
Tenn., April 28, 2020), alleges that the Defendant refuses to
provide any tuition or fee refund for the Spring 2020 semester
despite sending students home and closing its residence halls.
According to the complaint, the Defendant only offered minimal
adjustments for housing and meal plans, with arbitrary penalties
based on the date students were able to vacate the student
residential housing. If students were unable to leave campus before
March 30, 2020, the Defendant decided students would receive no
housing or meal plan reimbursement at all for services they were
not utilizing.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's actions have
financially damaged him and the Class Members. The Plaintiff brings
this action because they did not receive the full value of the
services paid, and did not receive the benefits of in-person
instruction and are seeking reimbursement of tuition, fees, and
room and board on a pro-rata basis. The Plaintiff asserts that he
and the class have lost the benefit of their bargain and/or
suffered out-of-pocket loss, and are entitled to recover
compensatory damages, trebling where permitted, and attorney's fees
and costs.
The Plaintiff is enrolled as a full-time student for the Spring
2020 academic term at the Defendant.
Founded in 1873, Vanderbilt has a current enrollment of
approximately 13,131 undergraduate, graduate, and professional
students, with 6,886 undergraduate students, across 69 Bachelor's
Degree programs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tricia Herzfeld, Esq.
Anthony A. Orlandi, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: 615-254-8801
Facsimile: 615-255-5419
E-mail: triciah@bsjfirm.com
aorlandi@bsjfirm.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
dank@hbsslaw.com
whitneys@hbsslaw.com
VOLUME SERVICES: Court Conditionally Certifies Settlement Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MONIQUE RAQUEDAN, et al. v.
VOLUME SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 18-CV-01139-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh entered an order:
1. conditionally certifying a proposed class pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1) for purposes of settlement only;
2. preliminarily approving the Notice of Class Action
Settlement;
3. certifying persons as Class Members solely for the purpose
of entering a settlement in this matter:
"all employees and applicants in the United States who
applied for a job, promotion or job change with
Centerplate for which a background check, including a
consumer report, was conducted at any time from February
22, 2011, to March 31, 2019, excluding those individuals
who already have resolved all the claims asserted in the
Action, whether by settlement or adjudication, including,
but not limited to, the settlement in Phlisida Gibbs
v. Centerplate, Inc., et al., U.S.D.C., M.D. Fla., No. 8-
17-cv-2187-EAK-JSS".
4. approving that Class Members will receive a Settlement
Share unless they submit a valid and timely Opt-Out Form
not later than 45 days after the mailing of the Fourth
Amended Class Notice;
5. directing any Class Member who wishes to object to the
Settlement, including Class 3 Counsel's motion for
attorney's fees and for Class Representative payments, has
until 45 days after the mailing of the Fourth Amended
Class Notice to mail to the Settlement Administrator his
or her written objection (and, if he or she wishes to
appear at the final approval hearing, to indicate in his
or her written objection an intention to appear;
6. appointing Simpluris, Inc. to act as the Settlement
Administrator;
7. appointing Plaintiffs Monique Raquedan and Ronald
Martinez as Class Representatives;
8. appointing Shaun Setareh, Thomas Segal, and Farrah Grant
of Setareh Law Group as Class Counsel.
9. directing Centerplate to provide to the Settlement
Administrator not later than 30 days after the date of
this order;
10. directing the Settlement Administrator to mail the Fourth
Amended Class Notice and Opt-Out Form, translated in
English and Spanish, by first-class mail to the Class
Members not later than 15 days after receipt of the Class
Members' Data;
A final approval hearing will be held on September 17, 2020, at
1:30 p.m., to determine whether the Settlement should be granted
final approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the Class
Members.
Volume Services, Inc., doing business as Centerplate, operates
entertainment and convention venues.[CC]
VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Barnes COI Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
The cost of insurance litigation styled, Barnes v. Security Life of
Denver (USDC District of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-00718) (filed March
27, 2018), 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 is a putative class action in which the plaintiff
alleges that his insurance policy only permitted the Company to
rely upon his expected future mortality experience to establish and
increase his cost of insurance, but the Company instead relied upon
other, non-disclosed factors to do so.
Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and conversion claims against
the Company and also seeks declaratory relief.
The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the matter
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.
WELLS FARGO: PTS Sues Over Priority of Small Businesses' PPP Loan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Physical Therapy Specialists, P.C., on behalf of itself and those
similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No.
1:20-cv-01190 (D. Colo., April 29, 2020), is brought to stop the
Defendant's alleged conduct of not prioritizing Paycheck Protection
Program loan applications of small businesses.
The legislature's plan to aid small businesses, the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("the CARES Act"), was
enacted into law on March 27, 2020. In its initial form, the Small
Business Administration's ("SBA") Paycheck Protection Program
("PPP") authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small
businesses to cover payroll and other expenses. This money was
meant to provide a critical and immediate life raft to businesses,
who have been shut down pursuant to their state's "stay at home"
order or have been effectively shuttered due to a dramatic drop-off
in business.
The Defendant, however, decided to ensure that the applications of
its favored clients would be prioritized at the expense of the
small business customers the PPP was designed to benefit, according
to the complaint. This not only helped curry favor with the clients
most important to the Defendant's bottom line, but would, because
of the high loan amounts, generate more loan origination fees for
the Defendant with less effort and expense. As a result, only a
small percent of the Defendant's retail, "Small Business" customers
that tried to apply for PPP loans were approved, while the majority
of the Defendant's larger, "Commercial Banking" clients were
approved. Worse, the Defendant concealed from the public that it
was prioritizing the applications on a basis other than first-come,
first served.
Had the Defendant disclosed its self-serving prioritization, the
Plaintiff could have, and would have, submitted its PPP
applications to other financial institutions that were actually
processing applications on a first-come, first-served basis. As a
result, thousands of small businesses, including the Plaintiff,
that were entitled to loans under the PPP were denied access to the
funds because the Defendant failed to comply with the rules and the
intent of the program--to serve the needs of its small business
customers, says the complaint.
P.T. Specialists is a Colorado professional service corporation and
is a small business operating a physical therapy clinic.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., is a federally chartered national bank,
with its main office in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ariane M. Ice, Esq.
Thomas Erskine Ice, Esq.
ICE LEGAL, P.A.
20 Portsmouth Ave., Suite 1, No. 225
Stratham, NH 03885
Phone: (603) 242-150
Email: ariane.ice@icelegal.com
WESTINGHOUSE AIR: Reaches MOU to Settle MDL in W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation 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 has entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with plaintiffs, agreeing to settle all
claims in the class action suit related to the consent decree
entered by the company and Knorr-Bremse AG.
On April 3, 2018, the Company and Knorr-Bremse AG entered into a
consent decree with the United States Department of Justice
resolving allegations that the Company and Knorr-Bremse AG had
maintained unlawful agreements not to compete for each other's
employees. The allegations also related to Faiveley Transport
before it was acquired by the Company in November 2016. No
monetary fines or penalties were imposed on the Company. The
Company elected to settle this matter with the Department of
Justice to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation.
Putative class action lawsuits thereafter were filed in several
different federal district courts naming the Company and Knorr as
defendants in connection with the allegations contained in the
consent decree. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages on behalf of
employees of the Company (including Faiveley Transport) and Knorr
allegedly caused by the defendants' actions. A federal
Multi-District Litigation (MDL) Panel consolidated the cases in the
Western District of Pennsylvania, and on October 12, 2018, a
consolidated class action complaint was filed in the Western
District of PA with five named plaintiffs.
On August 13, 2019, the Company was notified that co-defendant
Knorr-Bremse settled with plaintiffs.
On January 21, 2020, following Court-sponsored early mediation, the
Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with plaintiffs,
agreeing to settle all claims in the case. The parties intend to
seek Court approval of the agreed settlement terms and amount.
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation, doing business as
Wabtec Corp., provides technology-based equipment and services for
the rail industry worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Freight Group and Transit Group. Westinghouse Air Brake
Technologies was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in
Wilmerding, Pennsylvania.
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Natural Gas Price Index Class Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, 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 two putative class actions related to
alleged manipulation of published gas price indices remain
unresolved, and they have been remanded to their originally filed
court, the Wisconsin federal district court.
The Company said, "Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in
various states filed individual and class actions against us, our
former affiliate WPX Energy, Inc. (WPX) and its subsidiaries, and
others alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices and
seeking unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were
transferred to the Nevada federal district court for consolidation
of discovery and pre-trial issues. We have agreed to indemnify WPX
and its subsidiaries related to this matter.
"In the putative class actions, on March 30, 2017, the court issued
an order denying the plaintiffs' motions for class certification.
On June 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit granted the plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal
the order. On August 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order
denying class certification and remanded the case to the Nevada
federal district court.
"We reached an agreement to settle two of the actions, and on April
22, 2019, the Nevada federal district court preliminarily approved
the settlements, which are on behalf of Kansas and Missouri class
members. The final fairness hearing on the settlement occurred
August 5, 2019, and a final judgment of dismissal with prejudice
was entered the same day.
"Two putative class actions remain unresolved, and they have been
remanded to their originally filed court, the Wisconsin federal
district court.
"Because of the uncertainty around the remaining pending unresolved
issues, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential exposure
at this time. However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate
resolution of these actions and our related indemnification
obligation could result in a potential loss that may be material to
our results of operations. In connection with this
indemnification, we have an accrued liability balance associated
with this matter, and as a result, have exposure to future
developments."
The Williams Companies, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure
company primarily in the United States. The Williams Companies,
Inc. was founded in 1908 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
WRIGHT MEDICAL: 72 Unresolved Suits over PROFEMUR at Dec. 29
------------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 29, 2019, that it continues to defend itself against 72
unresolved personal injury lawsuits related to PROFEMUR(R).
The Company has received claims for personal injury against it
associated with fractures of the PROFEMUR(R) titanium modular neck
product (Titanium Modular Neck Claims).
As of December 29, 2019, there were approximately 22 unresolved
pending U.S. lawsuits and approximately 50 unresolved pending
non-U.S. lawsuits alleging such claims (44 of which are part of a
single consolidated class action lawsuit in Canada). These
lawsuits generally seek monetary damages.
Wright Medical Group N.V., a medical device company, designs,
manufactures, markets, and sells upper and lower extremities, and
biologics products in the United States, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, Canada, Asia, Australia, and Latin America. The company was
founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.
WRIGHT MEDICAL: SEC Solicitation Statement Lacks Info, Curtis Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARCY CURTIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V., GARY D.
BLACKFORD, JOHN L. MICLOT, ROBERT J. PALMISANO, DAVID D. STEVENS,
ELIZABETH WEATHERMAN, J. PATRICK MACKIN, KEVIN C. O'BOYLE, AMY S.
PAUL, RICHARD F. WALLMAN, STRYKER CORPORATION, and STRYKER B.V.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00509-UNA (D. Del., April 15, 2020) is
a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their
alleged deliberate violation of the Sections 14(e), 14(d), and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiff owns Wright Medical common stock.
The complaint arises from the proposed transaction announced on
November 4, 2019 pursuant to the merger plan of Wright Medical
Group N.V. with Stryker Corporation and Stryker B.V. caused by
Wright Medical's Board of Directors, in which all of the Wright
Medical's outstanding common stock will be purchased by Buyer for
$30.75 per share in cash.
In connection with the proposed transaction, Defendants filed a
Solicitation /Recommendation Statement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 13, 2019. However, the Solicitation
Statement was false and misleading because there were omitted
material information regarding the Company's financial projections,
the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor
Guggenheim Securities, and the engagement of the Company's
additional advisor J.P. Morgan Securities LLC.
The complaint asserts that the omissions in the Solicitation
Statement are material to Plaintiff and the Class because it
supposedly provide them basis to project the future financial
performance of a company, and allows them to better understand the
financial analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor.
Also, the omissions deprived Plaintiff and the Class of their
entitlement to make fully informed decision with respect to the
proposed transaction.
Gary D. Blackford, John L. Miclot, Robert J. Palmisano, David D.
Stevens, Elizabeth Weatherman, J. Patrick Mackin, Kevin C. O'Boyle,
Amy S. Paul, and Richard F. Wallman are Board of Directors of
Wright Medical Group N.V.
Wright Medical Group N.V. is a global medical device company
focused on extremities and biologics products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302)295-5310
Fax: (302)654-7530
Emails: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
WRIGHT MEDICAL: William Grubb Sues Over Stryker Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V. is facing a putative class action lawsuit
filed by William Grubb related to its acquisition of Stryker
Corporation, 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.
The Company said, "On January 31, 2020, William Grubb, a purported
shareholder of our company, filed a putative class action lawsuit
against us and members of our board of directors in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
captioned Grubb v. Wright Medical Group N.V., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00553 (Grubb Complaint). The Grubb Complaint alleges that
we and the members of our board of directors violated federal
securities laws and regulations by failing to disclose material
information in the Schedule 14D-9 filed in connection with the
transactions contemplated by the Stryker purchase agreement, which
the Grubb Complaint alleges rendered the Schedule 14D-9 false and
misleading. In addition, the Grubb Complaint alleges that members
of our board of directors acted as controlling persons of the
company within the meaning and in violation of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act to influence and control the dissemination of the
allegedly defective Schedule 14D-9. The Grubb Complaint seeks,
among other things, an order enjoining consummation of the
transactions contemplated by the Stryker purchase agreement;
rescission of such transactions if they have already been
consummated and rescissory damages; a declaration that the
defendants violated certain federal securities laws and
regulations; and an award of plaintiff's costs, including counsel
fees and expenses and expert fees."
Wright Medical Group N.V., a medical device company, designs,
manufactures, markets, and sells upper and lower extremities, and
biologics products in the United States, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, Canada, Asia, Australia, and Latin America. The company was
founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.
ZOOM VIDEO: Fails to Take Data Security Precautions, Jimenez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, THERESE JIMENEZ, individually, on behalf of her minor
child M.F., and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-02591 (N.D. Cal., April
14, 2020) arises from an article published by Joseph Cox on the
website of American-based Canadian digital media and broadcasting
company Vice Media Group LLC on March 26, 2020 alleging that the
Defendant's Zoom iPhone app was sending users' personal data to
Facebook, unbeknownst to users, even if they didn't have a Facebook
account.
In response, on March 27, 2020, Zoom published a statement from its
Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Eric Yuan, admitting that the
Zoom iPhone app had been sending users' personal data to Facebook,
and that Zoom was unaware of this data transfer until two days
prior. Nevertheless, Zoom maintained that it "takes its users'
privacy extremely seriously" and that its "customers' privacy is
incredibly important to" Zoom.
On March 29, 2020, Zoom broadly revised its privacy policy claiming
it was only an update. Zoom's pre-March 29, 2020 privacy policy
stated plainly that "Whether you have Zoom account or not, we may
collect Personal Data from or about you when you use or otherwise
interact with our Products." Zoom's post-March 29, 2020 privacy
policy provides a more complicated explanation which, in essence,
explains the same thing: regardless of whether a user has opened an
account or not Zoom is collecting personal data.
Even though Defendant was storing sensitive personal data and
providing secure video conferencing connections for both account
holders and non-account holders, Defendant failed to take security
precautions necessary to protect that data and those conferences.
Because Defendant failed to take necessary security precautions, or
properly review the functioning of its video conferencing
technology, users' personal data was released to third parties,
including Facebook, and secure video conferences were compromised.
Certain of these users never even opened an account with Zoom, and
would have no idea that Zoom was collecting their personal data or
its security policy.
While Zoom's wrongful conduct constitutes invasion of privacy in
and of itself, entitling consumers to damages, Plaintiffs and Class
members are also now placed at an increased risk of further
imminent harm as a direct result of Zoom's wrongful acts and
omissions.
During the coronavirus pandemic Zoom's usage surged. As of the end
of December 2019, the maximum number of daily meeting participants,
both free and paid, conducted on Zoom was approximately 10 million.
In March 2020, Zoom reached more than 200 million daily meeting
participants, both free and paid. With the surge in usage also came
increased scrutiny on Zoom's privacy policies.
Zoom Video Communications Inc. provides a cloud-based
communications platform for video and audio conferencing to both
business and individual consumers headquartered in California.
Zoom's products and services can be used across mobile devices,
desktops, telephones, and room systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Theodore Maya, Esq.
Bradley K. King, Esq.
Christopher E. Stiner, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
bking@ahdootwolfson.com
cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com
[^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class
---------------------------------------------------
Beard Group, Inc. is hosting a webinar for plaintiff practitioners
on client intake for mass torts and class actions on Thurs., May
28
at 2 p.m. Eastern Time.
Register FREE at bit.ly/2KqkcIV
Lead generation is just half the battle. You still have to win
over
the client. Register now and learn the following:
-- Primary elements in responding to a lead
-- How to customize scripts for case, demographics
-- Developing effective screening criteria
-- Tactics in converting leads to plaintiffs on first
contact
-- Minimize lead loss
-- Publicity vs. conversion budgets
Benefits:
-- Optimize your marketing budget's ROI
-- Maximize the size of your class
-- Reduce acquisition cost per client
Tom Ball, Senior Vice President at Alert Communications, will
present what his company has learned after completing millions of
new client intakes for law firms and legal marketing agencies.
Thurs., May 28
2 p.m. Eastern
Register FREE at bit.ly/2KqkcIV
*********
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 ***