/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200514.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, May 14, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 97
Headlines
11USA GROUP: Shelton Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
ALLSTATE FIRE: Bid to Certify Partial Summ. Judgment as Final Nixed
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: OBrien Sues in N.D. Texas Over FDCPA Violation
AMAZON.COM: Caudel Slams Purchased Video Content Access
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Qureshi Sues Over Failure to Refund Fees
ARCHER DEVELOPMENT: Sued by American Builders in South Carolina
ARCONIC INC: Bid to Dismiss Howard Class Action Pending
ARGENT HOTEL: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Majdoub Claims
ARGENT TRUST: Faces Lysengen Suit Alleging Violation of ERISA
ARGENT TRUST: Lysengen Sues Over Losses Suffered by Morton ESOP
ARS NATIONAL: Miller Sues in C.D. California Over FDCPA Violation
BARRY UNIVERSITY: Rosado Sues Over Retention of Full Tuition
CALIBER HOLDINGS: Newton Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: Carranza Sues Over of Violations Labor Code
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Miller Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
CLEAN CHEMISTRY: Perry Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
COMPUTER CREDIT: Ambs Sues in N.D. Illinois Over FDCPA Violation
COMPUTER CREDIT: Faces Ambs Suit in N.D. Texas Over FDCPA Breach
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Fails to Pay COVID Losses, Cafe Plaza Says
CREDIT SUISSE: Appeal in CHF LIBOR Suit Underway
CREDIT SUISSE: Appeal in SIBOR/SOR Class Suit Pending
CREDIT SUISSE: Bid to Dismiss ICE LIBOR Class Suit Pending
CREDIT SUISSE: Litigation Over Forex Rate Manipulation Ongoing
CREDIT SUISSE: Suit Over SDNY SSA Bonds Dismissed
ECOPETROL SA: Suit Over Oil Spill Still on Probatory Stage
FAIR ISAAC: Alcoa Community Union Files Fraud Class Suit
FAIR ISAAC: Amalgamated Bank Files Fraud Class Suit
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Torres Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
G1 CONSULTING: Mey Sues in N.D. West Virginia Over TCPA Violation
GENERALI US BRANCH: Fails to Cover COVID-19 Expenses, Nixon Says
GEO GROUP: Alvarez Seeks Overtime Pay for Pre-shift Hours
GOMART INC: Keefover Sues in N.D. Virginia Alleging ADA Violation
GOOD SAMARITAN: Bid for Partial Summ. Judgment in Frank Suit Denied
GW UNIVERSITY: Shaffer Seeks Costs for In-Person Services Denial
HOFFMAN OF SIMSBURY: Faces Wong Suit in Connecticut Super. Ct.
HUGOTON ROYALTY: Claims Over Chieftain Accord Still Pending
ICONIX BRAND: Settlement in SDNY Class Suit Receives Court Okay
JPMORGAN CHASE: TDD Dallas Sues Over Improper PPP Loan Process
L BRANDS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Ohio Class Suit Pending
LAKELAND TOURS: Sued by Tirozzi for Not Refunding Cancelled Trips
LASER PHYSICIANS: Laser Technicians Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay
MDL 2942: Joining of COVID-19 Insurance Coverage Suits Sought
MERIDIAN CORP: Bank Unit Pays Settlement in Jordan Class Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Aguirre Sues in S.D. Calif. Over FDCPA Violation
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Andres FDCPA Class Suit in C.D. California
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Guzman FDCPA Class Suit in C.D. California
MIDLAND CREDIT: Green Sues in S.D. Texas Alleging FDCPA Violation
MIDLAND CREDIT: McKenzie Sues in M.D. Florida Over FDCPA Breach
NED LAMONT: Faces McPherson Civil Rights Suit in Connecticut
PARKING REIT: Bid to Dismiss 2 Stockholders Suits Still Pending
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Thomson Seeks Refunds Over Closure
PEPSI MIDAMERICA: Westfield Do Not Want to Defend Hall BIPA Suit
PHARMACIELO LTD: Anderson Hits Share Price Drop
QUEEN CITY PIZZA: Moyer Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
RING LLC: Andrews Sues Over Hidden Charges/Subscription Fees
SOCIETY INSURANCE: Sued by Roscoe Same Over Refusal Pay Claims
STEAK N SHAKE: Court Narrows FLSA Claims in White Suit
TARONIS TECHNOLOGIES: Court Narrows Claims Zhu Securities Suit
TRANSPORTES AEREOS: Faces Plummer Class Suit in Massachusetts
TRUMP CORP: Can't Compel Arbitration in Doe RICO Suit
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Allen Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Smith Sues to Seek Tuition Refunds
WESLEYAN VILLAGE: Arroyo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
ZION OIL: Texas Class Action Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
[^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class
*********
11USA GROUP: Shelton Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Destiny Shelton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 11USA GROUP, LLC dba E11EVEN, a Florida Limited
Liability Corporation; GR OPCO, LLC dba E11EVEN MIAMI, a Florida
Limited Liability Corporation, DENNIS DeGORI, an individual;
FRANCES K. MARTIN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 1:20-cv-21839-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for damages due to their evading the
mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act; illegally absconding with the Plaintiffs' tips; and
demanding illegal kickbacks, including in the form of "House
Fees."
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 failed to pay the
Plaintiff minimum wages and overtime wages for all hours worked in
violation of the FLSA and Florida law. The Defendants' conduct
violates the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to be
compensated for their overtime work at a rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay. Furthermore, the Defendants'
practice of failing to pay tipped employees pursuant to violates
the FLSA's minimum wage provision.
The Plaintiff worked as a dancer/entertainer and was employed by
the Defendants from July 2017 until October 2017.
The Defendants operate adult-oriented entertainment facilities
located in Miami, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.
FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC
14 Northeast 1st Avenue, Suite 1001
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 722-6977
Fax: (786) 870-4030
Email: ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law
- and –
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN, LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Phone: (310) 507-7924
Facsimile: 310-507-7906
Email: john@kristensenlaw.com
- and –
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Phone: (713) 554-2377
Email: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
ALLSTATE FIRE: Bid to Certify Partial Summ. Judgment as Final Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAYLA STOCKDALE, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-845
(E.D. Pa.), Judge Wendy Bettlestone of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Allstate's motion to
certify the Court's decision in Stockdale v. Allstate Fire & Cas.
Ins. Co., 2020 WL 953284 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2020) as a final
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
On Feb. 27, 2020, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Stockdale
on her claim for declaratory relief on her individual claim and
denying a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Allstate.
Stockdale sought an order (a) declaring that the household
exclusion contained in her parents Policy is void and unenforceable
as violative of the MVFRL; and (b) declaring that the she is
entitled to recover $300,000 in underinsured motorist benefits from
Allstate, under the policy of insurance issued to her parents in
connection with injuries sustained in the June 10, 2017 motor
vehicle accident.
In its Memorandum Opinion, the Court held that the household
exclusion was unenforceable pursuant to the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court's decision in Gallagher v. GEICO Indemnity Co., 201 A.3d 131
(2019), and that Stockdale had succeeded on her individual claim.
Stockdale, however, sued on behalf of herself and similarly
situated persons and the putative class action claims remain to be
adjudicated.
In reaching the result in Stockdale, the Court held that Gallagher
invalidated the household vehicle exclusion in all personal auto
insurance policies in which such an exclusion operates as a de
facto waiver of stacked coverage. It thereby rejected Allstate's
argument on summary judgment that Gallagher was a narrow decision,
was not controlling in the case, and did not compel it to pay
Stockdale's claim for stacked underinsured motorist benefits under
her parents' policy.
Allstate now argues that the Court should certify its grant of
partial summary judgment in as a final judgment under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 54(b), so that the Third Circuit may review the
Court's interpretation of Gallagher before the parties proceed with
the class certification process. Allstate is concerned that if
class certification proceeds, and if the Third Circuit subsequently
concludes that Gallagher is not applicable in the case, the parties
and the Court will have needlessly incurred the substantial time
and expense of class discovery and class certification proceedings.
Stockdale urges the Court not to certify the issue and to, instead
proceed to adjudication of the class questions.
It is uncontested that the Court's decision in Stockdale,
constitutes a final judgment on the merits of Stockdale's
individual claim. The Court in that opinion decided a pure
question of law -- i.e., Gallagher's scope -- and no disputed
issues of fact remain with respect to Stockdale. In fact, the
parties agree about the amount of money Stockdale is entitled to
recover under the Court's interpretation of Gallagher. The parties
disagree, however, about whether there exists no just reason for
delay.
Judge Bettlestone finds that the fact that class certification will
involve an additional inquiry into whether certain factors -- such
as numerosity, commonality, typicality, ascertainability, adequacy
and superiority -- have been satisfied with respect to the proposed
class is not to the contrary. Such factors must always be
considered in the context of class litigation. If Allstate is
correct then each time a court, in the context of a putative class
action, definitively ruled one way or the other on a named
plaintiff's claim, Rule 54(b) certification would always be
appropriate because all class actions necessarily involve these
additional inquiries. While nudging the Court in this direction,
Allstate cites to no authority for the proposition that Rule 54(b)
certification is the default in the class context.
Finally, Allstate emphasizes economic considerations and
efficiency. Irrespective, however, of the Court of Appeal's
interpretation of Gallagher, it is unlikely that it will provide
the certainty Allstate argues justifies certification; the issue at
the heart of this litigation is an issue of state law, and, as
such, can only be definitively resolved by the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court. Furthermore, allowing the litigation to proceed as a
consolidated whole rather than piecemeal would affirmatively
promote efficiency in that it would allow the Court of Appeals to
decide, when and if they are presented, all issues, whether related
to Gallagher, or the class certification process, at once.
For the reasons she set forth, Judge Bettlestone denied Allstate's
motion for certification under Rule 54(b). An appropriate order
follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/SJYxAV from Leagle.com.
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: OBrien Sues in N.D. Texas Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial LP,
et al. The case is styled as Darryl OBrien, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated v. Alltran Financial LP,
Sherman Originator III LLC, LVNV Funding LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00087-H (N.D. Tex., April 30, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Alltran Financial, LP, specializes in revenue cycle, accounts
receivable, and contact center solutions within healthcare,
financial services, higher education, and government industries in
the Unites States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
James Vlahakis, Esq.
Marwan Daher, Esq.
Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com
osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
AMAZON.COM: Caudel Slams Purchased Video Content Access
-------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Caudel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Amazon.com, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00848 (E.D. Cal., April 24, 2020), seeks restitution and
disgorgement of inequitably obtained profits, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, monetary and punitive damages and
interest, costs and expenses, including reasonable fees for
attorneys and experts and such other and further relief resulting
from unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation under
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law
and False Advertising Law.
Amazon.com, Inc. is an online retailer and includes the option for
consumers to rent or buy movies, television shows and other media
for a fee. Caudel expected that should she "buy" the video, she has
paid for full access to the video content. However, Amazon still
secretly reserves the right to terminate the consumers' access and
use of the video content at any time. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlos V. Ramirez, Esq.
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
cramirez@reesellp.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Ste. 311
Great Neck, NY 11021-5101
Telephone: (516) 303-0552
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Qureshi Sues Over Failure to Refund Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maaz Qureshi, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01141 (D.D.C.,
May 1, 2020), is brought to seek refunds as a result of the
Defendant's decision to close campus, constructively evict
students, and transition all classes to an online/remote format as
a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease.
While closing campus and transitioning to online classes was the
right thing for the Defendants to do, this decision deprived the
Plaintiff and the other members of the Class from recognizing the
benefits of in-person instruction, housing, meals, access to campus
facilities, student activities, and other benefits and services in
exchange for which they had already paid fees and tuition,
according to the complaint.
The Defendants have either refused to provide reimbursement for the
tuition, housing, meals, fees and other costs that the Defendants
are no longer providing, or have provided inadequate and/or
arbitrary reimbursement that does not fully compensate the
Plaintiff and members of the Class for their loss, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is currently enrolled as a full time student in the
Defendant's undergraduate program, studying international
relations.
American University is an institution of higher learning located in
the District of Columbia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Curtis A. Boykin, Esq.
DOUGLAS & BOYKINS, PLLC
1850 M Street, NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 776-0370
Email: caboykin@douglasboykin.com
- and -
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Roy T. Willey IV, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 614-8888
Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com
roy@akimlawfirm.com
ARCHER DEVELOPMENT: Sued by American Builders in South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Archer Development
Group LLC, et al. The case is styled as American Builders Insurance
Company, formerly known as: Association Insurance Company v. Archer
Development Group LLC, also known as: Archer Construction, also
known as: Archer Construction LLC; C Hampton Atkins; Mark A
Barford; Michelle T Barford; Holly Blanchard; Darci Buchanan; Karl
Buchanan; Leo Brueggeman; Beverly Carroll; Thomas Cordeiro; Gayle C
Foster; Robert S Foster, Sr.; Kirk A Gunn; Jan R Gunn; Matthew
Horton; Connie Michels; John Michels; Karen Miller; Ellen Parker;
Matthew V Roughgarden; Nancy T Roughgarden; Lydia Schafer; Patrick
Schafer; Annette P Sherman; Enoch G Sherman; Beth Stenger; Walter
Stenger; Chris Taylor; Jane Taylor; Tara White; William White; Leah
Wilkins; Tal Wilkins; Catherine T Young; Thomas E Young, Jr;
Individually, On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, and On
Behalf Of The Preserve At The Clam Farm Homeowners Association,
Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-01694-DCN (D.S.C., April 30, 2020).
The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.
Archer Construction provides turnkey earthwork & utility service
and fire protection systems throughout the Puget Sound region.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Olesya Vaskevich Bracey, Esq.
Robert W. Whelan, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH
151 Meeting Street, Sixth Floor
Charleston, SC 29401
Phone: (843) 853-5200
Email: olesya.bracey@nelsonmullins.com
robert.whelan@nelsonmullins.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert T. Lyles, Jr., Esq.
LYLES AND ASSOCIATES LLC
342 East Bay Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Phone: (843) 577-7730
Fax: (843) 577-7172
Email: rtl@lylesfirm.com
ARCONIC INC: Bid to Dismiss Howard Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Arconic Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the case,
Howard v. Arconic Inc. et al., remains pending.
A purported class action complaint related to the Grenfell Tower
fire was filed on August 11, 2017 in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against ParentCo and
Klaus Kleinfeld.
A related purported class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
September 15, 2017, under the caption Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et
al., against ParentCo, three former ParentCo executives, several
current and former ParentCo directors, and banks that acted as
underwriters for ParentCo's September 18, 2014 preferred stock
offering (the "Preferred Offering").
The plaintiff in Sullivan had previously filed a purported class
action against the same defendants on July 18, 2017 in the Southern
District of New York and, on August 25, 2017, voluntarily dismissed
that action without prejudice.
On February 7, 2018, on motion from certain putative class members,
the court consolidated Howard and Sullivan, closed Sullivan, and
appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case. On April 9,
2018, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated purported class
action filed a consolidated amended complaint.
The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the registration
statement for the Preferred Offering contained false and misleading
statements and omitted to state material information, including by
allegedly failing to disclose material uncertainties and trends
resulting from sales of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses and by
allegedly expressing a belief that appropriate risk management and
compliance programs had been adopted while concealing the risks
posed by Reynobond PE sales.
The consolidated amended complaint also alleged that between
November 4, 2013 and June 23, 2017 ParentCo and Kleinfeld made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information about ParentCo's commitment to safety, business and
financial prospects, and the risks of the Reynobond PE product,
including in ParentCo's Form 10-Ks for the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, its Form 10-Qs and
quarterly financial press releases from the fourth quarter of 2013
through the first quarter of 2017, its 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016
Annual Reports, its 2016 Annual Highlights Report, and on its
official website.
The consolidated amended complaint sought, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and
expert fees and expenses.
On June 8, 2018, all defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On June 21, 2019,
the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in full,
dismissing the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety
without prejudice.
On July 23, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint alleges generally the same
claims as the consolidated amended complaint with certain
additional allegations, as well as claims that the risk factors set
forth in the registration statement for the Preferred Offering were
inadequate and that certain additional statements in the sources
identified above were misleading.
The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and
expenses.
On September 11, 2019, all defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. Plaintiffs' opposition to that motion was filed
on November 1, 2019 and all defendants filed a reply brief on
November 26, 2019.
Given the preliminary nature of this matter and the uncertainty of
litigation, ParentCo cannot reasonably estimate at this time the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the possible loss or range
of losses in the event of an unfavorable outcome.
Arconic Corporation is a company specializing in lightweight metals
engineering and manufacturing. Arconic's products, are used
worldwide in aerospace, automotive, commercial transportation,
packaging, building and construction, oil and gas, defense,
consumer electronics, and industrial applications. The Company is
based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
In February 2019, Arconic Inc. -- to be renamed Howmet Aerospace
Inc.) ("ParentCo" or "Howmet Aerospace") -- announced its plan to
separate into two independent, publicly traded companies. The
separation would occur through a pro rata distribution to the
ParentCo stockholders of 100% of the outstanding shares of common
stock of Arconic Corporation, which was formed to hold the rolled
aluminum products, aluminum extrusions, and architectural products
operations of ParentCo, as well as the Latin America extrusions
operations sold in April 2018. On February 5, 2020, ParentCo's
Board of Directors approved the completion of the separation, which
was scheduled to become effective on April 1, 2020. Arconic Rolled
Products Corporation changed its name to Arconic Corporation.
ARGENT HOTEL: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Majdoub Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
KHAWLA MAJDOUB, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ARGENT HOTEL MANAGEMENT, LLC, a limited liability
company; HIGHGATE HOTELS, L.P., a limited partnership; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-584191 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., April 20, 2020), seeks penalties under the California
Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 for the
Defendants' failure to pay for all hours worked, including minimum
wages, straight time wages, and overtime wages.
The lawsuit also stems from the Defendants' failure to provide meal
periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to
maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure
to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, and failure to
furnish accurate wage statements, in violation of the Labor Code.
The Defendants are doing business in real estate investment and
hospitality management industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
Allen Feghali, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 232-3128
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
allen.feghali@@moonyanglaw.com
ARGENT TRUST: Faces Lysengen Suit Alleging Violation of ERISA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Lysengen, on behalf of the Morton Buildings, Inc. Leveraged
Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all
other persons similarly situated v. ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, JAN
ROUSE, and EDWARD C. MILLER, Case No. 1:20-cv-01177-MMM-JEH (C.D.
Ill., April 30, 2020), is brought under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 for losses suffered by the Plan and its
participants caused by Argent when it caused the Plan to buy shares
of Morton for more than fair market value in 2017.
Argent is the trustee for the Morton Buildings, Inc. Leveraged
Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "Plan") when the Plan acquired
shares of Morton Buildings, Inc. in 2017.
Morton was a privately held company and a party in interest to the
Plan. Morton adopted the Plan effective January 1, 2017. On May 8,
2017, the Plan purchased 2,005,662 shares of Morton's common stock.
Company common stock shares totaling 1,956,992 and 48,670 were
purchased at $75.25 and $10.75 per share for $147,263,648 and
$523,229, respectively, totaling $147,786,877. The reduced share
price between the Plan and Morton for the 48,670 shares was
reportedly due to a decrease in the fair market value of Morton's
shares following the issuance of debt to finance the $147,263,648
portion of the transaction.
The stock purchase was financed by three term loan agreements that
the Plan entered into with: (1) Morton, for $132,277,461 at an
interest rate of 2.75%, (2) Morton, for $523,229 at an interest
rate of 2.75%, and (3) a former shareholder (the "Former
Shareholder"), for $14,986,187 at an interest rate of 5.00%, all to
be repaid over 30 years (the purchase and loan transactions
together, the "ESOP Transaction" or "Transaction"). At that time,
Morton became 100% employee owned.
According to the complaint, Argent represented the Plan and its
participants as Trustee in the ESOP Transaction. Argent had sole
and exclusive authority to negotiate the terms of the ESOP
Transaction on the Plan's behalf. The ESOP Transaction allowed the
selling shareholders, including the Defendant Shareholders and
other persons, including members of the Getz family ("Selling
Shareholders"), to unload their interests in Morton above fair
market value and saddle the Plan with tens of millions of dollars
of debt over a 30-year repayment period to finance the Transaction.
Argent failed to fulfill its ERISA duties, as Trustee and
fiduciary, to the Plan and its participants, including the
Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff has been a Plan participant. The Plaintiff brings
this action to recover the losses incurred by the Plan, and thus by
each individual account in the Plan held by them and similarly
situated participants, resulting from Argent's engaging in, and
causing the Plan to engage in, prohibited transactions under ERISA,
and breaching its fiduciary duties under ERISA, and the Defendant
Shareholders' participation in these violations.
Argent operated as an investment management firm and offers
financial planning, trusts, and real estate management services to
family and organizations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
333 S. Wabash Ave., Suite 2736
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 995-7143
Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
Email: pmuench@baileyglasser.com
- and –
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com
rjenny@baileyglasser.com
ARGENT TRUST: Lysengen Sues Over Losses Suffered by Morton ESOP
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Lysengen, on behalf of the Morton Buildings, Inc. Leveraged
Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all
other persons similarly situated v. ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, JAN
ROUSE, and EDWARD C. MILLER, Case No. 1:20-cv-02622 (C.D. Ill.,
April 30, 2020), is brought under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 for losses suffered by the Plan and its
participants caused by Argent when it caused the Plan to buy shares
of Morton for more than fair market value in 2017.
Argent is the trustee for the Morton Buildings, Inc. Leveraged
Employee Stock Ownership Plan when the Plan acquired shares of
Morton Buildings, Inc. in 2017.
According to the complaint, the Plan has been injured and its
participants have been deprived of hard-earned retirement benefits
resulting from the Defendants' violations of ERISA. Morton was a
privately held company and a party in interest to the Plan. Morton
adopted the Plan effective January 1, 2017. On May 8, 2017, the
Plan purchased 2,005,662 shares of Morton's common stock. Company
common stock shares totaling 1,956,992 and 48,670 were purchased at
$75.25 and $10.75 per share for $147,263,648 and $523,229,
respectively, totaling $147,786,877. The reduced share price
between the Plan and Morton for the 48,670 shares was reportedly
due to a decrease in the fair market value of Morton's shares
following the issuance of debt to finance the $147,263,648 portion
of the transaction.
The stock purchase was financed by three term loan agreements that
the Plan entered into with: (1) Morton, for $132,277,461 at an
interest rate of 2.75%, (2) Morton, for $523,229 at an interest
rate of 2.75%, and (3) a former shareholder (the "Former
Shareholder"), for $14,986,187 at an interest rate of 5.00%, all to
be repaid over 30 years (the purchase and loan transactions
together, the "ESOP Transaction" or "Transaction"). At that time,
Morton became 100% employee owned.
Argent represented the Plan and its participants as Trustee in the
ESOP Transaction. Argent had sole and exclusive authority to
negotiate the terms of the ESOP Transaction on the Plan's behalf.
The ESOP Transaction allowed the selling shareholders, including
Defendant Shareholders and other persons including members of the
Getz family ("Selling Shareholders"), to unload their interests in
Morton above fair market value and saddle the Plan with tens of
millions of dollars of debt over a 30-year repayment period to
finance the Transaction, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff adds
that Argent failed to fulfill its ERISA duties, as Trustee and
fiduciary, to the Plan and its participants, including the
Plaintiff.
Jan Rouse and Edward C. Miller, the Defendant Shareholders, are
parties in interest, who sold shares in the ESOP Transaction. The
Defendant Shareholders are liable under ERISA for participating in
the prohibited transactions and in Argent's breaches of fiduciary
duty, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff has been a Plan participant. The Plaintiff brings
this action to recover the losses incurred by the Plan, and thus by
each individual account in the Plan held by them and similarly
situated participants, resulting from Argent's engaging in, and
causing the Plan to engage in, prohibited transactions under ERISA,
and breaching its fiduciary duties under ERISA, and the Defendant
Shareholders' participation in these violations.
Argent operated as an investment management firm and offers
financial planning, trusts, and real estate management services to
family and organizations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
333 S. Wabash Ave., Suite 2736
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 995-7143
Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
Email: pmuench@baileyglasser.com
- and –
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com
rjenny@baileyglasser.com
ARS NATIONAL: Miller Sues in C.D. California Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National Services
Inc. The case is styled as Jason R. Miller, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARS National Services
Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-00932 (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
ARS National Services, Inc., offers accounts receivable management
services. ARS caters to financial services organizations; banks;
and credit card companies. The Company is based in Escondido,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas M. Wajda, Esq.
WAJDA LAW GROUP APC
6167 Bristol Parkway Suite 200
Culver City, CA 90230
Phone: (310) 997-0471
Fax: (866) 286-8433
Email: nick@wajdalawgroup.com
BARRY UNIVERSITY: Rosado Sues Over Retention of Full Tuition
------------------------------------------------------------
Marlena Rosado, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. BARRY UNIVERSITY, INC, Case No. 1:20-cv-21813-JEM (S.D.
Fla., May 1, 2020), is brought for damages, restitution, and
declaratory relief resulting from Barry University's retention of
the full tuition, on-campus housing, meal plans, and fees paid by
the Plaintiff for services not being provided.
In March 2020, in response to the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus,
the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease (the "COVID-19
pandemic"), Barry University, like many other universities, moved
all learning online for the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester
and required students living in on-campus housing to move out and
leave campus. As a result, all on-campus classes, housing, dining,
and other services and amenities are no longer available to the
students.
Despite the harsh reality that students could no longer live and
learn on campus, Barry University refused to refund the fees tied
to services and/or amenities, housing, and meal plans only
available to those living on campus and attending Barry University
in person, according to the complaint. In addition, by requiring
students to pay (and many to borrow) full tuition for the Spring
2020 semester, Barry University did not take into account the
diminution in value of the education the school is now offering
compared to what students were promised.
Accordingly, the students have lost (and continue to lose) the
benefits of the bargain for services and education they paid for
but can no longer access or use, according to the complaint. Barry
University has left its students, many of whom have borrowed huge
sums to obtain an on-campus education, with the burden of finding
alternate living arrangements to take classes remotely, while
retaining the students' money that the students need to pay for
alternative living arrangements, expenses, or to pay down their
student loans. While partial refunds for services not provided will
not replace the lost on-campus experience, they would provide the
Plaintiff with some financial relief as many prepare to graduate
into a depressed job market.
The Plaintiff is a Barry University undergraduate student, who has
been forced to vacate campus and return home.
Barry University, Inc., is a Florida not for profit corporation
with its principal place of business located in Miami,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
Joshua R. Levine, Esq.
Daniel Tropin, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
Email: streisfeld@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
levine@kolawyers.com
- and -
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
Email: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
–and–
Anna C. Haac, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
Email: ahaac@tzlegal.com
CALIBER HOLDINGS: Newton Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Newton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CALIBER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Case No. 5:20-cv-00542
(W.D. Tex., May 1, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff an
overtime premium as required by the FLSA.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other technicians
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendant paid
the Plaintiff and other technicians their regular hourly rate for
all estimated labor hours, including hours worked in excess of 40
per week. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff and other
technicians an overtime premium of one and one half times their
regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a technician from
May 2017 until August 2019 and again from November 2019 until April
2020.
The Defendant operates a collision repair company with locations
across the United States including numerous locations in
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Merideth Q. McEntire, 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: merideth@sanfordlawfirm.com
april@sanfordlawfirm.com
CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: Carranza Sues Over of Violations Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
Timoteo Regio Carranza, individual and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees v. CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CLUB, INC. DBA COMMERCE
CASINO and CASINO WASH-TEL COMMERCE, LLC DBA THE COMMERCE CASINO &
HOTEL., a California corporation, and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case
No. 20STCV16584 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 30, 2020), is
brought to recover civil penalties against the Defendants for their
violations of the Labor Code.
The Defendants had a policy where it did not pay its employees for
off-the-clock work whom were forced to report to work, wait for a
shuttle, wait in line to clock-in, wait for a shuttle after
clocking-out, the Plaintiff says. These monies were supposed to be
paid out to the Plaintiff and the other employees as wages either
at the time the wages were earned or upon termination, says the
complaint.
Mr. Carranza worked as non-exempt employee of the Defendants.
Commerce Club is a casino, club and hotel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Armond M. Jackson, Esq.
JACKSON LAW, APC
2 Venture Plaza, Ste. 240
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 281-6857
Fax: (949) 777-6218
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Miller Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
------------------------------------------------------------
Akayla Miller, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Board of Trustees of the California State
University, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-03833 (C.D. Cal., April 27,
2020), seeks disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully obtained for
tuition, fees, on-campus housing, and meals, injunctive relief
including enjoining California State University from retaining the
pro-rated, unused monies paid for tuition, fees, on-campus housing
and meals, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded and
such other and further relief as may be just and proper, refunds of
all tuition fees paid on a pro-rata basis, together with other
damages resulting from breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
California State University (CSU) operates higher learning campuses
in California where Miller is currently enrolled at the Sonoma
Campus. She has paid substantial tuition for the Spring 2020
semester. CSU decided to close campus, constructively evict
students, and transition all classes to an online/remote format as
a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease. Miller claims to be
deprived the benefits of in-person instruction, access to campus
facilities, student activities and other benefits and services in
exchange for which they had already paid fees and tuition. CSU
refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees and other
costs. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Moze Cowper, Esq.
Noel E. Garcia. Esq.
COWPER LAW LLP
10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1840
Los Angeles, California 90024
Tel: (877) 529-3707
Email: mcowper@cowperlaw.com
ngarcia@cowperlaw.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
lreasons@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Matthew S. Miller, Esq.
MATTHEW S. MILLER LLC
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Tel: (312) 741-1085
Email: mmiller@msmillerlaw.com
CLEAN CHEMISTRY: Perry Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Perry, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. Clean Chemistry, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01232
(D. Colo., May 1, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to
recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the
Colorado Minimum Wage Act, as implemented by the Colorado Minimum
Wage Order.
Consistent with the Defendant's policy, pattern, and/or practice,
the Plaintiff and other operators regularly worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek and/or 12 hours per day without being paid wages
for all hours worked and without being paid overtime wages, in
violation of the FLSA and the Colorado wage and hour laws, says the
complaint.
Franklin Perry was employed by the Defendant as an Operator.
Clean Chemistry, Inc., is a corporation with its principal place of
business in Boulder, Colorado.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALEZ, PLLC
2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
Fort Collins, CO 80528
Phone: (970) 214-0562
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: (202) 470-3520
- and -
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
ROBERT PIERCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
2500 Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: 412.281.7229
COMPUTER CREDIT: Ambs Sues in N.D. Illinois Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Computer Credit, Inc.
The case is styled as Jessica L. Ambs, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Computer Credit, Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02637 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Computer Credit Inc is located in Winston Salem, North Carolina,
and is part of the collection agencies industry.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]
COMPUTER CREDIT: Faces Ambs Suit in N.D. Texas Over FDCPA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Computer Credit, Inc.
The case is styled as Jessica L. Ambs, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Computer Credit, Inc.,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00417-A (N.D. Tex., April 30, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Computer Credit Inc is located in Winston Salem, North Carolina,
and is part of the collection agencies industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Vlahakis, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Fails to Pay COVID Losses, Cafe Plaza Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAFE PLAZA DE MESILLA INC. v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO., Case No.
2:20-cv-00354-CG-KRS (D.N.M., April 20, 2020), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated as a result of
the Defendant's alleged refusal to pay its insureds under its
Business Income, Civil Authority, Extra Expense, and Sue and Labor
coverages for losses suffered due to COVID-19 pandemic.
The Plaintiff was forced to suspend or reduce business due to
COVID-19 and the resultant orders issued by the Governor of New
Mexico mandating the suspension of business like the Plaintiff's
for on-site services, as well as to take necessary steps to prevent
further damage and minimize the suspension of business and continue
operations, says the complaint.
To protect its business in the event that it suddenly had to
suspend operations for reasons outside of its control, the
Plaintiff purchased insurance coverage from Defendant, including
special property coverage, as set forth in the Defendant's
Businessowner's Special Property Coverage Form. But the Defendant
has denied its claim under its policy, the Plaintiff contends.
Cafe Plaza, located in Mesilla, New Mexico, is a full-service
restaurant and espresso bar whose existence is now threatened
because of COVID-19.
The Defendant is a subsidiary of CNA Financial Corp. CNA Financial
Corp.'s property insurance operations are conducted primarily
through the Defendant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rosalind B. Bienvenu, Esq
Caren I. Friedman, Esq
DURHAM, PITTARD & SPALDING, LLP
505 Cerrillos Road, Suite A209
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Telephone: (505) 986-0600
Facsimile: (505) 986-0632
E-mail: jkaufman@dpslawgroup.com
rbienvenu@dpslawgroup.com
cfriedman@dpslawgroup.com
- and -
Robert E. Ammons, Esq.
Patrick A. Luff, Esq.
Miriah A. Soliz, Esq.
THE AMMONS LAW FIRM, LLP
3700 Montrose Blvd.
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-1606
Facsimile: (713) 523-4159
E-mail: rob@ammonslaw.com
patrick.luff@ammonslaw.com
miriah@ammonslaw.com
CREDIT SUISSE: Appeal in CHF LIBOR Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs' appeal from the court's
dismissal of the complaint in the class action involving Swiss
franc LIBOR (CHF LIBOR) remains pending.
In February 2015, various banks that served on the Swiss franc
LIBOR panel, including Credit Suisse Group AG, were named in a
civil putative class action lawsuit filed in the SDNY, alleging
manipulation of Swiss franc LIBOR to benefit defendants' trading
positions.
On September 25, 2017, the SDNY granted defendants' motion to
dismiss all claims, but permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint on February 7, 2018.
On September 16, 2019, the SDNY granted defendants' motions to
dismiss, finding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
over the case.
On October 16, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
Credit Suisse Group AG, through its subsidiaries, provides various
financial services worldwide. It operates through Swiss Universal
Bank, International Wealth Management, Asia Pacific, Global
Markets, and Investment Banking & Capital Markets segments. Credit
Suisse Group AG was founded in 1856 and is based in Zurich,
Switzerland.
CREDIT SUISSE: Appeal in SIBOR/SOR Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the appeal from a trial court's dismissal
of the complaint in the class action related to the Singapore
Interbank Offered Rate (SIBOR) and Singapore Swap Offer Rate (SOR)
remains pending.
In July 2016, various banks that served on the Singapore Interbank
Offered Rate (SIBOR) and Singapore Swap Offer Rate (SOR) panels,
including Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, were named in a
civil putative class action lawsuit filed in the SDNY, alleging
manipulation of SIBOR and SOR to benefit defendants' trading
positions.
On August 18, 2017, the SDNY dismissed all claims against Credit
Suisse Group AG and affiliates (and various other defendants) but
granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.
On October 4, 2018, the SDNY granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint,
upholding antitrust claims against Credit Suisse AG and other panel
bank defendants, but narrowing the claims to those related to
Singapore Dollar SIBOR and dismissing all but one plaintiff from
the action.
The court also dismissed the RICO claims without leave to amend. On
October 25, 2018, the remaining plaintiff filed a third amended
complaint. The remaining defendants moved to dismiss on November
15, 2018.
On July 26, 2019, the SDNY granted defendants' motion to dismiss
and denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, holding that the
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action. On August
26, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
Credit Suisse Group AG, through its subsidiaries, provides various
financial services worldwide. It operates through Swiss Universal
Bank, International Wealth Management, Asia Pacific, Global
Markets, and Investment Banking & Capital Markets segments. Credit
Suisse Group AG was founded in 1856 and is based in Zurich,
Switzerland.
CREDIT SUISSE: Bid to Dismiss ICE LIBOR Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss filed in the
consolidated class action related to US dollar Intercontinental
Exchange (ICE) LIBOR remains is pending.
In January 2019, members of the US dollar Intercontinental Exchange
(ICE) LIBOR panel, including Credit Suisse Group AG and certain of
its affiliates, were named in three civil putative class action
lawsuits alleging that panel banks suppressed US dollar ICE LIBOR
to benefit defendants' trading positions.
These actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York. On July 1, 2019, plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint.
On August 30, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
Credit Suisse Group AG, through its subsidiaries, provides various
financial services worldwide. It operates through Swiss Universal
Bank, International Wealth Management, Asia Pacific, Global
Markets, and Investment Banking & Capital Markets segments. Credit
Suisse Group AG was founded in 1856 and is based in Zurich,
Switzerland.
CREDIT SUISSE: Litigation Over Forex Rate Manipulation Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend class
action lawsuits related to alleged manipulation of foreign exchange
rates.
Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates as well as other financial
institutions are named in five pending civil lawsuits in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to
the alleged manipulation of foreign exchange rates.
The first pending matter is a putative consolidated class action.
On January 28, 2015, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the original consolidated complaint brought by US-based investors
and foreign plaintiffs who transacted in the US, but granted their
motion to dismiss the claims of foreign-based investors for
transactions outside of the US.
In July 2015, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
complaint, adding additional defendants and asserting additional
claims on behalf of a second putative class of exchange investors.
On September 20, 2016, the SDNY granted in part and denied in part
a motion to dismiss filed by the Group and affiliates, along with
other financial institutions, which reduced the size of the
putative class, but allowed the primary antitrust and Commodity
Exchange Act claims to survive.
On May 31, 2018, plaintiffs served a motion for class
certification, which the Group and affiliates opposed on October
25, 2018.
On September 3, 2019, the SDNY denied plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class, ruling that proof
of both injury and damages must proceed on an individual basis, but
granted certification as to two threshold issues concerning the
alleged conspiracy. The SDNY also denied plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a second proposed class in its entirety.
The second pending matter names Credit Suisse AG and affiliates, as
well as other financial institutions in a putative class action
filed in the SDNY on June 3, 2015.
This action is based on the same alleged conduct as the
consolidated class action and alleges violations of the US Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
On August 23, 2016, the SDNY granted a motion to dismiss filed by
affiliates of Credit Suisse AG, along with other financial
institutions.
Plaintiffs appealed that decision, and on July 10, 2018, the Second
Circuit issued an order affirming in full the SDNY's decision to
dismiss the putative ERISA class action against Credit Suisse AG
and affiliates as well as other defendant financial institutions
and denying plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend their
complaint.
The third pending matter originally named Credit Suisse Group AG
and affiliates, as well as other financial institutions, in a
consolidated putative class action filed in the SDNY, alleging
manipulation of the foreign exchange market on behalf of indirect
purchasers of foreign exchange instruments.
On March 15, 2018, the court issued a decision granting defendants'
joint motion to dismiss and dismissing the consolidated complaint
in its entirety.
On October 25, 2018, the SDNY granted in substantial part
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a proposed second consolidated
class action complaint, which plaintiffs filed on November 28,
2018. On December 20, 2018, the Group, together with other
financial institutions, filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of
personal jurisdiction.
On February 19, 2019, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Credit
Suisse Group AG.
The fourth pending matter names Credit Suisse Group AG and
affiliates in a putative class action filed in the SDNY on July 12,
2017, alleging improper practices in connection with electronic
foreign exchange trading. On April 12, 2018, the SDNY granted
defendants' motion to compel arbitration.
The fifth pending matter originally named Credit Suisse Group AG
and affiliates, as well as other financial institutions, in a civil
action filed in the SDNY on November 13, 2018. This action is based
on the same alleged conduct as the consolidated class action.
On March 1, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On April
1, 2019, defendants filed motions to dismiss. On April 23, 2019,
plaintiffs sought leave to file a second amended complaint in lieu
of responding to defendants' motions.
On April 26, 2019, the SDNY ordered plaintiffs to file their second
amended complaint subject to defendants' right to oppose the
amendment and to renew their motions to dismiss, and on June 11,
2019, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On June 28,
2019, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Credit Suisse Group AG.
On July 25, 2019, defendants filed motions to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On September 6, 2019, plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed Credit Suisse International. The claims against Credit
Suisse AG and CSS LLC remain pending.
Credit Suisse Group AG and certain of its affiliates, together with
other financial institutions, have also been named in two Canadian
putative class actions, which make allegations similar to the
consolidated class action. Further, Credit Suisse Group AG and
certain of its affiliates, together with other financial
institutions, have also been named in two putative class actions in
Israel, which make allegations similar to the consolidated class
action.
Credit Suisse Group AG, through its subsidiaries, provides various
financial services worldwide. It operates through Swiss Universal
Bank, International Wealth Management, Asia Pacific, Global
Markets, and Investment Banking & Capital Markets segments. Credit
Suisse Group AG was founded in 1856 and is based in Zurich,
Switzerland.
CREDIT SUISSE: Suit Over SDNY SSA Bonds Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York has granted the motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction and improper venue made by the company and
certain other defendants in the class action suit related to
supranational, sub-sovereign and agency (SSA bonds).
Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, along with other financial
institutions and individuals, have been named in several putative
class action complaints filed in the SDNY relating to
supranational, sub-sovereign and agency (SSA bonds).
The complaints generally allege that defendants conspired to fix
the prices of SSA bonds sold to and purchased from investors in the
secondary market. These actions have been consolidated in the SDNY.
On April 7, 2017, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on November 3, 2017, which defendants moved to dismiss on
December 12, 2017.
On August 24, 2018, the SDNY granted defendants' motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim, but granted plaintiffs leave to
amend.
On November 6, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
class action complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss on
December 21, 2018.
On September 30, 2019, the SDNY granted the motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue made by Credit
Suisse and certain other defendants. The court indicated that it
will further address defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.
Separately, on February 7, 2019, Credit Suisse AG and certain of
its affiliates, together with other financial institutions and
individuals, were named in a putative class action filed in the
SDNY, which makes allegations similar to the consolidated class
action, but seeks to represent a putative class of indirect
purchasers of US dollar SSA bonds where the purchase was made in or
connected to New York.
Credit Suisse Group AG and certain of its affiliates, together with
other financial institutions, have also been named in two Canadian
putative class actions, which make allegations similar to the
consolidated class action.
Credit Suisse Group AG, through its subsidiaries, provides various
financial services worldwide. It operates through Swiss Universal
Bank, International Wealth Management, Asia Pacific, Global
Markets, and Investment Banking & Capital Markets segments. Credit
Suisse Group AG was founded in 1856 and is based in Zurich,
Switzerland.
ECOPETROL SA: Suit Over Oil Spill Still on Probatory Stage
----------------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend itself in a
class action suit related to the Cano Limon-Covenas Crude Oil
Pipeline Spill.
On December 11, 2011, the Cano Limon - Covenas oil pipeline
ruptured and caused the spill of approximately 3,267 barrels of
crude oil into the Iscala creek, which connects with the Pamplonita
River that provides water to the city of Cucuta. The incident did
not cause any fatalities or injuries.
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecopetrol S.A. and
against employees of the company, and the First Administrative
Court has jurisdiction to conduct the case, which is in the
probatory stage.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Ecopetrol S.A. operates as an integrated oil and gas company. It
operates through three segments: Exploration and Production;
Refining, Petrochemical, and Biofuels; and Transport and Logistics.
The company was formerly known as Empresa Colombiana de Petroleos
and changed its name to Ecopetrol S.A. in June 2003. Ecopetrol S.A.
was founded in 1948 and is based in Bogota¡, Colombia.
FAIR ISAAC: Alcoa Community Union Files Fraud Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Community Federal Credit Union, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fair Isaac Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02559, (N.D. Ill., April 27, 2020),
actual, treble, and exemplary damages, an award of reasonable
attorney's fees and costs and such other and further relief
resulting from unjust enrichment, fraud and breach of contract and
for violation of the Sherman Act.
Alcoa Community Federal Credit Union regularly purchases credit
reports from credit reporting agencies that collect, standardize
and distribute information concerning consumer credit activity.
They sell credit reports and credit scores, including Fair Isaac's
FICO Scores. The latter has a 90% market share B2B Credit Score
Market by engaging suppressing competition, obstructing innovation
and limiting access to credit. Fair Isaac's agents broker sales of
FICO scores between businesses using distribution agreements with
the Credit Bureaus to place restrictions on their ability to
develop or distribute their own competitive Credit Scores, prohibit
Credit Bureaus from individually negotiating royalty prices for
FICO Score access and charge discriminatory royalty prices for FICO
Scores, asserts the complaint.
Alcoa Community Federal Credit Union is a Federal Credit Union with
its principal place of business in Benton, Arkansas. Plaintiff
makes loans and other credit-related facilities available to
consumers. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul E. Slater, Esq.
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
Michael G. Dickler, Esq.
Matthew T. Slater, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
55 West Monroe, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 641-3200
Facsimile: (312) 641-6492
Email: pes@sperling-law.com
jvanek@sperling-law.com
mdickler@sperling-law.com
mslater@sperling-law.com
- and -
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036-8718
Tel: (917) 438-9102
Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
bcohen@nussbaumpc.com
FAIR ISAAC: Amalgamated Bank Files Fraud Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Amalgamated Bank, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Fair Isaac Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-02533, (S.D. Fla., April 24, 2020) seeks actual, treble, and
exemplary damages, an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs
and such other and further relief resulting from unjust enrichment,
fraud and breach of contract and in violation of the Sherman Act.
Amalgamated Bank regularly purchases credit reports from credit
reporting agencies that collect, standardize and distribute
information concerning consumer credit activity. They sell credit
reports and credit scores, including Fair Isaac's FICO Scores. The
latter has a 90% market share B2B Credit Score Market by engaging
suppressing competition, obstructing innovation and limiting access
to credit. Fair Isaac's agents broker sales of FICO scores between
businesses using distribution agreements with the Credit Bureaus to
place restrictions on their ability to develop or distribute their
own competitive Credit Scores, prohibit Credit Bureaus from
individually negotiating royalty prices for FICO Score access and
charge discriminatory royalty prices for FICO Scores, asserts the
complaint.
Amalgamated Bank is a New York state chartered commercial bank and
trust company with a principal place of business at 275 Seventh
Avenue, New York. It provides financial services, including
personal banking services for consumers, and services for
businesses, non-profit organizations and institutional investing
services. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
Email: jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Barbara J. Hart, Esq.
Christian Levis, Esq.
Frank Strangeman, Esq.
Andrea Farah, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Email: bhart@lowey.com
clevis@lowey.com
fstrangeman@lowey.com
afarah@lowey.com
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Torres Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Business
and Consumer Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Rose Torres,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc., Case No.
2:20-cv-03983 (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Financial Business Consumer Solutions is a debt collection
agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas M. Wajda, Esq.
WAJDA LAW GROUP APC
6167 Bristol Parkway, Suite 200
Culver City, CA 90230
Phone: (310) 997-0471
Fax: (866) 286-8433
Email: nick@wajdalawgroup.com
G1 CONSULTING: Mey Sues in N.D. West Virginia Over TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against G1 Consulting, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Diana Mey, individually and on behalf
of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. G1
Consulting, Inc.; Greg Powers, in his individual capacity; Burton
Roark, in his individual capacity; John Doe, Case No.
5:20-cv-00087-JPB (N.D.W. Va., April 30, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act for restrictions of use of telephone equipment.
G1 Consulting, Inc., is in the management consulting business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin J. Hogan, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
6 Canyon Rd., Suite 200
Morgantown, WV 26508
Phone: (304) 594-0087
Fax: (304) 594-9709
Email: BHogan@baileyglasser.com
- and -
John W. Barrett, Esq.
Jonathan R Marshall, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
209 Capitol St.
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: (304) 345-6555
Fax: (304) 342-1110
Email: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
GENERALI US BRANCH: Fails to Cover COVID-19 Expenses, Nixon Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Nixon and Kari Nixon, and all others similarly situated v.
GENERALI US BRANCH, Case No. 1:20-cv-02670 (N.D. Ill., May 2,
2020), arises out of the Defendant's failure to provide insurance
coverage for the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the Plaintiffs
because of the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic and corresponding
government directives.
In January 2020, the Plaintiffs planned their family vacation to
Florida. The Plaintiffs booked a six-day stay at a resort in Panama
City Beach, Florida, for themselves and their two children and made
a deposit for their stay with the resort. The Plaintiffs were
scheduled to arrive at their destination on March 21, 2020, and
depart on March 27, 2020. In connection with planning their family
vacation, the Plaintiffs purchased travel insurance from Generali
on or about February 6, 2020. In 2020, Generali sold the Plaintiffs
a travel protection insurance policy (Master Policy
Number:TMP100010).
Pursuant to the Policy, Generali agreed to provide benefits for
Trip Cancellation and Trip Interruption if the trip was cancelled
or interrupted due to a "Covered Event." The Policy defined
"Covered Event" to include "being Quarantined." The Policy defines
"Quarantine" as "the enforced isolation of you or your Traveling
Companion, for the purposes of preventing the spread of illness,
disease or pests."
The Plaintiffs' trip was scheduled from March 21, 2020–March 27,
2020. The Plaintiffs assert that they were prevented from taking
their trip by COVID-19, and have incurred out of pocket expenses in
connection with their scheduled trip, including the amount paid as
a deposit for their accommodations, which the resort has refused to
refund.
On April 14, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a claim under the Policy
with CSA Travel Protection, Generali's claims administrator, in
accordance with the terms of the Policy. On April 16, 2020, CSA
Travel Protection, on behalf of Generali, denied the Plaintiffs'
claim taking the position that the trip cancellation was not due to
a "Covered Event."
Plaintiffs Matthew Nixon and his wife Kari Nixon are residents of
Illinois.
Generali is an insurance company that has its principal place of
business in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert R. Duncan, Esq.
James H. Podolny, Esq.
DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC
161 North Clark Street, Suite 2550
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 202-3283
Fax: (312) 202-3284
Email: rrd@duncanlawgroup.com
jp@duncanlawgroup.com
- and -
Christopher J. Esbrook, Esq.
Michael Kozlowski, Esq.
ESBROOK LAW, LLC
77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 319-7680
Email: christopher.esbrook@ebsrooklaw.com
michael.kozlowski@esbrooklaw.com
GEO GROUP: Alvarez Seeks Overtime Pay for Pre-shift Hours
---------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Alvarez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The GEO Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-80696, (S.D. Fla., April 24, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
GEO operates dozens of correctional facilities throughout the
country, where Alvarez worked as a correctional officer at its
Columbiana County Jail in Lisbon, Ohio.
Alvarez claims compensation for hours spent completing security
screenings before each shift. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
Columbus, Ohio 43207
Phone: (614) 949-1181
Fax: (614) 386-9964
Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
GOMART INC: Keefover Sues in N.D. Virginia Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gomart, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Alexander Keefover, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gomart, Inc., Does 1
through 5, Case No. 1:20-cv-00081-TSK (N.D. Va., April 30, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
GoMart, Inc., is a convenience store chain based in Gassaway, West
Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Akers, Esq.
AKERS LAW OFFICES, PLLC
PO Box 11206
Charleston, WV 25339
Phone: (304) 720-1422
Fax: (304) 720-6956
Email: jb@akerslawoffices.com
- and -
Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
THE SWEET LAW FIRM, PC
186 Mohawk Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15228
Phone: (412) 742-0631
Email: ben@sweetlawpc.com
- and -
Jonathan D. Miller, Esq.
NYE STIRLING HALE & MILLER LLP
33 West Misson, Ste., #201
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone: (805) 963-2345
Email: Jonathan@nshmlaw.com
GOOD SAMARITAN: Bid for Partial Summ. Judgment in Frank Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Jahmir Christopher Frank, Plaintiff, v. The Good
Samaritan Hospital of Cincinnati, Ohio, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-00618 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Michael R. Barrett of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division,
denied Frank's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
The Plaintiff was born at Good Samaritan Hospital on July 30, 1998.
He suffers from periventricular leukomalacia, a permanent and
debilitating brain injury that he attributes to trauma in utero
during his delivery. He filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas
for Hamilton County, Ohio on Aug. 12, 2016 -- presumably once he
turned 18 years old -- suing the Hospital for medical malpractice.
Upon learning that his birth records were negligently destroyed by
a third party -- Cintas -- he amended his complaint in state court
on Nov. 2, 2017 to add an additional cause of action for
"spoliation of evidence." Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged
that, following his "improper delivery," the Hospital was aware
that litigation for medical malpractice was probable. He further
alleged that his birth records were lost or destroyed due to the
willful acts of the Hospital in not assuring retention of these
crucial documents despite actual knowledge that litigation was
probable and that the Hospital's failure to retain the records was
calculated to disrupt his suit for medical malpractice.
The Hospital filed a motion for partial summary judgment with
respect to the new cause of action, which the state court judge
granted on May 16, 2018. The court found that the Plaintiff failed
to provide any evidence showing that: 1) the Defendants had any
knowledge of pending or probable litigation; 2) the Defendants
willfully destroyed documents; or 3) that there was willful
destruction of evidence designed to disrupt the Plaintiff's case.
Not long thereafter, on June 8, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a notice
of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Ohio R. Civ.
P. 41(a).
The Plaintiff filed his "Medical Malpractice Complaint with Class
Allegations for Negligent Destruction of Medical Records" in the
Southern District of Ohio on Aug. 31, 2018. In it, he set forth
three causes of action: medical malpractice, respondeat superior,
and negligence.
Specific to his third cause of action, he contended that the
Hospital was subject under the American Medical Association Code of
Ethics to a nondelegable duty to manage medical records
appropriately. He contended further that it is a violation of Ohio
law for any physician to violate any provision of said Code of
Ethics, citing Ohio Rev. Code Section 4731.22(B)(18). The
"provision" violated, according to the Plaintiff, is Opinion 3.3.1,
which states that a physician must retain old records against
possible future need and to use medical considerations to determine
how long to keep records.
With this as background, the Plaintiff alleged that the Hospital
had a duty under Ohio law to retain birth records for at least the
length of time of the statute of limitations for medical
malpractice claims, 21 years in the case of a minor. And, because
its contractor Cintas "unintentionally" destroyed the records in
2010, when Plaintiff would have been only 12 years old, the
Hospital is liable to the Plaintiff, and the members of the
putative class, in compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest
and attorneys fees.
The Court granted the Hospital's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
third cause of action on Dec. 9, 2019, a full-text copy of which is
available at https://tinyurl.com/rt5rsnb from Leagle.com. The
analysis was straightforward. It noted that the Plaintiff's third
cause of action specifically alleged negligent destruction of
medical records, which was fatal to his proceeding further. Ohio
clearly recognizes the tort of spoliation of evidence, which, as an
essential element, requires proof of intent. But all of the
Plaintiff's references in his class action complaint were to the
Hospital's -- or third-party Cintas' -- negligence. Dismissal,
accordingly, was warranted for failure to state a claim under which
relief can be granted under Ohio law. And because the Plaintiff's
class action allegations were supported solely by his third cause
of action, now dismissed, Judge Barrett sua sponte denied the
Plaintiff's pending motion for class certification on Dec. 17,
2019.
As indicated, there is no factual dispute regarding the destruction
of the birth records. The Plaintiff's birth records, along with
all the Mom and Baby charts for the period 1997-1999, were
unintentionally destroyed in 2010, because they were housed in the
same cartons with adult in-patient charts. The Hospital learned
in April 2012 that the records had been destroyed. The Plaintiff's
counsel was notified on Jan. 25, 2017 that the records had been
destroyed and under what circumstances.
There is also no factual dispute regarding the inaccessibility of
the fetal monitoring strips related to the Plaintiff's birth. An
electronic copy remains, but the Hospital no longer maintains the
proprietary software/technology compatible with the data written on
this disk and all efforts to retrieve the data have been
unsuccessful as a result.
The Plaintiff offers the opinion testimony of Augustus G. Parker
III, M.D., a practicing physician in the field of Obstetrics and
Gynecology, who states that it is not possible to render a standard
of care opinion without reviewing either the birth records of the
delivery, fetal monitoring strips, or both. Hence, given his total
lack of culpability in relation to the destruction of his medical
records or the inaccessibility of the fetal monitoring strip
optical disc, the Plaintiff asks the Court -- as a discovery
sanction -- for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.
That is, the Plaintiff asks the Court for judgment as a matter of
law that the Hospital violated the applicable standard of care
during his birth, causing his brain injury.
Judge Barrett holds that fatal to the Plaintiff's case once again
is a lack of "intent." The Hospital attempted to both copy the
disk and redact data from it without success. It provided the disk
to the Plaintiff's forensic expert, SecureData, which, after
significant effort, was equally unsuccessful. The inability to
access the fetal monitoring strips is a casualty of outdated
technology, and nothing more. A sanction under Rule 37(e),
therefore, is not warranted either. For these reasons, Judge
Barrett denied Frank's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/rV2xzk from Leagle.com.
Jahmir Christopher Frank, Plaintiff, is represented by Thomas D.
Lambros, Esq., Janik & Doman LLP, 9200 South Hills Boulevard, Suite
300, Cleveland, OH 44147 & Percy Squire, Esq., Percy Squire Co.,
LLC, 341 S 3rd St., Ste 100 Columbus, Ohio 43215
The Good Samaritan Hospital of Cincinnati, Ohio, Defendant,
represented by C. Jessica Pratt, Esq. -- Jpratt@Rendigs.com --
Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis LLP, Michael P. Foley, Esq. --
Mfoley@Rendigs.com -- Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis LLP, Thomas
Montgomery Evans, Esq. -- TEvans@rendigs.com -- Rendigs Fry Kiely &
Dennis & Anthony George Raluy, Esq. -- traluy@rendigs.com --
Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis, LLP, pro hac vice.
GW UNIVERSITY: Shaffer Seeks Costs for In-Person Services Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Shaffer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, Case No.
1:20-cv-01145 (D.D.C., May 1, 2020), is brought as a result of the
Defendant's actions that have financially damaged the Plaintiff for
not receiving the full value of the services paid and did not
received the benefits of in-person instruction.
The Plaintiff contends that he has lost the benefit of their
bargain and/or suffered out-of-pocket loss and is entitled to
recover compensatory damages, trebling where permitted, and
attorney's fees and costs. He argues that despite sending students
home and closing its campus(es), the Defendant continues to charge
for tuition and fees as if nothing has changed, continuing to reap
the financial benefit of millions of dollars from students. He adds
that the Defendant does so despite students' complete inability to
continue school as normal, occupy campus buildings and dormitories,
or avail themselves of school programs and events.
So while students enrolled and paid the Defendant for a
comprehensive academic experience, the Defendant instead offers him
and the Class Members something far less: a limited online
experience presented by Google or Zoom, void of face-to-face
faculty and peer interaction, separated from program resources, and
barred from facilities vital to study, the Plaintiff asserts. The
Plaintiff, students and the Class Members did not bargain for such
an experience, he insists.
While some colleges and universities have promised appropriate
and/or proportional refunds, the Defendant excludes itself from
such other institutions treating students fairly, equitably, and as
required by the law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the parent of a current GW student and paid his
daughter's tuition and fees for the Defendant's Spring 2020
academic term at the Defendant.
The George Washington University is an institution of higher
learning located in Washington, D.C.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, DC 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
toml@hbsslaw.com
- and –
Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (708) 628-4949
Email: dank@hbsslaw.com
whitneys@hbsslaw.com
HOFFMAN OF SIMSBURY: Faces Wong Suit in Connecticut Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HOFFMAN OF SIMSBURY,
INC. The case is styled as Kerry Wong, individually and on behalf
of a class of others similarly situated v. HOFFMAN OF SIMSBURY,
INC. D/B/A: HOFFMAN HONDA, Case No. HHD-CV-20-6127464-S (Conn.
Super., Hartford Cty., April 30, 2020).
The case type is stated as "M90--MISC.--All other."
Hoffman of Simsbury, Inc., retails automobiles. The Company offers
new and used cars, vans, trucks, sport utility vehicles, parts, and
accessories, as well as financing, maintenance, and repair
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
CONSUMER LAW GROUP LLC
35 Cold Spring Road, Suite 512
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
Telephone: (860) 571-0408
HUGOTON ROYALTY: Claims Over Chieftain Accord Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hugoton Royalty Trust said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the hearing on the claims related to the
so-called Chieftain settlement has been rescheduled for April 27,
2020.
XTO Energy advised the Trustee that it reached a settlement with
the plaintiffs in the Chieftain class action royalty case. On July
27, 2018 the final plan of allocation was approved by the court.
Based on the final plan of allocation XTO Energy has advised the
Trustee that it believes approximately $24.3 million in additional
production costs should be allocated to the Trust.
On May 2, 2018, the Trustee submitted a demand for arbitration
seeking a declaratory judgment that the Chieftain settlement is not
a production cost and that XTO Energy is prohibited from charging
the settlement as a production cost under the conveyance or
otherwise reducing the Trust's payments now or in the future as a
result of the Chieftain litigation.
The hearing on the claims related to the Chieftain settlement was
rescheduled for April 27, 2020.
Other Trustee claims related to disputed amounts on the
computation of the Trust's net proceeds for 2014 through 2016 were
bifurcated from the issues regarding XTO's right to charge the
Chieftain settlement as a production cost and will be heard at a
later date, which is still to be determined.
Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the laws of
Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into
on December 1, 1998 between XTO Energy Inc. (formerly known as
Cross Timbers Oil Company), as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as
trustee. Southwest Bank is now the trustee of the Trust.
ICONIX BRAND: Settlement in SDNY Class Suit Receives Court Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iconix Brand Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019, that the settlement made in the class
action suit entitled, In re Iconix Brand Group, Inc., et al.,
Docket No. 1:15-cv-04860, has won court approval.
On September 16, 2019, the Company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement with the lead plaintiff in the securities class action
lawsuit pending against it in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, In re Iconix Brand Group, Inc.,
et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-04860.
The settlement released all claims asserted against the Company and
the other named defendants party to the Stipulation in the Class
Action without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them.
The settlement provided for a total settlement payment of $6.0
million, inclusive of administrative fees and fees for lead
plaintiff’s counsel.
All of the settlement amount was paid directly by the Company's
directors and officers liability insurance provider.
On January 23, 2020, the settlement received court approval, which
remains subject to customary appeal rights by interested parties.
Iconix Brand Group, Inc., a brand management company, owns,
licenses, and markets a portfolio of consumer brands across the
women's, men's, and home industries in the United States and
internationally. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. was founded in 1978 and
is based in New York, New York.
JPMORGAN CHASE: TDD Dallas Sues Over Improper PPP Loan Process
--------------------------------------------------------------
TDD Dallas LLC and Heavy Movers, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Case No.
DC-20-06259 (Tex. Dist., Dallas Cty., April 30, 2020), is brought
to ensure that small businesses harmed by the Chase's improper
application process for Paycheck Protection Program loans are
compensated for damaged Chase caused.
The Plaintiffs are the quintessential types of small businesses
that the Congress intended to assist during the current global
pandemic. These businesses timely applied for and were active in
their application to Chase Bank for the governmentally-provided
Paycheck Protection Program refunds. Despite this, the Plaintiffs
note, it has been widely reported that Chase Bank favored larger
loan applicants, each of which provided a higher-dollar origination
fee for Chase Bank, and disregarded its obligation to consider and
fund the applications on a first-come, first-served basis.
As a result of Chase's conduct, the Plaintiffs suffered financial
loss, specifically including the loss of the opportunity to obtain
funding that was likely to be forgiven by the Federal Government,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are a local cookie dough eatery and a residential
and commercial moving company.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., is registered to do business in
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peyton J. Healy, Esq.
Joshua L. Hedrick, Esq.
Jacob B. Kring, Esq.
Courtney E. Jackson, Esq.
HENDRICK KRING, PLLC
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 880-9600
Phone: (214) 481-1844
Email: peyton@hendrickkring.com
josh@hendrickkring.com
jacob@hendrickkring.com
courtney@hendrickkring.com
L BRANDS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Ohio Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
L Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
February 1, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action suit before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio remains pending.
In July 2019, a plaintiff shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio alleging that the Company made false and/or misleading
statements relating to the November 2018 announcement that the
Company was reducing its quarterly dividend.
In September 2019, a different plaintiff shareholder filed a second
putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio containing substantially the same
allegations and seeking substantially the same relief.
In October 2019, the Court issued an order consolidating the two
putative class actions, appointing a lead plaintiff, and approving
that lead plaintiff’s selection of lead counsel.
The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on
December 20, 2019 that asserted substantially the same allegations
and sought substantially the same relief as the initial complaint.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on February 18, 2020.
The lead plaintiff must file any opposition to the company's motion
to dismiss no later than May 4, 2020.
The Company's reply brief in further support of its motion to
dismiss is due on June 3, 2020.
The Company views this lawsuit as meritless and intends to defend
against this lawsuit vigorously.
L Brands, Inc. sells women's apparel and beauty products. The
Company offers various products including women's apparel, women's
lingerie, beauty and personal care products, home fragrances, and
other related products and accessories. L Brands serves customers
in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom through
specialty retail stores, websites, and catalogues. The company is
based in Columbus, Ohio.
LAKELAND TOURS: Sued by Tirozzi for Not Refunding Cancelled Trips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Tirozzi, Beth Ramsay, Geoffrey Wilson, and Angela Moss,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
LAKELAND TOURS, LLC, doing business as WORLDSTRIDES, Case No.
3:20-cv-30065 (D. Mass., April 30, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's failure to refund the Plaintiffs for pre-paid trips,
which included travel, lodging, food, events and excursions, that
were cancelled, postponed or rescheduled due to the Coronavirus
Pandemic/Covid-19 Pandemic.
The Plaintiffs and the Defendant contracted for the Defendant to
provide specific Trips on specific dates, in exchange for a total
price, which were paid in advance by the Plaintiffs. Beginning in
2019, the Plaintiffs registered for Trips scheduled for 2020.
Beginning in 2019, the Defendant began receiving money from the
Plaintiffs and members of the Class for pre-payment of Trips
scheduled for 2020.
Despite their legal obligations to do so, the Defendant has
received millions of dollars in Trip pre-payments from the
Plaintiffs, whose Trips were cancelled, rescheduled or postponed as
a result of the Covid-19 Pandemic. The Defendant has failed to
refund and is refusing to refund the Plaintiffs and members of the
Class the money they paid for Trips that were cancelled,
rescheduled, or postponed, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs signed up for the Defendant's trips.
The Defendant is the nation's largest accredited travel
organization and offers, organizes, markets and sells Trips to over
400,000 students and their families per year.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Angela Edwards, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ANGELA EDWARDS
72 Canterbury Circle
East Longmeadow, MA 01028
Phone: (413) 525-3820
Email: angelaedwards@charter.net
- and -
Mark J. Albano, Esq.
ALBANO LAW, LLC
One Monarch Place, Suite 1330
Springfield, MA 01144-1330
Phone: (413) 736-3500
Fax: (413) 746-9224
Email: mark@albanolawllc.com
LASER PHYSICIANS: Laser Technicians Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Norma Acosta and Marlyse O'Hagan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Laser Physicians, PA, Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-00112, (W.D. Tex., April 27, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, all available equitable
relief, attorney fees, and litigation expenses/costs, including
expert witness fees and expenses under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Laser Physicians, PA operates as American Laser Med Spa with 5
clinics in Texas, including El Paso, Amarillo, Corpus Christi,
Lubbock and Midland, Texas where Acosta and O'Hagan worked as laser
technicians. They claim to have regularly worked in excess of forty
or fifty hours per week but did not receive overtime pay for hours
regularly worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond D. Martinez, Esq.
Jonathan L.R. Baeza, Esq.
MARTINEZ & MARTINEZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
730 E. Yandell Dr.
El Paso, TX 79902
Tel: (915) 541-1000
Fax: (915) 541-1002
Email: raymond@martinezlawyers.com
jonathan@martinezlawyers.com
MDL 2942: Joining of COVID-19 Insurance Coverage Suits Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the multidistrict litigation titled In re: COVID-19 Business
Interruption Insurance Coverage Litigation, Case MDL No. 2942
(Filed April 20, 2020), Movants LH Dining L.L.C. and Newchops
Restaurant Comcast LLC, ask the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to grant their motion for transfer and
coordination or consolidation and transfer of similar actions to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
before the Honorable Judge Timothy J. Savage.
The River Twice and Chops lawsuits, filed in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, along with the other similar lawsuits filed in
other federal courts, arise out of the COVID-19 pandemic. The
Actions seek recovery of the losses, sustained by businesses as a
result of government-mandated closures, through the Plaintiffs'
business interruption insurance policies.
In response to the threat to public safety posed by the COVID-19
pandemic, governmental authorities at the national level, the state
level, the county level and the local level have issued various
orders that, in one form or another, closed non-essential
businesses and/or mandated that individuals must "stay at-home."
The Actions include:
-- Case No. 7:20-cv-00465 in N.D. Ala., Wagner Shoes LLC v.
Auto-Owners Insurance Company (Motion);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-03570 in C.D. Cal., Caribe Restaurant and
Nightclub, Inc. v. Topa Insurance Company (Motion);
-- Case No. 3:20-cv-00794 in S.D. Cal., Pigment Inc. v. The
Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., et al. (Related
Case);
-- Case No. 1:20-cv-01094 in D.D.C., GCDC LLC v. THE HARTFORD
FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., et al. (Related Case);
-- Case No. 8:20-cv-00771 in M.D. Fla., Prime Time Sports
Grill, Inc. v. DTW 1991 Underwriting Limited (Motion);
-- Case No. 1:20-cv-21525 in S.D. Fla., El Novillo Restaurant,
et al. v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd's London, et al.
(Motion);
-- Case No. 1:20-cv-21641 in S.D. Fla., Cafe International
Holding Company LLC v. Chubb Limited, et al. (Related Case);
-- Case No. 9:20-cv-80677 in S.D. Fla., SA Palm Beach LLC v.
Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, et al. (Related Case);
-- Case No. 1:20-cv-02005 in N.D. Ill., Big Onion Tavern Group,
LLC, et al. v. Society Insurance, Inc. (Motion);
-- Case No. 1:20-cv-02068 in N.D. Ill., Billy Goat Tavern I,
Inc., et al. v. Society Insurance (Motion);
-- Case No. 1:20-cv-02160 in N.D. Ill., Sandy Point Dental PC
v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, et al. (Motion);
-- Case No. 1:20-cv-00542 in W.D. La., Odyssey Imports Inc. v.
Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co (Related Case);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-04586 in D.N.J., TRUHAVEN ENTERPRISES INC.
v. CHUBB LTD. (Related Case);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-00768 in D. Nev., Project Lion LLC, et al.
v. Badger Mutual Insurance Company (Related Case);
-- Case No. 1:20-cv-03107 in S.D.N.Y., Gio Pizzeria & Bar
Hospitality, LLC, et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's,
London Subscribing to Policy Numbers ARP-74910-20 and ARP-
75209-20 (Motion);
-- Case No. 1:20-cv-03258 in S.D.N.Y., SA Hospitality Group,
LLC, et al. v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., et al.
(Related Case);
-- Case No. 1:20-cv-03336 in S.D.N.Y., Camp 1382 LLC v. Lancer
Insurance Company (Related Case);
-- Case No. 1:20-cv-00833 in N.D. Ohio, Bridal Expressions LLC
v. Owners Insurance Company (Motion);
-- Case No. 1:20-cv-00312 in S.D. Ohio, Troy Stacy Enterprises
Inc. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company (Motion);
-- Case No. 3:20-cv-00630 in D. Or., Dakota Ventures, LLC, et
al. v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Co. (Motion);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-01869 in E.D. Pa., LH DINING L.L.C. v.
ADMIRAL INDEMNITY COMPANY (Motion);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-01949 in E.D. Pa., NEWCHOPS RESTAURANT
COMCAST LLC v. ADMIRAL INDEMNITY COMPANY (Motion);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-01967 in E.D. Pa., C.A Spalding Company v.
SELECTIVE INSURANCE GROUP, INC., et al. (Related Case);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-01973 in E.D. Pa., IAN MCCABE STUDIO, LLC,
et al. v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE (Related Case);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-01977 in E.D. Pa., JUL-BUR ASSOCIATES INC.,
et al. v. SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al.
(Related Case);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-02021 in E.D. Pa., CHESTER COUNTY SPORTS
ARENA v. THE CINCINNATI SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE
COMPANY (Related Case);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-02029 in E.D. Pa., Laudenbach Periodontics
and Dental Implants, Ltd v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE GROUP,
et al. (Related Case);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-02034 in E.D. Pa., LANSDALE 329 PROP, LLC,
et al. v. HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
(Related Case);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-02036 in E.D. Pa., MILKBOY CENTER CITY LLC
v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. (Related Case);
Case No. 3:20-cv-00948 in N.D. Tex., Berkseth-Rojas DDS v.
Aspen American Insurance Comoany (Motion);
-- Case No. 3:20-cv-01034 in N.D. Tex., (Pending);
-- Case No. 4:20-cv-01199 in S.D. Tex., SCGM, Inc., et al. v.
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's (Motion);
-- Case No. 4:20-cv-01478 in S.D. Tex., (Pending);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-00597 in W.D. Wash., Nguyen v. Travelers
Casualty Insurance Company of America (Related Case);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-00598 in W.D. Wash., Fox v. Travelers
Casualty Insurance Company of America (Related Case);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-00613 in W.D. Wash., Stan's Bar-B-Q LLC v.
The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company (Related Case);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-00616 in W.D. Wash., Marler v. Aspen
American Insurance Company (Related Case);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-00620 in W.D. Wash., (Pending);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-00622 in W.D. Wash., (Pending);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-00625 in W.D. Wash., (Pending);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-00627 in W.D. Wash., (Pending);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-00657 in W.D. Wash., (Pending);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-00661 in W.D. Wash., (Pending);
-- Case No. 3:20-cv-05378 in W.D. Wash., Mikkelson v. Aspen
American Insurance Company (Related Case);
-- Case No. 3:20-cv-05402 in W.D. Wash., (Pending);
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-00623 in E.D. Wis., Rising Dough Inc., et
al. v. Society Insurance (Motion); and
-- Case No. 2:20-cv-00656 in E.D. Wis., Biltrite Furniture Inc.
v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Related Case).
The Movants are represented by:
Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 346-7338
Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
E-mail: rgolomb@GolombHonik.Com
KGrunfeld@GolombHonik.Com
- and -
Arnold Levin, Esq.
Frederick Longer, Esq.
Daniel Levin, Esq.
Keith J. Verrier, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: alevin@lfblaw.com
flonger@lfsblaw.com
dlevin@lfsblaw.com
kverrier@lfsblaw.com
MERIDIAN CORP: Bank Unit Pays Settlement in Jordan Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Meridian Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that its unit, Meridian Bank, has made a
settlement payment in the class action suit entitled, Juan Jordan
et al. v. Meridian Bank, Thomas Campbell and Christopher Annas.
On November 21, 2017, three former employees of the
mortgage-banking division of the Bank filed suit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
Juan Jordan et al. v. Meridian Bank, Thomas Campbell and
Christopher Annas, against the Bank purporting to be a class and
collective action seeking unpaid and overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 on behalf of similarly
situated plaintiffs.
In September 2019, plaintiffs' counsel and the Bank agreed to move
forward with non-binding mediation.
Although the Bank believes it had strong and meritorious defenses,
given the expense and inconvenience of litigation, on July 24,
2019 through mediation, the Bank reached an agreement in principle
with the plaintiffs to settle this litigation for $990 thousand in
total.
The Bank had a litigation reserve of $990 thousand at December 31,
2019.
The parties submitted a negotiated settlement agreement to the
court, and received final court approval on December 19, 2019.
On February 29, 2020 the Bank made a payment, which included
additional minor expenses, of $1.0 million in final settlement of
this matter.
Meridian Corporation operates as the bank holding for Meridian Bank
that provides commercial banking products and services for retail
and commercial customers primarily in southeastern Pennsylvania,
Delaware, and south New Jersey. The Company was founded in 2004
and is headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania.
MIDLAND CREDIT: Aguirre Sues in S.D. Calif. Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Byron M. Aguirre,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00812-CAB-JLB
(S.D. Cal., April 30, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., is a licensed debt collector
founded in 1953. The Company's line of business includes extending
credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Michal Wajda, Esq.
WAJDA LAW GROUP APC
3111 Camino Del Rio North, Ste. 400
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (310) 997-0471
Fax: (866) 286-8433
Email: nick@wajdalawgroup.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Andres FDCPA Class Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Armando Andres,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-04008 (C.D. Cal.,
April 30, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., is a licensed debt collector
founded in 1953. The Company's line of business includes extending
credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Michal Wajda, Esq.
WAJDA LAW GROUP APC
3111 Camino Del Rio North, Ste. 400
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (310) 997-0471
Fax: (866) 286-8433
Email: nick@wajdalawgroup.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Guzman FDCPA Class Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Francisco R. Guzman,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-04010 (C.D. Cal.,
April 30, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., is a licensed debt collector
founded in 1953. The Company's line of business includes extending
credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas M. Wajda, Esq.
WAJDA LAW GROUP APC
6167 Bristol Parkway, Suite 200
Culver City, CA 90230
Phone: (310) 997-0471
Fax: (866) 286-8433
Email: nick@wajdalawgroup.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Green Sues in S.D. Texas Alleging FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Lorraine Green, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-01540 (S.D. Tex., April
30, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a licensed debt collector
founded in 1953. The company's line of business includes extending
credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Constantine Vlahakis, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: McKenzie Sues in M.D. Florida Over FDCPA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Elsie McKenzie, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01005 (M.D. Fla., April 30,
2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., is a licensed debt collector
founded in 1953. The Company's line of business includes extending
credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
NED LAMONT: Faces McPherson Civil Rights Suit in Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ned Lamont, et al.
The case is captioned as Tre McPherson, Pattikate Williams-Void,
John Doe, John Roe, and Thomas Caves, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Ned Lamont and Rollin Cook, in
their individual capacities, Case No. 3:20-cv-00534-JBA (D. Conn.,
April 20, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Janet Bond Arterton.
The suit alleges violation of civil rights laws.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dan Barrett, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
765 Asylum Ave., 1st Floor
Hartford, CT 06105
Telephone: (860) 471-8471
E-mail: dbarrett@acluct.org
- and -
Elana Spungen Bildner, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF CONNECTICUT
765 Asylum Avenue, 1st Floor
Hartford, CT 06105
Telephone: (860) 471-8475
E-mail: ebildner@acluct.org
The Defendants are represented by:
James Michael Belforti, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06002
Telephone: (860) 808-5436
Facsimile: (860) 808-5591
E-mail: james.belforti@ct.gov
- and -
James W. Donohue, Esq.
Steven R. Strom, Esq.
Terrence M. O'Neill, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Telephone: (860) 808-5450
E-mail: james.donohue@ct.gov
steven.strom@ct.gov
terrence.oneill@ct.gov
PARKING REIT: Bid to Dismiss 2 Stockholders Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Parking REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that motions to dismiss two class action
lawsuits in Baltimore City, Maryland court against the company are
still pending.
On May 31, 2019, and June 27, 2019, alleged stockholders filed
class action lawsuits alleging direct and derivative claims against
the Company, certain of its officers and directors, MVP Realty
Advisors, Vestin Realty Mortgage I, and Vestin Realty Mortgage II
in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, captioned Arthur Magowski
v. The Parking REIT, Inc., et. al, No. 24-C-19003125 (filed on May
31, 2019) (the "Magowski Complaint") and Michelle Barene v. The
Parking REIT, Inc., et. al, No. 24-C-19003527 (filed on June 27,
2019) (the "Barene Complaint").
The Magowski Complaint asserts purportedly direct claims on behalf
of all stockholders (other than the defendants and persons or
entities related to or affiliated with any defendant) for breach of
fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment arising from the Company's
decision to internalize its advisory function.
In this Complaint, Plaintiff Magowski asserts that the stockholders
have allegedly been directly injured by the internalization and
related transactions.
The Barene Complaint asserts both direct and derivative claims for
breach of fiduciary duty arising from substantially similar
allegations as those contained in the Magowski Complaint.
The purportedly direct claims are asserted on behalf of the same
class of stockholder as the purportedly direct claims in the
Magowski Complaint, and the derivative claims in the Barene
Complaint are asserted on behalf of the Company.
On September 12 and 16, 2019, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the Magowski and Barene complaints, respectively.
The Magowski and Barene Complaints seek, among other things,
damages; declaratory relief; equitable relief to reverse and enjoin
the internalization transaction; and the payment of reasonable
attorneys' fees, accountants' and experts' fees, costs and
expenses. The actions are at a preliminary stage.
The Company and the board of directors intend to vigorously defend
against these lawsuits.
The Magowski Complaint also previewed that a stockholder demand
would be made on the Board to take action with respect to claims
belonging to the Company for the alleged injury to the Company.
On June 19, 2019, Magowski submitted a formal demand letter to the
Board asserting the same alleged wrongdoing as alleged in the
Magowski Complaint and demanding that the Board investigate the
alleged wrongdoing and take action to remedy the alleged injury to
the Company.
The demand includes that claims be initiated against the same
defendants as are named in the Magowski Complaint.
In response to this stockholder demand letter, on July 16, 2019,
the Board established a demand review committee of one independent
director to investigate the allegations of wrongdoing made in the
letter and to make a recommendation to the Board for a response to
the letter.
On September 27, 2019, the Board replaced the demand review
committee with a special litigation committee.
The special litigation committee is responsible for investigating
the allegations of wrongdoing made in the letter and making a final
determination regarding the response for the Company to the demand.
The work of the special litigation committee is on-going.
The Parking REIT, Inc., formerly known as MVP REIT II, Inc., is a
Maryland corporation formed on May 4, 2015 and has elected to be
taxed, and has operated in a manner that will allow the Company to
qualify as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for U.S. federal
income tax purposes beginning with the taxable year ended December
31, 2017; therefore, the Company intends to continue operating as a
REIT for the taxable year ended December 31, 2019. The company is
based in Las Vegas, Nevada.
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Thomson Seeks Refunds Over Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Thomson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, through its board of
trustees, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE
UNIVERSITY, a corporate body, Case No. 4:20-cv-00725-MWB (M.D. Pa.,
April 30, 2020), is brought to seek refunds as a result of the
Defendant's decision to close campus, constructively evict
students, and transition all classes to an online/remote format as
a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease pandemic.
While closing campus and transitioning to online classes was the
right thing for the Defendants to do, this decision deprived the
Plaintiff and the other members of the Class from recognizing the
benefits of in-person instruction, housing, meals, access to campus
facilities, student activities, and other benefits and services in
exchange for which they had already paid fees and tuition,
according to the complaint.
The Defendants have either refused to provide reimbursement for the
tuition, housing, meals, fees and other costs that the Defendants
are no longer providing, or have provided inadequate and/or
arbitrary reimbursement that does not fully compensate the
Plaintiff and members of the Class for their loss, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is currently enrolled as a full time student in the
Defendant's undergraduate program, studying communications.
The Pennsylvania State University is a public land-grant research
university located in Centre County, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart A. Carper, Esq.
CARPEY LAW, P.C.
600 W. Germantown Pike, Suite 400
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
Phone: (610) 834-6030
Email: scarpey@carpeylaw.com
- and -
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Roy T. Willey IV, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 614-8888
Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com
roy@akimlawfirm.com
PEPSI MIDAMERICA: Westfield Do Not Want to Defend Hall BIPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY v. PEPSI MIDAMERICA CO., and CHARLES
HALL, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, Case No. 3:20-cv-00388-GCS (S.D. Ill., April 30,
2020), seeks a declaration that it owes no duty to defend or
indemnify Pepsi MidAmerica under two sequential policies of
insurance issued to it, with respect to a class action lawsuit
filed by Charles Hall.
Mr. Hall alleges that his employer, Pepsi MidAmerica, violated the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, by unlawfully
collecting his and other employees' biometric data, specifically a
scan of their hands.
The underlying complaint was filed on February 2, 2018. Pepsi
MidAmerica allegedly collected Hall's handprint data in its
databases, without providing Hall a written release allowing Pepsi
MidAmerica to collect or store his data and Pepsi MidAmerican has
not made the required disclosures concerning the collection,
storage, use, or destruction of the biometric data. Hall alleges
that Pepsi MidAmerica has violated BIPA, by unlawfully and
improperly disclosing his and the proposed class members' biometric
data to out-of-state third-party vendors, says the complaint.
Westfield is an insurance company incorporated under the State of
Ohio with its principal place of business located in Westfield
Center, Ohio.
Pepsi MidAmerica is a Missouri corporation with its principal place
of business in Williamson County, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter G. Syregelas, Esq.
LINDSAY, PICKETT & POSTEL, LLC
10 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1301
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 312-800-6025
Fax: (312) 629-1404
Email: psyregelas@lpplawfirm.com
PHARMACIELO LTD: Anderson Hits Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------
Howard Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pharmacielo Ltd., David Attard, and Scott
Laitinen, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03759 (C.D. Cal., April 24,
2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of
the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
PharmaCielo, through its subsidiary, PharmaCielo Colombia Holdings
S.A.S., cultivates, process, produce, and supply medicinal-grade
cannabis oil extracts and related products in Colombia and
internationally. On September 25, 2019, PharmaCielo signed a United
States sales agreement with established multi-state distributor,
General Extract LLC.
Anderson alleges that PharmaCielo failed to disclose that it
engaged in undisclosed related party transactions with General
Extract and loans; that it had significantly overstated the
efficacy and competitiveness of its business and operations in
South America, including Peru and Colombia; that its Research
Technology and Processing Centre facility is located on a
floodplain and contaminated with mold and pesticides from its
previous tenants. On this news, shares of PharmaCielo fell $0.5132
per share over the next two trading days, or 36.14%, to close at
$0.9068 per share on March 3, 2020, damaging investors including
Anderson. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile (212) 697-7296
Email: peretz@bgandg.com
QUEEN CITY PIZZA: Moyer Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Moyer, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. QUEEN CITY PIZZA, INC., and THOMAS BOLGER, Case No.
5:20-cv-02114-EGS (E.D. Pa., May 1, 2020), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Annotated Statutes to
recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to the
Plaintiff.
The Defendants employ delivery drivers, who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants since 2018 as a
delivery driver at the Defendants' Domino's stores.
The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise
stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.
120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218
Horsham, PA 19044
Phone: (215) 496-8282
Fax: (215) 754-4443
Email: ckocher@smbb.com
RING LLC: Andrews Sues Over Hidden Charges/Subscription Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
James Andrews, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Ring LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00889, (C.D.
Cal., April 26, 2020), seeks an order requiring Ring to offer the
ability to use the video recording, playback and snapshot features
of their Ring products at no charge; and injunctive relief pursuant
to the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising
Law, California Business and Professions Code and the Unfair
Competition Law.
Ring sells the "Ring" brand video doorbell and security camera.
Andrews alleges that Ring failed to indicate on the outside of the
sealed packaging that the video recording, playback and snapshot
features of these cameras would only operate if the consumer paid
an additional fee of $3 per month per device for a subscription.
[BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
HATTIS & LUKACS
400 108th Ave NE, Ste. 500
Bellevue, WA 98004
Telephone: (425) 233-8650
Facsimile: (425) 412-7171
Email: dan@hattislaw.com
pkl@hattislaw.com
- and -
Stephen DeNittis, Esq.
Shane T. Prince, Esq.
DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
5 Greentree Centre, Suite 410
525 Route 73 N.
Marlton, New Jersey 08057
Telephone: (856) 797-9951
Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
sprince@denittislaw.com
SOCIETY INSURANCE: Sued by Roscoe Same Over Refusal Pay Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roscoe Same LLC, Big & Little's Lakeview LLC and Big & Little's
Empire LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, Case No. 1:20-cv-02641 (N.D. Ill.,
April 30, 2020), seeks redress for Society Insurance's refusal to
honor and pay claims for covered losses related to COVID-19 made
pursuant to the businessowners insurance policy it sold to the
Plaintiffs and others.
In order to protect themselves, the Plaintiffs obtained business
interruption insurance from Society Insurance. The policies they
obtained, explicitly cover business interruption losses when the
government forces them to close. Under orders recently issued by
the State of Illinois in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
Plaintiffs say they were forced to stop normal operation of their
restaurants, resulting in tens of thousands of dollars of harm,
which is ongoing.
The Plaintiffs contacted their independent insurance agent and were
informed there would be no coverage. The Plaintiffs assert that
this is not surprising in light of the fact that that Society
Insurance has denied all or most all similar claims. Society's CEO
has even issued a memorandum to independent insurance agencies they
work with advising that there would not be any coverage, says the
complaint.
Roscoe Same LLC is an Illinois limited liability company that
operates a restaurant named Same Same in Chicago's Roscoe Village
neighborhood serving Thai food. Big & Little's Lakeview LLC and Big
& Little's Empire LLC operate restaurants in Chicago's Lakeview and
River North neighborhoods, respectively, serving fast food with a
gourmet twist.
Society Insurance is an insurance carrier that provides commercial
insurance to business customers in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and
Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Erich P. Schork, Esq.
Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
205 W. Randolph, Ste. 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 621-200
Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
e.schork@barnowlaw.com
aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
- and -
Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619/338-1100
Fax: 619/338-1101
Email: tblood@bholaw.com
STEAK N SHAKE: Court Narrows FLSA Claims in White Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MELISSA WHITE, on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. STEAK N SHAKE INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-CV-323-CDP (E.D. Mo.), Judge Catherine D.
Perry of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, granted Steak N Shake's motion to
dismiss the claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and
limited the FLSA claims in the action to only those claims of
potential opt-in Plaintiffs who worked for Steak N Shake in
Missouri.
Steak N Shake is an Indiana corporation that operates more than 400
restaurants throughout the United States. Thirty-nine of those
restaurants are located in Missouri. Plaintiff White is a citizen
of Missouri who worked as a server at a Steak N Shake restaurant in
St. Louis County, Missouri, from April 2009 to February 2014, and
as a server trainer from July 2016 to January 2018. White claims
that she and the putative Plaintiffs in the action are or were
hourly employees who worked as servers or in similar positions at
Steak N Shake restaurants and were paid at a reduced tip-based
wage, but were required to perform unrelated non-tipped production
work and/or spend a substantial time performing non-tipped tasks
related to their tipped occupation, all for which they did not
receive tips or minimum wage.
In her complaint, White alleges that Steak N Shake's failure to pay
minimum wage for non-tipped tasks violates the FLSA, and she seeks
to pursue a nationwide collective action thereunder for all the
putative Plaintiffs who elect to opt in to the action. White also
seeks to pursue a class action under Rule 23, Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, for Steak N Shake's alleged violation of the
Missouri Minimum Wage Laws, and she seeks to obtain class wide
relief under Rule 23 for all the putative class members who were
employed by Steak N Shake in the State of Missouri and who do not
opt out of the action.
Steak N Shake moves to dismiss the FLSA claims to the extent White
brings them in behalf of non-Missouri employees, arguing that the
Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the claims of these putative
opt-in Plaintiffs.
Judge Perry agrees. She has reviewed both lines of cases and, for
the reasons stated earlier in her memorandum, she agrees with the
reasoning set out in Maclin v. Reliable Reports of Texas, Inc., Roy
v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., and Vallone v. CJS Sols. Grp.,
LLC based on longstanding due process principles.
Because the putative Plaintiffs in an FLSA collective action are
required to opt in to the action, are thereafter considered "party
plaintiffs" to the action, and may obtain relief on their
individual claims in the action only by actively participating as
party plaintiffs, due process requires that their alleged injuries
"arise out of or relate to" Steak N Shake's activities within the
forum state -- Missouri.
Because the due process requirement cannot be satisfied for
potential opt-in plaintiffs who did not work at Steak N Shake
restaurants located in Missouri, the Court cannot exercise specific
personal jurisdiction over Steak N Shake regarding the FLSA claims
White seeks to pursue here in their behalf.
Accordingly, Judge Perry granted the Defendant's Motion to
Partially Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. The FLSA claims in the
action are limited to only those claims of potential opt-in
Plaintiffs who worked for Steak N Shake in Missouri. All other
FLSA claims are dismissed without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2020 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://is.gd/LQYPAg from Leagle.com.
TARONIS TECHNOLOGIES: Court Narrows Claims Zhu Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Kui Zhu, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Taronis Technologies
Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-19-04529-PHX-GMS (D.
Ariz.), Judge G. Murray Snow of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona granted in part and denied in part Taronis'
Motion to Dismiss First Amended Class Action Complaint.
The action concerns an alleged fraudulent scheme to artificially
inflate the market price of Taronis common stock by deceiving the
investing public about the existence of a material contract between
Taronis and the City of San Diego. The federal securities class
action is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Taronis common stock between Jan.
28, 2019 and Feb. 12, 2019 when the stock prices were allegedly
artificially inflated.
Taronis is an energy company that offers technology solutions to
create, process, and produce hydrogen-based fuel. It has had
difficulty maintaining its listing on NASDAQ. On May 7, 2018,
NASDAQ informed Taronis that to avoid delisting it needed to, among
other things, maintain its common stock price above $1 for ten
consecutive business days. To ensure compliance, Taronis' Board of
Directors obtained the consent of Taronis' majority stockholders to
approve a reverse stock split of the outstanding common stock and
treasury stock. The reverse stock split was anticipated to result
in an immediate increase in the market price of the common stock to
an average of $4.20 -- well above the Nasdaq $1 minimum. The
reverse stock split went into effect on Jan. 30, 2019. The
Plaintiffs concede the method of boosting Taronis' stock price was
lawful.
However, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants were simultaneously
planning a fraudulent means of inflating the stock price. On Jan.
28, 2019, Taronis disclosed in an SEC filing and related press
release that the City of San Diego elected to use its MagneGas2 as
its fuel of choice. The Plaintiffs allege that the market price of
Taronis common stock promptly increased over 25% after news of the
San Diego contract was published.
However, the day after the Press Release was published, the City's
Senior Public Information Officer requested that the Press Release
be immediately removed. The City Officer explained while the
product has been tested the City of San Diego does not have any
procurement contract or any agreement with Taronis to purchase any
of its products. Pursuant to the City's request, the Press Release
was later removed from Taronis' website, but no corrective
disclosure was filed with the SEC.
The Plaintiffs rely on the quoted materials to allege that the
Company's disclosure about the contract with the City of San Diego
was entirely false. Taronis had not entered into any contract with
the City of San Diego for its proprietary metal-cutting fuel; nor
was the City adopting the Taronis product as its metal-cutting fuel
of choice. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants knew the Press
Release was false but released it to artificially inflate the
common stock price. They allege that the Defendants waited until
Feb. 12, 2019 to clarify the Press Release in an attempt to obtain
compliance with NASDAQ's minimum bid price for the required 10
consecutive business days.
Consequently, the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges claims
for (1) violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5(b) against Defendant Taronis and Defendant Mahoney
(Count I); and (2) violations of SEC Rule 10b-5(a) &(c) (Count II)
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act (Count III) against the
Individual Defendants.
The Defendants move to have Counts I and II dismissed pursuant to
Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). To state a claim under
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, the Plaintiffs must show with
particularity (1) a material misrepresentation or omission of
material fact; (2) scienter; (3) a connection with the purchase or
sale of a security; (4) reliance; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss
causation. The Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs have failed
to adequately plead a material misrepresentation, scienter, and
loss causation.
Judge Snow holds that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that
the Press Release was misleading because it gave reasonable
investors the false impression that Taronis had secured a long-term
contract with the City. The language of the Press Release that the
City had elected to use MagneGas as its metal cutting fuel of
choice considered in conjunction with the reference to a newly
formed contract may create in the minds of a reasonable juror the
impression of a durable long-term, majority-type relationship. The
City's alleged response to the Press Release further supports this
interpretation.
The Plaintiffs assert that the City promptly requested the Press
Release be removed due to its inaccuracy and that the Defendants
complied with the City's request. They also alleged the contents
of internal City emails commenting on the Press Release's falsity.
While, as the Defendant argues, these allegations may not prove
falsity, that is not the question before the Court. When the facts
alleged are assumed to be true, the City's reaction to the Press
Release supports the inference that the Press Release gave
reasonable investors the impression that Taronis had a more
significant agreement with the City than an approval and a written
authorization to move forward with the procurement of gas. The
Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a material misrepresentation
under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.
Next, contrary to the Defendants' assertions, Judge Snow finds that
the Plaintiffs' allegation of scienter is based on more than a
general allegation of motive and opportunity. While the Defendants
claim they innocently believed the Press Release was true and had
no motive to mislead investors in light of the approved reverse
stock split, the facts alleged give rise to an inference that the
Defendants intentionally or with deliberate recklessness made false
or misleading statements to investors. The Plaintiffs have
adequately alleged scienter.
As for loss causation, Judge Snow finds that the FAC does not rely
on the market's speculation of fraud derived from the removal of
the Press Release alone. The Plaintiffs theory of a "slow leak"
revelation is nuanced, but the Circuit has recognized that there
are an infinite number of ways to allege loss causation. The
allegations in the FAC, viewed together, adequately allege a viable
loss causation theory.
Finally, Judge Snow finds that the FAC fails to state a claim
against the Individual Defendants for violations of Rule 10b-5(a)
and (c). The FAC does not allege any facts that are separate from
those already alleged in the Rule 10b-5(b) claim. The Plaintiffs
merely add that the Individual Defendants participated in the
scheme to defraud by participating in the issuance of the Press
Release and in the decision to delay issuing a corrective
disclosure. It is not enough. The Plaintiffs' Rule 10b-5(a) and
(c) claim against the Individual Defendants (Count II) is
dismissed.
Judge Snow concludes that the FAC adequately pleads a violation of
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against Defendant Taronis and
Defendant Mahoney. However, the FAC falls short with respect to
its Rule10b-5(a) & (c) claim asserted against the Individual
Defendants. Accordingly, he granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss First Amended Class Action Complaint.
He denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with respect to Count
I. He granted it with respect to Count II is granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/u2PeOS from Leagle.com.
TRANSPORTES AEREOS: Faces Plummer Class Suit in Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transportes Aereos
Portugueses SA. The case is styled as Mary Plummer, On behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Transportes Aereos
Portuguese S.A, doing business as: TAP Air Portugal, Case No.
1:20-cv-10836-DJC (D. Mass., April 30, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as other contract for breach of
contract.
Transportes Aereos Portugueses (TAP Air Portugal) is Portugal's
national airline, flying more than 26 million miles a year to 85
destinations on three continents and carrying an annual average of
over 3 million passengers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William P. Doyle, III, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS F. COLONNA & ASSOCIATES
26 Main Street, Suite A
Lynnfield, MA 01940
Phone: (781) 245-1127
Email: bill@colonna-doyle.com
TRUMP CORP: Can't Compel Arbitration in Doe RICO Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied the Defendants' motion to
compel arbitration in the case, JANE DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
THE TRUMP CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18 Civ. 9936
(LGS) (S.D. N.Y.).
The Plaintiffs represent a putative class alleging that Defendants
Donald J. Trump, The Trump Corp., Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump and
Ivanka Trump committed various business torts.
Non-party ACN Opportunity, LLC is a multi-level marketing company
that offers products and services through independent salespeople
known as "Independent Business Owners," or "IBOs." The Plaintiffs
became IBOs in 2013, 2014 and 2016. In order to sell ACN products
and services, IBOs must pay ACN an initial sign-up fee and an
annual renewal fee. Each IBO must also sign an Independent
Business Owner Agreement. Each Agreement contains an arbitration
provision. The parties agree that the Defendants are not
signatories to the Agreements. By their terms, the Agreements are
governed by North Carolina law.
Between 2005 and at least 2015, the Defendants promoted and
endorsed ACN through videos, print and online media, at ACN events,
and during episodes of The Celebrity Apprentice, a television
program hosted by Trump and featuring Ivanka Trump and Donald
Trump, Jr. The Defendants' endorsement of ACN was crucial to the
Plaintiffs' decisions to become IBOs for at least two related
reasons. First, the Plaintiffs considered Trump and his family
highly successful in business. Second, they believed that the
endorsement was independent of ACN.
Among the false statements that the Plaintiffs allege as part of
the surviving causes of action is that Trump was endorsing and
promoting ACN because he believed that they offered a reasonable
probability of commercial success (rather than because the Trump
Enterprise was being paid). The Defendants and ACN did not
disclose that ACN was paying the Defendants to promote and endorse
the company.
The Plaintiffs commenced the action on Oct. 29, 2018. The
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Jan. 14, 2019. The motion
was denied as moot after the Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint
on Jan. 31, 2019. The Amended Complaint alleged racketeering and
conspiracy to racketeer in violation of federal law and six state
law claims relating to unfair or untrue business practices.
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
Feb. 21, 2019. On July 24, 2019, the Court dismissed the federal
claims but retained jurisdiction over the remaining claims under
the Class Action Fairness Act.
On July 11, 2019, after eight months of litigation, the Defendants
informed the Plaintiffs that they would seek to compel arbitration
of any claims that survived dismissal. They informed the Court of
the correspondence on July 19, 2019.
The Defendants seek to compel arbitration of the dispute in the
case based on the arbitration agreements between the Plaintiffs and
ACN, to which the Defendants are not a party. At issue on the
motion is whether the Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate with the
Defendants, on a theory of either equitable estoppel or agency.
Judge Schofield finds that the Plaintiffs did not agree to
arbitrate with the Defendants. A second issue in the alternative
is, if there was such an agreement, did the Defendants waive their
right to compel arbitration of these claims. She finds that that
they did. The motion to compel arbitration will therefore be
denied on each ground independently.
Regarding the arbitration agreements at issue, the Defendants
stated on their motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint that the
IBOs, which include the Plaintiffs, agreed to resolve all disputes
between themselves and ACN through binding arbitration. In support
of that motion, the Defendants filed an Affirmation that included
as exhibits true and correct copies of the Agreements as they
existed in 2013, 2014 and 2016, the same years that the Plaintiffs
entered into the Agreements. Based on the Defendants'
representations, the Court directed the parties to assume solely
for purposes of this motion that the Plaintiffs and the putative
class had agreed with ACN to arbitrate. The directive was
necessary because the identities of the Plaintiffs were not public,
and therefore the signed versions of the Agreements had not been
obtained.
Judge Schofield concludes that the Defendants aggressively
litigated in the judicial forum for eight months before informing
the Plaintiffs of their intent to arbitrate the surviving claims.
They obtained the benefits of litigating in federal court --
dismissal of the racketeering claims, a stay of discovery while the
motion was pending, and the issuance of numerous non-party
subpoenas that would not have been available in arbitration. These
wins and benefits on the defense side represent defeats and
prejudice on the Plaintiffs' side.
Now that the Defendants have extracted what they can from the
judicial proceedings, they seek to move to a different forum. The
conduct is both substantively prejudicial towards the Plaintiffs
and seeks to use the FAA as a vehicle to manipulate the rules of
procedure to the Defendants' benefit and the Plaintiffs' harm.
Such tactics undermine a fundamental purpose of the FAA to support
the economical resolution of claims.
The Defendants, over many months of litigation, never suggested
that they might seek to arbitrate the dispute. If they had
revealed such an inclination, Judge Schofield -- in the interest of
fairness and efficiency -- would have directed the Defendants to
file the motion to compel arbitration first and decided the
appropriate forum before making any decision on the merits.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Schofield denied the Defendants
motion to compel arbitration. The Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to close Docket No. 113.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/T5EJp2 from Leagle.com.
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Allen Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
------------------------------------------------------------
Brady Wayne Allen, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. The University of North Carolina
System, through its Governing Body, The Board of Governors of the
University of North Carolina and University Of North Carolina
Charlotte, a constituent institution, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00254 (W.D. N.C., April 27, 2020), seeks disgorgement of all
amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees, on-campus housing,
and meals; injunctive relief including enjoining the University of
North Carolina from retaining the pro-rated, unused monies paid for
tuition, fees, on-campus housing and meals; reasonable attorney's
fees, costs and expenses; prejudgment and post-judgment interest on
any amounts awarded; and such other and further relief as may be
just and proper; refunds of all tuition fees paid on a pro-rata
basis, together with other damages resulting from breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.
The University of North Carolina System, is the multi-campus public
university system for the state of North Carolina, consisting of 17
constituent institutions throughout the state, where Allen is
currently enrolled. She has paid substantial tuition for the Spring
2020 semester. The University of North Carolina decided to close
campus, constructively evict students, and transition all classes
to an online/remote format as a result of the Novel Coronavirus
Disease. Allen claims to be deprived the benefits of in-person
instruction, access to campus facilities, student activities and
other benefits and services in exchange for which they had already
paid fees and tuition. The school refused to provide reimbursement
for the tuition, fees and other costs. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Travis D. Hilka, Esq.
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Roy T. Willey IV, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Tel: (843) 614-8888
Fax: (843) 494-5536
Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com
roy@akimlawfirm.com
travis@akimlawfirm.com
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Smith Sues to Seek Tuition Refunds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Asha Smith, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 2:20-cv-02086 (E.D. Pa.,
April 30, 2020), is brought to seek refunds as a result of the
Defendant's decision to close campus, constructively evict
students, and transition all classes to an online/remote format as
a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease pandemic.
While closing campus and transitioning to online classes was the
right thing for the Defendant to do, this decision deprived the
Plaintiff and the other members of the Class from recognizing the
benefits of in-person instruction, housing, meals, access to campus
facilities, student activities, and other benefits and services in
exchange for which they had already paid fees and tuition, the
Plaintiff contends.
The Defendants have either refused to provide reimbursement for the
tuition, housing, meals, fees and other costs that the Defendants
are no longer providing, or have provided inadequate and/or
arbitrary reimbursement that does not fully compensate the
Plaintiff and members of the Class for their loss, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is currently enrolled as a full time student at the
University for its Spring Semester.
University of Pennsylvania is an institution of higher learning
located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart A. Carper, Esq.
CARPEY LAW, P.C.
600 W. Germantown Pike, Suite 400
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
Phone: (610) 834-6030
Email: scarpey@carpeylaw.com
- and -
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Roy T. Willey IV, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 614-8888
Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com
roy@akimlawfirm.com
WESLEYAN VILLAGE: Arroyo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
-------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Arroyo, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wesleyan Village, LLC, Life Care Services,
LLC and Northwood Healthcare Group LLC, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-00866 (N.D. Ohio, April 22, 2020), seeks to recover monetary
damages, liquidated damages or interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs, for willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
Wesleyan Village, LLC was and is an Ohio corporation that owned and
operates its business, a senior living community known as "Wesleyan
Village," at 807 West Avenue, Elyria, Lorain County, Ohio. Life
Care Services and Northwood Healthcare manages certain day-to-day
operations at Wesleyan Village under a management contract. Arroyo
works as a nursing assistant at Wesleyan Village and since March
2016 under Life Care Services and/or Northwood Healthcare. She
claims to be denied overtime compensation at one and one-half times
their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours
per workweek [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
Allen C. Tittle, Esq.
TITTLE & PERLMUTER
2012 West 25th Street, Suite 716
Cleveland, OH 44113
Tel: (216) 285-9991
Fax: (888) 604-9299
Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com
tittle@tittlelawfirm.com
ZION OIL: Texas Class Action Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that the lead plaintiffs in the
class action suit filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, in Case No. 3:18-CV-02067-X, have
voluntarily dismissed the Class Action with prejudice as to the
Company and all other defendants.
Zion Oil and Gas, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a defendant and
certain current and former Company officers and directors have been
named individual defendants in a putative class action suit, filed
on August 9, 2018, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, in Case No. 3:18-CV-02067-X.
On March 30, 2020, the Lead Plaintiffs in the Class Action
voluntarily dismissed the Class Action with prejudice as to the
Company and all other defendants.
Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. operates as an oil and gas exploration company
in Israel. It holds a petroleum exploration license onshore Israel,
the Megiddo-Jezreel License that covers an area of approximately
99,000 acres. The company was founded in 2000 and is headquartered
in Dallas, Texas.
[^] 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 ***