/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200519.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 19, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 100 Headlines 3M CO: Billing Class Suit Still Stayed in Alabama Court 3M CO: DuPont Bid to Transfer NY Suits to AFFF MDL Denied 3M CO: Faces 25 Putative Class Suits Related to AFFF 3M CO: Michigan Bellwether Trials Set to Begin October 2020 3M CO: Plaintiffs in King Suit Drop Class Allegations 3M CO: St. John Class Action Remains Stayed 3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Have Harmful Effects, Stengel Alleges ACUITY: Refuses to Cover COVID-19 Losses, Egg Works Suit Claims ALLSTATE CORP: Shannon Alleges Discriminatory Insurance Schemes AMBRY GENETICS: Fails to Protect Patients' Data, Brodsky Says ASSURANCE IQ: Faces Javier Suit Over Use of Wiretap on Web Sites B COMMUNICATIONS: Breach of Contract Suit v Pelephone Ongoing B COMMUNICATIONS: Press Coverage Related Suit v Walla Ongoing B COMMUNICATIONS: Site Visitors Class Suit Against Walla Ongoing B COMMUNICATIONS: Subscriber Suit Against Pelephone Ongoing B COMMUNICATIONS: Suit over Advertising Articles v Walla Ongoing BAKER MILLS: Kodiak Cakes' Labeling "Deceptive," Minor Alleges BANK OF AMERICA: Georges Appeals Decision in Discrimination Suit BAOZUN INC: Continues to Defend Snyder and AUS Class Suits BEXAR SHERIFF: Court Denies Williams' Class Certification Bid BIRDIES INC: Conner Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of ADA BOEING CO: Texas Eastern District Narrows Claims in Earl RICO Suit CANADIAN SOLAR: Trial in Ontario Class Suit Set for November 2020 CEMEX SAB: Environmental Class Action Ongoing in Philippines CEMEX SAB: Homeowners Suit in Israel Against Subsidiary Closed CHAD WOLF: Court Provisionally Certified Class of Detainees CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Kellams Seek Royalty Payments CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal in Ong Class Action Still Pending CIOX HEALTH: Class Certification Bid Denied with Leave to Renew COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Padilla Class Action Pending COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bowden Suit Underway in Louisiana State Court COMMUNITY HEALTH: July 7 Trial in Zwick Partners Class Suit COMMUNITY HEALTH: Motion to Dismiss Kirk Class Suit Still Pending COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Faces Gibson Suit over Hospital Liens COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Judge Says Class Cert. Bid "Premature" CORRIGAN MOVING: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Oliver FLSA Suit DAVID JENNINGS: Court Grants Provisional Class Certification DELIVER TECHNOLOGY: Fralish Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts DEVA CONCEPTS: DevaCurl Products Harmful, Calabrese Claims DIRECTV GROUP: Judge Wants New Class Certification Bid by Thursday DOUYU INTERNATIONAL: Huang Sues Over Misleading IPO Statements FAT BRANDS: Bid for Class Certification in "Vignola" Denied FAT BRANDS: Bid for Class Certification in Rojany Suit Pending FIDELITY NATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Allred Class Suit Pending FIDELITY NATIONAL: Patterson Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval FRED BEANS: Brogan Appeals E.D. Pa. Order in Consumer Credit Suit GLOBAL DIGITAL: Final Settlement Judgment in Hull Suit Entered GLUMETZA ANTITRUST: Direct Purchasers Seek to Certify Class GROCERY DELIVERY: Appeals D. Minnesota Ruling in Engen Class Suit GROUPON INC: Macovski Sues Over 44% Share Price Decline GRUPO AVAL ACCIONES: Appeal in Toll Road Concession Suit Pending HARTFORD CASUALTY: Chorak Sues Over Denial of COVID-19 Coverage HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Rinnigade Art Files Suit in D. Massachusetts HC2 HOLDINGS: Court Grants Bid for Expedited Hearing in Tera Suit HF FOODS: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Class Action in Calif. HOMEAWAY.COM INC: Kirkpatrick Appeals W.D. Tex. Order to 5th Cir. IBM CORP: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Class Suit in New York IMPINJ INC: Suit by Plymouth Retirement System Remains Stayed IMPINJ INC: Trial in W.D. Wash. Securities Suit Set for Feb. 2021 ITAU UNIBANCO: Parties Agree to Extend Settlement Opt-In Period KANDI TECH: Time to Appeal Nixed N.Y. Securities Suit Expires KM INDUSTRIAL: Appeals N.D. Cal. Order in Harris Suit to 9th Cir. L'OREAL USA: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in "Carter" LIBERTY HOMECARE: Headly Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Caregivers LINEAGE CELL: Paid $221,000 Legal Tab in Asterias Merger Suit LIVE NATION: Iderstine et al. Allege Anticompetitive Practices LOS ANGELES, CA: Cullors Wants Prisoners Out Due to COVID Threat LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY: Lott Suit Seeks to Certify Class MASIMO CORP: Trial of Individual Plaintiffs' Claims Set for June 2 MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Fuentes Labor Suit MDL 2555: Bid to Certify Class in Coca-Cola Sales Suit Partly OK'd MIDLAND FUNDING: Faces Glad Suit Over Debt Collection Practices MOMO INC: Aug. 5 Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss Marchand Suit MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Certification of Sales Reps Class Sought MONDELEZ INT'L: Plaintiffs Win Class Certification MONMOUTH UNIVERSITY: Fittipaldi Demands COVID-19 Tuition Refunds NEW JERSEY: Faces Vazquez Suit Alleging Violation of Civil Rights NEW YORK: Board Appeals Order in Gulino Suit to Second Circuit NEW YORK: NYSBOE Appeals Opinion in Yang Suit to Second Circuit OREGON: Smith Appeals Decision in FCA Class Suit to Ninth Circuit PAKSN INC: Illegally Deducts Nursing Staff Pay, Udarbe et al. Say PARSLEY ENERGY: Streety Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective PATENAUDE & FELIX: Faces Hailstork FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania PATENAUDE & FELIX: Moyer Appeals E.D. Pa. Ruling to Third Circuit PAYCHEX OF NEW YORK: Bedolla Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois PENNSYLVANIA: Fails to Inspect Nursing Homes, Gill Claims PHARMACYCLICS INC: Final Judgment in Evangelista Suit Upheld PHILIP MORRIS: Amended Complaint in Rebolledo Suit Not Yet Served PHILIP MORRIS: Canadian Appeals Court Cuts Damages Award in Blais PHILIP MORRIS: Canadian Appeals Court Upholds Ruling in Letourneau PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Adams Class Suit in Canada PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Kunta Class Suit PHILIP MORRIS: Dorion Class Complaint Has Not Yet Been Served PHILIP MORRIS: Plaintiffs Ask Court to Reconsider Dismissal Order PHILIP MORRIS: Semple Class Action Ongoing PHILIP MORRIS: Still Defends McDermid Class Action PORTLAND GENERAL: Oregon High Court Asked to Reverse Decision PPG INDUSTRIES: To Make Settlement Payments This Year QUDIAN INC: Bid to Revive Securities Class Action Claim Pending QUDIAN INC: Song Class Action Suit Still Stayed RATNER COMPANIES: Ferrante Suit Seeks Wages and Commissions REGIONS FINANCIAL: Accounting Firm Seeks Agent Fees for PPP Loans RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC: Ford Suit Demands COVID-19 Tuition Refund REXALL SUNDOWN: Seegert Appeals S.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit SAGE LAW OFFICES: Chames Sues in E.D. Texas Over FDCPA Violation SEI INVESTMENTS: Court Approves Stevens Class Settlement SEI INVESTMENTS: Suits over SPTC Services Ongoing SIBANYE STILLWATER: New York Securities Suit Ongoing SIBANYE STILLWATER: Selection of Trustees in TB Suit Underway SIRIUS XM: Continues to Defend Flo & Eddie Class Action SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Appeal in Airfare-Related Class Suit Underway SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Narrows Claims in Aircraft Defect Suit SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Securities Class Suit in Dallas STATE AUTOMOBILE: Dino Palmieri Seeks Coverage for COVID-19 Losses T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan-Related Suit TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Brown Student Loan Suit Moved to W.D. Wash. TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Khuzi Sues Over Denial of Insurance Coverage TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Kashner Sues Over Denial of Insurance Claims TTE TECHNOLOGY: Julian Sues in Calif. Over Fraud-Related Issues TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Class Suits Filed in Calif. & Florida ULTIMATE SOFTWARE: Cottingham Class Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois UNITED STATES: Doe Appeals Decision in Migrant Detention Suit UNITED STATES: Faces Uzoegwu Civil Rights Suit in S.D. New York UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Santiago et al. Allege ERISA Violation VICTAULIC COMPANY: Faces Dow Labor Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay VOLUSION LLC: Faces Lopez FDUTPA Suit in Florida Over Data Breach VOXX LIQUORS: Valle Seeks OT Pay, Tip Credit for Bar Staff XUNLEI LIMITED: NY Consolidated Securities Class Suit Dismissed [^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class ********* 3M CO: Billing Class Suit Still Stayed in Alabama Court ------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the proceedings in the "Billing" case remains stayed. In August 2016, a group of over 200 plaintiffs filed a putative class action against West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (Water Authority), 3M, Dyneon, Daikin, BFI, and the City of Decatur in state court in Lawrence County, Alabama (the "Billings" case). Plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence, Morgan and other counties who are or have been customers of the Water Authority. They contend defendants have released PFAS that contaminate the Tennessee River and, in turn, their drinking water, causing damage to their health and properties. In January 2017, the court in the St. John case, discussed above, stayed this litigation pending resolution of the St. John case. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. 3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives, ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products, closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components, abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M CO: DuPont Bid to Transfer NY Suits to AFFF MDL Denied --------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that DuPont De Nemours' motion to transfer the cases related to water contamination to the multi-district litigation related to Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) has been denied. In New York, 3M is defending 42 individual cases and one putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and four additional cases filed in New York state court against 3M, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. (Saint-Gobain), Honeywell International Inc. and E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co. (DuPont). The plaintiffs allege that 3M manufactured and sold PFOA that was used for manufacturing purposes at Saint-Gobain's and Honeywell's facilities located in the Village of Hoosick Falls and the Town of Hoosick. The plaintiffs claim that the drinking water around Hoosick Falls became contaminated with unsafe levels of PFOA due to the activities of the defendants and allege that they suffered bodily injury due to the ingestion and inhalation of PFOA. The plaintiffs seek unstated compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. 3M has answered the complaints in these cases, which are now proceeding through discovery. 3M is also defending eight additional cases in New York filed by Nassau County drinking water providers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs in these cases allege that 3M, DuPont, and additional unnamed defendants are responsible for the contamination of plaintiffs' water supply sources with various PFAS compounds. DuPont's motion to transfer these cases to the AFFF MDL was denied in March 2020. These cases are in the preliminary stages of litigation. 3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives, ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products, closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components, abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M CO: Faces 25 Putative Class Suits Related to AFFF ---------------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been named as a defendant in 25 putative class action suits related to the use of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF). 3M manufactured and marketed Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) for use in firefighting at airports and military bases from approximately 1963 to 2002. As of March 31, 2020, 576 lawsuits (including 25 putative class actions) have been filed against 3M (along with other defendants) in various state and federal courts where current or former airports, military bases, or fire training facilities are or were located. As previously noted, some of these cases have been brought by state or territory attorneys general. In most of these cases, plaintiffs typically allege that certain PFAS used in AFFF contaminated the soil and groundwater where AFFF was used and seek damages for loss of use and enjoyment of properties, diminished property values, investigation costs, remediation costs, and in some cases, personal injury and funds for medical monitoring. 131 cases filed since October 2019 have been brought by current or former firefighters who claim to have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to AFFF while using the product. The United States, the U.S. Department of Defense and several companies have been sued along with 3M, including but not limited to Ansul Co. (acquired by Tyco, Inc.), Angus Fire, Buckeye Fire Protection Co., Chemguard, Chemours, DuPont, National Foam, Inc., and United Technologies Corp. In December 2018, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) granted motions to transfer and consolidate all AFFF cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina to be managed in an MDL proceeding to centralize pre-trial proceedings. Additional AFFF cases continue to be transferred into the MDL as they are filed or removed to federal court. As of March 31, 2020, there were 576 cases in the MDL, 568 of which name 3M as a defendant. The parties in the MDL are currently in the process of conducting discovery. 3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives, ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products, closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components, abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M CO: Michigan Bellwether Trials Set to Begin October 2020 ----------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the next bellwether trials in the Michigan state court lawsuits over drinking water contamination are set to begin in October 2020. In Michigan, one consolidated putative class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan against 3M and Wolverine World Wide (Wolverine) and other defendants. The action arises from Wolverine's allegedly improper disposal of materials and wastes, including 3M Scotchgard, related to Wolverine's shoe manufacturing operations. Plaintiffs allege Wolverine used 3M Scotchgard in its manufacturing process and that chemicals from 3M's product contaminated the environment and drinking water sources after disposal. In addition to the consolidated federal court putative class action, as of March 31, 2020, 3M has been named as a defendant in approximately 262 private individual actions in Michigan state court based on similar allegations. These cases are coordinated for pre-trial purposes. Four of these cases were selected for bellwether trials in 2020. In January 2020, the court issued the first round of dispositive motion rulings related to the first two bellwether cases, including dismissing the second bellwether case entirely and dismissing certain plaintiffs' medical monitoring, risk of future disease, and granting summary judgment to the defendants on one plaintiff's cholesterol injury claims. An agreement to resolve the first bellwether case was reached in February 2020, subject to court approval. The next bellwether trials are currently set to begin in October 2020. 3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives, ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products, closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components, abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M CO: Plaintiffs in King Suit Drop Class Allegations ----------------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs in the so-called King class action have amended their complaint to withdraw all class allegations. In November 2017, a putative class action (the "King" case) was filed against 3M, its subsidiary Dyneon, Daikin America, and the West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (Water Authority) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence and Morgan County, Alabama who receive their water from the Water Authority and seek injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, compensatory and punitive damages for their alleged personal injuries. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants own and operate manufacturing and disposal facilities in Decatur that have released and continue to release PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals into the groundwater and surface water of their sites, resulting in discharges into the Tennessee River. The plaintiffs contend that, as a result of the alleged discharges, the water supplied by the Water Authority to the plaintiffs was, and is, contaminated with PFOA, PFOS, and related chemicals at a level dangerous to humans. In November 2019, the King plaintiffs amended their complaint to withdraw all class allegations, dismiss the Water Authority as a defendant, and add 24 new individual plaintiffs (for a total of 59 plaintiffs). 3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives, ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products, closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components, abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M CO: St. John Class Action Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the so-called St. John class action remains stayed. A former employee filed a putative class action lawsuit against 3M, BFI Waste Management Systems of Alabama, and others in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama (the "St. John" case), seeking property damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or near the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The parties have agreed to continue to stay the St. John case through April 2020, pending ongoing mediation between the parties involved in this case and another case (the Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. case),. Two additional putative class actions filed in the same court by certain residents in the vicinity of the Decatur plant seeking relief on similar grounds (the Chandler case and the Stover case, respectively) are stayed pending the resolution of class certification issues in the St. John case. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. 3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives, ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products, closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components, abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Have Harmful Effects, Stengel Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MIKE STENGEL on behalf of himself and C.S., a minor, and SONDRA MARAGUGLIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY, F/K/A MINNESOTA MINING and MANUFACTURING CO.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., successor-in-interest to THE ANSUL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD; E.I DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; and THE CHEMOURS CO. LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00072-GMG (N.D.W. Va., April 29, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, strict liability, design defect, and punitive damages, and medical monitoring. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, allege that the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, distributed, sold, manufactured, released, trained users on, produced instructional materials for, and/or otherwise handled and/or used aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS, which caused contamination of Plaintiffs' blood and/or body with PFAS, and the resultant biopersistence and bioaccumulation of such PFAS in the blood and/or body of the Plaintiffs. Moreover, the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants continued to manufacture and sell AFFF knowing that the PFAS contained in the AFFF presented an unreasonable risk to human health and are dangerous. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Chemguard is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. The Chemours Co. LLC is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen G. Skinner, Esq. Levi B. Pellegrin, Esq. SKINNER LAW FIRM Charles Town, WV 25414 Telephone: (304) 725-7029 E-mail: sskinner@skinnerfirm.com pellegrin@skinnerfirm.com - and – Anthony J. Maestro, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC 405 Capital Street, Suite P-1200 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 346-2889 E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com ACUITY: Refuses to Cover COVID-19 Losses, Egg Works Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- EGG WORKS HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, et al. v. ACUITY, A Mutual Insurance Company, a Wisconsin corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00748-RFB-VCF (D. Nev., April 24, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to pay for losses and expenses related to the COVID-19 crisis under the Plaintiffs' Commercial Package Policy. Governor Steve Sisolak has issued a Guidance for Declaration of Emergency Directive 003 ordering the closure of dine-in restaurants to combat transmission of COVID-19. Egg Works was forced to suspend business operations at the restaurants. This suspension, the Plaintiff contends, which is ongoing, has caused it to suffer significant losses and incur significant expenses. Egg Works purchased a Commercial Package Policy from Acuity in September 2019. The Policy is an "All Risk" policy, meaning all risks of physical loss or damage are covered unless specifically and unambiguously excluded. All non-excluded losses are covered. Under the Policy, the Plaintiffs have paid substantial premiums to Defendant, and in turn the Defendant promised to pay these losses and expenses and it is obligated to pay for them. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant has breached the terms of the Policy and has failed to pay for these losses and expenses. The Defendant has failed to pay for similar losses and expenses for numerous other insureds holding policies that are, in all material respects, identical, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs include EGG WORKS HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; E & I, CATERING, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; EW LIVE, LLC dba EGG WORKS, a Nevada limited liability company; EGG AND I, LLC a Nevada limited liability company; EGG WORKS, LLC, a Nevada limited-liability company; EGG WORKS 2, LLC, a Nevada limited-liability company; EGG WORKS 3, LLC, a Nevada limited-liability company; EGG WORKS 4, LLC, a Nevada limited-liability company; EGG WORKS 5, LLC, a Nevada limited-liability company; EGG WORKS 6, LLC, a Nevada limited-liability company; and EW COMMISSARY, LLC, a Nevada limited-iability company. Egg Works is a local family owned and operated group of restaurants known mostly for their family-oriented breakfasts, lunches and dining environment throughout Las Vegas and in Henderson, Nevada, employing over 400 Clark County residents. Acuity is a mutual property and casualty insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg A. Hubley, Esq. Christopher A.J. Swift, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP 7201 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Suite 570 Las Vegas, NE 89128 Telephone: (702) 789-7529 Facsimile: (702) 909 7865 E-mail: gregg@aswtlawyers.com christopher@aswtlawyers.com - and - Mike Arias, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP 6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 844-9696 E-mail: mike@aswtlawyers.com alfredo@aswtlawyers.com - and - Alan Brayton, Esq. Gilbert Purcell, Esq. James Nevin, Esq. Andrew Chew, Esq. BRAYTON PURCELL, LLP 222 Rush Landing Road Novato, CA 94945 Telephone: (800) 598-0314 E-mail: abrayton@braytonlaw.com gpurcell@braytonlaw.com jnevin@braytonlaw.com achew@braytonlaw.com ALLSTATE CORP: Shannon Alleges Discriminatory Insurance Schemes --------------------------------------------------------------- SARA SHANNON, ROSA PALACIOS and DEBRA CORBELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00448 (W.D. Tex., April 28, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Texas Insurance Code. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly-situated Allstate Texas personal auto insurance policyholders, allege that Allstate is engaged in two discriminatory practices: (1) open/closed book scheme wherein existing Allstate Texas Closed Book policyholders are paying higher premiums than otherwise identically-situated Allstate Texas policyholders pay in the Open Books for the same or virtually identical coverages and precluding them from the lower rates provided to new customers in the Open Books, and (2) price tolerance scheme wherein the Defendant assigns most Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company (F&C) Texas policyholders to microsegments with positive Complimentary Group Rating (CGR) factors, while a minority are assigned to microsegments with negative CGR factors. The policyholders whom Allstate assigns to a microsegment with a positive CGR factor, by definition, pay higher premiums than otherwise-identically situated policyholders. Allstate Corporation is an insurance provider that maintains its principal place of business at 2775 Sanders Road, Northbrook, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John R. Davis, Esq. Michael L. Slack, Esq. SLACK DAVIS SANGER LLP 6001 Bold Ruler Way, Suite 100 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 795-8686 Facsimile: (512) 795-8787 E-mail: jdavis@slackdavis.com mslack@slackdavis.com - and – Joe K. Longley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOE K. LONGLEY 3305 Northland Dr. Suite 500 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (512) 477-4444 Facsimile: (512) 477-4470 E-mail: joe@joelongley.com - and – Roger N. Heller, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: rheller@lchb.com - and – Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592 E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com AMBRY GENETICS: Fails to Protect Patients' Data, Brodsky Says ------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA BRODSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. AMBRY GENETICS CORP., Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-00811 (C.D. Cal., April 27, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Privacy Act, the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and Florida's Unfair Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly-situated patients of the Defendant whose sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) were stolen as a result of a data breach that occurred between January 22, 2020 and January 24, 2020, alleges that the Defendant failed to implement adequate and reasonable cyber security procedures and protocols necessary to protect the Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive information and the Defendant also failed to timely notify them about the data breach, which was announced on or about April 15, 2020, three months after the incident. The Plaintiff suffered actual injury from having her sensitive information exposed as a result of the data breach including, but not limited to: (a) paying monies to Ambry for its goods and services which she would not have, had Ambry disclosed that it lacked data security practices adequate to safeguard consumers' sensitive information from theft; (b) damages to and diminution in the value of her sensitive information -- a form of intangible property that the Plaintiff entrusted to Ambry as a condition for healthcare services; (c) loss of her privacy; (d) imminent and impending injury arising from the increased risk of fraud and identity theft; and (e) the time and expense of mitigation efforts as a result of the data breach. Ambry Genetics Corporation is a provider of healthcare services throughout the United States, headquartered in Aliso Viejo, California. Through its online services, Ambry offers a comprehensive genetic testing menu of more than 300 tests for screening and diagnosis for inherited and non-inherited diseases, such as cancer, heart disease, neurodevelopmental disorders, and other medical issues. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrice L. Bishop, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (323) 456-8638 Facsimile: (323) 456-8601 E-mail: pbishop@ssbla.com - and - Melissa R. Emert, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 687-7230 Facsimile: (212) 490-2022 E-mail: memert@ssbny.com - and - Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN PC 747 Chestnut Ridge Road Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 Telephone: (845) 356-2570 Facsimile: (845) 356-4335 E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com ASSURANCE IQ: Faces Javier Suit Over Use of Wiretap on Web Sites ---------------------------------------------------------------- FLORENTINO JAVIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASSURANCE IQ, LLC and ACTIVEPROSPECT INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-02860-VKD (N.D. Cal., April 24, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to Assurance IQ's Web sites, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy and the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. The wiretaps, which are embedded in the computer code on the Web sites--http://Assurance.com/and http://Nationalfamily.com/--are used by the Defendants to secretly observe and record Web site visitors' keystrokes, mouse clicks, and other electronic communications, including the entry of Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information, in real time, says the complaint. The Plaintiff contends that he visited Nationalfamily.com in January 2019. During this visit, the Defendants recorded his electronic communications in real time, used the intercepted data to attempt to learn his identity, zip code, date of birth, height, weight, use of prescription medications and tobacco products, and other PII and PHI. Assurance IQ provides software solutions. ActiveProspect is a marketing SaaS company for online lead acquisition, enabling real-time data decisions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. Blair E. Reed, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jsmith@bursor.com breed@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com B COMMUNICATIONS: Breach of Contract Suit v Pelephone Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- B Communications Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Pelephone continues to defend a putative class action suit related to its breach of contract. Pelephone is a subsidiary of Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. On April 14, 2010, B Communications completed its acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the controlling shareholder of Bezeq. On November 2018 a customer filed a financial claim filed with a motion to certify as a class action against Pelephone in the District Court of Tel-Aviv. The claimants allege that, due to disruptions that occurred in Pelephone's network, the defendant is required to compensate its customers for breach of contract with the customers, as well as a breach of the provisions of its license and various laws, including the Communications Law. The amount of claims is 200 NIS million. B Communications Ltd., through its subsidiaries, provides a range of telecommunications services for business and private customers in Israel. The company was formerly known as 012 Smile. Communications Ltd. and changed its name to B Communications Ltd. in March 2010. B Communications Ltd. was founded in 1999 and is based in Ramat Gan, Israel. B Communications Ltd. is a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. B COMMUNICATIONS: Press Coverage Related Suit v Walla Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- B Communications Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Walla Communication continues to defend a putative class action suit related to its biased press coverage on its website in favor of the Prime Minister. Walla Communication is a subsidiary of Bezeq. The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. On April 14, 2010, B Communications completed its acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the controlling shareholder of Bezeq. In December 2018, a Walla website visitor filed an action against Walla in the Tel-Aviv District Court and filed a motion to certify a class action. It is alleged that Walla biased press coverage on its website in favor of the Prime Minister, allegedly in exchange for excessive regulatory benefits granted to its controlling shareholder -- Bezeq, and its (former) controlling shareholder. The petitioner alleges that the members of the class suffered non-monetary damage in the form of a violation of autonomy, and also demands restitution of Walla's alleged unjust "enrichment." As stated in the motion, the amount of the class action is unknown. The amount of the claim or that it is a non-monetary claim was not indicated. B Communications Ltd., through its subsidiaries, provides a range of telecommunications services for business and private customers in Israel. The company was formerly known as 012 Smile. Communications Ltd. and changed its name to B Communications Ltd. in March 2010. B Communications Ltd. was founded in 1999 and is based in Ramat Gan, Israel. B Communications Ltd. is a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. B COMMUNICATIONS: Site Visitors Class Suit Against Walla Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- B Communications Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Walla Communication (Walla) continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by site visitors. Walla Communication (Walla) is a subsidiary of Bezeq. The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. On April 14, 2010, B Communications completed its acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the controlling shareholder of Bezeq. On December 2018 site visitors of Walla filed a suit against Walla and four other respondents in the Israel Central District Court. It is alleged that Walla and two of the other defendants published advertisements on their websites and applications for the marketing, sale and distribution of smoking and tobacco products, including electronic smoking products, which are allegedly manufactured and distributed by two other defendants. The petitioners' main argument in the claim is that such advertisements are prohibited by law in general, and, specifically, when targeted to minors. The petitioners further claim that use of certain advertising and marketing means is prohibited, and this constitutes, inter alia, a violation of the provisions of the Restriction on Advertising and Marketing of Tobacco Products Law, the Consumer Protection Law, the Consumer Protection Regulations (Advertisements and Marketing Methods Targeted at Minors), breach of statutory duty, violation of personal autonomy, negligence, breach of the duty of good faith and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class action. The amount of the claim 300 NIS million against all 5 respondents. B Communications Ltd., through its subsidiaries, provides a range of telecommunications services for business and private customers in Israel. The company was formerly known as 012 Smile. Communications Ltd. and changed its name to B Communications Ltd. in March 2010. B Communications Ltd. was founded in 1999 and is based in Ramat Gan, Israel. B Communications Ltd. is a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. B COMMUNICATIONS: Subscriber Suit Against Pelephone Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- B Communications Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Pelephone continues to defend a putative class action suit related to its violation against the Protection of Privacy Law. Pelephone is a subsidiary of Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. On April 14, 2010, B Communications completed its acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the controlling shareholder of Bezeq. On December 2018 a customer filed a financial claim filed with a motion to certify as a class action against Pelephone in Israel Central District Court. The claimant alleges that Pelephone uses information it has on the location of its subscribers for its business needs, and sends them text messages regarding the sale of relevant services for their location, thereby violating the Protection of Privacy Law. The amount of the claim is not stated, but the claim is estimated at millions of shekels. B Communications Ltd., through its subsidiaries, provides a range of telecommunications services for business and private customers in Israel. The company was formerly known as 012 Smile. Communications Ltd. and changed its name to B Communications Ltd. in March 2010. B Communications Ltd. was founded in 1999 and is based in Ramat Gan, Israel. B Communications Ltd. is a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. B COMMUNICATIONS: Suit over Advertising Articles v Walla Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- B Communications Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Walla Communication continues to defend a putative class action suit related to its advertising-related articles. Walla Communication is a subsidiary of Bezeq. The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. On April 14, 2010, B Communications completed its acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the controlling shareholder of Bezeq. On March 2019 a site visitior filed a suit agaisnt Walla and eight other respondents in the Tel-Aviv District court and filed a motion to certify a class action. It was alleged that Walla and other defendants publish "advertising-related articles" on their websites, their applications and the social media without due disclosure of the fact that they contain marketing content, and that the publication of marketing content without proper disclosure, as alleged, is, among other things, a breach of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Law, violation of the Rules of Journalism Ethics, a tort, breach of the duty of good faith and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs also refer to the motion to certify a class action on a similar subject and indicate that they wish to add further layers to the motion to certify. The motion allegedly indicates an alleged conservative estimate of damages of NIS 300 million per Walla website consumer. The motion does not stipulate the precise amount of the claim for all members of the class, but an overall damage estimate. B Communications Ltd., through its subsidiaries, provides a range of telecommunications services for business and private customers in Israel. The company was formerly known as 012 Smile. Communications Ltd. and changed its name to B Communications Ltd. in March 2010. B Communications Ltd. was founded in 1999 and is based in Ramat Gan, Israel. B Communications Ltd. is a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. BAKER MILLS: Kodiak Cakes' Labeling "Deceptive," Minor Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, SHERRIS MINOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. BAKER MILLS, INC. and KODIAK CAKES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-02901-DMR (N.D. Cal., April 28, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, false advertising, fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation, unfair business practices, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, alleges that the Defendants are engaged in deceptive practices of labeling and marketing their Kodiak Cakes Flapjack and Waffle Mixes because the products do not contain the amount of protein that their labels claim. The Defendants' products prominently make protein content claims but fail to provide the required percent daily value of protein as mandated by state and federal regulations. As a result of the Defendants' misrepresentations and misbranding, the Plaintiff and Class members paid a price premium for the products. Baker Mills, Inc., doing business as Kodiak Cakes, is a provider of bakery products with principal place of business in Utah. Kodiak Cakes, LLC is a Utah-based manufacturer, distributor, marketer, advertiser, and seller of flapjack and waffle mixes in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Gutride, Esq. Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Hayley Reynolds, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 271-6469 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 BANK OF AMERICA: Georges Appeals Decision in Discrimination Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Aleksander Georges and Ida Jelveh filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Aleksander Georges, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 8:19-cv-02329-DOC-KES, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for its misleading and illegal business practices relating to age discrimination in its maintenance fees, in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. In each type of personal bank accounts, Bank of America imposes a monthly maintenance fee of $12. To meet the requirements of a student waiver, a consumer must show: (1) that he or she is a student enrolled in a high school or a college, university or vocational program, and (2) the consumer is under 24 years old. Due to their financial circumstances, the Plaintiffs say, they were unable to meet the requirements that they have at least one qualifying direct deposit of $250 or more; maintain a minimum daily balance of $1,500 or more in the account; or enroll in Preferred Rewards program and qualify for the Gold, Platinum or Platinum Honors tier. Despite still being full-time students, the Plaintiffs are now required to pay a Maintenance Fee of $12 simply because they are twenty-four years or older, says the complaint. The appellate case is captioned as Aleksander Georges, et al v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 20-55499, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants Aleksander Georges and Ida Jelveh's opening brief is due on July 6, 2020; -- Appellee Bank of America, N.A.'s answering brief is due on August 5, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ALEKSANDER GEORGES and IDA JELVEH, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are represented by: Nicholas Ryan Barthel, Esq. Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Ave, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: nicholas@kazlg.com ak@kazlg.com - and - Jason Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108 St. George, UT 84790 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: jason@kazlg.com Defendant-Appellee BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., is represented by: Apalla Chopra, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 Email: achopra@omm.com - and - Elizabeth Lemond McKeen, Esq. Ashley M. Pavel, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 610 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 823-7150 Email: emckeen@omm.com apavel@omm.com BAOZUN INC: Continues to Defend Snyder and AUS Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Baozun Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend class action suits entitled, Snyder, et. al. v. Baozun Inc. et al. (Case No. 1:19-cv-11290) and AUS, et al. v. Baozun Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1:19-cv-11812). On December 10, 2019 and December 26, 2019, purported securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company, its chief executive officer and its chief financial officer. These suits, which are captioned Snyder, et al. v. Baozun Inc. et al. (Case No. 1:19-cv-11290) and AUS, et al. v. Baozun Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:19-cv-11812), allege, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose material facts, regarding the termination of the company's business relationship with a Chinese electronics brand. The various suits assert claims covering the period from March 6, 2019 through November 20, 2019 and seek compensatory damages, costs and expenses incurred in such actions, as well as equitable or other relief. The court has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff or consolidated the separate actions into a consolidated action as of April 26, 2020. Baozun said, "We believe that the claims against us are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against the actions." Baozun Inc. provides e-commerce solutions. The Company's services include website design, development and hosting, information technology infrastructure, customer service, warehousing, and logistics services, as well as digital marketing. Baozun serves customers in China. BEXAR SHERIFF: Court Denies Williams' Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as EMADARI CHINUA WILLIAMS v. BEXAR COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, ET AL., Case No. 5:18-cv-01235-XR (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order the Hon. Judge Xavier Rodriguez entered an order denying a motion for putative class certification. The Court finds Williams has failed to show the required class certification elements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and fair and adequate representation. Because he has failed to carry his required burden, his motion must be denied, the Court added. Williams claims he was "green lighted" because he had earlier criticized the officer's handling of an altercation between two other inmates. Williams asserts that as a result of the "green light," six inmates assaulted him in the dormitory restroom. Williams alleges he suffered serious physical injuries in the attack, and later, Post-traumatic stress disorder. He contends former Bexar County Deputy Sheriff Andrew McDermott was present in the dormitory at the time of the "green light" attack but failed to intervene, thereby failing to protect him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Bexar County is a county of the U.S. state of Texas.[CC] BIRDIES INC: Conner Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of ADA --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Birdies, Inc. The case is styled as Mary Conner, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Birdies, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02082-BMC (E.D.N.Y., May 7, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Birdies, Inc., doing business as Birdies Slippers, Inc., operates as an online footwear store. The Company provides wedges, bellies, heels, shoes, and slippers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com BOEING CO: Texas Eastern District Narrows Claims in Earl RICO Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DAMONIE EARL, LINDA RUGG, ALESA BECK, TIMOTHY BLAKEY, JR., STEPHANIE BLAKEY, MARISA THOMPSON, MUHAMMAD MUDDASIR KHAN, ELIZABETH COOPER, JOHN ROGERS, VALERIE MORTZ-ROGERS, and LAKESHA GOGGINS, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE BOEING COMPANY and SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO, Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-00507 (E.D. Tex.), Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, granted in part and denied in part (i) Defendant Boeing's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing and Failure to State a Claim; and (ii) Defendant Southwest's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 9(b) or, in the Alternative, Motion to Strike the Class Allegations. The litigation centers around the allegedly fraudulent representations and conspiratorial conduct of the Defendants. Plaintiffs Earl, Rugg, Beck, Timothy Blakey, Jr., Stephanie Blakey, Thompson, Khan, Cooper, Rogers, Mortz-Rogers, and Goggins bring their own claims against the Defendants and seek to represent a putative class of similarly situated individuals who -- they claim -- were overcharged at the moment they purchased their airplane tickets. According to the Plaintiffs, increasing competition from Airbus, another aircraft manufacturer, caused Defendant Boeing to look for shortcuts in order to get its new airplanes to customers quicker. After the launch of the Airbus A320neo, the Plaintiffs contend that Defendant Boeing chose to adapt one of its existing aircraft into a new product to compete with Airbus. Defendant Boeing wanted to save on design and development costs with the new plane, and it also wanted to avoid forcing pilots -- who were used to flying the old Boeing 737s -- from having to learn to fly an entirely new aircraft. Enter the Boeing 737 MAX 8. Defendant Boeing allegedly took the old 737 and modified the engine, engine position, and the airplane's nose gear in an effort to make the MAX 8 more fuel efficient. But because the engines were more powerful and mounted differently than on prior models, Defendant Boeing had to combat the increased risk that the nose of the MAX 8 would pitch up, which could result in a deadly aerodynamic stall. To combat the tendency of the nose to pitch up, Defendant Boeing designed the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System ("MCAS"), a computer-controlled system designed to bring the MAX 8's nose down in the event of a pitch up without the need for pilot input. The Plaintiffs state that the "MCAS was defective by design -- fatally so," and claim that the Defendants knew of the defect. They also assert that Defendant Boeing made misrepresentations to regulators during the MAX 8 approval process and that Defendant Southwest was involved with the development and testing of the MAX 8. The purpose of these misrepresentations, as the Plaintiffs allege, was to signal that the MAX 8 was safe in order to keep demand and ticket prices up. But the Defendants' claims of safety were soon undermined by two tragic MAX 8 crashes: both the Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashed due to the alleged MCAS defect. Every passenger died. Soon after the crashes, the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") grounded the MAX 8 in the United States. According to the Plaintiffs, it was only after the FAA grounded the plane that Defendants made "calculated admissions" about their knowledge of and actions surrounding the MAX 8's defect. Throughout their pleadings, the Plaintiffs allege two theories of injury: (1) If they had known the MAX 8 was fatally defective, the Plaintiffs would never have purchased tickets, so they want their money back; and (2) The Defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions allowed Defendant Southwest to overcharge the Plaintiffs for their tickets. The Plaintiffs do not dispute that they used the tickets they purchased to complete a flight. And they expressly disclaim any recovery in the action for physical injury resulting from the MCAS Defect. The relevance of the MAX 8's defect to the suit, the Plaintiffs claim, is that the injuries non-parties suffered in crashes as a result of the defect implicate Defendants Southwest and Boeing's aircraft and constitute evidence supporting various claims, including overcharge for tickets. The Plaintiffs allege causes of action against the Defendants for: (1) violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"); (2) fraud by concealment; (3) fraud by misrepresentation; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) negligence; and (7) various claims brought on behalf of California, Florida, New York, Arizona, Indiana, and Georgia subclasses. On Sept. 13, 2019, the Defendants filed their motions to dismiss. On Dec. 9, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the Defendants' motions to dismiss. Judge Mazzant finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded an injury in fact. The Plaintiffs advance two theories of economic injury to establish an injury in fact: (1) if the Plaintiffs had known the MAX 8 was fatally defective, they would never have purchased a ticket, so the Plaintiffs want their money back; and (2) the Defendants' RICO enterprise and fraudulent actions allowed Defendant Southwest to overcharge the Plaintiffs for their tickets. The Defendants counter the Plaintiffs' dual theories of injury with two main arguments of their own: (1) the Plaintiffs' first "injury" is the kind of no-injury products liability claim proscribed by Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs.; and (2) the Plaintiffs cannot claim they were overcharged for their tickets because they purchased a safe flight and received a safe flight, which was the benefit of their bargain. The Court finds that the Defendants' first argument is correct. Under Rivera, the Plaintiffs cannot establish an injury in fact on their theory that, had they known about the risk of physical harm, they would never have purchased tickets and are now entitled to a refund. The Plaintiffs' first theory of injury is the type of no-injury products liability claim that Rivera definitively foreclosed. But the Plaintiffs can and do plead an economic injury in fact on their second theory: that the Defendants' RICO enterprise and fraudulent actions allowed Defendant Southwest to overcharge Plaintiffs for their tickets. And despite what the Defendants suggest, the fact that the Plaintiffs received a safe flight -- or some benefit from their ticket purchase -- does not vitiate the Plaintiffs' otherwise well-pleaded economic injury in fact. Because the Plaintiffs have properly pleaded an economic injury, the Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden at this stage and may invoke the Court's jurisdiction. In their response, the Plaintiffs abandoned all but five causes of action. Thus, their state-law claims alleged in counts six through 17 of their Complaint for: (1) unjust enrichment; (2) negligence against Defendant Southwest; (3) negligence against Defendant Boeing; (4) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (5) violation of the California False Advertising Law; (6) violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; (7) violations of the New York General Business Law Section 349; (8) violation of the New York General Business Law Section 350; (9) violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act; (10) violation of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act; (11) violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act; and (12) violation of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act are dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, the Court's 12(b)(6) analysis will address the Plaintiffs' remaining claims for: (1) civil RICO violations under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c); (2) civil RICO violations under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d); (3) fraud by concealment; (4) fraud by misrepresentation; and (5) negligent misrepresentation. The Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs failed to plead the elements of their state-law claims and failed to plead a cause of action under RICO. They also argue that the Airline Deregulation Act ("ADA") preempts the Plaintiffs' remaining state-law claims for fraud by concealment, fraud by misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. The Court disagrees with the Defendants' assertion that the Plaintiffs' failed to plead the elements of their state-law claims and failed to plead a cause of action under RICO. But he agrees that the Plaintiffs' remaining state-law claims for fraud by concealment, fraud by misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation are preempted by the ADA. Defendant Southwest claims that three reasons support striking the Plaintiffs' class allegations at the pleadings stage: (A) individual issues of injury, causation, reliance, and damages will predominate, (B) the laws of all 50 states governing their state-law claims vary, so common issues will not predominate, and (C) the proposed class is facially overbroad for myriad reasons. The Court finds that Defendant Southwest's second argument for striking the class allegations -- that the laws of all 50 states governing the Plaintiffs' state-law claims vary -- can no longer be a concern; the Plaintiffs do not have any state-law claims remaining. And Defendant Southwest's other two arguments are better addressed at the certification stage; the Plaintiffs' claims are sufficiently alleged to defeat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Accordingly, Judge Mazzant granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Judge dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims for: (1) unjust enrichment; (2) negligence against Defendant Southwest; (3) negligence against Defendant Boeing; (4) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (5) violation of the California False Advertising Law; (6) violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; (7) violations of the New York General Business Law Section 349; (8) violation of the New York General Business Law Section 350; (9) violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act; (10) violation of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act; (11) violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act; and (12) violation of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Court also dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims for: (1) fraud by concealment; (2) fraud by misrepresentation; and (3) negligent misrepresentation. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have two remaining causes of action for: (1) civil RICO violations under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c); and (2) civil RICO violations under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d). The Court denied all other relief requested. A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/78qJLo from Leagle.com. Damonie Earl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Linda Rugg, indivudually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Alesa Beck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Timothy Blakey, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Stephanie Blakey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Marisa Thompson, indivudually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Muhammad Muddasir Khan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Elizabeth Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, John Rogers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Valerie Mortz-Rogers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Lakesha Goggins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Yavar Bathaee -- yavar@piercebainbridge.com -- Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP, Andrew Jay Lorin -- alorin@piercebainbridge.com -- Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP, Andrew Wolinsky, Pierson Intellectual Property, PLC, Barron McGinnis Flood -- bflood@piercebainbridge.com -- Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP, Brian James Dunne -- bdunne@piercebainbridge.com -- Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP, David L. Hecht -- dhecht@piercebainbridge.com -- Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP, Elizabeth L. DeRieux, Capshaw DeRieux LLP & Michael Pomerantz -- mpomerantz@piercebainbridge.com -- Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP. The Boeing Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamin L. Hatch -- bhatch@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods, Brian D. Schmalzbach -- bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP, Clyde Moody Siebman -- clydesiebman@siebman.com -- Siebman Forrest Burg & Smith LLP, Elizabeth Siebman Forrest, Siebman Forrest Burg & Smith LLP & Thomas Miles Farrell -- tfarrell@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP. Southwest Airlines Co., Defendant, represented by Michael Alan Swartzendruber, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Geraldine W. Young, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, James Vincent Leito, IV, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Jason K. Fagelman, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP & Philip Alexandar Tarpley, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP. CANADIAN SOLAR: Trial in Ontario Class Suit Set for November 2020 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Canadian Solar Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the common issues trial in the class action suit pending before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice is scheduled for November 2020. A class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on August 10, 2010. The lawsuit alleges generally that the Company's financial disclosures during 2009 and 2010 were false or misleading and brings claims under the shareholders' relief provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA), Part XX III.1 of the Ontario Securities Act as well as claims based on negligent misrepresentation. In December 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Ontario action on the basis that the Ontario Court has no jurisdiction over the claims and potential claims advanced by the plaintiff. The court dismissed the Company's motion on August 29, 2011. On March 30, 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal denied the Company's appeal with regard to its jurisdictional motion. On November 29, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the Company's application for leave to appeal the order of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The plaintiff's motions for class certification and leave to assert the statutory cause of action under the Ontario Securities Act were served in January 2013 and initially scheduled for argument in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in June 2013. However, the plaintiff's motions were adjourned in view of the plaintiff's decision to seek an order compelling the Company to file additional evidence on the motions. On July 29, 2013 the Court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to compel evidence. On September 24, 2013 the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal from the July 29 order was dismissed. In September 2014, the plaintiff obtained an order granting him leave to assert the statutory cause of action under the Ontario Securities Act for certain of his misrepresentation claims. In January 2015, the plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed against the company and certain of its executive officers in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice obtained an order for class certification in respect of certain claims for which he had obtained leave in September 2014 to assert the statutory cause of action for misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act, for certain negligent misrepresentation claims and for oppression remedy claims advanced under CBCA. The Court dismissed the company's application for leave to appeal and the class action is at the merits stage. The common issues trial is scheduled for November 2020. Canadian Solar said, "We believe the Ontario action is without merit and we are defending it vigorously." Canadian Solar Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures, and sells solar ingots, wafers, cells, modules, and other solar power products primarily under the Canadian Solar brand name. The company has operations in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Australia, and Asia. Canadian Solar Inc. was founded in 2001 and is based in Guelph, Canada. CEMEX SAB: Environmental Class Action Ongoing in Philippines ------------------------------------------------------------ CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a putative environmental class action suit in the Philippines. On September 20, 2018, a landslide occurred in Sitio Sindulan, Barangay Tina-an, Naga City, Cebu, Philippines, a site located within an area covered by mining rights of APO Land & Quarry Corporation (ALQC). CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. is an indirect minority shareholder in ALQC, the principal raw material supplier of one of the company's subsidiaries in the Philippines, APO. On November 19, 2018, CEMEX Holdings Philippines, Inc (CHP) and APO Cement Corporation (APO) were served summons concerning an environmental class action lawsuit filed by 40 individuals and one legal entity (on behalf of 8,000 individuals allegedly affected by the Landslide) at the Regional Trial Court of Talisay, Cebu (the "Talisay Court"), against CHP, ALQC, APO, the Mines and Geosciences Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the City Government of Naga, and the Province of Cebu, for "Restitution of Damage of the Natural and Human Environment, Application for the Issuance of Environmental Protection Order against Quarry Operations in Cebu Island with Prayer for Temporary Protection Order, Writ of Continuing Mandamus for Determination of the Carrying Capacity of Cebu Island and Rehabilitation and Restoration of the Damaged Ecosystems." In the complaint, among other allegations, plaintiffs claim that the Landslide occurred as a result of the defendants' gross negligence; and seek, among other relief, (i) monetary damages in the amount of 4.3 billion Philippine Pesos ($84.92 million as of December 31, 2019, based on an exchange rate of 50.635 Philippine Pesos to $1.00), (ii) the establishment of a 500 million Philippine Pesos ($9.87 million as of December 31, 2019, based on an exchange rate of 50.635 Philippine Pesos to $1.00) rehabilitation fund, and (iii) the issuance of a Temporary Environment Protection Order against ALQC aiming to prevent ALQC from performing further quarrying activities while the case is still pending. As of December 31, 2019, among other defenses and based on a report by the Mines and Geosciences Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, CHP, APO and ALQC (individually, each a "Private Defendant" and collectively, the "Private Defendants") deny liability and hold the position that the Landslide occurred due to natural causes. In an Order dated August 16, 2019, the Talisay Court denied plaintiffs' Application for Temporary Environment Protection Order. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, but the Talisay Court also denied plaintiffs' Motion in an Order dated September 30, 2019. Plaintiffs may appeal this ruling to the Court of Appeal but only on ground of grave abuse of discretion. Likewise, in a separate Order also dated September 30, 2019, the Talisay Court partially granted the affirmative defenses raised by the Private Defendants in their respective answers, and ruled, among others, that the subject case against CHP and APO is dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. The Talisay Court also ruled that: (i) the 22 plaintiffs who failed to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping are dropped as party-plaintiffs; (ii) the subject case is not a proper class suit, and that the remaining 17 plaintiffs can only sue for their respective claims, but not as representatives of the more than 8,000 alleged victims of the landslide incident; (iii) plaintiffs' cause of action against ALQC for violation of Section 19(a) of Republic Act No. 10121 is dismissed; (iv) there is a misjoinder of causes of action between the environmental suit and the damage suit; and (v) the damage suit of the remaining plaintiffs will proceed separately upon payment of the required docket fees within 30 days from receipt of Order, otherwise, the case for damages will be dismissed. This Court Order is not yet final and may be still be appealed by the parties thereto. A motion for reconsideration was filed on November 26, 2019 by the plaintiffs, such motion is yet to be heard by the Talisay Court. In the event that the latter Order is reconsidered and a final adverse resolution is issued in this matter, plaintiffs will have the option to proceed against any one of ALQC, APO or CHP for satisfaction of the entirety of the potential judgement award, without the need to proceed against any other Private Defendant beforehand. Thus, ALQC's, APO's or CHP's assets alone could be exposed to execution proceedings. CEMEX said, "As of December 31, 2019, because of the status and preliminary stage of the lawsuit, considering all possible defenses available, we cannot assess with certainty the likelihood of an adverse result in this lawsuit, and, in turn, we cannot assess if a final adverse resolution, if any, would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, liquidity and financial condition." CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V., together with its subsidiaries, produces, markets, distributes, and sells cement, ready-mix concrete, aggregates, clinker, and other construction materials. The company operates in Mexico; the United States; Europe; South and Central America, and the Caribbean; Asia; the Middle East; and Africa. CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. was founded in 1906 and is based in San Pedro Garza Garcia, Mexico. CEMEX SAB: Homeowners Suit in Israel Against Subsidiary Closed -------------------------------------------------------------- CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the putative class action suit initiated by a homeowner in Israel against one of the company's subsidiaries had been closed. On June 21, 2012, one of the company's subsidiaries in Israel was notified about an application for the approval of a class action suit against it. The application was filed by a homeowner who built his house with concrete supplied by the company's Israeli subsidiary in October 2010 (a same application was filed against three other companies by the same legal representative). According to the application, the plaintiff claims that the concrete supplied to him did not meet with the "Israel Standard for Concrete Strength No. 118" and that, as a result, the company's Israeli subsidiary acted unlawfully toward all of its customers who requested a specific type of concrete but that received concrete that did not comply with Israeli standard requirements. As per the application, the plaintiff claims that the supply of the alleged non-conforming concrete has caused financial and non-financial damages to those customers, including the plaintiff. The company presumes that the class action would represent the claim of all the clients who purchased the alleged non-conforming concrete from our Israeli subsidiary during the past seven years, the limitation period according to applicable laws in Israel. The damages that could be sought amount to 276 million Israeli Shekels ($79.86 million as of December 31, 2019, based on an exchange rate of 3.456 Israeli Shekels to $1.00). The company's Israeli subsidiary submitted a formal response to the corresponding court. Both parties presented their preliminary arguments. In a hearing held on December 20, 2015, the preliminary proceeding was completed, and the court set dates for hearing evidence on May 8, 10 and 16, 2016. In addition, the court decided to join together all claims against all four companies, including our subsidiary in Israel, in order to simplify and shorten court proceedings, however, it should be mentioned that the court had not formally decided to join together all claims. On the hearing dates, the applicants in all four claims presented evidence, including expert testimony. An abandonment of action has been submitted to the court with respect to two of the four defendant companies, but our Israeli subsidiary and another company remain as defendants. The company's subsidiary in Israel and the applicant already submitted their summations with regards to the application for the approval of the class action. On July 9, 2019, the application for approval of the class action against CEMEX Holdings (Israel) Ltd. was dismissed. No appeals were submitted prior to the October 10, 2019 deadline for appealing the judgment. As of December 31, 2019, following the dismissal of the class action and considering that no appeals were submitted prior to the deadline, this case is closed. CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V., together with its subsidiaries, produces, markets, distributes, and sells cement, ready-mix concrete, aggregates, clinker, and other construction materials. The company operates in Mexico; the United States; Europe; South and Central America, and the Caribbean; Asia; the Middle East; and Africa. CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. was founded in 1906 and is based in San Pedro Garza Garcia, Mexico. CHAD WOLF: Court Provisionally Certified Class of Detainees ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as KELVIN HERNANDEZ ROMAN, et al. v. CHAD F. WOLF, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00768-TJH-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. entered an order: 1. provisionally certify case as class action on behalf of: "all people who: (1) Are currently detained in civil immigration detention at the Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center; (2) Were detained in civil immigration detention at the Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center at any time between March 23, 2020, and the final disposition of this case but have been transferred by BICE to another immigration detention facility, regardless of whether the other detention facility is within the Central District of California; or (3) Were detained in civil immigration detention at the Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center at any time between March 23, 2020, and the final disposition of this case but have been released pursuant to a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or Provisional Class Certification Order - other temporary release order issued by this Court"; 2. appointing the Petitioners to represent the class; 3. appointing Ahilan Arulanantham, Jessica Karp Bansal, Michelle (Minju) Cho and Michael Kaufmann, all of the ACLU of Southern California as class counsel; and 4. staying pending resolution of this class action all related cases of class members who have previously filed, or who will file, their own cases seeking habeas relief, injunctive relief and/or declaratory relief regarding the conditions of their confinement at Adelanto related to COVID-19. The Court will issue stay orders in those related cases.[CC] CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Kellams Seek Royalty Payments ---------------------------------------------------- CHARLES KELLAM and PHYLLIS KELLAM and all other persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA, LLC, SWN PRODUCTION COMPANY and EQUINOR USA ONSHORE PROPERTIES, INC. Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00085-JPB (N.D. W.Va., April 28, 2020) contends that the Defendants intentionally kept and withheld payments, benefits and property rights rightfully due and owing the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated persons and/or entities for the oil and gas lease agreement through the retention and deduction of post production costs from the royalty share payable to them and, therefore, have committed illegal and improper conversion. Plaintiffs are husband and wife. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs executed an oil and gas lease agreement with Great Lakes Energy Partners, LLC in August 2007. Defendants CHK, Equinor and SWN have all engaged in oil and gas production efforts under the authority of the subject agreement and each have deducted post-production costs from royalty checks due and payable to Charles Kellam and Phyllis Kellam and other similarly situated persons and/or entities. The Kellam lease lacks any specific method of calculating the amount of alleged post-production costs to be deducted directly from the Lessor's share of production and, at best, creates ambiguity in the language of the lease agreement itself. There is no proof that any of the actual costs deducted by any of the Defendants have been actually incurred or that they are or were reasonable in any way. The burden is on the lessees to prove, by evidence of the type normally developed in legal proceedings requiring an accounting, that the lessees actually incurred such costs and that they were reasonable. Defendants had the responsibility to pay the Kellams, and all other similarly situated persons and/or entities, all moneys exactly due and owing to them under and pursuant to the leases above and West Virginia law. They were also responsible to account for the oil and/or gas which was removed from Kellam property, and from the properties of all other similarly situated persons and/or entities, and to pay them all monies exactly due them. By deducting post-production costs, Defendants CHK, Equinor and SWN have breached the Kellam lease as well as the leases of all other similarly situated persons and/or entities. The Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated persons and/or entities have been damaged through Defendants CHK, Equinor and SWN's breaches in that they have not received monies that were due and owing to them and have experienced a loss of use of these monies, including but not limited to being prevented from using said monies for their own personal purposes including but not limited to the investment of those monies. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC is an Oklahoma-based company that engages in the exploration, production, processing, and transportation of natural gas. SWN Production Company, LLC is a Texas-based oil and gas operator. Equinor USA Onshore Properties, Inc. is a Texas-based oil and gas operator.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James G. Bordas III, Esq. Jeremy M. McGraw, Esq. BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC 1358 National Road Wheeling, WV 26003 Telephone: (304) 242-8410 CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal in Ong Class Action Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the appeal from a decision in the class action lawsuit initiated by Susie Ong is still pending. On January 8, 2016, Susie Ong filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of shares of the company's common stock between February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016. The complaint purports to state claims against the company, each of the co-Chief Executive Officers serving during the claimed class period and the Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and related rules, based on the company's alleged failure during the claimed class period to disclose material information about the company's quality controls and safeguards in relation to consumer and employee health. The complaint asserts that those failures and related public statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the market price of the company's stock was artificially inflated during the claimed class period. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest, and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. On March 22, 2018, the court granted our motion to dismiss, with prejudice. On April 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from the judgment and seeking leave to file a third amended complaint, and on November 20, 2018, the court denied the motion. On December 20, 2018, the plaintiff initiated an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Chipotle said, "We intend to continue vigorously defending the case, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from the case." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants. As of December 31, 2018, it operated 2,491 restaurants, including 2,452 Chipotle restaurants in the United States, 37 Chipotle restaurants internationally, and two non-Chipotle restaurants. The company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California. CIOX HEALTH: Class Certification Bid Denied with Leave to Renew --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as RYAN DEMING, BRIANA FRASIER, MICHAEL MCFARLAND and LUCAS GRISWOLD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CIOX HEALTH, LLC, SCL HEALTH-MONTANA, d/b/a ST. VINCENT HEALTHCARE, BOZEMAN HEALTH DEACONESS HOSPITAL, KALISPELL REGIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., ST. JAMES HEALTHCARE, RCHP BILLINGS-MISSOULA, LLC, d/b/a COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER, and JOHN DOES 5-20, the Hon. Judge Donald W. Molloy entered an order: 1. granting Defendants' motion to extend the response deadline to the motion for class certification; and 2. denying the motion for class certification, subject to renewal according to this schedule: Class Discovery Deadline: September 3, 2020 Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion For Class Certification: September 10, 2020 Defendants' Response to Motion for Class Certification: September 24, 2020 The Defendants are doing business in healthcare industry.[CC] COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Padilla Class Action Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Caleb Padilla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, Larry Cash, and Thomas J. Aaron, is pending. This purported federal securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on May 30, 2019. It seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between February 20, 2017 and February 27, 2018 and alleges misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for our common stock. On November 20, 2019, the District Court appointed Arun Bhattacharya and Michael Gaviria as lead plaintiffs in the case. The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class complaint on January 21, 2020. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class complaint on March 23, 2020. That motion is pending. Community Health said, "We believe this matter is without merit and will vigorously defend this case." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns, leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine, obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services, as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bowden Suit Underway in Louisiana State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case captioned as, Bowden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ruston Louisiana Hospital Company, LLC d/b/a Northern Louisiana Medical Center, are still pending. This case is a purported class action lawsuit filed in the 3rd Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana and served on September 7, 2016, claiming our affiliated Ruston, Louisiana hospital violated payor contracts by allegedly improperly asserting hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors and seeking class certifications for any similarly situated plaintiffs. The company's motion for summary judgment is pending, as is plaintiff's motion for class certification. Community Health said, "We believe these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the case." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns, leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine, obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services, as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. COMMUNITY HEALTH: July 7 Trial in Zwick Partners Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that trial in the class action suit entitled, Zwick Partners, LP and Aparna Rao, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quorum Health Corporation, Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash, Thomas D. Miller, and Michael J. Culotta, is set for July 7, 2020. This purported class action lawsuit previously filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee was amended on April 17, 2017 to include Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash as additional defendants. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of Quorum Health Corporation, or QHC, shareholders and allege that the failure to record a goodwill and long-lived asset impairment charge against QHC at the time of the spin-off of QHC violated federal securities laws. The District Court denied all defendants' motions to dismiss on April 20, 2018. The plaintiffs moved for class certification. Plaintiffs also amended their complaint on September 14, 2018. The company moved to dismiss the additional claims in the plaintiffs' September 14, 2018 amended complaint and responded to plaintiffs' class certification motion. On March 29, 2019, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the additional claims. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on that same date. On April 12, 2019, we filed a petition for permission to appeal the court's order granting class certification with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which was denied on July 31, 2019. On May 17, 2019, the plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint for a third time to add additional claims, which the District Court denied on August 2, 2019. The trial for this matter is set for July 7, 2020. Community Health said, "We believe the claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the case." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns, leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine, obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services, as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Motion to Dismiss Kirk Class Suit Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss a class action suit entitled, Becky Kirk, Perry Ayoob, and Dawn Karzenoski, as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan v. Retirement Committee of CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc., John and Jane Does 1-20, Principal Life Insurance Company, Principal Management Corporation, and Principal Global Investors, LLC, is still pending. This purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on August 8, 2019. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of current and former participants in the CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan and allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by offering certain investments in the Plan that were more expensive and/or did not perform as well as other marketplace alternatives. The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 18, 2019, which is pending. Community Health said, "We believe these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the case." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns, leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine, obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services, as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Faces Gibson Suit over Hospital Liens ------------------------------------------------------------- Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Gibson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Healthcare of Leesville, Inc. d/b/a Byrd Regional Medical Center. This case is a purported class action lawsuit filed in the 30th Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana and served on August 3, 2016, claiming the company's formerly affiliated Leesville, Louisiana hospital violated payor contracts by allegedly improperly asserting hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors and seeking class certifications for any similarly situated plaintiffs. The court has certified a class and denied the company's motion for summary judgment. The company appealed both rulings to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decisions on March 7, 2019. The company filed an application for writ of certiorari to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which was denied on May 29, 2019. Plaintiff's motion for approval of notice of class action was granted on October 24, 2019. Community Health said, "We believe these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the case." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns, leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine, obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services, as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Judge Says Class Cert. Bid "Premature" ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as GIOVANNA SUAREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, and CALIBURN INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-24573-JLK (S.D. Fla., Filed Nov. 5, 2019), the Hon. Judge James Lawrence King has entered an order denying as premature the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court said, "The Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that certification would be premature because the Plaintiff relies solely on the disputed pleadings without having conducted any discovery. The Court agrees. Class certification is "proper only if the trial court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 33 (2013). The Supreme Court has repeatedly "emphasized that it may be necessary for the court to probe behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question," and the court's analysis "will frequently entail overlap with the merits of the plaintiff's underlying claim." Based on the current record, the Court cannot adequately engage in the "rigorous analysis" required by Rule 23. Thus, the Court finds that the Motion must be denied as premature. The Plaintiff brought this putative class action against the Defendants asserting violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988. The Plaintiff alleges that she and other "similarly situated employees" were terminated due to a "mass layoff at the Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children without receiving 60-days advance written notice as required by the Act. Comprehensive Health is a for-profit medical management services provider that contracts with the United States federal government. Caliburn is a professional services provider headquartered in Reston, Virginia with approximately 8,500 employees. They offer engineering, environmental, and technical solutions; logistics; risk management; construction; and consulting activities, as well as medical and humanitarian services.[CC] CORRIGAN MOVING: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Oliver FLSA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Jordan Oliver and Jordan Petkus filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Jordan Oliver, et al. v. Corrigan Moving Systems, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00421, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Jordan Oliver, et al. v. Corrigan Moving Systems, et al., Case No. 20-1402, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JORDAN OLIVER and JORDAN PETKUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq. AVANTI LAW GROUP 600 28th Street, S.W. Wyoming, MI 49509 Telephone: (616) 257-6807 E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com Defendants-Appellees CORRIGAN MOVING SYSTEMS-GRAND RAPIDS, INC., a Michigan Corporation, et al., are represented by: Mark R. Smith, Esq. RHOADES MCKEE 55 Campau Avenue, N.W., Suite 300 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 235-3500 Email: mrsmith@rhoadesmckee.com DAVID JENNINGS: Court Grants Provisional Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as ANGEL DE JESUS ZEPEDA RIVAS, et al. v. DAVID JENNINGS, et al., Case No. (Filed ), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order: 1. granting a motion for provisional class certification; 2. granting a motion for temporary restraining order; and 3. denying a motion for a stay. The Court said, "There is nothing about the procedural posture of this lawsuit -- such as the fact that it seeks habeas relief or that it is on behalf of immigration detainees -- that precludes provisional class certification. As the plaintiffs argue in their papers, "class members have suffered the same injury -- the substantial risk of contracting COVID-19 due to the lack of social distancing -- and all class members would benefit from the same remedy -- an order requiring social distancing at Yuba and Mesa Verde." The likelihood that some people would need to be released as part of the effort to alleviate dangerous conditions at the jail (presumably by prioritizing people who have health vulnerabilities and whose records indicate they are not a danger to the community) does not change the ultimate relief the plaintiffs seek. And therefore it is not a reason to deny provisional class certification."[CC] DELIVER TECHNOLOGY: Fralish Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts -------------------------------------------------------------- John Fralish, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Deliver Technology, LLC and Fluent Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00353 (N.D. Ind., May 4, 2020), alleges that the Defendants promote and market their merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Fluent routinely and systematically delivers more than one advertisement or marketing text message to residential or cellular telephone numbers registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry without the prior express invitation or permission required by the TCPA. In March and April 2020, he says he received a total of at least 15 text messages from the Defendants. Fluent is an advertising and marketing corporation headquartered in New York. Deliver operates advertising and affiliate marketing websites.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Greenwald, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com DEVA CONCEPTS: DevaCurl Products Harmful, Calabrese Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- TONI A. CALABRESE, MARINA A. MALIK, and KARISSA FRINK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. DEVA CONCEPTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03309 (S.D.N.Y., April 28, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and negligence. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated consumers who purchased the Defendant's DevaCurl No-Poo Original non-lathering conditioning cleanser and other DevaCurl hair care products in the U.S., allege that the Defendant engaged in false and deceptive advertising of the products by failing to disclose that these products can cause scalp irritation, excessive shedding, hair loss, thinning, relaxing of curl, breakage, and/or balding during normal use by consumers. The Plaintiffs also claim that despite notice and knowledge of the problems caused by the products, the Defendant has not recalled them, has not provided any warnings of the known risks, has denied that they cause the reported health issues, and has not offered its customers any compensation for their damages. Deva Concepts LLC is a manufacturer of hair care products with its principal place of business at 560 Broadway Suite 206 New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brittany Weiner, Esq. IMBESI LAW GROUP PC 1501 Broadway, Suite 1915 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (646) 767-2271 Facsimile: (212) 658-9177 E-mail: brittany@lawicm.com - and - Joel R. Rhine, Esq. Martin A. Ramey, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM PC 1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 772-9960 Facsimile: (910) 772-9062 E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com mjr@rhinelawfirm.com DIRECTV GROUP: Judge Wants New Class Certification Bid by Thursday ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as ANGELA JOAQUIN v. DIRECTV GROUP ORDER HOLDINGS. INC., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-08194-MAS-DEA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Michael A. Shipp has entered an order: 1. denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to certify class; 2. directing the Clerk to terminate the Defendants' motions for summary judgment; and 3. directing the Plaintiff to file a new motion for class certification by May 21, 2020. Directv was founded in 2015. The company's line of business includes the dissemination of visual and textual television programs on a subscription or fee basis.[CC] DOUYU INTERNATIONAL: Huang Sues Over Misleading IPO Statements -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, HENG HUANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. DOUYU INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED, SHAOJIE CHEN, WENMING ZHANG, CHAO CHENG, MINGMING SU, HAO CAO, TING YIN, HAIYANG YU, XI CAO, XUEHAI WANG, ZHAOMING CHEN, ZHI YAN, TENCENT HOLDINGS LIMITED, and COGENCY GLOBAL INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03914 (C.D. Cal., April 29, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The Plaintiff -- individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated who purchased DouYu American Depositary Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's July 16, 2019 initial public offering (IPO) -- alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements associated to DouYu's IPO on July 16, 2019 and failed to disclose that prior to the IPO: (i) DouYu's risks related to its top streamers had materialized, including that (a) a top streamer was actively misrepresenting herself on DouYu's platform, and (b) the costs associated with retaining top streamers was swelling; (ii) DouYu did not ensure that all of its products were fully compliant with current regulatory requirements before those products became available online; and (iii) key interactive features of DouYu's "lucky draw" were non-compliant with current regulatory requirements, requiring DouYu to remove them from operations, which negatively impacted user engagement activity and caused disappointing financial results. The Plaintiff and the Class members have sustained damages. The value of DouYu ADSs has declined substantially subsequent to and because of Defendants' violations. Douyu International Holdings Limited is a live-streaming video-game platforms company based in China. Tencent Holdings Limited is an investment holding company located at 2747 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, California. Cogency Global Inc. is DouYu International's authorized U.S. representative for purposes of the IPO. [BN] The 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 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and – Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com FAT BRANDS: Bid for Class Certification in "Vignola" Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- FAT Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019, that the trial court in Vignola v. FAT Brands, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-07469-PSG-PLA, has denied Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. On August 24, 2018, FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, James Neuhauser, Edward H. Rensi, Marc L. Holtzman, Squire Junger, Silvia Kessel, Jeff Lotman, Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc., and Tripoint Global Equities, LLC (collectively, the "Original Defendants") were named as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit entitled Vignola v. FAT Brands, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-07469-PSG-PLA, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On October 23, 2018, Charles Jordan and David Kovacs (collectively, "Lead Plaintiffs") moved to be appointed lead plaintiffs, and the Court granted Lead Plaintiffs' motion on November 16, 2018. On January 15, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint against the Original Defendants. The allegations and claims for relief asserted in Vignola are substantively identical to those asserted in the Rojany Case. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss First Amended Class Action Complaint, or, in the Alternative, to Stay the Action In Favor of a Prior Pending Action. On June 14, 2019, the Court denied Defendants' motion to stay but granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint, with Leave to Amend. Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint on August 5, 2019. On September 9, 2019, Defendants' filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. On December 17, 2019, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint in Part, Without Leave to Amend. The allegations remaining in Vignola are substantively identical to those remaining in the Rojany Case. Defendants filed their Answer to the Second Amended Class Action Complaint on January 14, 2020. On December 27, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. By order entered March 16, 2020, the Court denied Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. By order entered April 1, 2020, the Court set various deadlines for the case, including a fact discovery cut-off of December 29, 2020, expert discovery cut-off of February 23, 2021 and trial date of March 30, 2021. Defendants dispute Lead Plaintiffs’ allegations and will continue to vigorously defend themselves in this litigation. FAT Brands Inc., a multi-brand franchising company, acquires, markets, and develops fast casual and casual dining restaurant concepts. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Beverly Hills, California. FAT Brands Inc. is a subsidiary of Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. FAT BRANDS: Bid for Class Certification in Rojany Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- FAT Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019, that the motion for class certification in the consolidated class action suit entitled, Rojany v. FAT Brands, Inc., Case No. BC708539, is pending. On June 7, 2018, FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, James Neuhauser, Edward H. Rensi, Marc L. Holtzman, Squire Junger, Silvia Kessel, Jeff Lotman, Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc., and Tripoint Global Equities, LLC (collectively, the "Original Defendants") were named as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit entitled Rojany v. FAT Brands, Inc., Case No. BC708539 (the "Rojany Case"), in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. On July 31, 2018, the Rojany Case was designated as complex, pursuant to Rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, and assigned the matter to the Complex Litigation Program. On August 2, 2018, the Original Defendants were named defendants in a second putative class action lawsuit, Alden v. FAT Brands, Case No. BC716017 (the "Alden Case"), filed in the same court. On September 17, 2018, the Rojany and Alden Cases were consolidated under the Rojany Case number. On October 10, 2018, plaintiffs Eric Rojany, Daniel Alden, Christopher Hazelton-Harrington and Byron Marin filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint against FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, James Neuhauser, Edward H. Rensi, Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc., and Tripoint Global Equities, LLC, thereby removing Marc L. Holtzman, Squire Junger, Silvia Kessel and Jeff Lotman as defendants. On November 13, 2018, Defendants filed a Demurrer to First Amended Consolidated Complaint. On January 25, 2019, the Court sustained Defendants' Demurrer to First Amended Consolidated Complaint with Leave to Amend in Part. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on February 25, 2019. On March 27, 2019, Defendants filed a Demurrer to the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. On July 31, 2019, the Court sustained Defendants' Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint in Part, narrowing the scope of the case. Defendants filed their Answer to the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on November 12, 2019. On January 29, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is fully briefed, and the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is set for April 23, 2020. Defendants dispute Plaintiffs' allegations and will continue to vigorously defend themselves in this litigation. FAT Brands Inc., a multi-brand franchising company, acquires, markets, and develops fast casual and casual dining restaurant concepts. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Beverly Hills, California. FAT Brands Inc. is a subsidiary of Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. FIDELITY NATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Allred Class Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity National Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss or stay the class action suit initiated by Blake E. Allred and Melissa M. Allred remains pending. Chicago Title Insurance Company is one of the company's title insurance underwriters. Five lawsuits have been filed by various parties against Chicago Title Company and Chicago Title Insurance Company as its alter ego, among others. Generally, plaintiffs claim they are investors who were solicited by Gina Champion-Cain to provide funds that purportedly were to be used for high-interest, short-term loans to parties seeking to acquire California alcoholic beverage licenses. Plaintiffs contend that under California state law, alcoholic beverage license applicants are required to escrow an amount equal to the license purchase price while their applications remain pending with the State. It is further alleged that Chicago Title Company participated with Ms. Champion-Cain and her entities in a fraud scheme involving an escrow account maintained by Chicago Title Company into which the plaintiffs' funds were deposited. On November 5, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit styled, Blake E. Allred and Melissa M. Allred v. Chicago Title Co., Chicago Title Ins. Co., Adelle E. Ducharme, Betty Elixman, Gina Champion-Cain, Joelle Hanson, Cris Torres, and Rachel Bond, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Plaintiffs seek class certification and consequential, treble, and punitive damages. The Named Companies are defending and have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, or alternatively, to stay the case. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (FNF), incorporated on May 24, 2005, is a holding company. The Company is a provider of title insurance, and transaction services to the real estate and mortgage industries. The Company's segments include Title, FNF Core Corporate and Other, Restaurant Group, and FNFV Corporate and Other. Its business is organized into groups, including FNF Group and FNF Ventures (FNFV). The company is based in Jacksonville, Florida. FIDELITY NATIONAL: Patterson Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity National Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the settlement agreement in the class action suit entitled, Patterson, et al. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, et al., has received preliminary approval. In a class action captioned, Patterson, et al. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, et al., originally filed on October 27, 2003, and pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, plaintiffs allege the named Company underwriters violated Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL") by failing to provide premium discounts in accordance with filed rates in refinancing transactions. Contrary to rulings in similar federal court cases that considered the rate rule and agreed with the Company's position, the court held that the rate rule should be interpreted such that an institutional mortgage in the public record is a "proxy" for prior title insurance entitling a consumer to a discount rate when refinancing when there is a mortgage of record within the number of years required by the rate rule. The rate rule requires sufficient evidence of a prior policy, and because not all institutional mortgages were insured, the Company's position is that a recorded first mortgage alone does not constitute sufficient evidence of an earlier policy entitling consumers to a discounted rate. The court certified the class refusing to follow prior Pennsylvania Supreme Court and appellate court decisions holding that the UTPCPL requires proof of reliance, an individual issue that precludes certification. After notice to the class, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability, and defendants moved for summary judgment. On June 27, 2018, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability, and denying the Company's motion. The court also determined that a multiplier of 1.5, not treble, should be applied to the amount of damages, if any, proven by class members at trial, and that Plaintiffs should bear the responsibility of identifying class members and calculating damages. The Company's requests for interlocutory appeals of both the liability and damage multiplier issues were denied. The parties executed a written settlement agreement and received preliminary approval. Notice must now be given, and the class action settlement administrator will follow the claims process. Fidelity said, "We do not believe the settlement will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition." Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (FNF), incorporated on May 24, 2005, is a holding company. The Company is a provider of title insurance, and transaction services to the real estate and mortgage industries. The Company's segments include Title, FNF Core Corporate and Other, Restaurant Group, and FNFV Corporate and Other. Its business is organized into groups, including FNF Group and FNF Ventures (FNFV). The company is based in Jacksonville, Florida. FRED BEANS: Brogan Appeals E.D. Pa. Order in Consumer Credit Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Christopher Brogan filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Christopher Brogan v. Fred Beans Chevrolet Inc., Case No. 5-17-cv-05628, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff seeks certification of four classes: 1. False Finance Charge Class: All consumers who purchased vehicles from Fred Beans in the United States where the retail installment sales contract falsely stated the finance charge; (2) were Pennsylvania residents at the time the contract to purchase the vehicle was executed; (3) within the five years prior to the filing of the Complaint until the date of final judgment in the action; 2. Multiple RISC Class: All consumers who purchased vehicles from Fred Beans in the United States that: (1) entered into a retail sales installment contract with Fred Beans; (2) who were presented with more than one retail sales installment contract without a written cancellation of the prior retail installment sales contract; (3) were Pennsylvania residents at the time of the purchase; (4) within the five years prior to the filing of the Complaint until the date of final judgment in the action; 3. Document Fee/Dealer Fee Class: All consumers who entered into retail sales installment contracts with Fred Beans: (1) that included within the retail installment sales contract a Document Fee/Dealer Fee; (2) were Pennsylvania residents at the time of the purchase; (3) within five years prior to the filing of the Complaint until the date of final judgment in the action; and 4. Unauthorized Inquiry Class: All consumers who entered into retail sales installment contracts with Fred Beans in the United States: (1) where Fred Beans continued to conduct hard credit inquiries following the execution of the retail sales installment contract; (2) within five years prior to the filing of the Complaint until the date of final judgment in the action. The appellate case is captioned as Christopher Brogan v. Fred Beans Chevrolet Inc., Case No. 20-1944, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CHRISTOPHER BROGAN, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by: Richard H. Kim, Esq. THE KIM LAW FIRM 1500 Market Street, Suite W-3110 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (855) 996-6342 Facsimile: (855) 235-5855 E-mail: rkim@thekimlawfirmllc.com - and - Kevin J. Kotch, Esq. FERRARA LAW GROUP 50 West State Street, Suite 1100 Trenton, NJ 08608 Telephone: (609) 571-3742 Facsimile: (609) 498-7440 E-mail: kevin@Ferraralawgp.com - and - David M. Promisloff, Esq. PROMISLOFF LAW 100 North 22nd Street, Unit 105 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 259-5156 Facsimile: (215) 600-2642 E-mail: david@prolawpa.com Defendant-Appellee FRED BEANS CHEVROLET INC., doing business as FRED BEAN CHEVROLET OF DOYLESTOWN AND FRED BEANS CHEVROLET, is represented by: Devin J. Chwastyk, Esq. Barbara A. Darkes, Esq. James P. DeAngelo, Esq. Rachel R. Hadrick, Esq. MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK 100 Pine Street, P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 237-5482 Email: dchwastyk@mcneeslaw.com bdarkes@mcneeslaw.com jdeangelo@mcneeslaw.com rhadrick@mcneeslaw.com GLOBAL DIGITAL: Final Settlement Judgment in Hull Suit Entered -------------------------------------------------------------- Global Digital Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that an order and final judgment has been entered granting a motion to approve settlement in the class action suit entitled, Jeff Hull, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Global Digital Solutions, Inc., Richard J. Sullivan, David A. Loppert, William J. Delgado, Arthur F. Noterman and Stephanie C. Sullivan United States District Court, District of New Jersey (Trenton), Case No. 3:16-cv-05153-FLW-TJB. On August 24, 2016, Jeff Hull, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Global Digital Solutions, Inc. ("GDSI"), Richard J. Sullivan, David A. Loppert, William J. Delgado, Arthur F. Noterman and Stephanie C. Sullivan seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' alleged violations of federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On January 18, 2018, pursuant to the Court's December 19, 2017 Order granting Plaintiff Hull leave to file an amended Complaint, Plaintiff Hull filed a Second Amended Complaint against Defendants. On February 8, 2018, Defendants GDSI and Delgado filed a Second Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. On February 8, 2018, Defendant Loppert filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File an Answer. On February 13, 2018, Defendant Loppert filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for Lack of (personal) Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim. On February 20, 2018, Plaintiff Michael Perry filed a Brief in Opposition to Defendants GDSI and Delgado's Second Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and to Defendant Loppert's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for Lack of (personal) Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim. On February 26, 2018, Defendants GDSI and Delgado filed a Reply Brief to Plaintiff Michael Perry's Brief in Opposition to their Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On February 26, 2018, Defendant Loppert filed a Response in Support of Defendants GDSI and Delgado's Second Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. On March 12, 2018, Defendant Loppert filed a Reply Brief to Plaintiff Perry's Brief in Opposition to Defendant Loppert's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for Lack of (personal) Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim. On September 14, 2018, an Order was entered denying the Defendants GDSI and Loppert's Motions to Dismiss. On September 28, 2018, both Defendants filed Answers to the Amended Complaint. On February 13, 2019, an Order was entered referring the case to mediation. The parties were to submit a status report by April 15, 2019. On June 12, 2019, Plaintiff Perry filed a Motion for Entry of an Order Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement and Establishing Notice Procedures. On July 15, 2019, an Order was entered granting Plaintiff Perry's Motion for Entry of Preliminary Approval of a Class Action Settlement. On October 9, 2019, Plaintiff Perry filed a Motion for Entry of an Order Granting Final Approval of a Class Action Settlement and a Motion for Attorney Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Awards to Lead Plaintiff and Lopez. On November 6, 2019, an Order was entered granting Plaintiff Perry's Motion for Attorney Fees. On November 6, 2019, an Order and Final Judgment was entered granting Plaintiff Perry's Motion for Settlement. Global Digital said, "This settlement amount was paid for by the Director's and Officer’s insurance. Attorney's fees were included in the settlement amount. No amount is accrued or paid from the Company." Global Digital Solutions, Inc., incorporated on August 28, 1995, focuses on the area of cyber arms technology and complementary security and technology solutions. The Company's subsidiaries are North American Custom Specialty Vehicles, Inc. (NACSV), GDSI Florida, LLC and Global Digital Solutions, LLC. The company is based in West Palm Beach, Florida. GLUMETZA ANTITRUST: Direct Purchasers Seek to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: GLUMETZA ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 3:19-cv-05822-WHA (N.D. Cal., San Francisco Cty.), the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs will move the Court on July 30, 2020, for an order: 1. certifying a direct purchaser class of: "all persons or entities in the United States and its territories who directly purchased Glumetza or generic Glumetza from a defendant from May 6, 2012 until the effects of the defendants' conduct ceased." Excluded from the class are the defendants and any of their officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates; the federal government and its agencies; and state and local governments and their agencies.; 2. appointing Meijer Inc., Meijer Distribution, Inc., KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., Bi-Lo, LLC, and Winn-Dixie Logistics, Inc. as class representatives; and 3. appointing Shana Scarlett and Lauren Barnes of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve Shadowen of Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, and Joseph Vanek of Sperling & Slater LLP as co-lead class counsel for the direct purchaser class.[CC] The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. David S. Nalven, Esq. Lauren G. Barnes, Esq. Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. Jessica R. MacAuley, Esq. Rochella T. Davis, Esq. Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: Tom@hbsslaw.com Lauren@hbsslaw.com Kristenj@hbsslaw.com Davidn@hbsslaw.com JessicaM@hbsslaw.com RochellaD@hbsslaw.com shanas@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve Shadowen, Esq. Matthew C. Weiner, Esq. Nicholas Shadowen, Esq. HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP 1135 W. 6th Street, Suite 125 Austin, TX 78703 Telephone: (855) 344-3298 E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com nshadowen@hilliardshadowenlaw.com - and - Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. David P. Germaine, Esq. Eamon P. Kelly, Esq. Alberto Rodriguez, Esq. John P. Bjork, Esq. SPERLING & SLATER 55 w. Monroe Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60603 E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com dgermaine@sperling-law.com ekelly@sperling-law.com arodriguez@sperling-law.com jbjork@sperling-law.com GROCERY DELIVERY: Appeals D. Minnesota Ruling in Engen Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Grocery Delivery E-Services filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated April 13, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled Amanda Engen v. Grocery Delivery E-Services, Case No. 0:19-cv-02433-ECT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought to enforce the consumer privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc., doing business as Hello Fresh, sent automated telemarketing calls to her and other putative class members without their prior express written consent. This Class Action Complaint also relates to Hello Fresh's conduct of making telemarketing calls in the absence of an adequate "do not call" policy or training. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Defendant, says the complaint. The appellate case is captioned as Amanda Engen v. Grocery Delivery E-Services, Case No. 20-1923, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule is set as follows: -- Transcript is due on or before June 15, 2020; -- Appendix is due on June 24, 2020; -- Appellant Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc.'s brief is due on June 24, 2020; and -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Amanda Engen, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, is represented by: Brenda L. Joly, Esq. Michael D. Reif, Esq. Stacey Slaughter, Esq. ROBINS & KAPLAN 2800 LaSalle Plaza, 800 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015 Telephone: (612) 349-8500 Email: bjoly@robinskaplan.com mreif@robinskaplan.com sslaughter@robinskaplan.com - and - Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS Suite 201, 613 Williamson Street Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1755 Email: sam@turkestrauss.com Defendant-Appellant Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc., doing business as Hello Fresh, is represented by: Caitlinrose Hoolihan Fisher, Esq. Robert James Gilbertson, Esq. GREENE & ESPEL Suite 2200, 222 S. Ninth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000 Telephone: (612) 373-0830 Email: cfisher@greeneespel.com bgilbertson@greeneespel.com - and - Shannon Z. Petersen, Esq. SHEPPARD & MULLIN 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92130-2006 Email: spetersen@sheppardmullin.com - and - Lisa Yun, Esq. SHEPPARD & MULLIN 501 W. Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-6541 Email: lyun@sheppardmullin.com GROUPON INC: Macovski Sues Over 44% Share Price Decline ------------------------------------------------------- LAZAR MACOVSKI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. GROUPON, INC., RICH WILLIAMS, and MELISSA THOMAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02581 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Groupon securities between November 4, 2019 and February 18, 2020, inclusive, seeking claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On February 18, 2020, Groupon reported sales of $612.3 million, a 23% decline year-over-year. The Company's adjusted EBITDA for fiscal 2019 was reported at $227.2 million, a significant miss from its November 2019 forecast of $270 million. Groupon also announced a "transformational plan to exit Goods" in North America by the third quarter and globally by the end of the year. On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.35 per share, or over 44%, to close at $1.70 per share on February 19, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. On March 25, 2020, Groupon abruptly announced that its Chief Executive Officer, Rich Williams, and Chief Operating Officer, Steve Krenzer, are "no longer serving" in their roles, but would continue as employees of the Company. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company was experiencing fewer customer engagements in its Goods category; (2) that Groupon relied on its Goods category to drive its sales, especially during the holiday season; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was likely to experience reduced sales; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Groupon, Inc. offers a marketplace that connects consumers to merchants through mobile applications and websites. Historically, Groupon operates in three categories: Local, which comprises subcategories of local experiences, including events and activities, health and beauty, food and drink, home and garden, and automotive; Goods, which includes product revenue from merchandise inventory sold directly to customers and service revenue from third party merchants who sell products using Groupon marketplaces; and Travel, which offers hotels, airfare and package deals at discounted and market rates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. Louis C. Ludwig, Esq. 10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 229-8811 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com lcludwig@pomlaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 GRUPO AVAL ACCIONES: Appeal in Toll Road Concession Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Grupo Aval Acciones y Valores S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Episol S.A.S. ("Episol"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Corficolombiana and an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Aval, have taken an appeal before Colombia's Supreme Court for Administrative Law Matters in the class action suit related to the awarding of toll road concession contract for Ruta del Sol Sector 2. Soon after Odebrecht's guilty plea, Colombia's Attorney General's Office (the "Fiscalia General de la Nacion" or "Fiscalia") initiated several lines of investigations that have identified and incarcerated Colombian recipients of the Odebrecht bribes; the Fiscalia also established that Odebrecht effected payments through its "division of structured operations", directly from its Brazilian headquarters, to obtain the contract for the construction of "Ruta del Sol Project Sector 2" toll road concession awarded to Concesionaria Ruta del Sol S.A.S. ('CRDS") in 2009 and also to obtain the amendment to the contract in connection with the Ocana-Gamarra addition to the Ruta del Sol II toll road in 2014. The Concession Contract No. 001 of 2010, for the construction of Ruta del Sol Sector 2 (the "Concession Contract"), was entered into on January 14, 2010 and the amendment in connection with the Ocana-Gamarra addition was entered into on March 14, 2014. Episol S.A.S. ("Episol"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Corficolombiana and an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Aval, is a minority (33%) non-controlling shareholder in CRDS and Odebrecht is the majority controlling and operating shareholder with a participation of 62%. A third shareholder, CSS Constructores S.A., has a 5% participation in CRDS. In January 2017, the Procurator-General Office (Procuraduria General de la Nacion or "PGN") filed a class action complaint against the National Infrastructure Agency ("ANI") and CRDS, (a company formed by Construtora Norberto Odebrecht S.A., Odebrecht Investimentos em Infraestructura Ltda., CSS Constructores S.A. and Episol or the Concessionaire) before the Tribunal Administrativo de Cundinamarca, asserting the violation of administrative morality, protection of public goods and access to public services as collective rights, in connection with the corrupt acts related to the awarding of the toll road concession contract for Ruta del Sol Sector 2. Through the Class Action, the PGN sought: (i) a court order to the ANI to adopt the required measures to ensure the continuity of the public service of transport in the Ruta del Sol Sector 2 project; (ii) a court order addressed to the Concessionaire, Odebrecht and the Concessionaire's remaining shareholders to pay U.S.$11.1 million in connection with the bribes paid by Odebrecht in connection with the awarding of the Concession Contract No. 001 of 2010, according to Odebrecht's agreement with the Department of Justice; (iii) a court order addressed to the Concessionaire and its shareholders holding them responsible for any damage or prejudice caused to the government or others in connection with the corrupt acts related to the awarding of the toll road concession contract for Ruta del Sol Sector 2; (iv) a court order declaring that the decision shall prevail over other judicial decisions regarding the same matters; and (v) a court order to convene a monitoring committee composed by representatives of public authorities, in order to ensure the proper use of public resources and the fulfillment, transparency, effectiveness and efficiency of the measures to be taken. On February 9, 2017, the Tribunal Administrativo de Cundinamarca issued a preventive injunction (medidas cautelares) including, among others, the following interim measures: the interim suspension of the effects of the Concession Contract No. 001 of 2010, a court order addressed to the President of Colombia to choose and appoint a governmental entity to take over the concession and related contracts and assets, the seizure (freezing) up to the amount of Ps 191.1 billion (approximately U.S.$64.0 million) of the bank accounts and any future dividends declared by the following companies: the Concessionaire, Construtora Norberto Odebrecht S.A. (Sucursal Colombia), Odebrecht Latinvest Colombia S.A.S., Episol S.A.S. and CSS Constructores S.A. On February 15, 2017, Episol appealed the interim measures issued by the Tribunal Administrativo de Cundinamarca and a final decision is now to be reached by the Consejo de Estado (Supreme Court competent on administrative law matters). It is not possible to estimate when the Consejo de Estado will reach a decision on this matter, however, the interim measure remains in force and has resulted in the seizure of bank accounts of Episol in the amount of Ps 24.9 billion (approximately U.S.$ 8.3 million). Grupo Aval said, "As a defendant in this Class Action, Episol presented legal arguments to discard any allegations of joint and several liability resulting from the illegal conduct of Odebrecht as controlling shareholder of the Concessionaire. However, the Tribunal Administrativo de Cundinamarca ruled in December, 2018 that Episol, as shareholder of Concesionaria Ruta del Sol SA.S. (33%), along with Odebrecht, controlling shareholder of CRDS (62%) and other defendants, including the former president of Corficolombiana, were jointly liable for the damages caused relating the Ruta del Sol Project Sector 2, and ordered the defendants to jointly and severally pay the Transportation Ministry Ps 715.6 billion, and debarred them from contracting with Colombian state entities and from assuming government positions for a period of 10 years. Episol and the other defendants filed an appeal of this ruling before Colombia's Supreme Court for Administrative Law Matters (Consejo de Estado) and as a result, the Tribunal Administrativo de Cundinamarca's order is not final or enforceable. It is not possible to estimate when the Consejo de Estado will reach a decision on this matter." Grupo Aval Acciones y Valores S.A. provides a range of financial services and products to public and private sector customers in Colombia and Central America. It operates through Banco Bogota S.A., Banco de Occidente S.A., Banco Popular S.A., Banco AV Villas S.A., and Corficolombiana S.A. segments. The Company was founded in 1870 and is based in Bogota, Colombia. HARTFORD CASUALTY: Chorak Sues Over Denial of COVID-19 Coverage --------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO D. CHORAK, DMD, P.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00627-JRC (W.D. Wash., April 24, 2020), alleges that Hartford wrongfully denied claims for coverage relating to COVID-19 pandemic and/or orders issued by Governor Jay Inslee, other Governors, and other civil authorities. Due to COVID-19 and a state-ordered mandated closure, the Plaintiff cannot provide dental orthodontic services. The Plaintiff intended to rely on its business insurance to keep its business as a going concern, says the complaint. The Plaintiff says it filed the lawsuit to ensure that it and other similarly-situated policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are entitled and for which they paid. The Plaintiff is an orthodontic business with locations at 14300 SE Petrovitsky Road, in Renton, Washington, and 3022 78th Avenue SE, in Mercer Island, Washington. The Defendant is an insurance carrier with its principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy Williams-Derry, Esq. Lynn L. Sarko, Esq. Ian S. Birk, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Irene M. Hecht, Esq. Maureen Falecki, Esq. Alison Chase, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com ibirk@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com ihecht@kellerrohrback.com mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com achase@kellerrohrback.com HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Rinnigade Art Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., et al. The case is styled as Rinnigade Art Works, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Twin City Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-10867-IT (D. Mass., May 7, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., usually known as The Hartford, is a United States-based investment and insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 101 Federal Street, 19th Flr. Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 573-5118 Fax: (800) 922-4851 Email: psheehan@whatleykallas.com HC2 HOLDINGS: Court Grants Bid for Expedited Hearing in Tera Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Delaware Court of Chancery has granted the plaintiff's motion for expedited proceedings in the purported class action suit entitled, Tera v. HC2 Holdings Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2020-0275-JRS. On April 10, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Tera v. HC2 Holdings Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2020-0275-JRS (the "Stockholder Litigation"). The complaint alleges that the Company's consent revocation materials (i) contain misleading disclosures relating to the Certificates of Designation, (ii) fail to disclose that a majority of the Board may approve the Percy Rockdale nominees for purposes of the Certificates of Designation such that the Percy Rockdale nominees would be considered "Continuing Directors" (as defined in the Certificates of Designation) and (iii) inaccurately state that electing the Percy Rockdale nominees will cause a Change of Control (as defined in the Certificates of Designation) under the Certificates of Designation because it will lead to a person or group obtaining the power to elect a majority of the members of the Board. The complaint seeks (i) a declaration requiring the Board to approve the Percy Rockdale nominees for purposes of the Certificates of Designation, (ii) a declaration that the Board breached its fiduciary duties by issuing misleading disclosures and (iii) an injunction requiring the Board to issue additional disclosures relating to the Change of Control provisions in the Certificates of Designation. On April 19, 2020, the plaintiff amended his complaint to allege that the Supplement to the Consent Revocation Statement, filed with the SEC on April 17, 2020, contained misleading disclosures relating to the Certificates of Designation. The amended complaint seeks, among other remedies, (i) a declaration that the Board breached its fiduciary duties by issuing misleading disclosures; (ii) a declaration that, if a Change of Control could be deemed to occur under the Certificates of Designation, that such Change of Control provisions are invalid and unenforceable under Delaware law; (iii) an injunction requiring the defendants to issue corrective disclosures; and (iv) an order enjoining the Board from relying upon consent revocations received to date. On April 20, 2020, the Court of Chancery granted the plaintiff's motion for expedited proceedings. HC2 Holdings, Inc. provides construction, marine services, energy, telecommunications, insurance, life sciences, broadcasting, and other services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and internationally. The company was formerly known as PTGi Holding Inc. and changed its name to HC2 Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. HC2 Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New York, New York. HF FOODS: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Class Action in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of those who acquired HF Foods Group Inc. (NASDAQ: HFFG) securities during the period from August 23, 2018 through March 23, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until May 28, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to disclose that: (i) HF Foods engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (ii) HF Foods insiders and related parties were enriching themselves by misusing shareholder funds; and (iii) HF Foods was "gaming" the FTSE/Russell Index by masking the true number of shares free floating. On March 23, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report alleging that the Company engaged in "massive undisclosed related-party transactions," that shareholder money was "spent on exotic supercars," and that the Company had an "outrageous fundamental valuation." On this news, HF Foods shares fell $2.52, or 20.5%, to close at $9.80 per share on March 23, 2020. If you acquired HF Foods securities, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website: www.kmllp.com. Contact: Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W. Elrod, Esq. Tel: (212) 371-6600 E-mail: investigations@kmllp.com www.kmllp.com [GN] HOMEAWAY.COM INC: Kirkpatrick Appeals W.D. Tex. Order to 5th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs THEADORE KIRKPATRICK and CHRISTOPHER COLL filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Theadore Kirkpatrick, et al. v. Homeaway.com, Incorporated, Case No. 1:16-CV-733, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks damages and other relief arising from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract, fraud, and violations of consumer protection laws in relation to its marketplace model, including the Defendant's promise and reassurance that it would not charge additional fees to renters. The appellate case is captioned as Theadore Kirkpatrick, et al. v. Homeaway.com, Incorporated, Case No. 20-90025, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners THEADORE KIRKPATRICK and CHRISTOPHER COLL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jasper D. Ward, IV, Esq. JONES WARD PLC 1205 E. Washington Street Louisville, KY 40206 Telephone: (502) 882-6000 E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com Defendant-Respondent HOMEAWAY.COM, INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation, is represented by: Stephen E. McConnico, Esq. David Dean Shank, Esq. SCOTT, DOUGLASS & MCCONNICO, L.L.P. 303 Colorado Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 495-6300 Email: smcconnico@scottdoug.com dshank@scottdoug.com IBM CORP: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ International Business Machines Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In May 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York related to the company's October 2014 announcement that it was divesting its global commercial semiconductor technology business, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Management's Retirement Plans Committee and three current or former IBM executives are named as defendants. On September 29, 2017, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. On December 10, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court order. On January 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated the decision and remanded the case to the Second Circuit. International Business Machines Corporation operates as an integrated technology and services company worldwide. The company was formerly known as Computing-Tabulating-Recording Co. and changed its name to International Business Machines Corporation in 1924. The company was incorporated in 1911 and is headquartered in Armonk, New York. IMPINJ INC: Suit by Plymouth Retirement System Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------- Impinj, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class action suit entitled, Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et al., is still stayed. On January 31, 2019, a fourth class-action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New York against the company, its chief executive officer, former chief operating officer, former chief financial officer, members of its board of directors and the underwriters of its July 2016 initial public stock offering, or IPO, and December 2016 secondary public offering, or SPO. Captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's stock pursuant to or traceable to its IPO and SPO, alleges that the company made false or misleading statements in the registration statements and prospectuses in those offerings concerning demand for our products and inventory in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. On April 9, 2019, the New York Supreme Court entered an order staying the action and requiring the parties to update the court every 90 days as to the status of the pending federal securities class action. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Impinj, Inc. operates a platform that enables wireless connectivity for everyday items by delivering each items unique identity, location, and authenticity to business and consumer applications. Impinj, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington. IMPINJ INC: Trial in W.D. Wash. Securities Suit Set for Feb. 2021 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Impinj, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a trial date has been set for February 1, 2021, in a securities class action. On August 7, 2018, a class-action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the company, its chief executive officer and former chief operating officer. Captioned Schultz v. Impinj, Inc., et al, the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's common stock from May 7, 2018 through and including August 2, 2018, asserted claims that our quarterly statement filed on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2018 and a concurrent press release made false or misleading statements about the company's business prospects and financial condition. The complaint sought monetary damages, costs and expenses. On October 3, 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this complaint. On August 27, 2018, a second class-action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the company, its chief executive officer, former chief operating officer and former chief financial officer. Captioned Montemarano v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's common stock from May 4, 2017 through and including August 2, 2018, asserts claims that the company made false or misleading statements in its financial statements, press releases and conference calls during the purported class period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs and expenses. On October 2, 2018, a third class-action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the company, its chief executive officer, former chief operating officer and former chief financial officer. Captioned Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's common stock from November 3, 2016 through and including February 15, 2018, asserts claims that we made false or misleading statements about customer demand for the company's products and inventory in SEC filings, press releases and conference calls in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs and expenses. On January 14, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington consolidated the Montemarano and Baton Rouge actions and appointed the Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge as lead plaintiff. On February 13, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that from July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, the company made false or misleading statements about customer demand and the capability of the company's products and platform in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. On March 19, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, and on October 4, 2019, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion. The court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against the company's former chief operating officer, dismissed product-capability-related allegations against the company's former chief financial officer, and dismissed allegations that defendants made false or misleading statements concerning increasing demand prior to the first quarter of 2017. The court denied the motion as to all other claims and defendants. A trial date has been set for February 1, 2021. Impinj, Inc. operates a platform that enables wireless connectivity for everyday items by delivering each items unique identity, location, and authenticity to business and consumer applications. Impinj, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington. ITAU UNIBANCO: Parties Agree to Extend Settlement Opt-In Period --------------------------------------------------------------- Itau Unibanco Holding S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the class action suit by holders of savings accounts have signed an addendum to an agreement instrument to extend the period of adhesion for another 60 months to include a greater number of the holders of savings accounts and consequently increase the closure of processes. Itau Unibanco Holding is a defendant in lawsuits filed by individuals, as well as class actions filed by (i) consumer protection associations; and (ii) the public attorneys' office (Ministerio Publico) on behalf of holders of savings accounts. In connection with these class actions, the company established provisions upon service of the individual claim requiring the enforcement of a judgment handed down by the judiciary, using the same criteria used to determine the provisions of individual actions. The Superior Tribunal Federal (Brazilian Federal Supreme Court/STF) has issued a number of decisions in favor of the holders of savings accounts, but has not ruled regarding the constitutionality of economic plans and their applicability to savings accounts. Currently, the appeals on this issue are suspended by order of the STF, until there is a definitive decision by the STF regarding the constitutional issue. In December 2017, under the mediation of the Advocacia-Geral da Uniao (or AGU), the representative entities of banks and the representative entities of holders of savings accounts entered into an agreement with the objective of ending the litigation related to economic plans against the Brazilian banks. The agreement establishes the conditions for the voluntary adhesion of the holders of savings accounts for the receiving of amounts and closure of processes. The agreement was ratified at a plenary session of the STF on March 1, 2018 and the holders of savings accounts were able to adhere to its terms for a period of 24 months. Due to the end of this period, in March 2020, the parties signed an addendum to the agreement instrument to extend the period of adhesion for another 60 months to include a greater number of the holders of savings accounts and consequently increase the closure of processes. For the validity and effects of this additive, the approval of the STF will be necessary, and is expected to occur in the second quarter of 2020. Itau Unibanco Holding S.A. provides a range of financial products and services to individuals and corporate clients in Brazil and internationally. The Company operates in three segments: Retail Banking, Wholesale Banking, and Activities with the Market + Corporation. The Company was formerly known as Itau Unibanco Banco Multiplo S.A. and changed its name to Itau Unibanco Holding S.A. in April 2009. Itau Unibanco Holding S.A. was founded in 1944 and is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil. KANDI TECH: Time to Appeal Nixed N.Y. Securities Suit Expires ------------------------------------------------------------- Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the time to appeal the dismissal of putative shareholder class actions in New York federal court has run. Beginning in March 2017, putative shareholder class actions were filed against Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. and certain of its current and former directors and officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally alleged violations of the federal securities laws based Kandi's disclosure in March 2017 that its financial statements for the years 2014, 2015 and the first three quarters of 2016 would need to be restated, and seek damages on behalf of putative classes of shareholders who purchased or acquired Kandi's securities prior to March 13, 2017. Kandi moved to dismiss the remaining cases, all of which were pending in the New York federal court, and that motion was granted by an order entered on September 30, 2019, and the time to appeal has run. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Kandi Technologies Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures, and commercializes electric vehicle (EV) products and parts and off-road vehicles in the People's Republic of China and internationally. It offers off-road vehicles, including go-karts, all-terrain vehicles, utility vehicles, and other vehicles for sale to distributors or consumers; and EV parts comprising battery packs, EV drive motors, EV controllers, air conditioners, and other electric products. The company was formerly known as Kandi Technologies, Corp. and changed its name to Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. in December 2012. Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Jinhua, the People's Republic of China. KM INDUSTRIAL: Appeals N.D. Cal. Order in Harris Suit to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant KM Industrial, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Levone Harris v. KM Industrial, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-07801-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the eight claims alleged by the Plaintiff are: (1) Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act; (2) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (3) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (4) Failure to Pay Hourly Wages; (5) Failure to Indemnify; (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements; (7) Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages; and (8) Unfair Competition. The appellate case is captioned as Levone Harris v. KM Industrial, Inc., Case No. 20-80079, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent, LEVONE HARRIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: William Matthew Pao, Esq. Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Email: william@setarehlaw.com shaun@setarehlaw.com Defendant-Petitioner KM INDUSTRIAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, is represented by: Megan Marie Cooney, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 451-3800 Facsimile: 949.451.4220 Email: mcooney@gibsondunn.com - and - Carlos Jimenez, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4300 Email: cajimenez@littler.com - and - Jordan Mikhail Rex, Esq. Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7122 Email: jrex@gibsondunn.com ksmith@gibsondunn.com L'OREAL USA: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in "Carter" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ANGELA CARTER, ELLA VALRIE, and DORA BLACKMON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. L'OREAL USA, INC., and SOFT SHEEN-CARSON, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00508-TFM-B (S.D. Ala.. Filed Sept. 30, 2016), the Hon. Judge Terry F. Moorer entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion to strike. It is granted as to the manufacturing records, which are hereby stricken. It is denied as to Barbara Mitchell's declaration. 2. granting Defendants' amended motion for summary judgment; 3. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and 4. denying as moot Plaintiffs' motion for appointment of class counsel. The Court notes that, even if the Plaintiffs could meet the commonality requirement, their motion would fail on the basis of predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) because the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently address the differences in state product-liability law that impede certification. "To assess the impact of a common question on the class members' claims, a district court obviously must examine not only the defendant's course of conduct towards the class members, but also the class members' legal rights and duties." The Plaintiffs assert various claims against the Defendants in relation to the Amla Legend Rejuvenating Ritual Relaxer Kit, a hair-relaxer kit marketed primarily to African American women and sold nationally through various retailers under the Soft Sheen-Carson Optimum Salon Haircare brand. L'Oreal manufactures and markets cosmetic products. The company's cosmetic line includes brand names such as L'Oreal, L'Oreal Professionel, Maybelline, Ralph Lauren Fragrances, and Georgio Armani Parfums.[CC] LIBERTY HOMECARE: Headly Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Caregivers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Phyllis Headly, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiffs V. Liberty Homecare Options, LLC, and Lucia Devivo Catalano, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00579 (D. Conn., April 28, 2020) alleges that Defendants fail to pay overtime to employees including the Plaintiff who work over 40 hours in a week pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants failed to ensure that they accurately recorded all the work their Home Health Aides, a/k/a Caregivers ("HHAs"), including Plaintiff, performed during their meal breaks and when their sleep time was interrupted to care for their clients. Defendants hired Plaintiff to work as an HHA on April 3, 2016 and she worked for Defendants until March 12, 2019. Liberty Homecare Options, LLC is a home health care service provider based in New Britain, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Hayber, Esq. Thomas J. Durkin, Esq. HAYBER MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC 750 Main Street, Ste. 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 Email: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com - and - Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103-3007 Telephone: (860) 249-7180 Facsimile: (860) 408-1471 Email: NEgbarin@aol.com LINEAGE CELL: Paid $221,000 Legal Tab in Asterias Merger Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has agreed to pay for the legal defense of Neal Bradsher, director, and Broadwood Partners, L.P., a shareholder of Lineage, and Broadwood Capital, Inc., in connection with the lawsuit challenging the company's acquisition of Asterias Biotherapeutics, Inc. In April 2019, Lineage issued 251,835 common shares of Lineage to Broadwood Partners, L.P., a shareholder of Lineage and Asterias Biotherapeutics, Inc. ("Asterias"), in exchange for the settlement of warrants to purchase shares of Asterias common stock in connection with the company's acquisition of Asterias (the "Asterias Merger"). In connection with the putative shareholder class action lawsuits filed in February 2019 and October 2019 challenging the Asterias Merger, Lineage has agreed to pay for the legal defense of Neal Bradsher, director, and Broadwood Partners, L.P., a shareholder of Lineage, and Broadwood Capital, Inc., which manages Broadwood Partners, L.P., all of which were named in the lawsuits. Through December 31, 2019, Lineage has incurred a total of $221,000 in legal expenses on behalf of the director, shareholder and the manager of the shareholder. Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a biotechnology company. The Company offers cell-based therapies and gene marker-based molecular diagnostics for diseases and degenerative conditions. Lineage Cell Therapeutics serves patients in the United States. The company is based in Carlsbad, California. LIVE NATION: Iderstine et al. Allege Anticompetitive Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia Van Iderstine and Mitch Oberstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03888 (C.D. Cal., April 28, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, allege that the Defendants are engaged in anticompetitive acts since their merger in 2010 by requiring venues to select Ticketmaster as their primary ticketing service provider for them to obtain Live Entertainment concert tours, which limits the ability of Ticketmaster's competitors to compete in the primary ticketing market and harming venues that would benefit from increased competition. The malpractice was unchecked for so long because consumers had no reason to know how venues contract for primary ticketing services and because the Defendants affirmatively concealed the behavior. Moreover, the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants have improperly wielded the conditional copyright license Ticketmaster employs to grant access to its online platform as an anticompetitive weapon against all users on the site and they have implemented a technology to prevent primary ticket purchasers to transfer their tickets to whomever they want. The Defendants' anticompetitive conduct harmed primary and secondary ticketing services consumer classes. Ticketmaster LLC is a provider of ticketing services for live music events at major concert venues throughout the U.S. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., with principal place of business at 7060 Hollywood Boulevard, Hollywood, California. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. is a concert promotion services provider in the U.S., with principal place of business at 9348 Civic Center Drive, Beverly Hills, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frederick A. Lorig, Esq. Kevin Y. Teruya, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 E-mail: fredlorig@quinnemanuel.com kevinteruya@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Cullors Wants Prisoners Out Due to COVID Threat ---------------------------------------------------------------- RODNEY CULLORS, DENEAL YOUNG, JESSICA HAVILAND, RANY UONG, MARK AVILA, CAROLE DUNHAM, LEANDREW LEWIS, VICTOR GUTIERREZ, JEREMIAH FARMER, on behalf of themselves and all others similar situated, DIGNITY AND POWER NOW, YOUTH JUSTICE COALITION v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF ALEX VILLANUEVA, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-03760-RGK-PLA (C.D. Cal., April 24, 2020), seeks a writ of habeas corpus to secure immediate release of all prisoners, who are 55 and older and those with medical conditions that place them at heightened health risk from COVID-19, coupled with appropriate support and conditions upon release, as informed by public health expertise. According to the complaint, release of these vulnerable prisoners will both remove them from a life-threatening situation and permit social distancing measures recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other public health officials to be implemented for those who remain at the jail. The Plaintiffs further seek class-wide relief requiring the Defendants to implement CDC and public health measures to prevent the spread of the virus. The Petitioners are nine individuals held at the Los Angeles County jail facilities. They include persons, who are elderly and/or have serious pre-existing medical conditions, which the CDC has determined place them at significantly higher risk of severe diseases and death if they contract COVID-19. Los Angeles County is the most populous county in the United States, with more than ten million inhabitants as of 2018.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dan Stormer, Esq. Shaleen Shanbhag, Esq. Tanya Sukhija-Cohen, Esq. Theresa Zhen, Esq. HADSELL STORMER RENICK & DAI LLP 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (626) 585-9600 Facsimile: (626) 577-7079 E-mails: dstormer@hadsellstormer.com sshanbhag@hadsellstormer.com tanya@hadsellstormer.com tzhen@hadsellstormer.com - and - Barrett S. Litt, Esq. Lindsay B. Battles, Esq. KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI, & LITT, LLP 975 E. Green Street Pasadena, CA 91106 Telephone: (626) 844-7660 Facsimile: (626) 844-7670 E-mail: blitt@kmbllaw.com lbattles@kmbllaw.com - and - Peter J. Eliasberg, Esq. ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1313 W. 8th St. Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-9500 Facsimile: (213) 977-5299 E-mail: peliasberg@aclu.sc.org - and - Catherine Sweetser, Esq. Alicia Virani, Esq. Aaron Littman, Esq. UCLA LAW CLINICS 385 Charles E. Young Drive East Los Angeles, CA 90095 (310) 825-9562 E-mail: csweetser@sshhlaw.com virani@law.ucla.edu littman@law.ucla.edu Andrea Woods, Esq.* - and - AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2528 Facsimile: (212) 607-3329 E-mail: awoods@aclu.org - and - Alec Karakatsanis, Esq. Katherine C. Hubbard, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 1601 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 800 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 894-6126 Facsimile: (202) 609-8030 E-mail: alec@civilrightscorps.org katherine@civilrightscorps.org - and - Eric Balaban, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT 915 15th St., N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 393-4930 Facsimile: (202) 393-4931 E-mail: ebalaban@aclu.org LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY: Lott Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as TYROME LOTT v. LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00271-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying his case as a class action on behalf of: "all persons, past, present and future, with vehicles registered to them that were towed and assessed or will be assessed amounts in excess of the maximum storage fee charge of $10 for each of the first seven days a vehicle is or has been in storage, plus a $5.00 fee per day for each additional day thereafter that a vehicle remains or has remained in storage as authorized by Louisville Metro Ordinance 72.062, and those persons who had their vehicles auctioned, since February 2, 2008"; 2. appointing himself as class representative; and 3. appointing his counsel as class counsel. The Louisville/Jefferson County metro government is a statistical entity in the U.S. state of Kentucky defined by the United States Census Bureau to represent the portion of the consolidated city-county of Louisville-Jefferson County that does not include any of the 83 separate incorporated places (municipalities) located within the city and county.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Deckard, Esq. HURT, DECKARD & MAY, PLLC 127 W. Main St. Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 254-0000 E-mail: jdeckard@hdmfirm.com - and - Michael T. Alexander, Esq. 6701 Foxcroft Road Prospect, KY 40059 Telephone: (502) 554-0139 E-mail: alexanderandassociates123@gmail.com MASIMO CORP: Trial of Individual Plaintiffs' Claims Set for June 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that trial of the individual plaintiffs' claims related to the class action suit initiated by Physicians Healthsource, Inc., is scheduled for June 2, 2020. On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. The complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005 and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged violation, treble damages if the District Court finds the alleged violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive relief. On March 26, 2019, an amended complaint was filed adding Radha Geismann, M.D. PC as an additional named plaintiff. On June 17, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On September 10, 2019, the parties filed motions for summary judgment. On September 30, 2019, the Company filed its opposition to the motion for class certification, and the plaintiffs filed their reply on October 7, 2019. On November 21, 2019, the District Court issued an order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and granting in part and denying in part the Company's motions for summary judgment, and deferring ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. On December 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal the order denying class certification, which was denied on January 24, 2020. Trial of the individual plaintiffs' claims was scheduled for June 2, 2020, but the date was vacated. No new trial date has been set. The Company believes it has good and substantial defenses to the claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. Masimo said, "The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such loss; therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Masimo Corporation, a medical technology company, develops, manufactures, and markets noninvasive monitoring technologies worldwide. Masimo Corporation was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Fuentes Labor Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Elizabeth Fuentes and Myrna Johnston filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Elizabeth Fuentes, et al. v. Maxim Healthcare Services Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-08932-AB-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against the Defendant in the Southern District of California alleging various wage and hour claims against the Defendant, including failure to pay overtime and minimum wages and related claims, along with a claim for violation of the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). The appellate case is captioned as Elizabeth Fuentes, et al v. Maxim Healthcare Services Inc., Case No. 20-55497, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by June 2, 2020; -- Transcript is due on July 2, 2020; -- Appellants Elizabeth Fuentes and Myrna Johnston's opening brief is due on August 11, 2020; -- Appellee Maxim Healthcare Services Inc.'s answering brief is due on September 10, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ELIZABETH FUENTES and MYRNA JOHNSTON, individually, and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are represented by: Tom D. Rutledge, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS D. RUTLEDGE 113 West G Street, Suite 231 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 886-7224 Email: thomasrutledgelaw@gmail.com Defendant-Appellee MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC., a Maryland corporation, is represented by: John S. Battenfeld, Esq. Karen Cho, Esq. Brian Fahy, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-1018 Email: john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com karen.cho@morganlewis.com brian.fahy@morganlewis.com - and - Lincoln Owens Bisbee, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 739-5807 Email: lincoln.bisbee@morganlewis.com MDL 2555: Bid to Certify Class in Coca-Cola Sales Suit Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, GEORGE ENGURASOFF, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-md-02555-JSW (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs in the multi-district litigation allege that the Defendants, affirmatively, and by material omissions, misled the public by representing on Coke's labels that Coke is, and always has been, free of artificial flavors and chemical preservatives. Coca-Cola lists phosphoric acid in the ingredients list on Coke's labels. However, the Plaintiffs allege Coca-Cola omitted the fact that phosphoric acid is used as, an artificial flavoring and chemical preservative. They also allege that by failing to identify phosphoric acid as an artificial flavor and a preservative, Coca-Cola violated federal and state laws relating to information that must be included on food labels. The Plaintiffs also allege the phrase "no artificial flavors. no preservatives added. since 1886.," which appears on some Coke labels, is an affirmative misrepresentation because phosphoric acid is a preservative and an artificial flavor. Finally, they allege the phrase "original formula" is an affirmative misrepresentation. According to them, the composition of Coca-Cola has repeatedly changed over time. Those changes include the addition of artificial ingredients like phosphoric acid. Coca-Cola does not concede that phosphoric acid is artificial flavor or an added preservative. Messrs. Engurasoff, Merritt, and Ogden assert statutory claims for violations: of all three prongs of California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.; California's False Advertising Law, Business and Professions Code sections 17500, et seq.; and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code sections 1750, et seq. They also assert claims under California law for negligent misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and breach of express warranty. Mr. Woods asserts statutory claims for alleged violations of: the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act, Florida Statutes sections 510.201, et seq.; the Florida Food Safety Act, Florida Statute sections 500, et seq.; and Florida's Misleading Advertising Statute, Florida Statute section 817.41. Mr. Woods also brings claims under Florida law for negligent misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and breach of express warranty. Mr. Sowizrol asserts statutory claims for alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq. and the Illinois Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 410 ILCS 620/20. Mr. Sowizrol also brings claims under Illinois law for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. Ms. Marino asserts statutory claims for alleged violations of: Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A; Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94, sections 187 and 190; Massachusetts Regulation 520.116. She also asserts claims under Massachusetts law for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and for a declaratory judgment that Coca-Cola violated federal and state laws regarding mislabeled and misbranded food products. Ms. Lazaroff and Ms. Dube assert statutory claims for alleged violations of New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350 and New York Agriculture and Markets Law section 199-a. Ms. Lazaroff also asserts claims under New York law for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. Ms. Dube also asserts statutory claims for alleged violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, New Jersey Statutes Annotated sections 56:8-1, et seq. and New Jersey Statutes Annotated section 24:5-1. She also asserts claims under New Jersey law for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. The Plaintiffs seek to certify six classes consisting of persons from California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Florida who: purchased Coca-Cola's Coke product within [those states] that: (1) lists phosphoric acid on the ingredients list but does not state that the product contains artificial flavoring and chemical preservatives; (2) includes the label statement no artificial flavors. no preservatives added. since 1886.; and/or (3) includes the label statement original formula. Class certification is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Under Rule 23(a), a court may certify a class only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The Plaintiffs assert state law claims in their respective jurisdictions for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. They state that for "efficiency's sake", their analysis centers on the statutory claims. They summarily argue that the common law claims are also susceptible to common proof, but they do not address the elements of those claims for each jurisdiction at issue. Even if the Court were to assume that there are common questions of law or fact for each common law claim in each jurisdiction, Plaintiffs seek damages as relief. The Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that any damages awarded on these common law claims would be "incidental" to the injunctive relief they seek, i.e. damages that flow directly from liability to the class as a whole on the claims forming the basis of the injunctive or declaratory relief. The Court concludes the Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show they are entitled to class certification of their common law claims, and the Court denies in part their motion on that basis. Coca-Cola argues the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to seek injunctive relief but does not otherwise challenge their ability to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). The Court concludes that (i) Mr. Merritt has met his burden to show he has standing to seek injunctive relief on behalf of the California class; (ii) Mr. Woods has met his burden to show he has standing to seek injunctive relief on behalf of the Florida class; (iii) Ms. Marino has met her burden to show she has standing to seek injunctive relief on behalf of the Massachusetts class; (iv) Mr. Sowizrol has met his burden to show he has standing to seek injunctive relief on behalf of the Illinois class; (v) Ms. Lazaroff has met her burden to show she has standing to seek injunctive relief on behalf of the New York class; and (vi) Ms. Dube has met her burden to show she has standing to seek injunctive relief on behalf of the New Jersey class. Coca-Cola also argues that Ms. Marino, Ms. Lazaroff, and Ms. Dube lack statutory standing to bring the Chapter 93A, the Sections 349 and 350 Claims, and the NJCFA Claim because they must prove an ascertainable loss. Unlike Article III standing, the issue of whether a plaintiff has statutory standing does not necessarily implicate the Court's jurisdiction. To the extent Coca-Cola argues it impacts Ms. Dube's ability to satisfy the commonality requirement, the Court rejects that argument. Coca-Cola does not otherwise link the argument to these Plaintiffs' ability to satisfy Rule 23(a)'s commonality and typicality requirements. It also does not contend these Plaintiffs' alleged failure to establish an ascertainable loss prevents them from showing they have Article III standing to pursue these claims. The Court has carefully considered Coca-Cola's argument on the issue, and the Court concludes the argument goes to the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims and should be addressed in that context. Turning to the Rule 23(a) requirements, the Court finds that Coca-Cola does not dispute the numerosity factor, and there is evidence that each class has at least 1,000 members. The Court then concludes that the Plaintiffs have met their burden to show they and their counsel will prosecute the action vigorously and will adequately represent the class. As for commonality, the Court finds that it is evident that Coca-Cola believes it will prevail on the issue of materiality when the Court addresses the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims. For purposes of class certification, however, the Court concludes the Plaintiffs have met their burden to show a fact-finder would be able to answer the question of whether the statements are material to a reasonable consumer on a class-wide basis. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have met their burden to show common questions or law or fact exist on their statutory claim. Finally, the Court concludes the Plaintiffs have met their burden to satisfy the typicality requirement. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs satisfied the typicality requirement because their claims and the absent class members' claims arose from the same course of conduct. The Court also noted that the named Plaintiffs were not subject to unique defenses, which might have been the case if any named Plaintiff had not relied on the label when they purchased the Defendant's cooking oils. For the foregoing reasons, the District Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/m5y6BG from Leagle.com. George Engurasoff, Joshua Ogden, Plaintiffs, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, Bradley F. Silverman -- bsilverman@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- Fleischman Law Firm, Dewitt Marshall Lovelace, Sr., Lovelace Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice, Gene M. Zona Jones, Provost Umphrey Law Firm, LLP, pro hac vice, June Park -- jpark@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- The Fleischman Law Firm, Keith M. Fleischman -- keith@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- The Fleischman Law Firm, Robert L. Plotz & Don Barrett -- dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com -- Barrett Law Group. Julia Hughes, Ayanna Nobles, Plaintiffs, represented by Sydney Jay Hall, Attorney at Law, Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates & Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group. Paul Merritt, Plaintiff, represented by Keith M. Fleischman, The Fleischman Law Firm, Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, June Park, The Fleischman Law Firm, Mark L. Knutson, Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group & Mark L. Knutson, Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP. Bristol I. Aumiller, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, Lucas Lanasa, Howard & Associates, P.A., Phillip Timothy Howard, Howard and Associates, P.A., Tammy Beth Webb -- tbwebb@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group. Yocheved Lazaroff, Rachel Dube, Plaintiffs, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, Bradley F. Silverman, Fleischman Law Firm, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, June Park, The Fleischman Law Firm & Keith M. Fleischman, The Fleischman Law Firm. Ronald Sowizrol, Plaintiff, represented by Keith M. Fleischman, The Fleischman Law Firm, Kristofer Scott Riddle, Clifford Law Offices, Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, June Park, The Fleischman Law Firm, Robert Anthony Clifford, Clifford Law Offices, P.C. & Shannon Marie McNulty, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., pro hac vice. Michelle Marino, Plaintiff, represented by Erica C. Mirabella --erica@mirabellallc.com -- Mirabella Law, LLC, Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, Bonnie Prober, U.S. Department of Justice, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Dewitt Marshall Lovelace, Sr., Lovelace Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, June Park, The Fleischman Law Firm, Keith M. Fleischman, The Fleischman Law Firm, Robert Anthony Clifford, Clifford Law Offices, P.C. & Zona Jones, Provost Umphrey Law Firm, LLP. Mary Rankin, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth R. Shemin, Shemin Law Firm, PLLC, Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, Marcus Neil Bozeman, Thrash Law Firm & Thomas P. Thrash, Thrash Law Firm, P.A.. Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by George R. Dougherty -- gdougherty@shb.com -- Grippo & Elden LLC, Michelle Cohen -- mcohen@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler, Daniel Aaron Friedman -- dfriedman@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP -- ddjohnson@shb.com -- pro hac vice, David Stephen Johnson, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Ina Doung-May Chang -- ichang@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., James M. Simpson, Jr., Friday Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Jane M. Metcalf -- jmetcalf@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Martin A. Kasten -- mkasten@fridayfirm.com -- Friday Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Matthew Funk -- mfunk@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah E. Zgliniec -- sezgliniec@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Steven A. Zalesin -- sazalesin@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Tammy Beth Webb, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Travis J. Tu, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP. The Coca-Cola Company, Defendants, represented by George R. Dougherty, Grippo & Elden LLC, Michelle Cohen, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler, Daniel Aaron Friedman, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, David Stephen Johnson, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Ina Doung-May Chang, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., James M. Simpson, Jr., Friday Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Martin A. Kasten, Friday Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Matthew Funk, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah E. Zgliniec, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Steven A. Zalesin, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Tammy Beth Webb, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Travis J. Tu, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP. Coca-Cola Company, Defendant, represented by George R. Dougherty, Grippo & Elden LLC, David Stephen Johnson, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Ina Doung-May Chang, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., James M. Simpson, Jr., Friday Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Jane M. Metcalf, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Martin A. Kasten, Friday Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Matthew Funk, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah E. Zgliniec, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Steven A. Zalesin, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Tammy Beth Webb, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Travis J. Tu, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP. BCI Coca Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles, Defendant, represented by Michelle Cohen, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler, Daniel Aaron Friedman, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, Ina Doung-May Chang, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Matthew Funk, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah E. Zgliniec, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Steven A. Zalesin, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Tammy Beth Webb, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Travis J. Tu, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP. Coca Cola Bottling Company of Sonora, California, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michelle Cohen, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler, Daniel Aaron Friedman, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, David Stephen Johnson, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Ina Doung-May Chang, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Matthew Funk, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah E. Zgliniec, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Steven A. Zalesin, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Tammy Beth Webb, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Travis J. Tu, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP. MIDLAND FUNDING: Faces Glad Suit Over Debt Collection Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- DANA GLAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, and MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00653-NR (W.D. Pa., May 4, 2020), seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and costs against the Defendants for their violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. In November 2019, the Defendants filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff in an Allegheny County Magisterial District Court. The Defendants claimed Midland purchased the Account from Capital One Bank. Capital One Bank issued the Plaintiff a credit card account. The Account allowed the Plaintiff to purchase goods and services from businesses that agreed to accept the Account as payment for goods and services. The Plaintiff contends that the lawsuits filed against her and the members of proposed classes unfairly subjected them to the legal system. As a result of the Defendants' actions, they suffered injury, including monetary harm for any attorneys' fees paid to defend against the lawsuits the Defendants filed without legal authority. Midland Funding is the business of purchasing defaulted consumer debt with the purpose of collecting debt for profit. Midland Credit Management is collecting debts that are purchased and owned by Midland Funding.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP, LLC 186 42nd Street, PO Box 40127 Pittsburgh, PA 15201 Telephone: (412) 223-5740 E-mail: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com ekilepal@carlsonlynch.com MOMO INC: Aug. 5 Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss Marchand Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Momo Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the trial court overseeing the case, Marchand v. Momo Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 19 CV 04433, has scheduled oral argument on the motion to dismiss for August 5, 2020. In May 2019, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company, its chief executive officer and its chief financial officer: Marchand v. Momo Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 19 CV 04433 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on May 15, 2019). On September 18, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel for the class action lawsuit. On November 20, 2019, lead and named plaintiffs filed -- purportedly on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their purchases, acquisitions, and sales of the company's American Depostiary Shares (ADSs) between April 20, 2015 and May 10, 2019, an amended class action complaint, which advances that the company's public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission contained material misstatements or omissions in violation of the federal securities laws. On January 24, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint. The court has scheduled oral argument on the motion to dismiss for August 5, 2020. The action remains at its preliminary stages. Momo said, "We believe the case is without merit and intend to defend the action vigorously." Momo Inc. operates as a mobile-based social networking platform. The Company enables users to establish and expand social relationships based on location and interests. Momo Inc. operates out of the Peoples Republic of China. MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Certification of Sales Reps Class Sought --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as GLEN BENZION, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) v. MONDELEZ GLOBAL, LLC, Case No. 0:20-cv-60508-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional certification of the case as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the following class: "all individuals that are or were employed as Sales Service Representatives for MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC in the United States at any time during the past three years and who were not paid at time-and-a-half their regular rate of pay for all hours actually worked above 40 in any workweek of the employment period"; 2. appointing himself as the Representative of the Class with authority to negotiate and appear at settlement conferences / mediations on behalf of the class; 3. appointing the law firms of USA Employment Lawyers -- Jordan Richards PLLC and Eggnatz | Pascucci as counsel for the Class; 4. expediting discovery production from the Defendants, within 10 calendar days of the Court's Order granting this Motion, of a complete list, electronically in an Excel spreadsheet, of each and every Sales Service Representative listed alphabetically from "A" to "Z" – including their last known home address, cellular telephone number, e-mail addresses, and the last four digits of social security numbers, a separate field corresponding with each name -- who was ever employed as a Sales Service Representative in the United States by Defendant at any time between March 9 2017, and the present; 5. permitting Plaintiffs’ counsel to send a Court-Approved Notice to all such persons about their rights to opt-in to this collective action by filing a Consent to Join Lawsuit; and 6. granting the putative class 60 days to submit the Consents to Join to Plaintiffs’ Counsel. According to the complaint, the Defendant has enforced an unlawful nationwide pay policy by requiring its Sales Service Representatives to work in excess of 40 hours per week without properly compensating these employees at applicable federally mandated overtime rates during their employment with the company. Mondelez is an American multinational confectionery, food, holding and beverage company based in Chicago, Illinois which employs approximately 83,000 individuals around the world.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC 805 East Broward Blvd. Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com jake@jordanrichardspllc.com - and - Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq Michael J. Pascucci, Esq. EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com MONDELEZ INT'L: Plaintiffs Win Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- Mondelez International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a trial court has granted plaintiffs' request to certify class. On April 1, 2015, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") filed a complaint against Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global LLC ("Mondelez Global") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "District Court"), Eastern Division (the "CFTC action") following its investigation of activities related to the trading of December 2011 wheat futures contracts that occurred prior to the spin-off of Kraft Foods Group. The complaint alleges that Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global (1) manipulated or attempted to manipulate the wheat markets during the fall of 2011; (2) violated position limit levels for wheat futures and (3) engaged in non-competitive trades by trading both sides of exchange-for-physical Chicago Board of Trade wheat contracts. The CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties of either triple the monetary gain for each violation of the Commodity Exchange Act or $1 million for each violation of Section 6(c)(1), 6(c)(3) or 9(a)(2) of the Act and $140,000 for each additional violation of the Act, plus post-judgment interest; an order of permanent injunction prohibiting Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global from violating specified provisions of the Act; disgorgement of profits; and costs and fees. On August 15, 2019, the District Court approved a settlement agreement between the CFTC and Mondelez Global. The terms of the settlement, which are available in the District Court's docket, had an immaterial impact on the company's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. On October 23, 2019, following a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit regarding Mondelez Global's allegations that the CFTC and its Commissioners violated certain terms of the settlement agreement and the CFTC's argument that the Commissioners were not bound by the terms of the settlement agreement, the District Court vacated the settlement agreement and reinstated all pending motions that the District Court had previously mooted as a result of the settlement. The parties have reached a new agreement in principle to resolve the CFTC action and have submitted the settlement to the District Court for approval. The District Court has scheduled a conference on June 4, 2020 to discuss the proposed settlement agreement. Additionally, several class action complaints were filed against Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global in the District Court by investors in wheat futures and options on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The complaints make similar allegations as those made in the CFTC action, and the plaintiffs are seeking class action certification; monetary damages, interest and unjust enrichment; costs and fees; and injunctive, declaratory and other unspecified relief. In June 2015, these suits were consolidated in the District Court. On January 3, 2020, the District Court granted plaintiffs' request to certify a class. Mondelez said, "It is not possible to predict the outcome of these matters; however, based on our Separation and Distribution Agreement with Kraft Foods Group dated as of September 27, 2012, we expect to bear any monetary penalties or other payments in connection with the CFTC action. Although the CFTC action and the class action complaints involve the same alleged conduct, a resolution or decision with respect to one of the matters may not be dispositive as to the outcome of the other matter." Mondelez International, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and markets snack food and beverage products worldwide. It offers biscuits, including cookies, crackers, and salted snacks; chocolates; gums and candies; coffee and powdered beverages; and cheese and grocery products. Mondelez International, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is based in Deerfield, Illinois. MONMOUTH UNIVERSITY: Fittipaldi Demands COVID-19 Tuition Refunds ---------------------------------------------------------------- JODI FITTIPALDI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MONMOUTH UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-05526 (D.N.J., May 4, 2020), seeks refund of the tuition and fees paid for the Spring 2020 academic semester at the University, which closed its doors due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The case is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all the students, who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at Monmouth, and who, because of Defendant's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, lost the benefit of the education for which they paid, and/or the services or which their fees were paid, without having their tuition and fees refunded to them. The Plaintiff contends that as a result of the closure of the Defendant's facilities, the Defendant has not delivered the educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that Ms. Fittipaldi and the putative class contracted and paid for. The Plaintiff seeks the Defendant's disgorgement of the pro-rated portion of tuition and fees, proportionate to the amount of time that remained in the Spring Semester 2020 when classes moved online and campus services ceased being provided. Monmouth is a private university, with an enrollment of approx. 6,300 students comprising approx. 4,600 undergraduate students and 1,700 graduate students.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Obergfell, Esq. Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com swestcot@bursor.com NEW JERSEY: Faces Vazquez Suit Alleging Violation of Civil Rights ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Jersey Supreme Court, et al. The case is captioned as JOEZIEL JOEY VAZQUEZ, FATHER OF E.J, V.T, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Parents with paternity and or parentage determination v. NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT, IN THEIR SUPERVISORY ROLE OF THE NEW JERSEY JUDICIARY; THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; MERCER COUNTY SITTING FAMILY COURT JUDGE; NEW JERSEY DEP'T OF PUBLIC WELFARE; NEW JERSEY COMMISSIONER OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES; SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE; NJ OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES; NEW JERSEY DCPP; JANE DOE; CHILD SUPPORT OFFICIAL IN NEW JERSEY; and NETERRA ALI, MOTHER OF E.J, V.T, Case No. 3:20-cv-05219-BRM-ZNQ (D.N.J., April 25, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Brian R. Martinotti. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. The Supreme Court of New Jersey is the highest court in the U.S. state of New Jersey. New Jersey is a northeastern U.S. state with some 130 miles of Atlantic coast. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN] NEW YORK: Board Appeals Order in Gulino Suit to Second Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from District Court's Order dated March 12, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule 23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and classwide injunctive relief. The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board, Case No. 20-1479, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Deisy Espejo-Lao, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 Email: joshua.sohn@dlapiper.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York is represented by: James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 NEW YORK: NYSBOE Appeals Opinion in Yang Suit to Second Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants New York State Board of Elections, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated May 5, 2020, in the lawsuit styled Yang v. New York State Board of Elections, Case No. 20-cv-3325, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges, among other claims, that the Plaintiffs' rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were violated when, on April 27, 2020, their names were removed from the New York Democratic presidential primary ballot and the primary was cancelled. The appellate case is captioned as Yang v. New York State Board of Elections, Case No. 20-1494, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Andrew Yang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by: Jeffrey M. Kurzon, Esq. KURZON KOHEN LLP 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 203-8918 - and - Arthur Zachary Schwartz, Esq. ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE, CHARTERED ATTORNEYS 225 Broadway New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 285-1400 Email: aschwartz@afjlaw.com - and - Elena Louisa Cohen, Esq. Cohen & Green P.L.L.C. 365 5th Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (413) 329-3238 Email: elena@femmelaw.com - and - Remy Green, Esq. COHEN & GREEN P.L.L.C. 1639 Centre Street Ridgewood, NY 11385 Telephone: (929) 888-948 Email: remy@femmelaw.com - and - Jonathan Wallace, Esq. P.O. 728 Amagansett, NY 11930 Telephone: (917) 359-6234 Defendants-Appellants New York State Board of Elections, et al., are represented by: Matthew Lawrence Conrad, Esq. Judith Naomi Vale, Esq. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 416-635 - and - Jennifer L. Clark, Esq. ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 Telephone: (518) 776-2024 OREGON: Smith Appeals Decision in FCA Class Suit to Ninth Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Arlen Smith et al., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Arlen Smith, et al. v. Colette Peters, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01982-SU, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Pendleton. Colette S. Peters is the director of the Oregon Department of Corrections. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the False Claims Act. The appellate case is captioned as Arlen Smith, et al. v. Colette Peters, et al., Case No. 20-35385, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by June 1, 2020; -- Transcript is due on June 30, 2020; -- Appellants Jerry Harryman, Rotish Singh and Arlen Smith's opening brief is due on August 10, 2020; -- Appellees Brian Belleque, Kim Brockamp, Steven Franks, Mike Gowers, Mitch Morrow, Anita Nelson, Mark Nooth, Colette S. Peters and Kelly Raths' answering brief is due on September 10, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiffs-Appellants ARLEN SMITH, JERRY HARRYMAN, ROTISH SINGH, ex. rel United States of America; on behalf of themself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Harrison Latto, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF HARRISON LATTO 1631 NE Broadway, No. 533 Portland, OR 97232 Telephone: (503) 223-0783 Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is represented by: Alexis Lien, Esq. DOJ-USAO 1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 727-1000 Email: alexis.lien@usdoj.gov Defendants-Appellees COLETTE S. PETERS, Director, Oregon Department of Corrections, et al., are represented by: Andrew Hallman, Esq. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1162 Court Street N.E. Salem, OR 97301 Telephone: (503) 947-4700 Facsimile: (503) 947-4791 Email: andrew.hallman@doj.state.or.us PAKSN INC: Illegally Deducts Nursing Staff Pay, Udarbe et al. Say ----------------------------------------------------------------- BASILIO UDARBE, JARMILA ROMANOVA, and BRANDON THIBEAULT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. PREMA P. THEKKEK; ANTONY P. THEKKEK A/K/A ANTHONY P. THEKKEK; PAKSN, INC.; AAKASH, INC. D/B/A PARK CENTRAL CARE & REHAB CENTER; APPLE CARE CENTER, LLC D/B/A APPLE VALLEY POST ACUTE CENTER; BAYVIEW CARE, INC. D/B/A HILLTOP CARE CENTER; CCRC, LLC; DIYAVILLA, INC. D/B/A DIYAMONTE POST ACUTE CARE CENTER; GRACEVILLA, INC. D/B/A GENESIS HEALTHCARE CENTER AND D/B/A VILLA MARIA CARE CENTER-LONG BEACH; HCRC, INC.; KARMA, INC. D/B/A MANTECA CARE & REHABILITATION CENTER; KAYAL, INC. D/B/A BAYPOINT HEALTHCARE CENTER; MARINOAK, INC. D/B/A CORINTHIAN GARDENS HEALTH CARE CENTER; MCRC, LLC; NADHAN, INC. D/B/A WINSOR HOUSE CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL, D/B/A ORCHARD POST ACUTE CARE, and D/B/A CREEKSIDE CONVALESCENT & MENTAL REHAB PROGRAM; NADHI, INC. D/B/A GATEWAY CARE & REHABILITATION CENTER; NASAKY, INC. D/B/A YUBA SKILLED NURSING FACILITY; OAKRHEEM, INC. D/B/A HAYWARD CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL; SAGAR INC. D/B/A LA MARIPOSA REHABILITATION CARE CENTER; SANDHYA, INC. D/B/A FIRCREST CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL; THEKKEK HEALTH SERVICES, INC., D/B/A MARTINEZ CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL; WESTVILLA, INC. D/B/A WEST VALLEY HEALTHCARE CENTER; MILLBRAE SKILLED CARE, LLC; HEIGHT STREET SKILLED CARE, LLC; PREMIER REHAB. INC.; CARESYSTEMS, INC.; BURLINGAME HACIENDA; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. CGC-20-584259 (Cal. Super., San Francisco, April 29, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, breach of contract, fraud and intentional misrepresentation, and waiting time penalties. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated employees, allege that the Defendants are engaged in unlawfully deducting their wages from January 2019 and May 2019 and again from December 2019 through the present, purportedly to satisfy Plaintiffs' and Class members' contributions to an employer-sponsored health care service plan through Kaiser Permanente. However, in reality, Defendants did not secure coverage of the promised health care service plan. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants at their skilled nursing facility in Sonoma County, California. Paksn, Inc. is an owner, operator, and administrator of skilled nursing facilities with its principal place of business located at 540 West Monte Vista Avenue in Vacaville, California. Aakash, Inc., d/b/a Park Central Care & Rehab Center, is an owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 2100 Parkside Drive, Fremont, California. Apple Care Center, LLC, d/b/a Apple Valley Post Acute Center, is an owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 11959 Apple Valley Road, Apple Valley, California. Bayview Care, Inc., d/b/a Hilltop Care Center, is an owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 3269 D Street, Hayward, California. CCRC, LLC is a provider of administrative services to skilled nursing facilities located at 161 Smith Road, Alamo, California. Diyavilla, Inc., d/b/a Diyamonte Post Acute Care Center, is an owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 33 Mateo Ave., Millbrae, California. Gracevilla, Inc., d/b/a Genesis Healthcare Center and d/b/a Villa Maria Care Center-Long Beach, is an owner and operator of a skilled nursing facilities located at 1201 Walnut Avenue, Long Beach, California and 723 E. 9th Street, Long Beach, California. HCRC, Inc. is a landlord and property owner located at 538 West Monte Vista Avenue, Vacaville, California. Karma, Inc., d/b/a Manteca Care & Rehabilitation Center, is an owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 410 Eastwood Avenue, Manteca, California. Kayal, Inc., d/b/a Baypoint Healthcare Center, is an owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 422 Sunset Boulevard, Hayward, California. Marinoak, Inc., d/b/a Corinthian Gardens Health Care Center, is an owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 1611 Height St., Bakersfield, California. MCRC, LLC is a provider of administrative services to skilled nursing facilities located at 540 West Monte Vista Avenue, Vacaville, California. Nadhan, Inc., formerly d/b/a Winsor House Convalescent Hospital, d/b/a Orchard Post Acute Care and d/b/a Creekside Convalescent & Mental Rehab Program, is an owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 101 South Orchard Avenue, Vacaville, California. Nadhi, Inc., d/b/a Gateway Care & Rehabilitation Center, is an owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 26660 Patrick Avenue, Hayward, California. Nasaky, Inc., d/b/a Yuba Skilled Nursing Facility, is an owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 521 Lorel Way, Yuba City, California. Oakrheem, Inc., d/b/a Hayward Convalescent Hospital, is an owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 1832 B Street, Hayward, California. Sagar Inc., d/b/a La Mariposa Rehabilitation Care Center, is an owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 1244 Travis Boulevard, Fairfield, California. Sandhya, Inc., d/b/a Fircrest Convalescent Hospital, is an owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 7025 Corline Court, Sebastopol, California. Thekkek Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Martinez Convalescent Hospital, is an owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 4110 Alhambra Way, Martinez, California. Westvilla, Inc., d/b/a West Valley Healthcare Center, is an owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 7057 Shoup Ave, Canoga Park, California. Millbrae Skilled Care, LLC is an owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 33 Mateo Ave., Millbrae, California. Height Street Skilled Care, LLC is an owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located in Bakersfield, California. Premier Rehab. Inc. is a physical therapy facility located in California. Caresystems, Inc. is a technology solutions development company in California. Burlingame Hacienda is a home health care service located at 1012 El Camino Real, Burlingame, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert S. Arns, Esq. Jonathan E. Davis, Esq. Kevin M. Osborne, Esq. Julie C. Erickson, Esq. Shounak S. Dharap, Esq. THE ARNS LAW FIRM 515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 495-7800 Facsimile: (415) 495-7888 PARSLEY ENERGY: Streety Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JIM STREETY, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v. PARSLEY ENERGY OPERATIONS, LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-00049-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective and court-authorized notice on behalf of: "all oilfield workers (including but not limited to Drilling Consultants, Drilling Superintendents, Drilling Supervisors, HSE Consultants, Completions Consultants, Completions Supervisors, and Mud Engineers), employed by, or working on behalf of, Parsley Energy Operating, LLC who were classified as independent contractors and paid a day-rate with no overtime at any time during the past three years." The Plaintiff contends that he and the Putative Class Members customarily worked more than 40 hours a week Indeed, Parsley generally scheduled them to work 12-hour shifts (though they often worked more) for weeks at a time. Despite regularly working 84 or more hours in a week, they did not receive overtime compensation under Parsley's day rate policy. Parsley is a Permian based independent oil and natural gas company. Parsley has drilled and operated hundreds of vertical and horizontal wells. To perform their operations, Parsley employs oil field workers on a day rate basis who they allegedly classified as independent contractors.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 325-1100 Facsimile: (713) 325-3300 E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com mjosephson@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com PATENAUDE & FELIX: Faces Hailstork FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PATENAUDE & FELIX, A.P.C. The case is styled as Howard Hailstork, Brian McClellan, Michael Cockerham, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PATENAUDE & FELIX, A.P.C., Case No. 2:20-cv-00678-NR (W.D. Pa., May 7, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Patenaude & Felix is a debt collection law firm based in San Diego, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua P. Ward, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF FENTERS 201 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 201 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 Phone: (412) 545-3015 Fax: (412) 540-3399 Email: jward@fentersward.com PATENAUDE & FELIX: Moyer Appeals E.D. Pa. Ruling to Third Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Candace Moyer filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Candace Moyer v. Patenaude & Felix, Case No. 5-18-cv-04711, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff moves for an order granting her Motion to Certify Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The appellate case is captioned as Candace Moyer v. Patenaude & Felix, Case No. 20-1937, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CANDACE MOYER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by: Ari H. Marcus, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com Defendant-Appellee PATENAUDE & FELIX, A.P.C., is represented by: Edward M. Koch, Esq. Marc L. Penchansky, Esq. WHITE & WILLIAMS 1650 Market Street One Liberty Place, Suite 1800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 864-6319 Facsimile: (215) 789-7613 Email: koche@whiteandwilliams.com penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com PAYCHEX OF NEW YORK: Bedolla Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Arturo Bedolla, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. Paychex of New York LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2020CH01535, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 24, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-02526 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Elaine E. Bucklo. The Defendant provides financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brendan James Duffner, Esq. Timothy Patrick Kingsbury, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 West Wacker Dr., 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 E-mail: bduffner@mcgpc.com tkingsbury@mcgpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew C. Wolfe, Esq. Melissa Anne Siebert, Esq. Ian Macaulay Hansen, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 111 S. Wacker Drive, Ste. 4700 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 704-7777 E-mail: docket@shb.com masiebert@shb.com ihansen@shb.com PENNSYLVANIA: Fails to Inspect Nursing Homes, Gill Claims --------------------------------------------------------- JODI GILL, as Representative and Next Friend of GLENN OSCAR GILL, a Long Term Care Facility Resident, on his behalf and on behalf of all others Similarly Situated Plaintiffs, vs. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Health & Welfare Building 8th Floor West 625 Forster Street Harrisburg PA 17120, Case No. 2:20-cv-02038 (E.D. Pa., April 28, 2020) arises from the denial of Pennsylvania Department of Health (PA DOH) policy and practice of providing appropriate safeguards and care to nursing home residents (Long Term Care Facility residents) in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act; the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA); and federal and state regulations concerning inspections and investigations of Long Term Care Facilities (LTCFs), including the Social Security Act, and its implementing regulations; the Civil Rights Act as it applies to the Federal Nursing Home Reform Amendments (FNRA); and the Pennsylvania Disease Prevention and Control Law. According to the complaint, the failure of the PA DOH to conduct inspections has resulted in the apparent biomedical experimentation on residents under the guise of clinical trials. It is unlikely that such egregious conduct could have occurred had inspections not been halted. The inspections have come nearly to a halt, thereby putting all LTCF residents at risk of infectious disease transmission. Specifically, these residents are at high risk for contracting SARS-COV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) which is pervasive within the community-at-large, and which is easily transmissible from close contact (respiratory droplets) and from surfaces (fomites). Plaintiff Gill is authorized to take this action on behalf of her father, Glenn Oscar Gill, age 81, who is a resident of Brighton Rehabilitation and Wellness Center in Beaver, Pennsylvania. Mr. Gill suffers from disabilities within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act, including advanced dementia and cardiovascular disease. Mr. Gill has been a resident at Brighton since September 25, 2019. She is the class representative.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Sachs, Jr. Esq. Theresa M. Blanco, Esq. SHRAGER & SACHS 2300 One Commerce Square 2005 Market Street Philadelphia PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 568-7771 Email: rsachs@shragerlaw.com tblanco@shragerlaw.com - and - Peter D. Giglione, Esq. MASSA, BUTLER, GIGLIONE Three Gateway Center Suite 1543 401 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 338-1800 Email: pgiglione@mbp-law.com - and - Martin S. Kardon, Esq. KANTER, BERNSTEIN & KARDON PC 1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1150 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 568-5885 Email: kardon@kbklaw.com - and - Robert F. Daley, Esq. D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 Email: bdaley@peircelaw.com PHARMACYCLICS INC: Final Judgment in Evangelista Suit Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ANTHONY EVANGELISTA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. ROBERT W. DUGGAN et al., Defendants and Respondents; SEAN J. GRIFFITH, Intervenor and Appellant, Case No. H044087 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Sixth District affirmed the trial court's judgment granting final approval to the settlement of a shareholder class action lawsuit arising from the acquisition of Pharmacyclics by AbbVie, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Pharmacyclics is a biopharmaceutical company, incorporated in Delaware, with principle offices in Sunnyvale, California. Its main product is IMBRUVICA, a blood cancer drug. In March 2015, Pharmacyclics announced that its board of directors had agreed to sell the company to AbbVie, Oxford Amherst Corp., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of AbbVie, and Oxford Amherst LLC, a direct wholly owned subsidiary of AbbVie, having entered into a merger agreement, pursuant to which AbbVie would commence a tender offer and acquire Pharmacyclics for $261.25 per share. Pharmacyclics announced the merger agreement in early March 2015. Following the announcement, four separate Plaintiffs, Evangelista, Lawrence Treppel, Qiang Wang, and Kurt Wallach, and their attorneys conducted a pre-suit investigation of Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, the tender offer, and the proposed acquisition. Based on the investigation, the Plaintiffs each filed a class action lawsuit against Pharmacyclics, its board of directors, and AbbVie; the trial court later consolidated the actions. These suits each alleged the Pharmacyclics' board of directors, aided and abetted by Pharmacyclics and AbbVie, breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition of Pharmacyclics by AbbVie. Several weeks after announcing the merger agreement, AbbVie commenced the tender offer; at the same time, Pharmacyclics filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission a "Solicitation and Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9," which, according to the Plaintiffs, included information concerning the background of the Acquisition, the process leading to the agreement to sell Pharmacyclics to AbbVie, and the financial analyses performed by the Company's financial advisors in support of their fairness opinion. The tender offer was set to expire on April 17, 2015. Upon receipt of the Recommendation Statement, the Plaintiffs' counsel reviewed the statement with independent financial experts and identified areas that they believed warranted further investigation. The Counsel concluded that the best possible result for the shareholders was to obtain additional information that would aid in making a fully informed decision on the tender offer. The Plaintiffs' counsel demanded additional disclosures from the Defendants, commencing negotiations between the attorneys for both sides, which resulted in Defendants agreeing to make supplemental disclosures before the close of the tender offer. In mid-April 2015, the Defendants issued the supplemental disclosures. Approximately 87% of Pharmacyclics' outstanding shares were validly tendered into the transaction. After completion of the acquisition in May 2015, the Plaintiffs' counsel took the depositions of two individuals, one from Centerview and one from J.P. Morgan, each of whom had knowledge of the acquisition, to confirm the fairness of the settlement. Following additional discussions to finalize the settlement, the parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement in January 2016, setting forth the terms and conditions of the settlement, subject to approval by the trial court. In addition to providing the Supplemental Disclosures, the Defendants agreed to pay the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, in the amount of $725,000, subject to court approval. In February 2016, the trial court issued an order approving the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and entry of an order for notice. The proposed Notice of Settlement of Class Action attached as an exhibit to the Stipulation of Settlement specified nine areas of additional information purportedly included in the Supplemental Disclosures. In April 2016, the trial court issued an amended order preliminarily approving the settlement and providing for notice, as well as an amended notice of settlement, specifying only three areas of additional information included in the Supplemental Disclosures: the financial projections of Pharmacyclics for calendar years 2015-2028, and how those projections were calculated; the fairness opinion of Centerview; and, the fairness opinion of J.P. Morgan. The Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion seeking final approval of the class action settlement and award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The trial court held the fairness hearing in July 2016. Shortly after the fairness hearing, the trial court issued its order after hearing approving the settlement insofar as it exchanged the release of the Plaintiffs' claims in exchange for the Supplemental Disclosures. It reduced the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses awarded to the Plaintiffs' counsel from $725,000 to $509,158.62, representing $486,205 in fees and $22,953.62 in costs. After receiving the trial court's written order, the parties stipulated that Griffith could file a complaint in intervention for the purposes of precluding any argument that he lacks standing to appeal. The trial court accepted the stipulation, and Griffith filed his complaint in September 2016. In October 2016, the trial court entered judgment approving the settlement and overruling the objections of Griffith and McPherson. Griffith timely noticed his appeal of the judgment. Griffith asks the Court to take judicial notice of the Recommendation Statement. Griffith did not object to the accuracy of Morris' description of the Recommendation Statement, or to the description provided by the Plaintiffs' counsel in the pleadings submitted in support of the settlement. It is these descriptions that the trial court relied on to evaluate whether the Supplemental Disclosures provided any added value to the shareholder class. As Griffith did not raise any concerns in this regard to the trial court, and has not provided any explanation for his failure to do so, Judge Greenwood finds no exceptional circumstances exist that would require her to now take judicial notice of the Recommendation Statement. The Plaintiffs argue Griffith does not have standing to appeal the judgment approving the class action settlement, insisting that Griffith does not have any immediate, pecuniary, or substantial injuries from the judgment. While Griffith may have other interests in setting aside the settlement, he is a shareholder and class member, who objected and intervened in the trial court, and has standing to appeal on the basis he believes the release is too broad relative to the benefit allegedly received by the class. The Appellate Court reviews the trial court's approval of the class action settlement for abuse of discretion. The Appellate Court concludes that it is clear from his pleadings that Griffith asks the Court to engage in broad conclusions about the appropriateness of disclosure-only shareholder class action settlements in California by adopting the analysis of the Delaware Court of Chancery in In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation. Because of the procedural and evidentiary posture of the instant matter, the Appellate Court need not address the application of Delaware law at this time, as it is limited to the evidence presented by the parties in the trial court, and the record designated by the parties on appeal. The Appellate Court thus makes no comment regarding best practices in disclosure-only settlements or whether Delaware standards should apply to these cases in California courts. Rather, the Appellate Court holds that the trial court in the instant action did not abuse its discretion in approving the subject settlement, and affirm the judgment accordingly. Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, the Defendants agreed to pay the Plaintiffs' counsel $725,000 for attorneys' fees and expenses. The trial court reduced the award to $486,205 in attorneys' fees and $22,953.62 in costs and expenses. Griffith alleges the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed the Plaintiffs to recover even the reduced amount of fees, given what he believes was the limited benefit obtained to the class via the settlement. The Appellate Court holds that given that an experienced judicial officer is the best judge of the value of attorney services rendered in his or her court, the record reflects the proper application of the lodestar approach, and there is nothing in the record revealing the trial court's evaluation to be "clearly wrong," the Appellate Court finds no abuse of discretion and affirm the attorneys' fees order. Based on the foregoing, the Appellate Court affirmed the Final Judgment in the Evangelista case filed Oct. 31, 2016. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/X29Mp8 from Leagle.com. PHILIP MORRIS: Amended Complaint in Rebolledo Suit Not Yet Served ----------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the amended complaint in the purported class action suit Ana Ferrero Rebolledo v. Philip Morris Colombia S.A., et al., has not yet been served. In Colombia, an individual filed a purported class action, Ana Ferrero Rebolledo v. Philip Morris Colombia S.A., et al., in April 2019 against the company's subsidiaries with the Civil Court of Bogota related to the marketing of the Company's Platform 1 product. Plaintiff alleged that the company's subsidiaries advertise the product in contravention of law and in a manner that misleads consumers by portraying the product in a positive light, and further asserts that the Platform 1 vapor contains many toxic compounds, creates a high level of dependence, and has damaging second-hand effects. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief and damages on her behalf and on a behalf of two classes (class 1 - all Platform 1 consumers in Colombia who seek damages for the purchase price of the product and personal injuries related to the alleged addiction, and class 2 - all residents of the neighborhood where the advertising allegedly took place who seek damages for exposure to the alleged illegal advertising). The company's subsidiaries answered the complaint in January 2020, and in February 2020, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint modifies the relief sought on behalf of the named plaintiff and on behalf of a single class (all consumers of Platform 1 products in Colombia who seek damages for the product purchase price and personal injuries related to the use of an allegedly harmful product). Philip Morris said, "The amended complaint has not yet been served on our subsidiaries." Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PHILIP MORRIS: Canadian Appeals Court Cuts Damages Award in Blais ----------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that an appellate court in Canada has issued a decision largely affirming the trial court's findings of liability and the compensatory and punitive damages award with respect to the class action, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998. The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-related diseases. The class was certified in 2005. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (RBH) and other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-Macdonald Corp.) are defendants in the matter. The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and found that the class members' compensatory damages totaled approximately CAD 15.5 billion, including pre-judgment interest (approximately $11 billion). The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and several liability basis, allocating 20% to our subsidiary (approximately CAD 3.1 billion, including pre-judgment interest (approximately $2.2 billion)). In addition, the trial court awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately $63,760) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately $21,250) to RBH. The trial court estimated the disease class at 99,957 members. RBH appealed to the Court of Appeal of Quebec. In October 2015, the Court of Appeal ordered RBH to furnish security totaling CAD 226 million (approximately $160.1 million) to cover both the Letourneau and Blais cases, which RBH has paid in installments through March 2017. The Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. to furnish security totaling CAD 758 million (approximately $537 million) in installments through June 2017. JTI Macdonald Corp. was not required to furnish security in accordance with plaintiffs’ motion. The Court of Appeal ordered that the security is payable upon a final judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the trial court's judgment or upon further order of the Court of Appeal. On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely affirming the trial court's findings of liability and the compensatory and punitive damages award while reducing the total amount of compensatory damages to approximately CAD 13.5 billion including interest (approximately $9.6 billion) due to the trial court's error in the calculation of interest. The compensatory damages award is on a joint and several basis with an allocation of 20% to RBH (approximately CAD 2.7 billion, including pre-judgment interest (approximately $1.91 billion)). The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's findings that defendants violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act by failing to warn adequately of the dangers of smoking and by conspiring to prevent consumers from learning of the dangers of smoking. The Court of Appeal further held that the plaintiffs either need not prove, or had adequately proven, that these faults were a cause of the class members' injuries. In accordance with the judgment, defendants are required to deposit their respective portions of the damages awarded in both the Letourneau case and the Blais case, approximately CAD 1.1 billion (approximately $779 million), into trust accounts within 60 days. RBH's share of the deposit is approximately CAD 257 million (approximately $194.1 million). PMI recorded a pre-tax charge of $194 million in its consolidated results, representing $142 million net of tax, as tobacco litigation-related expense, in the first quarter of 2019. The charge reflects PMI's assessment of the portion of the judgment that represents probable and estimable loss prior to the deconsolidation of RBH and corresponds to the trust account deposit required by the judgment. Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PHILIP MORRIS: Canadian Appeals Court Upholds Ruling in Letourneau ------------------------------------------------------------------ Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that an appellate court in Canada has issued a decision largely affirming the trial court's findings of liability and the total amount of punitive damages awarded allocating CAD 57 million including interest (approximately $40.4 million) to RBH in the case, Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (RBH) and JTI-Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September 1998. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who is deemed addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005. RBH and other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-Macdonald Corp.) are defendants. The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and awarded a total of CAD 131 million (approximately $93 million) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $32.6 million) to RBH. The trial court estimated the size of the addiction class at 918,000 members but declined to award compensatory damages to the addiction class because the evidence did not establish the claims with sufficient accuracy. The trial court found that a claims process to allocate the awarded punitive damages to individual class members would be too expensive and difficult to administer. On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely affirming the trial court's findings of liability and the total amount of punitive damages awarded allocating CAD 57 million including interest (approximately $40.4 million) to RBH. Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Adams Class Suit in Canada ------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al. In a class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (RBH), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Kunta Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al. In a class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg, Canada, filed June 12, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (RBH), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), severe asthma, and mild reversible lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PHILIP MORRIS: Dorion Class Complaint Has Not Yet Been Served ------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the complaint in the class action suit entitled, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., has not been properly served. In a class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (RBH), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. Philip Morris said, "To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PHILIP MORRIS: Plaintiffs Ask Court to Reconsider Dismissal Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs in the class action suit entitled, In re Philip Morris International Inc. Securities Litigation, are asking the court to reconsider a decision granting the company's motion to dismiss. A putative shareholder class action lawsuit, In re Philip Morris International Inc. Securities Litigation, is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Philip Morris International Inc. stock between July 26, 2016 and April 18, 2018. The lawsuit names Philip Morris International Inc. and certain officers and employees as defendants and includes allegations that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information about PMI's business, operations, financial condition, and prospects, related to product sales of, and alleged irregularities in clinical studies of, PMI's Platform 1 product. The lawsuit seeks various forms of relief, including damages. In November 2018, the court consolidated three putative shareholder class action lawsuits with similar allegations previously filed in the Southern District of New York (namely, City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al, Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters’ Pension Fund v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al., and Gilchrist v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al.) into these proceedings. A putative shareholder class action lawsuit, Rubenstahl v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al., that had been previously filed in December 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff due to similar allegations in these proceedings. On February 4, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion in its entirety, dismissing all but one of the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. The court noted that one of plaintiffs' claims (allegations relating to four non-clinical studies of PMI's Platform 1 product) did not state a viable claim but allowed plaintiffs to replead that claim by March 3, 2020. On February 18, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's February 4th decision. The court extended the time for plaintiffs to replead the claim relating to four non-clinical studies mentioned above within 30 days after the court's decision on the motion. "We believe that this lawsuit is without merit and will continue to defend it vigorously," the Company said. Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PHILIP MORRIS: Semple Class Action Ongoing ------------------------------------------ Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al. In the fifth class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court), Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (RBH), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PHILIP MORRIS: Still Defends McDermid Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al. In the seventh class action pending in Canada, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (RBH), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PORTLAND GENERAL: Oregon High Court Asked to Reverse Decision ------------------------------------------------------------- Portland General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs have petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court requesting review and reversal of the Court of Appeals opinion in the Trojan Investment Recovery related suit. In 1993, Portland General Electric Company (PGE) closed the Trojan nuclear power plant (Trojan) and sought full recovery of, and a rate of return on, its Trojan costs in a general rate case filing with the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (OPUC). In 1995, the OPUC issued a general rate order that granted the Company recovery of, and a rate of return on, 87% of its remaining investment in Trojan. Numerous challenges and appeals were subsequently filed in various state courts on the issue of the OPUC's authority under Oregon law to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment. In 2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the matter to the OPUC for reconsideration. In 2003, in two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed against PGE on behalf of two classes of electric service customers as a result of OPUC actions arising from PGE's closure of the Trojan nuclear power plant in 1993: i) Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court (Circuit Court); and ii) Morgan v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court. The class action lawsuits seek damages totaling $260 million, plus interest, as a result of the Company's inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a return on its investment in Trojan. In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) issued a ruling ordering abatement of the class action proceedings. The OSC concluded that the OPUC had primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy could be offered to PGE customers, through price reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan investment that the Company collected in prices. In 2008, the OPUC issued an order (2008 Order) that required PGE to provide refunds, including interest, which were completed in 2010. Following appeals, the 2008 Order was upheld by the Oregon Court of Appeals in 2013 and by the OSC in 2014. In 2015, based on a motion filed by PGE, the Circuit Court lifted the abatement on the class action proceedings and heard oral argument on the Company's motion for Summary Judgment. In 2016, the Circuit Court entered a general judgment that granted the Company's motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed all claims by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the Circuit Court dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the state of Oregon. In November 2019, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion that affirmed the Circuit Court dismissal. On December 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied on February 4, 2020. On April 7, 2020 the Plaintiffs filed a petition with the OSC requesting review and reversal of the Court of Appeals opinion. PGE believes that the 2014 OSC decision, the Circuit Court decisions, and the Court of Appeals decisions that followed have reduced the risk of any loss to the Company beyond the amounts previously recorded and refunds discussed above. However, because the class actions remain subject to a potential review by the OSC, management believes that it is reasonably possible that such a loss to the Company could result. As these matters involve unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of potential outcomes, sufficient information is currently not available to determine the amount of any such loss. Portland General Electric Company, an integrated electric utility company, engages in the generation, wholesale purchase, transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the state of Oregon. The company was founded in 1930 and is headquartered in Portland, Oregon. PPG INDUSTRIES: To Make Settlement Payments This Year ----------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that payments on account of the settlement in the cases, Trevor Mild v. PPG Industries, Inc., Michael H. McGarry, Vincent J. Morales, and Mark C. Kelly, are expected to occur in 2020. On May 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and three of its current and former officers. On September 21, 2018, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed in the lawsuit. The Amended Complaint, captioned Trevor Mild v. PPG Industries, Inc., Michael H. McGarry, Vincent J. Morales, and Mark C. Kelly, asserted securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired stock of the Company between January 19, 2017 and May 10, 2018. The allegations related to, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about the Company's business, operations and prospects. The parties reached a settlement in principal on May 1, 2019. On June 2, 2019, the plaintiff filed with the Court a Petition for Preliminary Approval of the proposed settlement, including the proposed settlement amount of $25 million. On November 22, 2019, the Court entered final judgment approving the settlement. PPG's insurance carriers confirmed to the Company insurance coverage for the full amount of the settlement. Settlement payments are expected to occur in 2020. PPG Industries, Inc. manufactures and distributes paints, coatings, and specialty materials worldwide. The company was founded in 1883 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. QUDIAN INC: Bid to Revive Securities Class Action Claim Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Qudian Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the decision on the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration in the court's order granting in part and denying in part the company's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, filed in the class action suit entitled, In re Qudian Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:17-cv-09741-RA (S.D.N.Y.), is pending. The company and certain of its directors and officers were named as defendants in four putative securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York: Ramnath v. Qudian Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-09741-RA (S.D.N.Y.), Maia v. Min Luo et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-09796-RA (S.D.N.Y.), Foat v. Qudian Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-09875-RA (S.D.N.Y.), and Perez v. Qudian Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-09903-RA (S.D.N.Y.) (collectively, the "Federal Actions"). The Federal Actions -- purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their purchase of the company's American Depositary Shares (ADSs) pursuant and/or traceable to the company's initial public offering (IPO) -- allege violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the United States Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the company's disclosure of business and regulatory risks. On March 16, 2018, the Court entered an order consolidating the Federal Actions under master caption In re Qudian Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:17-cv-09741-RA (S.D.N.Y.) and appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the consolidated case. On May 18, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, and, on July 27, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. On October 12, 2018, we filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under the federal securities laws. On September 27, 2019, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the company's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Order granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend the Second Amended Complaint with respect to certain of Plaintiffs' allegations, and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the launch of the Company's Dabai Auto business. On October 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a stipulation confirming that they will not seek to amend the Second Amended Complaint. On November 8, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to reconsider the Order with respect to one of the dismissed allegations. On December 6, 2019, the Company filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration. On December 20, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of the motion for reconsideration. A decision on the motion is pending. Qudian Inc. provides online small consumer credit products in the People's Republic of China. It uses big data-enabled technologies, including artificial intelligence and machine learning to transform the consumer finance experience. The company offers small credit products, such as cash credit products; merchandise credit products to finance borrowers' direct purchase of merchandise offered on its marketplace on installment basis; and budget auto financing products. In addition, it operates a platform for loan recommendations and referrals. Qudian Inc. was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of China. QUDIAN INC: Song Class Action Suit Still Stayed ----------------------------------------------- Qudian Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit entitled, Song v. Qudian Inc. et al., Case No. 18CIV01425, remains stayed. The company and certain of its directors and officers were named as defendants in Song v. Qudian Inc. et al., Case No. 18CIV01425 (Cal. Supr. Ct., San Mateo Cty.), a putative securities class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. The California Action, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their purchase of the company's American Depositary Receipts (ADSs) pursuant and/or traceable to the company's initial public offering (IPO), alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the United States Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the company's disclosure of business and regulatory risks. On May 15, 2018, the company filed a motion to stay the action in light of, inter alia, the Federal Actions. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to stay on June 8, 2018, and the company filed a reply on June 22, 2018. A hearing on the motion to stay was held on September 14, 2018. On December 21, 2018, the court granted the company's motion to stay. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Qudian Inc. provides online small consumer credit products in the People's Republic of China. It uses big data-enabled technologies, including artificial intelligence and machine learning to transform the consumer finance experience. The company offers small credit products, such as cash credit products; merchandise credit products to finance borrowers' direct purchase of merchandise offered on its marketplace on installment basis; and budget auto financing products. In addition, it operates a platform for loan recommendations and referrals. Qudian Inc. was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of China. RATNER COMPANIES: Ferrante Suit Seeks Wages and Commissions ----------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA FERRANTE, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. RATNER COMPANIES, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Case No. CACE-20-007011 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., April 24, 2020), alleges that the Defendant has not paid the Plaintiff and the proposed class their wages and commissions for work performed during the months of February and March of 2020 pursuant to the Florida Statutes. On March 21, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 crisis, the Defendant ceased operations at all of their retail locations across the country. This action came in the middle of a pay period that originally began on March 15, 2020. The Plaintiff and Class worked several hours during the pay period, and earned an agreed upon commission for each service provided but the Defendant failed to provide payment, the complaint says. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a hairdresser since March 1, 2020. Ratner owns and operates hair salons doing business as Hair Cuttery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq. Davod Frank, Esq. WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 463-2001 Facsimile: (954) 463-0410 E-mail: cjw@whitelocklegal.com davidfrank@whitelocklegal.com REGIONS FINANCIAL: Accounting Firm Seeks Agent Fees for PPP Loans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Leigh, King, Norton & Underwood, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated in the United States of America, Plaintiff, vs. Regions Financial Corporation and Regions Bank, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00591-JHE (N.D. Ala., April 28, 2020) is a class action complaint filed by Plaintiff, for itself and all others similarly situated, to recover damages resulting from unfair and wrongful actions by the Defendants after it failed and refused to compensate Plaintiff and the Class Members, and continue to do so, for their role as CARES Act loan applicant agents. The Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") was authorized by Congress and the President of the United States under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748 ("CARES Act"), and is a loan program designed to provide a direct incentive for small businesses to keep their workers on payroll. Plaintiff Leigh, King, Norton & Underwood, LLC (LKNU) has assisted, as an agent, many of its clients in preparing an application for their PPP loans. On April 6, 2020, LKNU, by and through Tim Leigh, who is a certified public accountant and one of its owners, timely submitted a loan application to the Defendant on behalf of a client, and included an engagement letter setting forth the agency relationship along with the documentation that was required to be submitted with the loan application. When reviewing the first of the loan applications, Will Pebworth, Regions' Shoals Alabama Area Market Executive in Commercial Banking, informed Leigh that "Regions is not paying agent fees for PPP loans," and requested that Leigh let Regions know if his client wanted to proceed with the Regions PPP application in light of the fact that Regions was refusing to pay agent fees. The conduct of Regions has caused Plaintiff and Class Members to go uncompensated for acting as agents assisting clients in applying for PPP loans. The provisions of the PPP loan program accounted for applicant agents being compensated not directly from the struggling businesses in need of the loans, but from the participating program lenders like Regions. Regions Financial Corporation is a bank holding company headquartered in the Regions Center in Birmingham, Alabama. Regions Bank is a subsidiary of Regions Financial Corporation headquartered in the Regions Center in Birmingham, Alabama.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph "Jay" H. Aughtman, Esq. AUGHTMAN LAW FIRM, LLC 1722 Platt Place Montgomery, AL 36117 Telephone: (334) 215-9873 Facsimile: (334) 213-5663 Email: jay@aughtmanlaw.com - and - Richard D. Morrison, Esq. THE MORRISON LAW FIRM, LLC 418 Scott Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 513-1323 Facsimile: (334) 513-1343 Email: Rick.morrison@morrisonfirm.com - and - Adam B. Burchell, Esq. JOHNSON, PASEUR & MEDLEY, LLC 1847 North Wood Avenue Post Office Box 2760 Florence, AL 35630 Telephone: (256) 766-3131 Facsimile: (256) 766-3124 Email: Adam.burchell@johnsonpaseur.com RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC: Ford Suit Demands COVID-19 Tuition Refund ----------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN FORD, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00470-DNH-CFH (N.D.N.Y., April 25, 2020), seeks refunds of the fees and tuition the Plaintiff and other members of the Class are owed on a pro-rata basis, together with other damages. The Plaintiff asserts that the claim arises from 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. The Plaintiff contends that while closing campus and transitioning to online classes was the right thing for the Defendant to do, this decision deprived him 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 Defendant has either refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition, housing, meals, fees and other costs that the Defendant is no longer providing, or has provided inadequate and/or arbitrary reimbursement that does not fully compensate the Plaintiff and members of the Class for their loss, the complaint says. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute is an institution of higher learning located in Troy, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelsey W. Shannon, Esq. LYNN LAW FIRM, LLP 101 South Salina Street, Suite 750 Syracuse, NY 13202-4983 Telephone: (315) 474-1267 E-mail: kshannon@lynnlaw.com - and - John M. Bradham, Esq. Peter B. Katzman, Esq. MOREA SCHWARTZ BRADHAM FRIEDMAN & BROWN LLP 444 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 695-8050 E-mail: jbradham@msbllp.com pkatzman@msbllp.com - and - Edward Toptani, Esq. TOPTANI LAW PLLC 375 Pearl Street, Suite 1410 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 699-8930 E-mail: edward@toptanilaw.com - and - Eric M. Poulin, Esq. Roy T. Willey IV, Esq. ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 614-8888 E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com roy@akimlawfirm.com REXALL SUNDOWN: Seegert Appeals S.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Sandra Seegert filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Sandra Seegert v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01243-BEN-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of California, San Diego. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is a consumer protection class action arising out of the Defendant's false and misleading advertising of its glucosamine products. The Defendant markets, sells and distributes a line of joint health dietary supplements under the "Osteo Bi-Flex" brand name, and Defendant represents that these products are beneficial to the joints of the consumers who use them. According to the lawsuit, the Defendant's Osteo Bi-Flex products, however, are incapable of supporting or benefiting the health of human joints because the main ingredients in each of the Defendant's Osteo Bi-Flex products at issue, either alone or in combination with other ingredients, cannot support or benefit joint health. The appellate case is captioned as Sandra Seegert v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., Case No. 20-55486, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The parties shall meet the following time schedule: -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be served and filed on July 13, 2020; -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record shall be served and filed on August 13, 2020; and -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and served within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief.[BN] SAGE LAW OFFICES: Chames Sues in E.D. Texas Over FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sage Law Offices, et al. The case is styled as Melissa Sharon Chames, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sage Law Offices, John Does 1-25, Case No. 4:20-cv-00372 (E.D. Tex., May 7, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Sage Law Offices is a Florida Law Firm formed in 1991 by healthcare lawyers to provide specialized services on behalf of Healthcare Providers in the reimbursement of their accounts receivables.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com SEI INVESTMENTS: Court Approves Stevens Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- SEI Investments Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the court overseeing the class action suit initiated by Gordon Stevens has issued an order approving the parties' settlement agreement. On September 28, 2018, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Gordon Stevens, individually and as the representative of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the SEI Capital Accumulation Plan (the "Plan") naming the Company and its affiliated and/or related entities SEI Investments Management Corporation, SEI Capital Accumulation Plan Design Committee, SEI Capital Accumulation Plan Investment Committee, SEI Capital Accumulation Plan Administration Committee, and John Does 1-30 as defendants (the "Stevens Complaint"). The Stevens Compliant seeks unspecified damages for defendants' breach of fiduciary duties under The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) with respect to selecting and monitoring the Plan's investment options and by retaining affiliated investment products in the Plan. Although SEI believes its defenses against the plaintiff's allegations were valid, the Company agreed to settle this matter in the very early stages of the litigation in order to avoid the high cost of protracted class-action litigation and internal distractions such cases bring. On March 3, 2020, the Court issued its Approval Order approving the settlement agreement. The financial impact of the settlement agreement is not material to the Company. SEI Investments Company is a publicly owned asset management holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides wealth management, retirement and investment solutions, asset management, asset administration, investment processing outsourcing solutions, financial services, and investment advisory services to its clients. SEI Investments Company was founded in 1968 and is based in Oaks, Pennsylvania. SEI INVESTMENTS: Suits over SPTC Services Ongoing ------------------------------------------------- SEI Investments Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company and SEI Private Trust Company (SPTC) continue to defend several class action suits related to SPTC's services to Stanford Trust Company. SEI has been named in seven lawsuits filed in Louisiana courts; four of the cases also name SEI Private Trust Company (SPTC) as a defendant. The underlying allegations in all actions relate to the purported role of SPTC in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust Company. The complaints allege that SEI and SPTC participated in some manner in the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford International Bank so as to be a "seller" of the certificates of deposit for purposes of primary liability under the Louisiana Securities Law or so as to be secondarily liable under that statute for sales of certificates of deposit made by Stanford Trust Company. Two of the actions also include claims for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy, and a third also asserts claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act, and conspiracy. The procedural status of the seven cases varies. The Lillie case, filed originally in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, was brought as a class action and is procedurally the most advanced of the cases. SEI and SPTC filed exceptions, which the Court granted in part, dismissing claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and permitting the claims under the Louisiana Securities Law to go forward. On March 11, 2013, newly-added insurance carrier defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. On August 7, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the matter to the Northern District of Texas where MDL 2099, In re: Stanford Entities Securities Litigation (""the Stanford MDL"), is pending. On September 22, 2015, the District Court on the motion of SEI and SPTC dismissed plaintiffs' claims for primary liability under Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to dismiss plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law based on the allegations pled by plaintiffs. On November 4, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under Section 712(D) of the Louisiana Securities Law. Consequently, the only claims of plaintiffs remaining in Lillie are plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability against SEI and SPTC under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law. On May 2, 2016, the District Court certified the class as being "all persons for whom Stanford Trust Company purchased or renewed Stanford Investment Bank Limited certificates of deposit in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009". Notice of the pendency of the class action was mailed to potential class members on October 4, 2016. On December 1, 2016, a group of plaintiffs who opted out of the Lillie class filed a complaint against SEI and SPTC in the United States District Court in the Middle District of Louisiana ("Ahders Complaint"), alleging claims essentially the same as those in Lillie. In January 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the Ahders proceeding to the Northern District of Texas and the Stanford MDL. During February 2017, SEI and SPTC filed their response to the Ahders Complaint, and in March 2017 the District Court for the Northern District of Texas approved the stipulated dismissal of all claims in this Complaint predicated on Section 712(D) or Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law. In both cases, as a result of the proceedings in the Northern District of Texas, only the plaintiffs' secondary liability claims under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law remain. Limited discovery and motions practice have occurred, including SEI and SPTC's filing of a dispositive summary judgment motion in the Lillie proceeding. On January 31, 2019, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remanded the Lillie and Ahders proceedings to the Middle District of Louisiana. With respect to the Lillie proceeding, on July 9, 2019, the District Court issued an order granting SEI's Summary Judgment Motion to dismiss the remaining Section 714(B) claim and denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Continuance of SEI and SPTC’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d). On July 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial. The Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial and entered a Final Judgment in favor of SEI and SPTC on August 15, 2019. On August 27, 2019, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the District Court's dismissal of the Lillie matter. On November 20, 2019, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a Motion in Support of the Notice of Appeal. On January 17, 2020, SEI and SPTC timely filed their brief in opposition to the Plaintiffs-Appellants' motion for appeal. On February 7, 2020, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed their reply brief. With respect to the Ahders proceeding, on July 16, 2019, SEI and SPTC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d) to have the remaining Section 714(B) claim dismissed. On January 24, 2020, the District Court issued an order granting SEI's Summary Judgment Motion to dismiss the remaining Section 714(B) claim. On March 17, 2020, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the District Court's dismissal of the Ahders matter. Another case, filed in the 23rd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension, also was removed to federal court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Northern District of Texas and the Stanford MDL. The schedule for responding to that Complaint has not yet been established. Two additional cases remain in the Parish of East Baton Rouge. Plaintiffs filed petitions in 2010 and have granted SEI and SPTC indefinite extensions to respond. No material activity has taken place since. In two additional cases, filed in East Baton Rouge and brought by the same counsel who filed the Lillie action, virtually all of the litigation to date has involved motions practice and appellate litigation regarding the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA). The matters were removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and consolidated. The court then dismissed the action under SLUSA. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that order, and the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Court of Appeals judgment on February 26, 2014. The matters were remanded to state court and no material activity has taken place since that date. SEI said, "While the outcome of this litigation remains uncertain, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Because of uncertainty in the make-up of the Lillie class, the specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the relative lack of discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with respect to the foregoing lawsuits." SEI Investments Company is a publicly owned asset management holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides wealth management, retirement and investment solutions, asset management, asset administration, investment processing outsourcing solutions, financial services, and investment advisory services to its clients. SEI Investments Company was founded in 1968 and is based in Oaks, Pennsylvania. SIBANYE STILLWATER: New York Securities Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- Sibanye Stillwater Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a purported class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In 2018, two groups of plaintiffs filed purported class action lawsuits, subsequently consolidated into a single action (Class Action), against Sibanye Gold Limited (Sibanye-Stillwater) and Neal Froneman (collectively, the Defendants) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging violations of the US securities laws. Specifically, the Class Action alleges that the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements about its safety practices and record and thereby violated the US securities laws. The Class Action seeks an unspecific amount of damages. The Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Class Action. The Court may decide the motion to dismiss with or without oral argument. Sibanye said, "As the case is still in the early stages, it is not possible to determine the likelihood of success on the merits or any potential liability from the Class Action nor estimate the duration of the litigation. Sibanye-Stillwater intends to defend the case vigorously." Sibanye Stillwater Limited is the largest individual producer of gold from South Africa and is one of 10 largest gold producers globally.[citation needed] Sibanye-Stillwater is also the third largest producer of palladium and platinum. Following the proposed acquisition of Lonmin, it will further increase its production of palladium and platinum. SIBANYE STILLWATER: Selection of Trustees in TB Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Sibanye Stillwater Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appointment of trustees is underway in the class action suit involving gold miners who contracted silicosis or tuberculosis. In May 2016, a class-action suit, filed to obtain compensation for South African gold miners affected by silicosis or TB, was approved by the High Court in Johannesburg. Six of the largest mining companies decided to work together with lawyers for the miners and come to a settlement agreement out of court. Parties finally reached an agreement in May 2018. In an historic judgment, the court approved this agreement on 26 July 2019. The Tshiamiso Trust has been tasked with locating, verifying, medically screening and paying out thousands of miners across southern Africa. The working group has developed an industry database to facilitate the administration of queries and claims submitted to the Tshiamiso Trust. The database has passed a rigorous audit and final updates have been completed. The silicosis and TB class action settlement imposed a 90-day opt out period ended on 24 November 2019. The opt out submission underwent an independent audit and three class members chose to opt out. Since the agreement is now unconditional, the Tshiamiso Trust was registered on 28 November 2019 and the appointment of trustees is underway. Sibanye-Stillwater Limited is the largest individual producer of gold from South Africa and is one of 10 largest gold producers globally.[citation needed] Sibanye-Stillwater is also the third largest producer of palladium and platinum. Following the proposed acquisition of Lonmin, it will further increase its production of palladium and platinum. SIRIUS XM: Continues to Defend Flo & Eddie Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Sirius XM Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Flo & Eddie Inc. On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit against Pandora in the federal district court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges a violation of California Civil Code Section 980, unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972 (referred to as, "pre-1972 recordings"). On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the complaint pursuant to California’s Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute, which following denial of Pandora’s motion was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In March 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested certification to the California Supreme Court on the substantive legal questions. The California Supreme Court accepted certification. In May 2019, the California Supreme Court issued an order dismissing consideration of the certified questions on the basis that, following the enactment of the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018) (the "MMA"), resolution of the questions posed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was no longer "necessary to . . . settle an important question of law." The MMA grants a potential federal preemption defense to the claims asserted in the aforementioned lawsuits. In July 2019, Pandora took steps to avail itself of this preemption defense, including making the required payments under the MMA for certain of its uses of pre-1972 recordings. Based on the federal preemption contained in the MMA (along with other considerations), Pandora asked the Ninth Circuit to order the dismissal of the Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc. case. On October 17, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a memorandum disposition concluding that the question of whether the MMA preempts Flo and Eddie's claims challenging Pandora's performance of pre-1972 recordings "depends on various unanswered factual questions" and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. After Flo & Eddie filed its action in 2014 against Pandora, several other plaintiffs commenced separate actions, both on an individual and class action basis, alleging a variety of violations of common law and state copyright and other statutes arising from allegations that Pandora owed royalties for the public performance of pre-1972 recordings. Many of these separate actions have been dismissed or are in the process of being dismissed. None of the remaining pending actions is likely to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Sirius XM said, "We believe we have substantial defenses to the claims asserted in these actions, and we intend to defend these actions vigorously." Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment, comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country, dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment channels for various audiences; national, international, and financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Appeal in Airfare-Related Class Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the appeal from a lower court decision approving the settlement of the airfare-related class suit remains pending even as the objectors to the settlement have opted to drop the appeal. On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the Company, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines to limit capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Since then, a number of similar class action complaints were filed in the United States District Courts for the Central District of California, the Northern District of California, the District of Columbia, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District Court in the District of Columbia. On March 25, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the consolidated cases alleging that the defendants conspired to restrict capacity from 2009 to present. The plaintiffs seek to bring their claims on behalf of a class of persons who purchased tickets for domestic airline travel on the defendants' airlines from July 1, 2011 to present. They seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and expenses. On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and on October 28, 2016, the Court denied this motion. On December 20, 2017, the Company reached an agreement to settle these cases with a proposed class of all persons who purchased domestic airline transportation services from July 1, 2011, to the date of the settlement. The Company agreed to pay $15 million and to provide certain cooperation with the plaintiffs as set forth in the settlement agreement. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on January 3, 2018, and the plaintiffs provided notice to the proposed settlement class. The Court held a fairness hearing on March 22, 2019, and it issued an order granting final approval of the settlement on May 9, 2019. On June 10, 2019, three objectors filed notices of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Two of the objectors dismissed their appeals, and the Company and the other settling parties moved to dismiss the remaining appeal because the district court did not certify the approval order as appealable. After the district court denied the remaining objectors' request to certify the approval order as a final appealable order, on November 6, 2019, the objectors asked the court of appeals to dismiss their appeal. The court of appeals has instructed the parties to brief the jurisdictional issues together with the merits of the objectors' objections to the settlement. The case is continuing as to the remaining defendants. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing. Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation services in the United States and near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in 1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Narrows Claims in Aircraft Defect Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the class action suit related to the company's concealment of defects in the Boeing MAX aircraft, has been granted in part and denied in part. On July 11, 2019, a complaint alleging violations of federal and state laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed against Boeing and the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Sherman. The complaint alleges that Boeing and the Company colluded to conceal defects with the MAX aircraft in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO") and also asserts related state law claims based upon the same alleged facts. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of putative classes of customers who purchased tickets for air travel from either the Company or American Airlines between August 29, 2017, and March 13, 2019. The complaint generally seeks money damages, equitable monetary relief, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and other costs. On September 13, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and to strike certain class allegations. Boeing also moved to dismiss. On February 14, 2020, the trial court issued a ruling that granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss the complaint. The trial court order, among other things: (i) dismissed without prejudice various state law claims that the plaintiffs abandoned in response to the motions, (ii) dismissed with prejudice the remaining state law claims, including fraud by concealment, fraud by misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation on the grounds that federal law preempts those claims, and (iii) found that plaintiffs lack Article III standing to pursue one of the plaintiffs' theories of RICO injury. The order denied the motion to dismiss with respect to two RICO claims premised upon a second theory of RICO injury and denied the motion to strike the class allegations at the pleadings stage. Southwest Airlines said, "The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in the complaint that were not dismissed. The Company believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself." Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation services in the United States and near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in 1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Securities Class Suit in Dallas --------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been named as a defendant in a putative class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas. On February 19, 2020, a complaint alleging violations of federal securities laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act and alleges that the Company made material misstatements to investors regarding the Company's safety and maintenance practices and its compliance with federal regulations and requirements. The initial complaint seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between February 7, 2017, and June 25, 2019. The complaint generally seeks money damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in the complaint. The Company believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation services in the United States and near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in 1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas. STATE AUTOMOBILE: Dino Palmieri Seeks Coverage for COVID-19 Losses ------------------------------------------------------------------ DINO PALMIERI SALONS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated 31005 Bainbridge Road, #5 Solon, Ohio 44139 Plaintiff vs. STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY dba STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES c/o CT Corporation Systems, 4400 Easton Commons Way, Suite 125 Columbus, Ohio 43219 Defendant, Case No. 1989583 (Ohio Common Pleas Ct., Cuyahoga County, April 26, 2020) is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff, the named insured, against Defendant related to an insurance policy that insures Plaintiff's property, business operations, and potential liabilities in connection with Plaintiffs business operations, including coverage for loss of Business Income, Extra Expense coverage, and coverage for loss due to the actions of a Civil Authority. In 2020, the State of Ohio, like much of the country, became plagued by the outbreak of the virus SARS-CoV-2 and the disease that virus causes, COVID-19. This has resulted in losses to businesses throughout the state. Indeed, many businesses had to alter or shutter operations due to orders from Civil Authorities, such as the Ohio Governor and Director of Public Health. As a result, many insureds filed insurance claims for coverage for loss of BI, EE coverage, and coverage for loss due to the actions of a Civil Authority. Upon information and belief, Defendant systematically denied and or claimed a reservation of rights refusing to pay on insurance claims brought by Plaintiff and hundreds of other putative class members for coverage for losses stemming from SARS-CoV-2, including BI, EE coverage, and coverage for loss due to the actions of Civil Authority. Defendant's decision not to provide coverage and/or its decision to reserve its rights and refuse to pay claims under the common policy form(s) issued to Plaintiff and the putative class members gives rise to Plaintiff's and the putative class members' right to seek declaratory judgment. Plaintiff has sustained direct physical loss and damage to items of property located at its premises and direct physical loss and damage to its premises described in the Policy as a result of the presence of SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, and/or the COVID-19 Pandemic. State Automobile Insurance Company dba State Auto Insurance Companies is a for-profit insurance company organized under Ohio law with its principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio. It offers uniform coverage for loss of BI, EE coverage, and coverage for loss due to the actions of a Civil Authority under common forms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Robert P. Rutter, Esq. Robert A. Rutter, Esq. RUTTER & RUSSIN, LLC One Summit Office Park, Suite 650 4700 Rockside Road Cleveland, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 642-1425 Email: brutter@OhioInsuranceLawyer.com bobbyrutter@OhioInsuranceLawyer.com - and - Nicholas A. DiCello, Esq. Dennis R. Lansdowne, Esq. Stuart E. Scott, Esq. Jeremy A. Tor, Esq. SPANGENBERG, SHIBLEY & LIBER, LLP 1001 Lakeside Ave., Suite 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114 Email: ndicello@spanglaw.com dlansdowne@spanglaw.com sscott@spanglaw.com jtor@spanglaw.com T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan-Related Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend itself from a class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland over its 401(k) Plan. On February 14, 2017, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Trust Company, current and former members of the management committee, and trustees of the T. Rowe Price U.S. Retirement Program were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit alleges breaches of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's (ERISA's) fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction provisions on behalf of a class of all participants and beneficiaries of the T. Rowe Price 401(k) Plan from February 14, 2011, to the time of judgment. The matter has been certified as a class action. T. Rowe Price believes the claims are without merit and is vigorously defending the action. T. Rowe Price said, "This matter is in the expert discovery phase of litigation and we cannot predict the eventual outcome, or whether it will have a material negative impact on our financial results, or estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from any negative outcome." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2000, is a financial services holding company. The Company provides global investment management services through its subsidiaries to investors across the world. The Company provides an array of Company-sponsored mutual funds, other sponsored pooled investment vehicles, sub advisory services, separate account management, recordkeeping, and related services to individuals, advisors, institutions, financial intermediaries and retirement plan sponsors. The firm was previously known as T. Rowe Group, Inc. and T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. was founded in 1937 and is based in Baltimore, Maryland. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Brown Student Loan Suit Moved to W.D. Wash. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as OSURE BROWN, on his own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC.; PATENAUDE & FELIX, APC; U.S. BANK, NA; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2004-1; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2004-2; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005-1; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005-2; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005-3; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-1; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-2; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2007-1; and NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2007-2, Case No. 20-2-07503-5 SEA (Filed April 6, 2020), was removed from the Washington Superior Court, King County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on May 4, 2020. The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00669 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks relief for himself and on behalf of a putative Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class, including statutory damages against TSI and P&F in the sum of $500,000 per Defendant; actual damages; declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the Defendants from further collection of discharged debts; and costs including attorney fees. TSI is a debt collection agency. P&F is a law practice company based out of 4545 Murphy Canyon Rd. third floor, San Diego, California. US Bank NA operates as a bank. US Bank offers products and services such as internet and mobile banking, internet bill pay, credit cards, options for paying bills, online statements, saving account, mortgages, and home loans. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust is a group of entities that holds private student loans.[BN] TSI is represented by: Emily J. Harris, Esq. Benjamin C. Byers, Esq. CORR CRONIN LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98154-1051 E-mail: eharris@corrcronin.com bbyers@corrcronin.com - and - Bryan C. Shartle, Esq. Justin H. Homes, Esq. Bradley J. St. Angelo, Esq. SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL Lakeway Two 3850 North Causeway Boulevard, Suite 200 Metairie, LA 70002-7227 Telephone: (504) 828-3700 Facsimile: (504) 828-3737 Defendants U.S. Bank National Association, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2004-1, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2004-2, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-1, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-2, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-2, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-1, and National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2, are represented by: Kristine E. Kruger, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: 206 359 8000 Facsimile: 206 359 9000 E-mail: KKruger@perkinscoie.com - and - Albert J. Rota, Esq. JONES DAY 2727 North Harwood St. Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 220-3939 Facsimile: (214) 969-5100 E-mail: ajrota@jonesday.com P&F is represented by: Marc Rosenberg, Esq. LEE SMART, P.S., INC. 1800 One Convention Place 701 Pike St. Seattle, WA 98101-3929 Telephone: (206) 624-7990 E-mail: mr@leesmart.com TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Khuzi Sues Over Denial of Insurance Coverage ---------------------------------------------------------------- KHUZI HSUE, DDS, PS, v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:20-cv-00622 (W.D. Wash., April 24, 2020), alleges that Travelers wrongfully denied claims for insurance coverage relating to COVID-19 crisis and/or orders issued by Washington Governor Jay Inslee, other Governors, and other civil authorities. Washington Governor Jay Inslee's issued proclamations and orders affecting many persons and businesses in Washington, whether infected with COVID-19 or not, requiring public health precautions, including closure of all non-essential businesses, including the Plaintiff's dental practice. The Plaintiff contends that due to COVID-19 and a state-ordered mandated closure, it cannot provide dentistry services. The lawsuit is filed to ensure that Plaintiff and other similarly-situated policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are entitled and for which they paid. The Plaintiff intended to rely on its business insurance to keep the business alive, says the complaint. Travelers issued one or more insurance policies to the Plaintiff, including Businessowners Property Coverage and related endorsements, insuring the Plaintiff's property and business practice and other coverages at all relevant times. The business property includes property owned and leased by the Plaintiff and used for general business purposes for the specific purpose of dentistry and other business activities. The Plaintiff owns and operates a dentistry practice located at 15668 W. Valley Highway in Tukwila, Washington. The Defendant is an insurance carrier with its principal place of business in Rocky Hill, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian S. Birk, Esq. Lynn L. Sarko, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Irene M. Hecht, Esq. Maureen Falecki, Esq. Amy Williams Derry, Esq. Nathan Nanfelt, Esq. Alison Chase, Esq KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: ibirk@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com ihecht@kellerrohrback.com mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com awilliams-derry@kellerrrohrback.com nnanfelt@kellerrrohrback.com achase@kellerrohrback.com TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Kashner Sues Over Denial of Insurance Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY E. KASHNER, DDS, MSD v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:20-cv-00625-BJR (W.D. Wash., April 24, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated regarding the Defendant's alleged wrongful denial of claims for coverage relating to COVID-19 crisis and/or orders issued by Governor Jay Inslee, other Governors, and other civil authorities. Due to COVID-19 and a state-ordered mandated closure, the Plaintiff cannot provide dentistry services. The Plaintiff intended to rely on his business insurance to keep his practice alive. The lawsuit is filed to ensure that the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are entitled and for which they paid, says the complaint. Travelers issued one or more insurance policies to the Plaintiff, including Businessowners Property Coverage and related endorsements, insuring the Plaintiff's property and business practice and other coverages at all relevant times. The business property includes property owned and leased by the Plaintiff and used for general business purposes for the specific purpose of dentistry and other business activities. On January 2020, Washington Governor Jay Inslee issued certain proclamations and orders affecting many persons and businesses in Washington, whether infected with COVID-19 or not, requiring certain public health precautions. Governor Inslee's "Stay Home, Stay Healthy" order required the closure of all non-essential businesses, including the Plaintiff's dental practice. The Plaintiff owns and operates a dentistry practice located at 27015 169th Pl. SE, in Covington, Washington. The Defendant is an insurance carrier with its principal place of business in Rocky Hill, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian S. Birk, Esq. Lynn L. Sarko, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Irene M. Hecht, Esq. Maureen Falecki, Esq. Amy Williams Derry, Esq. Nathan Nanfelt, Esq. Alison Chase, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: ibirk@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com ihecht@kellerrohrback.com mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com awilliams-derry@kellerrrohrback.com nnanfelt@kellerrrohrback.com achase@kellerrohrback.com TTE TECHNOLOGY: Julian Sues in Calif. Over Fraud-Related Issues --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TTE Technology, Inc. The case is captioned as Christopher Julian, Mark Pacana, and Wayne Lewald, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TTE Technology, Inc., doing business as TTE USA Assets, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-02857-EMC (N.D. Cal., April 24, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen. The suit demands $5 million in damages alleging fraud-related violation. TTE designs and markets televisions. The Company operates a network of research centers, manufacturing facilities, and sales offices that distribute its products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alex R. Straus, Esq. Adam A. Edwards, Esq. Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. William A. Ladnier, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 16748 McCormick Street Los Angeles, CA 91436 Telephone: (917) 471-1894 Facsimile: (310) 496-3176 E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com adam@gregcolemanlaw.com greg@gregcolemanlaw.com will@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Benjamin A. Kaplan, Esq. Charles J. Crueger, Esq. Erin K. Dickinson, Esq. CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC 4532 North Oakland Avenue Whitefish Bay, WI 53211 Telephone: (414) 210-3886 E-mail: bak@cruegerdickinson.com cjc@cruegerdickinson.com ekd@cruegerdickinson.com - and - Luke P. Hudock, Esq. HUDOCK LAW GROUP, S.C. P.O. Box 83 Muskego, WI 53150 Telephone: (414) 526-4906 E-mail: lphudock@law-hlg.com TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Class Suits Filed in Calif. & Florida -------------------------------------------------------- Tupperware Brands Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the company has been named as a defendant in putative class action suits in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and three other actions in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. In February, March and April 2020, three putative stockholder class actions and one shareholder derivative action were filed against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors. One putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and the other three actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The putative stockholder class action complaints allege that statements in public filings between January 30, 2019 and February 24, 2020 (the "potential class period") regarding the Company's disclosure of controls and procedures and financial guidance, as well as the need for an amendment of its credit facility, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of stockholders who purchased the Company's shares during the potential class period and demand unspecified monetary damages. The shareholder derivative action complaint alleges that certain officers and directors breached fiduciary duties to the Company, were unjustly enriched, and violated Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934, on generally the same fact pattern. The Company believes the complaints and allegations to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the actions. Tupperware said, "The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of these actions would have a material impact on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows." Orlando, Florida-based Tupperware Brands Corporation is a global marketer of household, beauty and personal care products across multiple brands utilizing social selling. Product brands and categories include design-centric preparation, storage and serving solutions for the kitchen and home through the Tupperware brand and beauty and personal care products through the Avroy Shlain, Fuller Cosmetics, NaturCare, Nutrimetics and Nuvo brands. ULTIMATE SOFTWARE: Cottingham Class Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Colin Cottingham, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. The Ultimate Software Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2020L0000031, was removed from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois (Peoria) on April 24, 2020. The Central District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01172-JES-JEH to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James E. Shadid. Ultimate Software is an American technology company that develops and sells UltiPro, a cloud-based human capital management software system for businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Heldut, Esq. Jad Sheikali, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 The Defendant is represented by: Colman Douglas McCarthy, Esq. Erin Bolan Hines, Esq. Melissa A. Siebert, Esq. SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP 2555 Grand Blvd. Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 474-6550 Facsimile: (816) 421-5547 E-mail: cdmccarthy@shb.com ehines@shb.com masiebert@shb.com UNITED STATES: Doe Appeals Decision in Migrant Detention Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Jane Doe # 1, Jane Doe # 2 and Norlan Flores filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Jane Doe, et al. v. John Kelly, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00250-DCB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Tucson. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs allege inadequate and inhumane conditions in the Border Patrol's migrant detention facilities in southern Arizona. In January 2016, U.S. District Court Judge David Bury approved the class action status of the lawsuit. The certification motion was filed by several civil- and immigration-rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, on behalf of two unnamed women, who were detained and Norlan Flores, who has been detained twice. The appellate case is captioned as Jane Doe, et al. v. John Kelly, et al., Case No. 17-15381, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The cross-appeal briefing schedule is set as follows: -- First cross appeal brief is due on July 30, 2020, for Mark A. Morgan, Manuel Padilla Jr., Rodney S. Scott, Jeffrey Self and Chad F. Wolf; -- Second brief on cross appeal is due on August 31, 2020, for Norlan Flores and Jane Doe; -- Third brief on cross appeal is due on October 1, 2020, for Mark A. Morgan, Manuel Padilla Jr., Rodney S. Scott, Jeffrey Self and Chad F. Wolf; and -- Optional cross appeal Reply brief for Norlan Flores and Jane Doe is due within 21 days of service of Third brief on cross appeal.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JANE DOE, # 1; JANE DOE, # 2; and NORLAN FLORES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Elisa Della-Piana, Esq. LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS 131 Steuart Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (510) 847-3001 Facsimile: (415) 543-0296 E-mail: edellapiana@lccr.com - and - Alvaro M. Huerta, Esq. Linton Joaquin, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 3450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 108-62 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 674-2829 Email: huerta@nilc.org joaquin@nilc.org - and - Mary A. Kenney, Esq. Karolina Joanna Walters, Esq. AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL 1331 "G" Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Email: mkenney@immcouncil.org kwalters@immcouncil.org - and - Jack Williford Londen, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7415 Email: jlonden@mofo.com - and - Colette Reiner Mayer, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 755 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018 Telephone: (650) 813-5600 Email: crmayer@mofo.com - and - Louise Stoupe, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Shin-Marunouchi Building, 29th Floor 5-1 Marunouchi 1-Chome Chiyoda-ku Tokyo, Japan Telephone: 81-3-3214-6522 Email: lstoupe@mofo.com Defendants-Appellees CHAD F. WOLF, Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., are represented by: Michael Anthony Celone, Esq. Sarah Fabian, Esq. Katelyn Masetta-Alvarez, Esq. Christina Parascandola, Esq. DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 305-5033 Email: Michael.a.celone@usdoj.gov sarah.b.fabian@usdoj.gov katelyn.masetta.alvarez@usdoj.gov christina.parascandola@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES: Faces Uzoegwu Civil Rights Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States of America, et al. The case is captioned as Jerysse Uzoegwu, on behalf of herself as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Steven T. Mnuchin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Treasury; United States Department of Treasury; Charles P. Retting, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the United States Internal Revenue Service; United States Internal Revenue Service; and United States of America, Case No. 1:20-cv-03264-NRB (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald. The lawsuit alleges violation of the civil rights laws regarding denial of due process. The Department of the Treasury is the national treasury of the federal government of the United States where it serves as an executive department. The Internal Revenue Service is the revenue service of the United States federal government.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Gabriel Cabeceiras, Esq. DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC 1 Penn Plaza, 49th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 587-0760 Facsimile: (212) 587-4169 E-mail: alexc@dereksmithlaw.com UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Santiago et al. Allege ERISA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- AUGUSTINO SANTIAGO, LILLY LEYVA, GUILLERMO CREAMER, and MARIA ACEITUNO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-21784-MGC (S.D. Fla., April 29, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated participants and beneficiaries of the University of Miami Retirement Savings Plan, allege that the Defendant failed to investigate, examine, and understand the real cost to Plan's participants for administrative services, thereby causing the Plan to pay unreasonable and excessive fees for investment and administrative services. Further, the Defendant selected and retained investment options for the Plan that historically and consistently underperformed their benchmarks and charged excessive investment management fees, as well as share classes that were more expensive than other share classes readily available to qualified retirement plans that provided Plan investors with the identical investment at a lower cost. The University of Miami Retirement Savings Plan is a defined contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit plan under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(2)(A) and Sec. 1002(34). The University of Miami is a private, not-for-profit, nonsectarian institution of higher learning with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 337-7992 (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com gnichols@wfclaw.com - and – Michael C. McKay, Esq. 5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170 Scottsdale, AZ 85250 Telephone: (480) 681-7000 E-mail: mckay@mckay.law - and – Chad A. Justice, Esq. JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC 1205 N Franklin St., Suite 326 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 566-0550 Facsimile: (813) 566-0770 E-mail: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com VICTAULIC COMPANY: Faces Dow Labor Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERNEST DOW, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. VICTAULIC COMPANY, Case No. 5:20-cv-02146 (E.D. Pa., May 4, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Plaintiff alleges that he was an hourly employee of the Defendant, which failed to properly pay him at least one and one-half times the regular rate for all hours worked more than 40 hours in a workweek as required by the FLSA. Victaulic is a developer and producer of mechanical pipe joining systems and is the originator of the grooved pipe couplings joining system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew D. Miller, Esq. Justin L. Swidler, Esq. Richard S. Swartz, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Highway N., Suite 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Facsimile: (856) 685-7417 VOLUSION LLC: Faces Lopez FDUTPA Suit in Florida Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- JULIO LOPEZ, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. VOLUSION, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-21727-FAM (S.D. Fla., April 24, 2020), alleges that Volusion violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act in connection to a data breach. Between on September 7, 2019, and October 10, 2019, unauthorized third parties were able to steal consumers' personally identifiable information (PII) from Volusion's e-commerce platform by inserting malicious code into a Volusion JavaScript library. Consumers, who made purchases through the online stores using Volusion's compromised payment software during this time period, had their card details and other personal information stolen and passed to an unauthorized third party, the complaint says. On October 9, 2019, Trend Micro's Security Intelligence Blog reported that it had discovered an "online credit card skimming attack" that was "actively operating on 3,126 online shops" hosted on Volusion's e-commerce platform. By March 12, 2020, the Gemini Advisory firm identified over 239,000 compromised credit card records from the Data Breach that were sold on the dark web for $1.6 million. Yet it was not until April 21, 2020, that Volusion distributed a notice of the Data Breach to its victims, including Plaintiff Lopez. The Plaintiff contends that his PII has been stolen as a result of the Data Breach. Past breaches within the e-commerce industry, including by the same hacker group Magecart, put Volusion on notice that its security and privacy protections were inadequate, he adds. Volusion is a technology company, which provides infrastructure for ecommerce stores online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 E-mail: streisfeld@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Mark A. Clifford, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com mclifford@tzlegal.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 Facsimile: (612) 389-0610 E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com jbourne@pswlaw.com VOXX LIQUORS: Valle Seeks OT Pay, Tip Credit for Bar Staff ---------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA VALLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOXX LIQUORS, LLC d/b/a VERA BAR & GRILL, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05200 (D.N.J., April 28, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law by maintaining an unlawful tip pool, unlawfully retaining a portion of the tips earned by the Plaintiff and Class members, and failing to accurately track and pay them for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as bottle server and bartender from in or around February 2016, until July 2016. She returned to work in or around November 2016. Voxx Liquors, LLC, doing business as Vera Bar & Grill, is a for-profit limited liability company with principal place of business address at 2310 Marlton Pike W, Cherry Hill, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 273-1054 Facsimile: (215) 525-0210 E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com XUNLEI LIMITED: NY Consolidated Securities Class Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Xunlei Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit entitled, In re Xunlei Limited Securities Litigation, has been dismissed. Two putative shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors of the Company. Purporting to sue on behalf of all investors who purchased or acquired Xunlei stock from October 10, 2017 to January 11, 2018, plaintiffs allege that certain statements regarding OneCoin, later renamed as LinkToken, in the Company's press releases and on a quarterly investor call were false and misleading because, among other things, they failed to disclose that OneCoin was a disguised "initial coin offering" and "initial miner offering" and constituted "unlawful financial activity." Plaintiffs seek to recover under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. On April 12, 2018, the court consolidated the actions under the caption In re Xunlei Limited Securities Litigation, No. 18-cv-467 (RJS) and appointed lead plaintiffs who filed a consolidated amended compliant on June 4, 2018. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended compliant on August 3, 2018, and the motion of dismiss was granted by United States District Court Southern District of New York on September 11, 2019 and no notice of appeal or motion for extension of time was filed by the plaintiffs within 60 days after entry of the court"s motion, therefore the class action was dismissed in November 2019. Xunlei Limited, a cloud-based acceleration technology company, operates an Internet platform for digital media content in the People's Republic of China. Xunlei Limited was founded in 2003 and is based in Shenzhen, the People's Republic of China. [^] 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 ***