/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200520.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, May 20, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 101
Headlines
36ENERGY LLC: Hartford Sues over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
3M CO: Discovery Ongoing in Parchment Resident's Class Suit
ADMIN RECOVERY: Caban Alleges Unlawful Debt Collection
ALKERMES PLC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated EDNY Suit Underway
AMAZON.COM: Can't Force Children to Arbitrate Privacy Claims
AMERICAN HONDA: Langston Sues Over Defective Portable Generators
AMERITEX MOVERS: Lopez Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages Under FLSA
ANTHEM INC: Appeal in Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Suit Pending
ANTHEM INC: Collins, Burnett Allege Unlawful Coverage Criteria
APACHE CORP: Underpays Rig Clerks, Hatley Claims
APPLE INC: Hazlitt Suit Over BIPA Abuse Removed to S.D. Illinois
AXOS FINANCIAL: Appeal From Mandalevy Case Ruling Underway
AXOS FINANCIAL: Appeal in Calif. Securities Class Suit Ongoing
BARNES & NOBLE: Faces Gordon Suit Over College Textbooks Monopoly
BIBOX GROUP: Rosen Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
BJ SERVICES: Gift Suit Seeks OT Wages for Engineers Under FLSA
BLUE APRON: Court Trims Claims in IPO-Related Class Suit
BLUE APRON: Settlement Agreement in Calif. Class Suit Finalized
BMR LANDSCAPES: Faces Nunez Labor Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BNSF RAILWAY: Class Action Remanded to State Court
C4 TECHNICAL: Malapira Seeks OT Pay for Field Technicians
CEMEX SAB: SDNY Securities Class Suit Concluded
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Final Settlement Approval Sought
CLEARWATER AT SOUTH: Faces Camua Suit Over Wrongful Termination
COLUMBIA VALLEY: Maldonado Gouging Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Final Settlement Approval Hearing in June 19
CONCEIVE MEDIA: Decowski Sues over Unauthorized Debit Card Charge
DUNN COUNTY, WI: Cronk Seeks Overtime Pay for District Atty. Staff
ENDO INT'L: Price-Fixing Claim in Pelletier Dismissed w/ Prejudice
EXETER FINANCE: Jefferson Collection Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
FANHUA INC: Long Class Action Closed
FOLGER COFFEE: Ibarra Sues Over Deceptive Ads of Coffee Canisters
FORD MOTOR: Fails to Comply With Emissions Warranty, Hoffman Says
GRAND CANYON: Rosen Continues to Investigate Securities Claims
GREAT LAKES: Court Backs Borrowers in Loan Forgiveness Fight
HANMI FINANCIAL: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 26 Deadline
HDI GLOBAL: Atma Sues Over Denial of COVID-19 Insurance Coverage
HILL COUNTRY STAFFING: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, Duran Says
HOST INTERNATIONAL: Cazares Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
IAS LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Meyer et al. Claim
INDIANA: ACLU of Indiana Files Suit vs. Panhandling Restrictions
JAGUAR LAND: Faces Shaaya Suit Over Land Rovers With DPF Defect
KAHALA FRANCHISING: App Not Accessible to Blind, Lucius Claims
KING'S CREEK: Londo Suit Moved From D. Mass. to E.D. Virginia
LANDEC CORP: Rosen Continues to Investigate Securities Claims
LIBERTY OILFIELD: Klein Law Firm Reminds of June 2 Deadline
LUMOS PHARMA: Appeal in Nguyen Class Action Pending
MASTERCARD INC: Appeal in Point-of-Sale Acceptance Suit Ongoing
MASTERCARD INC: ATM Surcharge Fees Litigation Ongoing
MASTERCARD INC: Damage Class Settlement Approval Order Appealed
MASTERCARD INC: Shift Fraud Liability Suit Still Ongoing
MASTERCARD INC: TCPA Class Suit in Florida Can Proceed
MDL 2946: McGraw Hill Asks Panel to Move 9 Cases to D. Delaware
MESA AIR: Rosen Reminds of June 1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
METALCRAFT OF MAYVILLE: Bid to Decertify Class Granted in Part
MICHIGAN DOC: Certification of Inmate Class & Subclasses Sought
MIDLAND CREDIT: Robinson Says Debt Collection Letter "Deceptive"
MINDSET SOLUTIONS: Portis Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Pay
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: HomeServices Can't Compel Arbitration
NATIONAL RIFLE: McEwen TCPA Suit Seeks to End Telemarketing Calls
NEON THERAPEUTICS: Faces BioNTech SE Merger-Related Suits
PETSMART INC: Clark Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
PHILIP MORRIS: ADESF Class Suit vs. Unit Still Ongoing in Brazil
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Bourassa Class Action
PHILIP MORRIS: Jacklin Class Suit Ongoing in Canada
PHOENIX TREE: Faces IPO Related Class Suit in SDNY
PLURALSIGHT INC: Amended Complaint in Utah Class Suit Due June 3
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Rozo Class Suit Against Principal Life Ongoing
PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Ira Suit Moved From D.N.J. to S.D.N.Y.
PURDUE UNIVERSITY: Millberg Files Class Action Over Refunds
RENUKE SERVICES: Underpays Senior Technical Instructors, Page Says
RIVERSIDE CTY, CA: Atty. Seeks Sheriff's Plan to Curb Virus in Jail
RTI SURGICAL: Hagens Berman Call Investors to Join Class Action
RTI SURGICAL: Schall Announces Filing of Class Action Lawsuit
SENTINEL INSURANCE: Buff Alo Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses
SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action Lawsuit
SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL: Thornton Announces Class Action Lawsuit
SKO BRENNER: Griffin Lee Calls Collection Letter "Illegal"
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: NZ Government's Liability Could Exceed $400M
STARR SURPLUS: Nola Sues Over Denial of COVID-19 Claims Coverage
TAMPA BAY PLUMBING: Higueros Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
TELADOC HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Reiner Securities Class Suit Pending
TELADOC HEALTH: Unit Continues to Defend Thomas TCPA Class Suit
UNITED STATES: Reaches Deal Over Student Debt Relief Claims
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY: Long Class Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
US BANK: Baldiviezo Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
USC: Watson Seeks Refunds of Tuition & Fees Over COVID-19 Crisis
VALLEY FORGE: JDL Sues Over Denial of COVID-19 Insurance Coverage
VIKING CLIENT: Sergio et al. Find Collection Letter "Confusing"
VINEYARD VINES: App Not Fully Accessible to Blind, Lucius Says
VMWARE INC: Schall Announces Class Action Filing
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Sunroofs Leak
WALMART INC: Castro Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
WALMART INC: Castro Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
XP INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 20 Deadline
ZOOM VIDEO: Buxbaum, Blum Allege Inappropriate Security Practices
ZOVIO INC: Bid to Dismiss Stein Securities Class Suit Pending
[^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class
*********
36ENERGY LLC: Hartford Sues over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAN HARTFORD, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. 36ENERGY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-01504 (S.D.
Tex., April 28, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought
against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as an hourly employee designated
as Project Quality Specialist/Quality Assurance Surveyor around
November 2017 and stopped working for Defendant in January 2020.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff normally worked more than 40
hours in a week. However, Defendant employed "straight time for
overtime" payment scheme by paying Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members the same hourly rate for all hours worked, thereby denying
them overtime payment.
Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
36Energy, LLC provides technical and staffing services to the power
industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: 713-352-1100
Fax: 713-352-3300
Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: 713-877-8788
Fax: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
3M CO: Discovery Ongoing in Parchment Resident's Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 discovery is ongoing in the class action
suit over drinking water contamination brought by a resident of
Parchment against the company and Georgia-Pacific.
3M is a defendant, together with Georgia-Pacific as co-defendant,
in a putative class action in federal court in Michigan brought by
residents of Parchment, who allege that the municipal drinking
water is contaminated from waste generated by a paper mill owned by
Georgia-Pacific’s corporate predecessor.
Defendants have moved to dismiss certain claims in the complaint,
and the parties have begun discovery on the remaining claims.
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.
ADMIN RECOVERY: Caban Alleges Unlawful Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------
The case DELIA CABAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ADMIN RECOVERY LLC, and JOHN
DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. CAM-L-001549-20 (N.J. Super.,
Camden Cty., April 29, 2020) arises from the Defendants' illegal
practices which include, inter alia, using false, deceptive,
misleading, harassing, and abusive practices in connection with
their attempt to collect an alleged debt from Plaintiff and other
similarly situated consumers in violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial obligation in the form of
a personal TD Bank Visa credit card debt, sometime prior to
September 15, 2019. The Debt arose out of a transaction in which
the money that was the subject of the transaction was for primarily
for personal, family, and household purposes. On or about September
15, 2019, the creditor of the Debt either directly or through
intermediate transactions placed the Debt with Admin Recovery for
collection.
Within the one year immediately preceding the filing of this
complaint Admin Recovery contacted Plaintiff via telephone in an
attempt to collect the alleged Debt. The Messages falsely imply
that TD Bank "retained" Admin Recovery to file a lawsuit and/or
dispossess Plaintiff of property unless she "voluntarily resolve"
the Debt.
Admin Recovery's act of leaving the Messages for Plaintiff is
conduct the natural consequences of which is to harass, oppress, or
abuse a person in connection with the collection of a debt and is
in violation of the FDCPA.
Admin Recovery LLC is a New York-based debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip D. Stern, Esq.
Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
Alla Gulchina, Esq.
STERN•THOMASSON LLP
150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
Telephone: (973) 379-7500
ALKERMES PLC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated EDNY Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Alkermes plc 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 defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action suit before the U.S. Eastern District
Court for the Eastern District of New York is pending.
In December 2018 and January 2019, purported stockholders of the
Company filed putative class actions against the Company and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (the "EDNY District Court") captioned Karimian
v. Alkermes plc, et al., No. 1:18-cv-07410 and McDermott v.
Alkermes plc, et al., No. 1:19-cv-00624, respectively.
In March 2019, the EDNY District Court consolidated the two cases
and appointed a lead plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on July 9, 2019 naming one additional officer of the
Company and one former officer of the Company as defendants.
The amended complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Alkermes securities during the period of July 31,
2014 through November 1, 2018 and alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or
misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
clinical methodologies and regulatory submission for ALKS 5461 and
the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) review and consideration
of that submission.
The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified money damages,
prejudgment and postjudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees and other costs.
In August 2019, the defendants filed a pre-motion letter (in
respect of a requested motion to dismiss filing) with the EDNY
District Court and plaintiff filed a response.
On November 27, 2019, the defendants served the plaintiff with a
motion to dismiss, and on December 27, 2019, the plaintiff served
the defendants with its opposition to such motion.
On January 17, 2020, the defendants filed the fully-briefed motion,
including a reply to the plaintiff’s opposition, with the EDNY
District Court.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Alkermes plc, a biopharmaceutical company, researches, develops,
and commercializes pharmaceutical products to address unmet medical
needs of patients in various therapeutic areas in the United
States, Ireland, and internationally. Alkermes plc was founded in
1987 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
AMAZON.COM: Can't Force Children to Arbitrate Privacy Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Pazanowski at Bloomberg Law reports that a federal district
court in Washington said that Amazon.com Inc. can't force children
to arbitrate a class action claiming the Alexa Voice Service
records and stores their confidential communications in violation
of state law.
Adopting a magistrate judge's October 2019 recommendation, the
opinion by Judge Richard A. Jones of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington said the contract between the
parents and Amazon for the Alexa service, which included an
arbitration agreement, wasn't enforceable against the children.
As a general rule, parties who don't sign an arbitration agreement
aren't bound by it, the court said. [GN]
AMERICAN HONDA: Langston Sues Over Defective Portable Generators
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY LANGSTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Case No.
2:20-at-00447 (E.D. Cal., May 5, 2020), is brought against American
Honda for the manufacture and sale of Honda EU2200i, EU2200i
Companion, EU2200i Camo, and EB2200i Portable Generators, all of
which suffer from an identical design defect that it fails to
disclose to consumers at the time of purchase.
According to the complaint, the design defect causes the Products
to "leak gasoline from their fuel valves, posing severe fire and
burn hazards." This defect has rendered the Products unsuitable for
their principal and intended purpose. The Products' defective
nature spans across the above-listed models because they are all
manufactured by one manufacturer and have essentially identical
electrical, physical, and functional characteristics, which utilize
the same or similar components for each model.
On March 20, 2019, the Defendant issued a recall of the Products.
The recall states that "Honda has received reports of fuel leaking
from the fuel valve." Prior to the recall, the Defendant had
exclusive knowledge of the defect, which was not known to the
Plaintiff or Class Members. But Honda's recall is allegedly
insufficient, it was designed so that Honda could retain as much of
its unlawful profits as possible while also providing as little
benefits to purchasers as possible, the Plaintiff contends.
On October 2, 2018, Mr. Langston purchased two 2018 Honda EU2200i
Portable Generators bearing Serial Nos. EAMT-1172020 and EAMT-11
1174534 from an online retailer. Mr. Langston was not made aware of
the fact that the Product is defective and poses a severe safety
hazard.
American Honda develops and manufactures automobiles and other
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, 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
AMERITEX MOVERS: Lopez Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIAN LOPEZ, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERITEX MOVERS, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-01579
(S.D. Tex., May 5, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs
under Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiff contends that he regularly worked overtime hours for
the Defendant, whose business operated seven days a week. The
Defendant's business operates (at minimum) from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m.,
seven days a week. For this work, he was paid on a commission
basis, which percentage depended on factors such as the distance
required for the move. However, he was not paid any additional
compensation when he worked more than 40 hours per week, he adds.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Mover. He worked in
Houston, Texas, and began working for Defendant in May 2019 through
March 2020.
The Defendant operates a local, intrastate moving company for
residential and commercial customers throughout Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
marbuckle@eeoc.net
ANTHEM INC: Appeal in Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, 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 in the class action suit
entitled, In re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation, has been
heard but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet
to issue a decision.
The company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit that was
initially filed in June 2016 against Anthem, Inc. and Express
Scripts, which has been consolidated into a single multi-district
lawsuit captioned In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The consolidated complaint was filed by plaintiffs against Express
Scripts and the company on behalf of all persons who are
participants in or beneficiaries of any ERISA or non-ERISA
healthcare plan from December 1, 2009 to December 31, 2019 in which
the company provided prescription drug benefits through the ESI PBM
Agreement and paid a percentage based co-insurance payment in the
course of using that prescription drug benefit.
The plaintiffs allege that the company breached its duties, either
under ERISA or with respect to the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing implied in the health plans, (i) by failing to
adequately monitor Express Scripts' pricing under the ESI PBM
Agreement and (ii) by placing the company's own pecuniary interest
above the best interests of the company's insureds by allegedly
agreeing to higher pricing in the ESI PBM Agreement in exchange for
the purchase price for the company's NextRx PBM business, and (iii)
with respect to the non-ERISA members, by negotiating and entering
into the ESI PBM Agreement that was allegedly detrimental to the
interests of such non-ERISA members.
Plaintiffs seek to hold the company and Express Scripts jointly and
severally liable and to recover all losses suffered by the proposed
class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains,
injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs and interest.
In April 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the claims
brought against it, and it was granted, without prejudice, in
January 2018. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was heard in
October 2018 but has not yet been decided.
Anthem said, "We intend to vigorously defend this suit; however,
its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health
benefits company in the United States. It operates through three
segments: Commercial & Specialty Business, Government Business, and
Other. The company was formerly known as WellPoint, Inc. and
changed its name to Anthem, Inc. in December 2014. Anthem, Inc. was
founded in 1944 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.
ANTHEM INC: Collins, Burnett Allege Unlawful Coverage Criteria
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARISSA COLLINS, on her own behalf, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and JAMES BURNETT, on behalf of his son, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ANTHEM,
INC. and ANTHEM UM SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-01969 (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2020) arises from Defendants'
development, adoption, and use of certain clinical coverage
criteria for determining whether residential treatment of mental
health conditions is "medically necessary," as that term is defined
in the written terms of the employer-sponsored welfare benefit
plans that Defendants administer.
The plans define medical necessity to mean, at least in part, that
services are consistent with generally accepted standards of
medical practice. Yet, Defendants' medical necessity criteria for
residential mental health treatment are far more restrictive than
those generally accepted standards. As such, Defendants'
development, adoption, and use of these criteria violate the
written terms of those plans and Anthem's fiduciary duties under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").
According to the complaint, the Defendants' development, adoption,
and use of these criteria also violated their duties under the Paul
Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act
of 2008 ("MHPAEA"), which was incorporated into ERISA. By applying
more restrictive coverage criteria to behavioral health insurance
claims, such as Plaintiffs', than they apply to comparable
medical/surgical insurance claims, Defendants also violated their
duty to comply with MHPAEA.
Anthem, Inc. is an Indianapolis, Indiana-based independent licensee
of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association serving members in
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky,
Maine, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Virginia
and Wisconsin; and specialty plan members in other states.
Anthem UM Services, Inc. is a wholly-owned and controlled by
Defendant Anthem, Inc. headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by
D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
485 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 704-9600
Facsimile: (212) 704-4256
Email: dbhufford@zuckerman.com
jcowart@zuckerman.com
- and -
Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq.
Marcus P. Smith, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
1800 M St., NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 778-1800
Facsimile: (202) 822-8106
Email: creynolds@zuckerman.com
mpsmith@zuckerman.com
- and -
Meiram Bendat, Esq.
PSYCH-APPEAL,INC.
8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Telephone: (310) 598-3690
Facsimile: (888) 975-1957
Email: mbendat@psych-appeal.com
APACHE CORP: Underpays Rig Clerks, Hatley Claims
------------------------------------------------
The case, JOSEPH HATLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APACHE CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 7:20-cv-00104 (W.D. Tex., April 27, 2020) arises from
Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff worked for Defendant from February 2017 to February 2018
as a rig clerk to record all the activities on the rig site,
control logistics, order trucks and coordinate set up and take down
rigs.
The complaint claims that Defendant paid Plaintiff and the Class
Members a day rate regardless of the number of hours they worked in
a week, even when they worked more than 40 hours. Defendant was
aware that Plaintiff and the Class Members worked more than 40
hours in a week. However, Defendant showed reckless regard for
their entitlement of overtime compensation at one-and-one-half
times their regular rates under FLSA.
Apache Corporation is a multi-billion-dollar oil and gas company
with operations in different countries around the world and in
multiple states. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
David I. Moulton, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713)877-8788
Fax: (713)877-8065
Emails: rburch@brucknerburch.com
dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713)352-1100
Fax: (713)352-3300
Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
APPLE INC: Hazlitt Suit Over BIPA Abuse Removed to S.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ROSLYN HAZLITT, JANE DOE, by
and through next friend JOHN DOE, RICHARD ROBINSON, and YOLANDA
BROWN, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown v. APPLE INC., Case No. 20-L-206 (Filed
March 12, 2020), was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, St.
Clair County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois on May 6, 2020.
The Southern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-421 to the proceeding.
The lawsuit alleges that Apple violated the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act by collecting, possessing, and profiting
from the biometric identifiers and biometric information of
Illinois citizens--specifically, scans of face geometry--via the
"Photos software application on Apple's phones, tablets, and
computers.
Apple is an American multinational technology company headquartered
in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and sells
consumer electronics, computer software, and online services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq.
Alexander L. Braitberg, Esq.
Brett C. Rismiller, Esq.
SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON LLP
100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
St. Louis, MO 63102
E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
aschlichter@uselaws.com
abraitberg@uselaws.com
brismiller@uselaws.com
- and -
Christian G. Montroy, Esq.
2416 North Center
P.O. Box 369
Maryville, IL 62062
E-mail: cmontroy@montroylaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Raj N. Shah, Esq.
Eric M. Roberts, Esq.
Isabelle L. Ord, Esq.
Amanda Fitzsimmons, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
444 West Lake Street, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312 368 4000
E-mail: raj.shah@dlapiper.com
eric.roberts@dlapiper.com
isabelle.ord@dlapiper.com
amanda.fitzsimmons@dlapiper.com
AXOS FINANCIAL: Appeal From Mandalevy Case Ruling Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Axos Financial, 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 oral arguments on the
appeal made in Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, were
scheduled via video for May 7, 2020.
On April 3, 2017, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit styled Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and
brought in United States District Court for the Southern District
of California.
The Mandalevy Case seeks monetary damages and other relief on
behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the
Court.
The complaint in the Mandalevy Case alleges a class period that
differs from that alleged in the First Class Action, and that the
Company and other named defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose wrongful conduct
that was alleged in a March 2017 media article.
The Mandalevy Case has not been consolidated into the First Class
Action.
On December 7, 2018, the Court entered a final order granting the
defendants' motion and dismissing the Mandalevy Case with
prejudice.
Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and opening
brief and the Company filed its answering brief, on May 8, 2019.
Oral arguments are scheduled via video for May 7, 2020.
Axos Financial, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI
Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products
in the United States. The company offers deposits products,
including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and time
deposit accounts. Axos Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and
is based in San Diego, California.
AXOS FINANCIAL: Appeal in Calif. Securities Class Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Axos Financial, 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 consolidated class action suit entitled, In re BofI
Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case #:
3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC.
On October 15, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit styled Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al,
and brought in United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Golden Case").
On November 3, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a second
putative class action lawsuit styled Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc.,
et al, and also brought in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California (the "Hazan Case").
On February 1, 2016, the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were
consolidated as In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case #: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC (the "Class Action"), and the Houston
Municipal Employees Pension System was appointed lead plaintiff.
The plaintiffs allege that the Company and other named defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose
wrongful conduct that was alleged in a complaint filed in
connection with a wrongful termination of employment lawsuit filed
on October 13, 2015 (the "Employment Matter") and that as a result
the Company's statements regarding its internal controls, as well
as portions of its financial statements, were false and misleading.
On March 21, 2018, the Court entered a final order dismissing the
Class Action with prejudice.
Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and opening
brief, the Company has filed its answering brief and argument in
the appeal from dismissal was held.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Axos Financial, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI
Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products
in the United States. The company offers deposits products,
including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and time
deposit accounts. Axos Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and
is based in San Diego, California.
BARNES & NOBLE: Faces Gordon Suit Over College Textbooks Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Gordon and Mohammed Khalid, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BARNES & NOBLE COLLEGE OOKSELLERS,
LLC; BARNES & NOBLE EDUCATION, INC.; CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.;
FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP; MCGRAW HILL LLC; and PEARSON
EDUCATION, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-05535 (D.N.J., May 5, 2020),
asserts claims against the Defendants' "Inclusive Access"
conspiracy aimed at monopolizing the market for sales of higher
education learning materials for any courses and on at any higher
education institution subject to the Inclusive Access policy.
Inclusive Access requires that students purchase textbooks and
course materials only in electronic format and only from their
official on-campus bookstore. The Plaintiffs contend that by
monopolizing the market for the sale of course materials in
Inclusive Access systems, the Defendants are able to charge higher
prices for those course materials with no legitimate justification,
to the detriment of the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated
higher education students.
The Plaintiffs allege that the price of textbooks and other course
materials contributes to the staggering amount of student loan debt
in the United States, costing the average college student more than
$1,200 per year.
The Plaintiffs were required to purchase and did purchase college
textbooks and course materials through Inclusive Access directly
from one or more of the Defendants.
The Publisher Defendants dominate the market for the publication
and sale of higher education textbooks and course materials while
the Retailer Defendants are the dominant commercial operators of
on-campus college bookstores in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Bradley K. King, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
- and -
Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
923 Fayette St.
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 234-6487
E-mail: kjustice@fklmlaw.com
jjagher@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
Robert J. Wozniak, Jr., Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
2201 Waukegan Rd., Suite 130
Bannockburn, IL 60015
Telephone: (224) 632-4500
E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
rwozniak@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
E-mail: KCarroll@CarlsonLynch.com
- and -
Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq.
ABINGTON COLE + ELLERY
320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130
Tulsa, OK 74103
Telephone: (918) 588-3400
E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com
BIBOX GROUP: Rosen Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers: (i)
during the Bibox Initial Coin Offering ("ICO"); and (ii) of any of
the following six digital tokens on the Bibox exchange between
October 1, 2017 and April 3, 2020 (the "Class Period"): BIX, EOS,
TRX, OMG, LEND and ELF. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Bibox class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1837.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, Bibox Group Holdings Limited, Bibox
Technology Ltd., Bibox Technology OÜ (collectively, "Bibox"), and
certain officers and co-founders of Bibox violated federal and
state securities laws by offering and selling digital tokens
without registering under applicable federal and state securities
laws as an exchange or broker-dealer, and without a registration
statement in effect for the securities Bibox was offering and
selling.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 8,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1837.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.
Contact:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/
[GN]
BJ SERVICES: Gift Suit Seeks OT Wages for Engineers Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUCAS GIFT and RYAN CROUSE, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. BJ SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
4:20-cv-01587 (S.D. Tex., May 6, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages for field engineers under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiffs contend that they and all persons employed by BJ
Services from May 6, 2017, to present and whose job was that of
"Field Engineer" or some similar title and who were classified as
exempt salaried employees, were not paid at least time and one-half
for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
The Defendant is a provider of hydraulic fracturing and cementing
services to upstream oil and gas companies engaged in the
exploration and production of North American oil and natural gas
resources.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David G. Langenfeld, Esq.
LEICHTER LAW FIRM, PC
1602 East, 7th Street
Austin, TX 78702
Telephone: (512) 495-9995
Facsimile: (512) 482-0164
E-mail: david@leichterlaw.com
BLUE APRON: Court Trims Claims in IPO-Related Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Blue Apron Holdings, 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 U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York has granted, in part, and
denied in part, the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
putative class action suit related to its Initial Public Offering
(IPO).
The Company is subject to a consolidated putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York alleging federal securities law violations in connection with
the Initial Public Offering (IPO).
The amended complaint alleges that the Company and certain current
and former officers and directors made material misstatements or
omissions in the Company's registration statement and prospectus
that caused the stock price to drop.
Pursuant to a stipulated schedule entered by the parties,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May
21, 2018. Plaintiffs filed a response on July 12, 2018 and
defendants filed a reply on August 13, 2018.
On April 22, 2020, the Court entered an order (i) denying the
motion to dismiss insofar as Plaintiffs' allegations pertained to
certain of the disclosures in the registration statement and
prospectus claimed by plaintiff, and (ii) narrowing the factual
issues in the case.
The Company is also subject to two putative class action lawsuits
filed in New York Supreme Court alleging federal securities law
violations in connection with the IPO, which are substantially
similar to the above-referenced federal court action.
The parties entered into stipulations staying the state court
actions pending resolution of the motion to dismiss filed in the
federal court action.
Pursuant to the stipulations, the parties have 30 days from the
date of the order on the motion to dismiss in the federal action to
confer concerning a schedule.
Blue Apron said, "The Company is unable to provide any assurances
as to the ultimate outcome of any of these lawsuits or that an
adverse resolution of any of these lawsuits would not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position or results of operations."
Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates direct-to-consumer platform that
delivers original recipes, and fresh and seasonal ingredients. It
also operates Blue Apron Market, an e-commerce marketplace that
provides cooking tools, utensils, and pantry items. Blue Apron
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.
BLUE APRON: Settlement Agreement in Calif. Class Suit Finalized
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Apron Holdings, 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 parties in the class
action suit pending before the California Superior Court have
finalized a settlement agreement.
The Company is subject to a lawsuit filed in California Superior
Court under the Private Attorneys General Act on behalf of certain
non-exempt employees in the Company's Richmond, California
fulfillment center.
The complaint was filed on October 16, 2017, and alleges that the
Company failed to pay wages and overtime, provide required meal and
rest breaks, provide suitable resting facilities and provide
accurate wage statements, to non-exempt employees in violation of
California law.
Plaintiffs' counsel filed a separate class action lawsuit alleging
largely the same claims, but covering a longer period, which is now
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.
A mediation was held on November 20, 2019, at which time the cases
were not resolved.
On December 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification in federal court. On December 18, 2019, the parties
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding which, if finalized and
approved by the court, will resolve both actions in their entirety.
The parties finalized a settlement agreement on March 2, 2020 and
the court has vacated all other deadlines in the class-action case,
including the due date for the Company's opposition to the motion
for class certification.
In light of a reduced court schedule as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic, the court cancelled the hearing on the motion for
preliminary approval of the final settlement agreement which had
been scheduled for April 16, 2020, and notified the parties that it
will issue a determination on the motion without a hearing. If the
court does not approve the settlement agreement, the cases will
continue.
Blue Apron said, "If the settlement agreement is not finalized or
approved by the court, the Company is currently unable to provide
any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits or that
adverse resolution of these lawsuits would not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or
results of operations."
Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates direct-to-consumer platform that
delivers original recipes, and fresh and seasonal ingredients. It
also operates Blue Apron Market, an e-commerce marketplace that
provides cooking tools, utensils, and pantry items. Blue Apron
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.
BMR LANDSCAPES: Faces Nunez Labor Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE A. NUNEZ v. BMR LANDSCAPES LLC and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05578 (May 6, 2020), is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all other individuals similarly situated seeking to
recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment
Law.
A claim is also made under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee
Protection Act alleging unlawful discharge.
According to the complaint, when the Defendants hired the Plaintiff
they offered to pay him $15.00 per hour. The Defendant then changed
the Plaintiff's rate to $13.00 per hour during his first pay.
Beginning in his second pay period, the Plaintiff's pay never
reflected his hours. The Plaintiff worked between 50 and 75 hours
per week throughout his employment. The Plaintiff alleges that he
was never paid time and half for overtime hours that he worked.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a landscaper from
April 2019 until his last day of employment on November 11, 2019.
BMR is doing business in landscaping business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Deborah L. Mains, Esq.
COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
Telephone: (856) 727-9700S
BNSF RAILWAY: Class Action Remanded to State Court
--------------------------------------------------
NBC Montana reports that a federal judge has removed a class action
lawsuit against BNSF Railway from a federal court and remanded it
to Cascade County District Court. Nearly 200 plaintiffs have filed
suit against the railroad company, alleging that it caused harm by
transporting asbestos-laced vermiculite from Libby.
"Retention of jurisdiction by this Court would transform a
distinctly local issue focused on the vermiculite mine and the
transportation of the asbestos-laced vermiculite from the mine on
the four and one-half mile Libby Logger rail line into a national
issue," U.S. District Judge Brian Morris wrote in an April 6
judgement. " . . . The harm here derives from BNSF's alleged
negligent transportation of asbestos-laced vermiculite from a mine
near Libby to the loading facility four and one-half miles away in
Libby. Plaintiffs allege to have suffered injuries from this
conduct along the Libby Logger rail line between the mine and the
loading facility and at the railyard and from asbestos laced
products sold in Libby. The fact that asbestos shipped from Libby
may have injured people outside Montana proves irrelevant as long
as the alleged conduct in the complaint resulted in asbestos
injuries that injured solely Montanans."
The U.S. District Court had previously remanded the case to
district court in 2018, but BNSF appealed to the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals, which sent the case back to U.S. District Court to
review the lawsuit specifically as it pertains to the the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005. [GN]
C4 TECHNICAL: Malapira Seeks OT Pay for Field Technicians
---------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO MALAPIRA, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C4 TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-01488 (S.D. Tex., April 27, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from July 2019 to October 2019
as a telecommunication technician or field technician to perform
manual labor tasks at cellular sites, and was required to work more
than 40 hours per work-week.
The complaint asserts that Defendant employ an illegal per diem pay
structure that paid Plaintiff and the Class Members overtime less
than time and one half their regular rate of pay. Allegedly, the
per diem payment was illegally classified as a reimbursement for
technicians' expenses in order to avoid including such compensation
in the calculation of the overtime rate.
Moreover, Defendant has a policy of not paying their employees for
any time worked during the training.
C4 Technical Services, LLC is a staffing company that employs
workers and assigns them to various telecommunications companies
across the U.S., including California, Georgia, Florida, Illinois,
Minnesota, and Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713)523-0001
Fax: (713)523-1116
Email: Dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
CEMEX SAB: SDNY Securities Class Suit Concluded
-----------------------------------------------
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 securities class
action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York has been closed.
On March 16, 2018, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed against the company: one of its members of the board of
directors and certain of its officers (CEO and CFO) in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the
company between August 14, 2014 to March 13, 2018, inclusive.
The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act based on purportedly issuing press releases and SEC
filings that included materially false and misleading statements in
connection with alleged misconduct relating to the Maceo Project
and the potential regulatory or criminal actions that might arise
as a result.
On September 14, 2018, the company filed a motion to dismiss this
lawsuit. During the fourth quarter of 2018, plaintiffs filed an
opposition brief to this motion to dismiss and we filed a response
to such opposition brief.
On July 12, 2019, the competent judge granted the company's motion
to dismiss the action but permitted plaintiffs an opportunity to
re-plead. On August 1, 2019, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Class Action Complaint, again based on purported false and
misleading statements in connection with alleged misconduct
relating to the Maceo Project and the potential regulatory or
criminal actions that might arise as a result.
The Second Amended Class Action Complaint altered the class period
to now start on April 23, 2015, and added CLH as a party, as well
as a cause of action under Section 20(b) of the Exchange Act
against CLH. All of the defendants moved to dismiss the action on
September 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on
October 11, 2019, and the defendants filed reply briefs on November
1, 2019.
CEMEX said "As of December 31, 2019, at this stage of the
proceedings, we are not able to assess the likelihood of an adverse
result to this lawsuit because of its current status and its
preliminary nature, and for the same reasons we are also not able
to assess if a final adverse result in this lawsuit would have a
material adverse impact on our results of operations, liquidity and
financial condition."
CEMEX further said, "On February 28, 2020, we informed the Mexican
Stock Exchange (Bolsa Mexicana de Valores/MSE) that the securities
class action complaint filed on March 16, 2018, as amended, against
CEMEX, certain officers of CEMEX (one of whom is a member of
CEMEX's board of directors), and one of CEMEX's partially-owned
subsidiaries, CLH, which was dismissed with prejudice on February
11, 2020, is now closed as a result of the plaintiffs' agreement
not to appeal."
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.
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Final Settlement Approval Sought
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ELIZABETH HARWOOD AND ZANE
VANSELOW, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly
situated v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGY ENABLED SERVICES, LLC, fka
PST SERVICES, INC., MILWAUKEE RADIOLOGISTS, LTD., S.C., AND MIDWEST
AREA PHYSICIANS, LLC, the Defendants, and ACUITY, A MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, the Intervening Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-01941-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:
1. granting final approval of the parties' Settlement;
2. awarding each of the Plaintiffs an incentive fee
of $1,500 and attorney fees of $25,000; and
3. designating the Consumer Law Clinic of the University
of Wisconsin School of Law as the cy pres designee
since there is no reversion provision for unclaimed
funds.
The Court previously preliminarily approved the settlement and
directed that notice be given to the class members. Notice has been
provided to the class of the terms of the settlement.
The notice set forth the amount of incentive fees sought by the
Plaintiffs and the amount of attorney fees sought by the
Plaintiffs' counsel.
Change Healthcare was founded in 1990. The company's line of
business includes providing accounting, bookkeeping, and related
auditing services. Milwaukee Radiologists offers Hospital based
radiologists.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott C. Borison, Esq.
BORISON FIRM, LLC.
1400 S. Charles St.
Baltimore MD 21230
Telephone: (301) 620-1016
Facsimile: (301) 620-1018
E-mail: borison@legglaw.com
- and -
Robert J. Welcenbach, Esq.
WELCENBACH LAW OFFICES, S.C.
State Bar No. 1033091
933 North Mayfair Road, Suite 311
Milwaukee, WI 53226
Telephone: (414) 774-7330
Facsimile: (414) 774-7670 Fax
E-mail: robert@welcenbachlaw.com
- and -
J. Craig Jones, Esq.
JONES AND HILL, LLC
131 Highway 165 South
Oakdale, LA 71463
Telephone: (318) 335-1333
Facsimile: (318) 335-1934
E-mail: craig@joneshilllaw.com
CLEARWATER AT SOUTH: Faces Camua Suit Over Wrongful Termination
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA LYNN CAMUA, an individual v. CLEARWATER AT SOUTH BAY, LLC, a
limited liability company; LEE STOTTS, an individual and Does 1
through 100 Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV17205 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., May 6, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all those similarly situated against the Defendants alleging
wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
The Defendant also allegedly failed to pay all wages, including
accrued vacation and waiting time penalties pursuant to the
California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants terminated her in
retaliation for complaining about unlawful conduct and unsafe
working conditions. including her good faith and reasonable belief
that her co-worker reported to work intoxicated and/or under the
influence of alcohol.
The Plaintiff was formerly employed by Clearwater as a caregiver
from December 28, 2018, until November 8, 2019, when she was
wrongfully terminated.
Clearwater at South Bay provides compassionate senior living
solutions in Torrance, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian I. Vogel, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN I. VOGEL
572 E. Green Street, Suite 305
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 796-7470
COLUMBIA VALLEY: Maldonado Gouging Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ISELA M. MALDONADO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
COLUMBIA VALLEY EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, LLC; EMCARE, INC., EMCARE
HOLDINGS, INC., ENVISION HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC., AND ENVISION
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Case No. 20-00002-0137 (Filed April 1,
2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
Washington in and for the County of Thurston to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington on May 6, 2020.
The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-05428 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to wrongful excessive
and unreasonable medical billing--gouging--by the Defendants.
The Defendants are doing business in health care industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryce P. McPartland, Esq.
MCPARTLAND LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1426 S. Pioneer Way
Moses Lake, WA 98837
Telephone: 509 495 1247
Facsimile: 509 651 9430
- and -
Jack E. McGehee, Esq.
H. C. Chang, Esq.
Benjamin T. Landgraf, Esq.
Benjamin C. Feiler, Esq.
McGEHEE CHANG, LANDGRAF, FEILER
10370 Richmond Ave., Suite 1300
Houston, TX 77042
Telephone: (713) 864-4000
Facsimile: (713) 868-9393
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Final Settlement Approval Hearing in June 19
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 objections to the
settlement are due May 18, 2020.
Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; namely,
Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems,
Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis Firefighters
Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed
June 21, 2011.
All three seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between July 27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and
allege that misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated
prices for the Company's common stock.
In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes
and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead plaintiffs/lead
plaintiffs' counsel. In lieu of ruling on the Company's motion to
dismiss, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file a first amended
consolidated class action complaint, which was filed on October 5,
2015. The Company's motion to dismiss was filed on November 4, 2015
and oral argument was held on April 11, 2016. The Company's motion
to dismiss was granted on June 16, 2016 and on June 27, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
The matter was heard on May 3, 2017. On December 13, 2017, the
Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court's dismissal of the case and
remanded it to the District Court. The Company filed a renewed
partial motion to dismiss on February 9, 2018, which was denied by
the District Court on September 24, 2018.
The Company also filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the
United States Supreme Court on April 18, 2018 seeking review of the
Sixth Circuit's decision. The United States Supreme Court denied
the petition for a writ of certiorari on October 1, 2018.
The District Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification on July 26, 2019. The Company filed a petition for
permission to appeal the District Court's class certification order
in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 9, 2019, and that
petition was denied on October 23, 2019. Trial for this matter is
set for December 1, 2020.
On January 21, 2020, the Company and the Plaintiff filed a
stipulation of settlement indicating to the District Court that the
parties had reached agreement on the principal terms of a
settlement for $53 million.
The settlement received preliminary approval from the District
Court on January 30, 2020.
Objections to the settlement were due May 18, 2020, and the hearing
for final approval of the settlement is set for June 19, 2020.
Community Health said, "The Company's $53 million reserve for this
matter, which was recorded during the three months ended December
31, 2019, remains as of March 31, 2020, pending final approval of
the settlement. The proposed settlement amount has been funded by
the Company and is held in escrow as of March 31, 2020. Such amount
is recorded in other current assets in the condensed consolidated
balance sheet."
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.
CONCEIVE MEDIA: Decowski Sues over Unauthorized Debit Card Charge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MORGAN DECOSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONCEIVE MEDIA LLC d/b/a LEROCHE BENICOUER
CONSUMER HEALTHCARE, CONCEIVE EASY, and FERTIBELLA, and DOES 1-20,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02558 (N.D. Ill., April 27, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff signed up for a free trial of
Defendant Conceive's product known as Conceive Easy and/or
FertiBella on or about March 29, 2019 through Defendant's online
advertisement, which offered Plaintiff an opportunity to try its
product for free. However, Defendant Conceive subsequently charged
Plaintiff of the free trial she signed up for through debit card
and transfer from her bank account on April 30, 2019.
Plaintiff contends that she did not sign or provide any
authorization to Defendants for the debit card charge and
electronic fund transfer from Plaintiff's account.
Conceive Media LLC d/b/a Leroche Benicouer Consumer Healthcare,
Conceive Easy, and FertiBella offer products for fertility. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David B. Levin, Esq.
333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
Northbook, IL 60062
Tel: (224)218-0882
Fax: (866)633-0228
Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com
DUNN COUNTY, WI: Cronk Seeks Overtime Pay for District Atty. Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------
AIMEE CRONK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF DUNN 3001 US Highway 12 East Menomonie,
Wisconsin 54751 Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00397 (W.D. Wis., April
29, 2020) is a collective and class action brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, ("FLSA"), by
Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other similarly-situated
current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees, against
Defendant for purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA for
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys'
fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other
relief the Court may deem appropriate.
Defendant hired Plaintiff into the position of Secretary I working
in Defendant's District Attorney's Office.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-Mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
ENDO INT'L: Price-Fixing Claim in Pelletier Dismissed w/ Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEXANDRE PELLETIER, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC, RAJIV
KANISHKA LIYANAARCHCHIE DE SILVA, SUKETU P. UPADHYAY, AND PAUL V.
CAMPANELLI, Civil Action No. 17-cv-5114 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael
M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.
Under the lawsuit, Lead Plaintiff Park Employees' and Retirement
Board Employees' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago alleges that
Endo committed securities fraud by engaging in inherently risky and
unstable pricing practices, including an illegal price-fixing
scheme, and failing to disclose those practices, and other key
information, to investors.
Endo is a major pharmaceuticals manufacturer. It manufactures both
branded and generic drugs. In December 2010, Endo acquired
Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, which afterwards operated as Endo's
generics manufacturing division. Leading up to 2013, Endo's
business was troubled. Several of its key branded drugs were
approaching the end of their patents, and its medical devices
business faced significant exposure to products liability lawsuits.
At the same time, its generics business was stagnating due to
price competition.
In early 2013, Defendant Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie De Silva
joined Endo as President and CEO with a mandate to turn the Company
around. Around the time De Silva joined, Endo's stock price was
"languishing" at $30 per share. Later in 2013, Suketu P. Upadhyay
joined as CFO. To make Endo more attractive to investors and
thereby raise its stock price, De Silva first sought to make
smaller acquisitions to provide Endo with additional revenue
streams. Between his joining the company and January 2015, De
Silva had made five acquisitions. Those acquisitions cost a total
of $7.1 billion, nearly all of which was paid for in stock or cash
raised by the sale of stock. Endo's revenues increased
accordingly.
However, Endo's revenue growth was not solely the result of its
acquisition strategy. Endo also quietly hiked the prices of
numerous generic drugs. It created substantial, but unsustainable,
revenue growth. Endo accomplished some of these price hikes, at De
Silva's request, by "locking up" drugs to create artificial supply
shortages. None of these price hikes were the result of ordinary
supply and demand. The Lead Plaintiff claims that these price
hikes demonstrate that Endo was knowingly not competing on price in
the markets for certain generic drugs. They also claim that
evidence suggests that established manufacturers of certain drugs
ceded market share in order to bribe new market entrants to not
compete on price. Endo's public messages nonetheless continued to
describe the generics drug market as price-competitive and
inaccurately attributed revenue growth to acquisitions and the
launches of entirely new drugs.
In part because of the inflated profits, Endo saw its stock price
increase. By April 2015, its stock price exceeded $90 per share, a
roughly threefold increase from its pre-De Silva price. Shortly
thereafter, in May 2015, Endo announced that it had agreed to
acquire Par Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., a privately-held
pharmaceutical company specializing in generic drugs. Endo made
three more price hikes leading up to the deal closing in order to
keep earning inflated profits and maintain its stock price, and the
deal closed on Sept. 28, 2015.
As part of the deal, Par's CEO, Defendant Paul V. Campanelli,
joined Endo as the head of Endo's generics business. After he
joined Endo, Campanelli had the sole power to approve all of Endo's
generic drug pricing changes, whether those changes were increases
or decreases. He had held the same power at Par.
The Lead Plaintiff alleges not only that Endo raised generic drug
prices markedly, but that those price hikes were part of an
industry-wide price-fixing conspiracy. They attempt to support
that allegation using the following facts and arguments. First,
certain market features made the market ripe for price fixing.
Second, large, sudden, price increases were against Endo's
self-interest. Third, Endo and its peers had a motive to collude.
Fourth, Endo and its peers had the opportunity to collude in person
through trade shows and conferences. Fifth, the Lead Plaintiff
refers the Court to enforcement actions currently taking place.
Public concern over drug pricing had been growing since 2014. In
the summer of 2014, the Connecticut Attorney General subpoenaed
drug companies, not including Endo, concerning pricing for Digoxin,
a generic heart drug. Later that year, the Department of Justice
opened a grand jury investigation in this District and subpoenaed
several generic drug manufacturers. Those subpoenas did not
include Endo, but did include Par, which Endo would soon acquire.
Endo did not disclose the subpoena for five months. Nonetheless,
Campanelli and De Silva publicly maintained that the disappointing
results were due to normal market factors such as price
competition.
On Sept. 22, 2016, Endo announced that De Silva would be stepping
down as CEO, effective immediately. Campanelli replaced him. One
month later, Endo announced that Upadhyay would be departing,
effective Nov. 22, 2016. On Nov. 3, Bloomberg published an
article describing DOJ's investigation into drug pricing and the
Connecticut Attorney General's plans to lead a group of states in a
civil antitrust enforcement action against drug companies. Endo's
stock price dropped about 20%. A few days later, Endo reported
that its generics revenues had dropped 20% since the previous
quarter. It attributed the drop in generics revenues to normal
market dynamics. Endo's revenues from the price hikes continued
to drop through the end of 2016, and its stock price dropped
further following the release of its Q4 2016 Form 8-K in late
February 2017.
The Lead Plaintiff alleges that the 2014 10-K, the Q1 2015 10-Q,
the Q2 2015 10-Q, the Q3 2015 10-Q, the 2015 10-K, the Q1 2016
10-Q, the Q2 2016 10-Q, and the Q3 2016 10-Q all contain actionable
misstatements. More specifically, they allege that these
documents misrepresent the competitiveness of the generics market,
the source of Endo's income, and the reasons for Endo's pricing
decisions.
Stated generally and generously, the Lead Plaintiff's theory of why
the Defendants' statements were misleading is as follows. The
Defendants' choices not to compete on price were based on abnormal
conditions in the generics market and inherently risky and
unstable, and significantly increased Endo's revenues and altered
Endo's competitive position. However, the Defendants'
communications to investors did not disclose these
non-price-competitive pricing decisions or how they affected Endo,
or the abnormal market conditions.
The Lead Plaintiff makes a few other noteworthy allegations
concerning the Defendants' scienter. De Silva regularly spoke
publicly about the reasons for price increases and how those price
increases affected Endo's bottom line. Campanelli spoke in public
at length at least twice about the reasons for price increases and
how those price increases affected Endo's bottom line.
The Lead Plaintiff alleges that they purchased Endo's stock at
artificially inflated prices, causing them to suffer losses when
Endo's stock crashed in late 2016 and in early 2017.
The original class-action complaint, filed Nov. 14, 2017, was
assigned to Judge Padova. On Jan. 17, 2018, the case was
transferred to Judge Savage as a related case to SEB Investment
Management AB v. Endo International, PLC. On June 19 of that year,
Judge Savage appointed the Park Employees' Annuity and Benefit Fund
of Chicago as the Lead Plaintiff and approved the Fund's selection
of lead counsel.
On August 6, the Fund filed an amended class action complaint. On
Sept. 14, Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss. One week later,
the case was reassigned back to Judge Padova. On October 26, the
Fund filed its opposition to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
On June 19, 2019, Judge Padova recused himself and the case was
reassigned to Judge Baylson. The oral argument took place on Sept.
18, 2019. The parties provided supplemental memoranda on Oct. 2,
2019. The parties have also supplemented their thorough briefing
with several relevant court decisions that postdate their
briefing.
Judge Baylson granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss. The Judge granted the Motion with prejudice as
to the alleged price-fixing conspiracy, and denied.
With regard to the Lead Plaintiff's allegations that the individual
Defendants concealed the fact that Endo was engaged in a price
fixing agreement with competitors, and failed to disclose it to the
prejudice of shareholders, the Court finds these allegations not
sufficient to proceed. The requirements to prove a price fixing
conspiracy have been fully set forth in several opinions of the
Court in In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL 13-2437,
in which the plaintiffs, purchasers of drywall, alleged that
defendants, manufacturers of drywall, engaged in an agreement to
fix prices. In an extensive Memorandum, summary judgment was
granted to one defendant, but denied as to all other defendants.
In a subsequent opinion, the Court more recently granted a motion
by one defendant, United States Gypsum Corporation, for summary
judgment, on the same issue.
These two opinions rely on applicable U.S. Supreme Court and Third
Circuit law as to what constitutes sufficient evidence of price
fixing allegations, to survive summary judgment. They apply in the
instant case, where the Defendants have moved to dismiss the
Amended Complaint on the grounds that the Lead Plaintiff's
allegations concerning the Defendants' participation in a price
fixing agreement are insufficient.
Concerning Endo's alleged concealment of its participation in a
price fixing allegation, the Lead Plaintiff has merely alleged
parallel pricing. The Lead Plaintiff has adequately alleged that
Endo and the other competitors were conscious of each other's
prices and factored that into their own pricing decisions. But
there are no allegations to establish the "plus factors" as
required. Thus Lead Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to
proceed on their "agreement to fix prices" theory. Where the
allegations are insufficient to meet appropriate legal standards,
then the PSLRA requires the Judge to conclude the allegations
cannot form the basis of a securities fraud lawsuit.
Another reason to grant the Motion to Dismiss as to the price
fixing theory concerns the absence of sufficient facts to warrant
what would amount to an "antitrust trial within a securities trial"
-- there is no Third Circuit precedent that the Lead Plaintiff has
cited or the Court can find that would warrant such a failure to
disclose a price fixing conspiracy to become an integral of a
securities fraud case.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Memorandum
is available at https://is.gd/YVh8DP from Leagle.com.
PARK EMPLOYEES' ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO, Lead
Plaintiff, represented by JAVIER BLEICHMAR, BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD
LLP, JOSEPH A. FONTI, BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP, TIMOTHY T. MYERS,
ELLIOTT GREENLEAF PC, JAMES C. CRUMLISH, III, ELLIOTT GREENLEAF,
P.C., JOHN M. ELLIOTT -- JME@elliottgreenleaf.com -- ELLIOTT
GREENLEAF, P.C., SUSAN R. PODOLSKY, LAW OFFICE OF SUSAN R PODOLSKY
& THOMAS JOSEPH ELLIOTT -- tje@elliottgreenleaf.com -- ELLIOTT
GREENLEAF, P.C.
ALEXANDRE PELLETIER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by VINCENT A. COPPOLA --
vcoppola@pribanic.com -- PRIBANIC & PRIBANIC, PATRICK V. DAHLSTROM,
POMERANTZ LLP & PETER H. LEVAN, JR., LEVAN LAW GROUP, LLC.
ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC, RAJIV KANISHKA LIYANAARCHIE DE SILVA,
SUKETU P. UPADHYAY & PAUL V. CAMPANELLI, Defendants, represented by
J. GORDON COONEY, JR. -- gordon.cooney@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN,
LEWIS,& BOCKIUS LLP, JAMES E. BRANDT -- james.brandt@lw.com --
LATHAM & WATKINS, JEFF G. HAMMEL -- jeff.hammel@lw.com -- LATHAM &
WATKINS LLP, LAURA H. MCNALLY -- laura.mcnally@morganlewis.com --
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, MILES N. RUTHBERG --
miles.ruthberg@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP & THOMAS J. GIBLIN,
JR. -- thomas.giblin@lw.com -- LATHAN & WATKINS.
WAYNE A. WINGARD & NATHAN JOSEPH DOLE, Movants, represented by
VINCENT A. COPPOLA, PRIBANIC & PRIBANIC, J. ALEXANDER HOOD, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP & JEREMY A. LIEBERMAN --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP.
EXETER FINANCE: Jefferson Collection Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS,
LLC v. ELSADA ALVERANGA, et al., Defendants; and EXETER FINANCE,
LLC, 'Third-Party' Defendant, Case No. CV-19-925600 (Filed Nov. 21,
2019), was removed from the Ohio Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga
County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
on May 6, 2020.
The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00990 to the proceeding.
The lawsuit seeks recovery of $4,394.61 plus interest owed under a
motor vehicle retail installment contract. The dealer from whom the
Alverangas purchased the vehicle on credit assigned their retail
installment contract to Exeter. Exeter then sold the contract to
Jefferson after the Alverangas' defaulted and their vehicle was
repossessed and sold.[BN]
Plaintiff Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, and Third-Party Defendant
Exeter Finance LLC are represented by:
James W. Sandy, Esq.
Bryan Kostura, Esq.
MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD
3401 Tuttle Rd., Ste. 200
Cleveland, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 378-9911
Facsimile: (216) 378-9910
E-mail: jsandy@mcglinchey.com
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yale Levy, Esq.
LEVY & ASSOCIATES, LLC
4645 Executive Dr.
Columbus, OH 43220
E-mail: legal@levylawllc.com
Third-Party Plaintiffs Elsada and Rosalie Alveranga are represented
by:
Ron Frederick, Esq.
FREDERICK & BERLER LLC
767 East 185th St.
Cleveland, OH 44119
E-mail: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
- and -
Laura DePledge, Esq.
DEPLEDGE LAW OFFICE, INC.
7408 Center St.
Mentor, OH 44060
E-mail: DePledgeLawInc@aol.com
FANHUA INC: Long Class Action Closed
------------------------------------
Fanhua Inc. 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 class action suit
initiated by Miao Long has been closed.
On September 7, 2018, Miao Long, individually and on behalf of an
alleged class of similarly situated holders of the company's
American Depositary Shares (ADSs), filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against us and two of our executive officers.
The complaint alleges that the company made false and misleading
statements regarding its business, operational and compliance
policies. The complaint principally alleges that the company
engaged in improper business practices including irregular
accounting, which were intended to benefit its insiders and
overstated its financial assets and performance metrics.
The complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Security
Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder and under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
On January 2, 2019, the Court ordered a briefing schedule,
providing that after the court's entry of an order appointing a
lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act,
the lead plaintiff must either file a consolidated complaint or
give notice of its intent not to do so (and therefore proceed on
its initial complaint) by February 20, 2019.
The company's response to the operative complaint was due by April
1, 2019; the lead plaintiff's opposition was due by May 1, 2019;
and our reply was due by May 15, 2019.
In an order dated December 13, 2018, the Court appointed Miao Long
as lead plaintiff and approved the selection of Pomerantz LLP as
lead counsel.
On February 20, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended compliant on
April 1, 2019.
On March 2, 2020, the Court granted in its entirety the company's
motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit. The dismissal was with
prejudice to all claims save one relating to purported improper
business practices, on which the Court gave Plaintiff until March
20, 2020 to submit any amended complaint.
Absent an amended complaint by that date, the Court's dismissal was
to be with prejudice as to all claims.
On March 12, 2020, Plaintiff submitted a letter to the Court
stating that it would not be amending its complaint, after which
the Court closed the case.
Fanhua Inc. distributes insurance products in China. It operates
through two segments, Insurance Agency and Claims Adjusting. The
company was formerly known as CNinsure Inc. and changed its name to
Fanhua Inc. in December 2016. Fanhua Inc. was founded in 1998 and
is headquartered in Guangzhou, China.
FOLGER COFFEE: Ibarra Sues Over Deceptive Ads of Coffee Canisters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON IBARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE FOLGER COFFEE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, and
DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00850-L-BLM (S.D. Cal., May
5, 2020), alleges that Folger violated the California Business &
Professions Code in connection to its widespread false and
deceptive advertising of its staple coffee canisters.
The Defendant allegedly engages in a classic bait-and-switch scheme
that causes unsuspecting consumers to spend more money for less
than the advertised amount of coffee they believe they are
purchasing. The Plaintiff alleges that packaging and labeling of
many Folgers coffee product canisters prominently advertise that
they will produce an amount of six fluid ounce cups when, in fact,
they do not, and the label's advertised cup yield is completely
arbitrary.
In December 2019, Mr. Ibarra purchased three canisters of Folgers
French Roast, Med-Dark, 210 Cups, for $12.59 each from Garden Farms
Market, a grocery store located in Lakeside, California.
Folgers coffee is a household name with sales comprising a
significant portion of the $7.8 billion in net sales reported by
corporate parent, The J.M. Smucker Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
Scott G. Braden, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 762-1900
Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
sbraden@carlsonlynch.com
FORD MOTOR: Fails to Comply With Emissions Warranty, Hoffman Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD HOFFMAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-00846 (C.D. Cal., May 4, 2020), accuses
Ford of failing to comply with the California Code of Regulations,
with the Emissions Warranty, and even with the terms of its own
Ford Warranty and Warranty Guide in connection with its sale of the
2010-2012 Ford Fusion Hybrid, 2010-2011 Mercury Milan Hybrid and
the 2011-2012 Mercury MKZ Hybrid vehicles.
According to the complaint, the Class Vehicles are Advanced
Technology Partial Zero Emissions Vehicles (PZEV). As such, the
scope and length of the PZEV Ford Warranty as explained in the
Warranty Guide is applicable to the Class Vehicles. In addition to
the Ford Warranty, the Class Vehicles also have warranty coverage
for emissions-related defects, as set forth in California Code of
Regulations. The Regulations obligate Ford to provide a 15-year
150,000 mile warranty relating to emissions defects, with the
exception that the warranty is 10 years or 100,000 miles for the
propulsion battery.
The Ford non-compliance results in Hoffman and the Class Members
suffering damage. The lawsuit seeks to obtain a remedy for the
resulting damage.
Ford Motor is an American multinational automaker that has its main
headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert L. Starr, Esq.
Adam Rose, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072
Calabasas, CA 91302
E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com
adam@starrlaw.com
GRAND CANYON: Rosen Continues to Investigate Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to
investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (NASDAQ:LOPE) resulting from
allegations that Grand Canyon Education may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
On January 28, 2020, the investment analyst Citron Research issued
a report on Grand Canyon Education entitled "GCE, the Educational
Enron." The Citron Report alleged that Grand Canyon Education was
improperly using a "captive, non-reporting subsidiary to hide its
liabilities," thereby "artificially inflat[ing] the [company's]
stock price."
On this news, Grand Canyon Education's stock price fell $7.43 per
share, or over 8%, to close at $84.07 per share on January 28,
2020, on unusually high trading volume, damaging investors.
Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Grand Canyon Education's investors. If you
purchased shares of Grand Canyon Education, please visit the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1761.htmlto
join the class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.
Contact:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/
[GN]
GREAT LAKES: Court Backs Borrowers in Loan Forgiveness Fight
------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Miami reports that a federal appeals court has cleared the way
for a lawsuit in which two Florida women allege they were given
false information about whether their student loans would be
forgiven when they worked in public-service jobs.
A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided
with Amanda Lawson-Ross and Tristian Byrne in the lawsuit against
Great Lakes Higher Education Corp., which serviced the women's
student loans.
The ruling overturned a lower-court decision that had dismissed the
case, which includes allegations that the company violated a state
law known as the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. The
case was filed as a potential class action.
A district judge agreed with Great Lakes that a federal
higher-education law bars such state-based claims. But the appeals
court said the federal law, the Higher Education Act of 1965, does
not preempt "state law claims alleging that student loan servicers
made affirmative misrepresentations to borrowers regarding their
eligibility for a federal program that forgives student loan
balances."
The ruling said the Higher Education Act governs disclosure of
information such as outstanding principal amounts, interest rates
and amounts paid on loans. But it said that is different than the
issue about whether Great Lakes gave false information to
borrowers.
"Although at first blush the subject of the communications at issue
might appear to resemble a description of payment plans or options
to prevent default, the borrowers were not behind on payments or
facing default," said the 31-page ruling, written by Judge Jill
Pryor and joined by judges William Pryor and Eduardo Robreno.
"Instead, they requested information about a loan forgiveness
program for borrowers employed in public service jobs,
specifically, whether they were in a position to meet that
program's requirements. Great Lakes' voluntary, personalized,
affirmative misrepresentations in the form of advice about whether
an individual borrower was on track to qualify for the (loan
forgiveness) program was different in kind from any disclosure
required" by the federal higher-education law. [GN]
HANMI FINANCIAL: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 26 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announces that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Hanmi Financial
Corporation. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Hanmi Financial Corporation (NASDAQ:HAFC)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/hanmi-financial-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=5996&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 26, 2020
Class Period: August 12, 2019 to January 28, 2020
Allegations against HAFC include that: (1) the $40.7 million
troubled loan that the Company disclosed on conference calls would
necessitate further and future specific provisions for the Company
– in the millions; (2) the same $40.7 million troubled loan would
necessitate the Company to appraise and take personal property
securing a portion of the amount of the loan; and (3) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.
Contact:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway, Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel: 212.425.1140
Fax: 866.699.3880
E-mail: vw@wongesq.com
[GN]
HDI GLOBAL: Atma Sues Over Denial of COVID-19 Insurance Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
ATMA BEAUTY, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HDI GLOBAL SPECIALTY SE, AXIS SPECIALTY
EUROPE SE, UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY
NUMBER RSK003959, and UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON KNOWN AS
SYNDICATES AFB 2623, AFB 623, APL 1969, ARG 2121, BRT 2987, BRT
2988, HIS 33, KLN 510, MMX 2010, MSP 318, NVA 2007, TRV 5000, XLC
2003, Case No. 1:20-cv-21745-DPG (S.D. Fla., May 6, 2020), arises
from the Defendants' alleged systematic and uniform refusal to pay
insureds for losses suffered due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the
related actions taken by civil authorities to suspend business
operations.
Beginning in March 2020, the Plaintiff was forced to suspend
business operations at the salon, as a result of COVID-19. Related
actions of civil authorities also prohibited access to and
occupancy of the salon. This suspension, which is ongoing, has
caused the Plaintiff to suffer significant losses and incur
significant expenses, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants promised to cover these
losses and expenses, and are obligated to pay for them. But in
blatant breach of their contractual obligations, the Defendants
have failed to pay for these losses and expenses. The Defendants
have failed to pay for similar losses and expenses by at least
thousands of other insureds holding policies that are, in all
material respects, identical, the Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff is the owner and operator of Atma Beauty, a
full-service salon and medical spa located at 1874 West Avenue in
Miami Beach, Florida.
HDI Global offers business insurance. Axis Specialty provides
non-life insurance services. The Lloyd's Defendants are insurance
underwriters who contracted--by and through the syndicates of which
they are members--to insure the Atma Beauty salon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven C. Marks, Esq.
Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq.
Lea P. Bucciero, Esq.
Matthew P. Weinshall, Esq.
Kristina M. Infante, Esq.
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
SunTrust International Center
One Southeast 3rd Ave., Suite 2300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 358-2800
Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
E-mail: smarks@podhurst.com
apodhurst@podhurst.com
lbucciero@podhurst.com
mweinshall@podhurst.com
kinfante@podhurst.com
HILL COUNTRY STAFFING: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, Duran Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERASMO DURAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HILL COUNTRY STAFFING COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00445-RP (W.D. Tex., April 27, 2020) is
a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an Equipment Operator from
approximately November 2016 through March 2019 to work on various
oil and gas sites operated by companies that subcontract with HCS
in Kansas, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked over 40
hours per week, but Defendant did not pay Plaintiff one and one
half times his regular rate for all the hours he worked over 40.
Moreover, Defendant allegedly failed to record all the time that
their employees, including Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective, have
worked for the benefit of HCS.
Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, an
additional and equal amount as liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.
Hill Country Staffing Company, LLC provides staffing services for
companies in the oil and gas industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
David I. Moulton, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713)877-8788
Fax: (713)877-8065
Emails: rburch@brucknerburch.com
dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
- and –
Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty St., 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Tel: (212)300-0375
Fax: (212)481-1333
Emails: https://www.fslawfirm.com/legal-team
HOST INTERNATIONAL: Cazares Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JESUS CAZARES, individually
and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated v. HOST
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV12878 (Filed April 1, 2020), was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the
County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on May 5, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-04102 to the proceeding.
The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all wages and
failed to provide meal break and rest break in violation to the
California Labor Code.
Host International provides catering services to travelers.[BN]
Host International, Inc., is represented by:
Margaret Rosenthal, Esq.
Shareef S. Farag, Esq.
Nicholas D. Poper, Esq.
Joseph S. Persoff, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Telephone: 310 820 8800
Facsimile: 310 820 8859
E-mail: mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com
sfarag@bakerlaw.com
npoper@bakerlaw.com
jpersoff@bakerlaw.com
IAS LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Meyer et al. Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE MEYER and DANIEL MEREMA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. IAS LOGISTICS DFW, LLC,
d/b/a PINNACLE LOGISTICS, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02575 (N.D.
Ill., April 28, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint
brought against Defendant for its alleged willful violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as non-exempt employees within the
past three years.
According to the complaint, Plaintiffs regularly worked over 40
hours per week, but Defendant failed to pay their overtime hours at
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay because Defendant
does not include shift differentials when calculating the regular
rate of pay.
Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime compensation, a judgment
of punitive damages, treble damages, reasonable attorney's fees and
costs.
IAS Logistics DFW, LLC d/b/a Pinnacle Logistics provides trucking
and aviation services across the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David J. Fish, Esq.
Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
John Kunze, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C.
200 E 5th Ave, Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Tel: (630)355-7590
Fax: (630)778-0400
Emails: https://fishlawfirm.com/
INDIANA: ACLU of Indiana Files Suit vs. Panhandling Restrictions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Times Herald reports that new panhandling
restrictions in Indiana are being challenged by the American Civil
Liberties Union of Indiana, which has filed suit arguing that
asking for money is a protected form of free speech.
The class-action lawsuit, filed in the the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana, says the restrictions are so
broad that they would stop the ACLU from continuing its
Constitution Day practice of handing out copies of the Constitution
while asking people for donations on Monument Circle in
Indianapolis.
"But we know what this law truly aims to do is even worse," Jane
Henegar, executive director at the ACLU of Indiana, said in a news
release. "It is sometimes difficult to confront the face of
poverty. But we must assist those who suffer the consequences of
America's income inequality and failed mental health system, not
sweep them out of sight."
The restrictions, signed into law by Gov. Eric Holcomb in March and
which take effect July 1, make it a Class C misdemeanor to
panhandle within 50 feet of public monuments, restaurants or any
place of a financial transaction, including banks, ATMs,
businesses, parking meters and public parking garages. Previously,
panhandling was prohibited within 20 feet of certain locations. It
easily passed the legislature on the final day of this year's
session by an 84-10 vote in the House and a 35-14 vote in the
Senate.
Supporters of House Enrolled Act 1022, including former House
Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, have argued that it is meant
to curb aggressive panhandling in places like Monument Circle,
which have tarnished the city's reputation as a good host for
conventions and sporting events.
"Because of the broad definition of financial transaction, the
expansion of the places near where panhandling is prohibited and
the increase of the distance restriction to 50 feet, HEA 1022
leaves virtually no sidewalks in downtown Indianapolis or any
downtown area in any Indiana city where people can engage in this
activity which courts have recognized is protected by the First
Amendment," Falk said in a statement.
The suit, filed against the Indiana State Police superintendent,
Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett and Marion County Prosecutor Terry
Curry in their official capacities, argues that it targets
panhandling "in a flagrantly broad, vague and unconstitutional
manner and has the effect of prohibiting most forms of financial
solicitation by individuals and groups on the sidewalks in the
downtown areas of Indiana's cities."
Falk said the ACLU understands that "we are living in especially
challenging times across the state of Indiana as we fight an
ongoing pandemic. While it is clearly inappropriate for individuals
to be approaching fellow Hoosiers on the street at this time, we
must be sure that once we return to some form of normalcy,
individuals' rights are intact." [GN]
JAGUAR LAND: Faces Shaaya Suit Over Land Rovers With DPF Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAOUD SHAAYA, individually and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-05679 (D.N.J., May 7, 2020), arises from the Defendant's
failure to disclose the diesel particulate filter defect in 2018
Range Rover or other Jaguar Land Rover vehicle requiring the
Plaintiff and Class Members repeated high-cost repairs.
A DPF is a device designed to remove diesel particulate matter from
the exhaust gas of a diesel engine.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has been unjustly
enriched due to the known DPF Defect in the Class Vehicles through
the use money paid that earned interest or otherwise added to the
Defendant profits when the money should have remained with the
Plaintiff and Class Members.
According to the complaint, the DPF Defect poses an extreme and
unreasonable safety hazard to drivers, passengers, and pedestrians
alike. This is because a clogged DPF can cause sudden and
unexpected loss of power that can severely inhibit vehicle
performance and even complete shut-down. The DPF Defect, thus,
increases the risk of an accident, as well as the risk that drivers
will become stranded with an inoperable vehicle.
The Plaintiff is the purchaser of a 2018 Range Rover equipped with
a DPF.
Jaguar Land Rover designs, manufactures, markets, distributes,
services, repairs, sells and/or leases passenger vehicles,
including the Class Vehicles, nationwide. Jaguar Land Rover is the
warrantor and distributor of the Class Vehicles in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelly M. Purcaro, Esq.
COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN
HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
Park 80 West, Plaza One
250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
Telephone: (201) 845-9600
Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
E-mail: kmp@njlawfirm.com
- and -
Marc L. Godino, Esq.
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq
Danielle L. Manning, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: mgodino@glancylaw.com
lglancy@glancylaw.com
dmanning@glancylaw.com
- and -
Kevin Landau, Esq.
Charles Goulding, Esq
TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (646) 873-7654
Facsimile: (212) 931-0703
E-mail: klandau@tcllaw.com
cgoulding@tcllaw.com
- and -
Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
GREENSTONE LAW PC
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9156
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com
KAHALA FRANCHISING: App Not Accessible to Blind, Lucius Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
WINDY LUCIUS v. KAHALA FRANCHISING, L.L.C. d/b/a PINKBERRY, Case
No. 1:20-cv-21915-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 7, 2020), is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated under the
Americans with Disabilities Act alleging that the Defendant's
mobile application does not properly interact with Apple's
assistive technology in a manner that will allow the blind and
visually impaired to enjoy the app, nor does it provide other means
to accommodate the blind and visually impaired.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is blind. She has been
blind for the past nine years. She uses the internet to help her
navigate a world of goods, products and services. She contends that
the Defendant's app is not fully accessible and independently
usable by visually impaired consumers like her.
The Defendant offers its app to the general public from which it
sells food; provides a menu of items served in the restaurant;
restaurant location(s) and amenities at the restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.
J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC
8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: 305-351-2014
E-mail: cc@cunninghampllc.com
KING'S CREEK: Londo Suit Moved From D. Mass. to E.D. Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID LONDO, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. KING'S CREEK PLANTATION,
L.L.C., Case No. 1:20-cv-10312 (Filed Feb. 15, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia (Newport News) on May 4, 2020.
The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00061-AWA-LRL to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen.
The case arises from a campaign by King's Creek to market its
services through the use of automated telemarketing calls in plain
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The lawsuit
demands $5 million in damages.
King's Creek was founded in 1997. The Company's line of business
includes renting, buying, selling and appraising real estate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (508) 221-1510
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq.
CW LAW GROUP, P.C.
188 Oaks Road
Framingham, MA 01702
Telephone: (508) 309-4880
Facsimile: (508) 597-7722
E-mail: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Howard P. Goldberg, Esq.
Marissa L. Morte, Esq.
MANNING GROSS & MASSENBURG LLP
125 High Street, 6th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 670-8800
Facsimile: (617) 731-3113
E-mail: hgoldberg@mgmlaw.com
mmorte@mgmlaw.com
LANDEC CORP: Rosen Continues to Investigate Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to
investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of Landec Corporation resulting from allegations that Landec may
have issued materially misleading business information to the
investing public.
On Jan. 2, 2020, Landec disclosed that the U.S. Securities &
Exchange Commission and Department of Justice were investigating
the Company regarding "potential environmental and Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act ('FCPA') compliance matters associated with
regulatory permitting" at a manufacturing plant in Mexico owned by
Yucatan Foods, which Landec acquired in December 2018.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.14, or over 10%, to
close at $10.03 per share on Jan. 3, 2020, injuring investors.
Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Landec investors. If you purchased shares of
Landec please visit the firm's website or contact the firm.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.
Contact:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/
[GN]
LIBERTY OILFIELD: Klein Law Firm Reminds of June 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Liberty Oilfield Services, Inc.
There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a
loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that
the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Liberty Oilfield Services, Inc. (LBRT)
Class Period: securities pursuant and/or traceable to the documents
issued in connection with the Company's January 2018 initial public
offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 2, 2020
According to the complaint, Liberty Oilfield Services, Inc.
allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) there was an oversupply in the
hydraulic fracturing services market; (2) the Company's pricing
power was weak; (3) Liberty's services were not increasing and its
competition was not decreasing; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.
Learn about your recoverable losses in LBRT:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/liberty-oilfield-services-inc-loss-submission-form?id=5995&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Contact:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Tel: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
Web site: www.kleinstocklaw.com
[GN]
LUMOS PHARMA: Appeal in Nguyen Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Lumos Pharma 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 appeal in the
"Nguyen" class action remains pending.
On March 18, 2020, the Company, formerly known as NewLink Genetics
Corporation, merged Cyclone Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of ours, with what was then known as Lumos Pharma, Inc.,
and has since been renamed "Lumos Pharma Sub, Inc." ("Private
Lumos"), and changed the name "NewLink Genetics Corporation" to
"Lumos Pharma, Inc." (the "Merger").
On or about May 12, 2016, Trevor Abramson filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, captioned Abramson v.
NewLink Genetics Corp., et al., Case 1:16-cv-3545 (the Securities
Action).
Subsequently, the Court appointed Michael and Kelly Nguyen as lead
plaintiffs and approved their selection of Kahn, Swick & Foti, LLC
as lead counsel in the Securities Action.
On October 31, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting claims under the federal securities laws against the
Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer Charles J. Link,
Jr., and the Company's Chief Medical Officer and President Nicholas
Vahanian (collectively, the Defendants). The amended complaint
alleges the Defendants made material false and/or misleading
statements that caused losses to the Company's investors.
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
July 14, 2017. On March 29, 2018, the Court dismissed the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim, without prejudice, and gave
the lead plaintiffs until May 4, 2018 to file any amended complaint
attempting to remedy the defects in their claims.
On May 4, 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint asserting claims under the federal securities laws
against the Defendants.
Like the first amended complaint, the second amended complaint
alleges that the Defendants made material false and/or misleading
statements or omissions relating to the Phase 2 and 3 trials and
efficacy of the product candidate algenpantucel-L that caused
losses to the Company's investors.
The lead plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged damages in the
second amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and
costs, they sought to recover damages on behalf of themselves and
other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
stock during the putative class period of September 17, 2013
through May 9, 2016, inclusive, at allegedly inflated prices and
purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. The Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on July 31,
2018.
On February 13, 2019, the Court dismissed the second amended
complaint for failure to state a claim, with prejudice, and closed
the case.
On March 14, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The
briefing on lead plaintiffs' appeal was completed in early July
2019 and oral argument before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
was held on October 21, 2019.
The Company intends to continue defending the Securities Action
vigorously.
Lumos Pharma Inc. develops biopharmaceutical products. The Company
operates as an stage biopharmaceutical development company
developing a treatment for CTD patients and their families. Lumos
Pharma offers therapies to patients afflicted with unmet medical
needs in severe, rare, and genetic diseases. The company is based
in Austin, Texas.
MASTERCARD INC: Appeal in Point-of-Sale Acceptance Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated 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 objectors to a class
action settlement have sought to appeal the approval orders and
certain appellate courts have rejected the objectors' appeals,
while outstanding appeals remain in a few provinces.
In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced
against Mastercard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants.
The suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a
previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to
the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in Mastercard's favor)
concerning certain Mastercard rules related to point-of-sale
acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge"
rules.
The Quebec suit sought compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief.
In the first half of 2011, additional purported class action
lawsuits were commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against
Mastercard, Visa and a number of large Canadian financial
institutions.
The British Columbia suit sought compensatory damages in
unspecified amounts, and the Ontario suit sought compensatory
damages of $5 billion on the basis of alleged conspiracy and
various alleged breaches of the Canadian Competition Act.
Additional purported class action complaints were commenced in
Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that largely mirror those in
the other suits.
In June 2017, Mastercard entered into a class settlement agreement
to resolve all of the Canadian class action litigation. The
settlement, which requires Mastercard to make a cash payment and
modify its "no surcharge" rule, has received court approval in each
Canadian province.
Objectors to the settlement have sought to appeal the approval
orders. Certain appellate courts have rejected the objectors'
appeals, while outstanding appeals remain in a few provinces.
Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.
MASTERCARD INC: ATM Surcharge Fees Litigation Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated 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 expects
briefing on class certification in the lawsuits over ATM Surcharge
Fees to be completed in the second quarter of 2020.
In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both Mastercard
and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint").
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM
terminals that operate in the United States with the discretion to
determine the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they
operate. Plaintiffs allege that Mastercard and Visa have violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM
operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for
transactions processed over Mastercard's and Visa's respective
networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions
over other networks accepted at the same ATM.
Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble
the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged
violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.
Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against Mastercard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").
The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in
the ATM Operators Complaint, although these complaints seek damages
on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated
ATM fees at both bank and non-bank ATM operators as a result of the
defendants’ ATM rules.
Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble
the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged
violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.
In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints.
In February 2013, the district court granted Mastercard's motion to
dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the
Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order in August 2015
and sent the case back for further proceedings.
In September 2019, the plaintiffs filed their motions for class
certification in which the plaintiffs, in aggregate, allege over $1
billion in damages against all of the defendants. Mastercard
intends to vigorously defend against both the plaintiffs' liability
and damages claims and to oppose class certification. Mastercard
expects briefing on class certification to be completed in the
second quarter of 2020.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.
MASTERCARD INC: Damage Class Settlement Approval Order Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated 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 district court's
approval of the Damage class settlement has been appealed.
In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as
class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) against Mastercard International,
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a
number of financial institutions.
Taken together, the claims in the complaints were generally brought
under both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit
monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a
particular industry, and some of these complaints contain unfair
competition law claims under state law.
The complaints allege, among other things, that Mastercard, Visa,
and certain financial institutions conspired to set the price of
interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules (including
the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws and engaged
in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and services.
The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York in MDL No.
1720. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint
that seeks treble damages.
In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that Mastercard's initial
public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the "IPO")
and certain purported agreements entered into between Mastercard
and financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1) violate
U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent conveyance
because the financial institutions allegedly attempted to release,
without adequate consideration, Mastercard's right to assess them
for Mastercard’s litigation liabilities.
The class plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief
including, but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the
IPO.
In February 2011, Mastercard and Mastercard International entered
into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement
sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa
International Service Association and a number of financial
institutions; and (2) a Mastercard settlement and judgment sharing
agreement with a number of financial institutions. The agreements
provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities
which Mastercard, the Visa parties and the financial institutions
may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse
judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the merchant
litigations.
Among a number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the
event of a global settlement involving the Visa parties, the
financial institutions and Mastercard, Mastercard would pay 12% of
the monetary portion of the settlement. In the event of a
settlement involving only Mastercard and the financial institutions
with respect to their issuance of Mastercard cards, Mastercard
would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such settlement.
In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including
with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants
separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual
merchant plaintiffs.
The settlements included cash payments that were apportioned among
the defendants pursuant to the omnibus judgment sharing and
settlement sharing agreement described above. Mastercard also
agreed to provide class members with a short-term reduction in
default credit interchange rates and to modify certain of its
business practices, including its "no surcharge" rule.
The court granted final approval of the settlement in December
2013, and objectors to the settlement appealed that decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
In June 2016, the court of appeals vacated the class action
certification, reversed the settlement approval and sent the case
back to the district court for further proceedings.
The court of appeals' ruling was based primarily on whether the
merchants were adequately represented by counsel in the settlement.
As a result of the appellate court ruling, the district court
divided the merchants' claims into two separate classes - monetary
damages claims (the "Damages Class") and claims seeking changes to
business practices (the "Rules Relief Class").
The court appointed separate counsel for each class.
In September 2018, the parties to the Damages Class litigation
entered into a class settlement agreement to resolve the Damages
Class claims. Mastercard increased its reserve by $237 million
during 2018 to reflect both its expected financial obligation under
the Damages Class settlement agreement and the filed and
anticipated opt-out merchant cases.
The time period during which Damages Class members were permitted
to opt out of the class settlement agreement ended in July 2019
with merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the Damages
Class interchange volume choosing to opt out of the settlement.
The district court granted final approval of the settlement in
December 2019. The district court's settlement approval order has
been appealed. Mastercard has commenced settlement negotiations
with a number of the opt-out merchants and has reached settlements
and/or agreements in principle to settle a number of these claims.
The Damages Class settlement agreement does not relate to the Rules
Relief Class claims. Separate settlement negotiations with the
Rules Relief Class are ongoing.
As of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, Mastercard had accrued
a liability of $852 million and $914 million, respectively, as a
reserve for both the Damages Class litigation and the opt-out
merchant cases.
As of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, Mastercard had $587
million and $584 million, respectively, in a qualified cash
settlement fund related to the Damages Class litigation and
classified as restricted cash on its consolidated balance sheet.
The reserve as of March 31, 2020 for both the Damages Class
litigation and the opt-out merchants represents Mastercard's best
estimate of its probable liabilities in these matters. The portion
of the accrued liability relating to both the opt-out merchants and
the Damages Class litigation settlement does not represent an
estimate of a loss, if any, if the matters were litigated to a
final outcome. Mastercard cannot estimate the potential liability
if that were to occur.
Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.
MASTERCARD INC: Shift Fraud Liability Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated 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 itself against a merchant class action suit involving
conspiracy to shift fraud liability.
In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was
filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard,
Visa, American Express and Discover (the "Network Defendants"),
EMVCo, and a number of issuing banks (the "Bank Defendants")
engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present
transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance
with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the
"EMV Liability Shift"), in violation of the Sherman Act and
California law.
Plaintiffs allege damages equal to the value of all chargebacks for
which class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability
Shift on October 1, 2015.
The plaintiffs seek treble damages, attorney's fees and costs and
an injunction against future violations of governing law, and the
defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.
In September 2016, the court denied the Network Defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a motion for EMVCo and
the Bank Defendants. In May 2017, the court transferred the case to
New York so that discovery could be coordinated with the U.S.
merchant class interchange litigation.
The plaintiffs have filed a renewed motion for class certification,
following the district court's denial of their initial motion.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.
MASTERCARD INC: TCPA Class Suit in Florida Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated 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 stay in the class
action suit alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") in Florida has been lifted.
Mastercard is a defendant in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") class action pending in Florida.
The plaintiffs are individuals and businesses who allege that
approximately 381,000 unsolicited faxes were sent to them
advertising a Mastercard co-brand card issued by First Arkansas
Bank ("FAB").
The TCPA provides for uncapped statutory damages of $500 per fax.
Mastercard has asserted various defenses to the claims, and has
notified FAB of an indemnity claim that it has (which FAB has
disputed).
In June 2018, the court granted Mastercard's motion to stay the
proceedings until the Federal Communications Commission makes a
decision on the application of the TCPA to online fax services.
In December 2019, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
issued a declaratory ruling clarifying that the TCPA does not apply
to faxes sent to online fax services that are received via e-mail.
As a result of the ruling, the stay of the litigation was lifted in
January 2020.
Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.
MDL 2946: McGraw Hill Asks Panel to Move 9 Cases to D. Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Movants in the lawsuit titled In re: INCLUSIVE ACCESS COURSE
MATERIALS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, move the Panel for an order
transferring nine antitrust cases to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings before the Hon. Judge Maryellen Noreika.
The Movants are McGraw Hill LLC (f/k/a McGraw-Hill Global Education
Holdings, LLC); Pearson Education, Inc.; Cengage Learning, Inc.;
Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, LLC; Barnes & Noble Education,
Inc.; and Follett Higher Education Group, Inc.
The cases are:
1. Campus Book Company, Inc., et al. v. McGraw-Hill Global
Education Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00102 (D.
Del.);
2. Kinskey, et al. v. Cengage Learning, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02322 (N.D. Ill.);
3. BARABAS v. BARNES & NOBLE COLLEGE BOOKSELLERS, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-02442 (D.N.J.);
4. PICA v. BARNES & NOBLE COLLEGE BOOKSELLERS, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-04856 (D.N.J.);
5. WARMAN v. BARNES & NOBLE COLLEGE BOOKSELLERS, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-04875 (D.N.J.);
6. PULEO v. BARNES & NOBLE COLLEGE BOOKSELLERS, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-04990 (D.N.J.);
7. BELEN v. MCGRAW HILL, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05394
(D.N.J.);
8. GORDON, et al. v. BARNES & NOBLE COLLEGE BOOKSELLERS, LLC,
et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05535 (D.N.J.); and
9. Uchenik v. McGraw Hill, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03162
(S.D.N.Y.).
Defendant McGraw Hill LLC is represented by:
William F. Cavanaugh, Jr., Esq.
Saul B. Shapiro, Esq
Amy N. Vegari, Esq
PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 336-2000
Facsimile: (212) 336-2222
E-mail: wfcavanaugh@pbwt.com
sbshapiro@pbwt.com
avegari@pbwt.com
Defendant Cengage Learning, Inc., is represented by:
Eric Mahr, Esq.
Andrew J. Ewalt, Esq
Richard Snyder, Esq
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
700 13th Street NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3960
Telephone: (202) 777-4500
Facsimile: (202) 777-4555
E-mail: eric.mahr@freshfields.com
andrew.ewalt@freshfields.com
richard.snyder@freshfields.com
Defendant Pearson Education, Inc. is represented by:
Michael Dockterman, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 4700
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 577-1300
Facsimile: (312) 577-1370
E-mail: mdockterman@steptoe.com
- and -
Jennifer Quinn-Barabanov, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 429-3000
Facsimile: (202) 429-3902
E-mail: jquinnba@steptoe.com
Defendant Follett Higher Education Group, Inc., is represented by:
Craig C. Martin, Esq.
Matt D. Basil, Esq
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
300 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 728-9000
Facsimile: (312) 728-9199
E-mail: cmartin@willkie.com
mbasil@willkie.com
MESA AIR: Rosen Reminds of June 1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Mesa Air Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MESA) pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with Mesa's August 2018 initial public stock offering (the "IPO").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Mesa investors under the
federal securities laws.
To join the Mesa class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1825.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement contained
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Mesa Air Group's operational performance was poor and below
industry standards; (2) Mesa Air Group had a shortage of qualified
mechanics and maintenance personnel; (3) Mesa Air Group had an
inadequate number of spare aircraft and parts; (4) Mesa Air Group
did not have a strong track record of reliable performance; (5)
then-existing "risks" had already materialized; (6) Mesa Air Group
knew of undisclosed adverse trends and uncertainties at the time of
the IPO; and (7) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 1,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1825.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.
Contact:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/
[GN]
METALCRAFT OF MAYVILLE: Bid to Decertify Class Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RICHARD MAZUREK, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. METALCRAFT OF
MAYVILLE, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01439-WED (E.D. Wisc., Filed Oct.
20, 2017), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part Mazurek's "motion to
decertify the conditionally certified class and send
notice advising putative class members that their statutes
of limitation are no longer tolled." The conditionally
certified collective action is decertified, and the claims
of the opt-in plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice.
This action will continue with Mazurek as the sole
plaintiff. The following class is decertified:
"all persons who are or have been employed by
Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. as hourly manufacturing
employees at the Defendant's West Bend, Wisconsin or
Mayville, Wisconsin locations since three years prior
to the date the Court enters this Order, or the
Defendant’s Beaver Dam location since December 1,
2017.";
2. denying Mazurek's request to notify absent Rule 23 class
members of the decertification;
3. request for tolling of the statute of limitations
is dismissed as moot.
4. granting "stipulated motion for leave to file amended
complaint";
5. accepting amended complaint as the operative complaint for
Mazurek in his individual claims against Metalcraft.[CC]
The Court said, "Even though the court has not yet granted the
motion to decertify, Mazurek's counsel has already notified the
opt-in plaintiffs of the pending motion. All other putative class
members have already decided not to join the lawsuit. Accordingly,
the court denies Mazurek's request to allow him to send notice to
putative class members.
The Plaintiff alleges that Metalcraft has a common policy and
practice of impermissibly rounding the start and end times of its
hourly employees' work hours so as to deny such employees for
compensation for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin law.
Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. provides precision metal fabrication
and custom manufacturing services. The company offers a range of
fabrication services, including engineering and design, precision
tooling, product assembly, machining, and conventional and powder
painting.[CC]
MICHIGAN DOC: Certification of Inmate Class & Subclasses Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ELLIOTT ABRAMS, CRAIG
SEEGMILLER, VINCENT GLASS, ROBERT REEVES, JERAMINE CAMPBELL, and
LAMONT HEARD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WILLIS CHAPMAN, Warden, Macomb Correctional Facility
(MRF) ; NOAH NAGY, Warden at G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility
(JCF); MELINDA BRAMAN, Warden, Parnall Correctional Facility (SMT);
BRYAN MORRISON, Warden Lakeland Correctional Facility (LCF); HEIDI
WASHINGTON, Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections
(MDOC), sued in their official capacities only , Case No.
2:20-cv-11053-MAG-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"all inmates who currently are, or who in the future will
be, incarcerated in the MDOC's custody, at its different
prisons, and who are subjected to the MDOC's policies and
practices regarding COVID-19. This present class would be
more than 37,000 prisoners.";
2. certifying five subclasses of MDOC inmates:
A. First subclass would be those inmates who are Double
Bunked in individual cells and are not able to engage
in social distancing as required by the CDC guidelines
based on the conditions within the housing units.
B. Second subclass would be those inmates who are confined
in Pole Barns that have two sections, with each section
containing at least 20 cubes, holding 8 inmates in an
area of 8'x12'.
C. The Third Subclass would consist of those inmates who
have been designated by medical staff as Chronic Care
inmates and according to the CDC are at high risks of
severe illnesses from COVID-19 infection, including
death -- these high-risk conditions include:
-- People with chronic lung disease or moderate to
severe asthma; People who have serious heart
conditions;
-- People who are immunocompromised including cancer
treatment; and
-- People of any age with severe obesity (body mass
index [BMI] >40) or certain underlying medical
conditions, particularly if not well controlled,
such as those with diabetes, renal failure, or liver
disease.
D. The fourth subclass would be those prisoners
confined in open cellblocks where the spread of the
COVID-19 cannot be controlled.;
E. The fifth subclass would be those prisoners who are
confined in cell blocks who have tested negative where
staff have housed inmates that have tested positive
and have taken no or limited medical precautions to
prevent the spread of COVID-19 to all the other
inmates confined in the same cell block.
3. appointing themselves as class representative; and
4. appointing their counsel as class counsel.
This class action seeks to require the Defendants, wardens from
around the State and Director of the MDOC, to implement procedures
that provide reasonable medical care for the Plaintiffs and keep
them reasonably safe from contracting communicable disease while in
custody.
The Michigan Department of Corrections oversees prisons and the
parole and probation population in the state of Michigan. It has 31
prison facilities, and a Special Alternative Incarceration program,
together composing approximately 41,000 prisoners.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Manville, Esq.
DIRECTOR, CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC, MI.
State University College of Law
P.O. Box 1570
East Lansing, Michigan 48823
Telephone: (517) 432-6866
E-mail: daniel.manville@law.msu.edu
- and -
Kevin Ernst, Esq.
ERNST CHARARA & LOVELL, PLC
645 Griswold, Ste 4100
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: 313-965-5555
E-mail: kevin@ecllawfirm.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Robinson Says Debt Collection Letter "Deceptive"
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELYSE ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND
FUNDING LLC and DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00581-UNA
(D. Del., April 28, 2020) is a class action complaint brought
against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Plaintiff has a debt obligation to a creditor Comenity Capital
Bank/Overstock.Com incurred primarily for personal, family or
household purposes.
According to the complaint, Defendant Midland Funding purchased the
Comenity Capital Bank/Overstock.Com debt and contracted with the
Defendant MCM to collect the alleged debt.
Consequently, Defendant MCM sent a collection letter to Plaintiff
on or about February 6, 2020 regarding the alleged debt owed to
Defendant Midland Funding. However, the collection letter was
false, deceptive and misleading because it provided three
settlement options that are not adequately explained and resulted
in at least two different possible interpretations.
The complaint asserts that Plaintiff has been damaged because of
Defendants' deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection
practices.
Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, actual damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses, pre-judgment interest and
post-judgment interest, and other relief.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. and Midland Funding are debt
collectors. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antranig Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1010 N. Bancroft Pkwy, Suite 22
Wilmington, DE 19805
Tel: (302)722-6885
Email: ag@garibianlaw.com
MINDSET SOLUTIONS: Portis Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
MAURICE PORTIS, JANE & JOHN DOES 1-100 v. MINDSET SOLUTIONS,
CORPORATIONS, ABC CORPORATIONS, and JANE AND JOHN DOES 1-100, Case
No. 2:20-cv-05522 (D.N.J., May 4, 2020), is brought by the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees against Mindset
to recover alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants required the Plaintiffs
to appear for work at the Defendants' business location at 290
Chestnut Avenue, in Newark, New Jersey, from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30
p.m. every weekday, initially to be trained and later, to act as a
trainer of other employees. The Plaintiffs contend that they were
not compensated for these approximately two hours of work.
From October 29, 2018, through December 27, 2019, Ms. Portis was
employed by the Defendants as a sales representative selling
subscriptions to Verizon Fios internet plans. Plaintiffs Jane &
John Does are similarly situated co-employees of Ms. Portis.
Mindset offers business consulting.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Deena B. Rosendahl, Esq.
KAUFMAN SEMERARO & LEIBMAN LLP
Fort Lee Executive Park
Two Executive Drive, Suite 530
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Telephone: 201-947-8855
Facsimile: 201-947-2402
E-mail: drosendahl@northjerseyattorneys.com
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: HomeServices Can't Compel Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard at Bloomberg Law reports that a federal judge in
Kansas City, Mo., in mid-April 2020 held that HomeServices of
America can't compel arbitration of a proposed class action
alleging a nationwide conspiracy by top real estate brokerages to
rig commissions.
According to the report, Judge Stephen R. Bough said the company
has no right to enforce the arbitration agreement signed by two of
the plaintiffs because the broker in their case worked for a
subsidiary, not HomeServices itself.
"HomeServices defendants assert they are a holding company that
does not sell real estate, does not charge commissions, and does
not enter into listing agreements," Judge Bough wrote.
"HomeServices is not a party to the contract."
He also denied HomeServices' motion to strike "any class
allegations that" purport to "include persons who signed an
arbitration agreement."
The ruling comes three days after co-defendant RE/MAX LLC failed to
get the case paused over coronavirus concerns. Denying its motion
to stay discovery April 7, Judge Bough praised the professionalism
of both sides and said he was confident the parties could work
through the challenges posed by the pandemic.
In addition to HomeServices and RE/MAX, the suit targets the
National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., and
Keller Williams Realty. It accuses them of conspiring to bar
brokers who represent home sellers from negotiating the commissions
they pay brokers representing buyers.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri by homeowners who say the scheme inflated
commissions when they sold their houses. It's one of two parallel
suits making similar claims, with the other proceeding in Chicago
federal court. The Department of Justice is also investigating.
Judge Bough gave the case the green light in October. He rejected
the argument that requiring a unilateral commission offer can't be
an antitrust violation because it has the legitimate purpose of
stopping buyers' brokers from holding otherwise good deals
"hostage" based on commission size.
The rule may have pro-competitive justifications, but weighing them
against its anti-competitive effects is for summary judgment or
trial, the judge said.
HomeServices is represented by Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Foley &
Lardner LLP, and Lathrop GPM LLP. RE/MAX is represented by Horn
Aylward & Bandy LLC. Keller Williams is represented by Holland &
Knight LLP and Brown & James PC. Realogy is represented by Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP and Armstrong Teasdale LLP. The NAR is
represented by Stinson LLP and Schiff Hardin LLP.
The plaintiffs are represented by Williams Dirks Dameron LLC and
Boulware Law LLC.
The case is Sitzer v. Nat'l Ass'n of Realtors, W.D. Mo., No.
19-cv-332, 4/10/20. [GN]
NATIONAL RIFLE: McEwen TCPA Suit Seeks to End Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Travis McEwen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Rifle Association of America, and InfoCision,
Inc. d/b/a InfoCision Management Corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-00153-LEW (D. Maine, May 5, 2020), seeks to stop the
Defendants' unlawful practice of making unsolicited telemarketing
calls with an automatic telephone dialing system without consumers'
prior express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The lawsuit also seeks to stop the Defendants' unlawful practice of
calling consumers, who are on the National Do Not Call Registry,
and seeks to obtain redress for all persons injured by Defendants'
unlawful conduct.
Beginning November 2019, the Plaintiff received more than 16
unwanted calls from the Defendants.
The National Rifle Association of America is a gun rights advocacy
group based in the United States. InfoCision, Inc., provides direct
marketing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David G. Webbert, Esq.
Jeffrey Neil Young, Esq.
Shelby Leighton, Esq.
JOHNSON, WEBBERT & YOUNG, LLP
160 Capitol Street, P.O. Box 79
Augusta, ME 04332-0079
Telephone: 207 623 5110
E-mail: dwebbert@work.law
jyoung@work.law
sleighton@work.law
- and -
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
Kaleigh N. Powell, Esq
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: 206 682 5600
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
jdennett@tousley.com
kpowell@tousley.com
NEON THERAPEUTICS: Faces BioNTech SE Merger-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Neon Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated April 29, 2020, that the
company has been named as a defendant in several suits including
putative class actions suits related to its merger with BioNTech
SE.
On January 15, 2020, Neon Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, BioNTech SE, a Societas Europaea organized and
existing under the laws of Germany ("Parent" or "BioNTech") and
Endor Lights, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which Merger
Sub will be merged with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with
the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Parent.
On April 2, 2020, the Company filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a definitive proxy statement (the
"Definitive Proxy Statement") with respect to the special meeting
(the "Neon Special Meeting") of the Company's stockholders
scheduled to be held on May 4, 2020 in connection with the Merger.
In connection with the Merger, a putative class action lawsuit,
Franchi v. Neon Therapeutics, Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-00482, was
filed on April 7, 2020 by purported Company stockholder Adam
Franchi against the Company, its directors, Parent, and Merger Sub
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
On April 10, 2020, in connection with the Merger, a complaint,
Alvarado v. Neon Therapeutics, Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-02959, was
filed as an individual action by purported Company stockholder
Francisco J. Dos Ramos Alvarado against the Company and its
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.
On April 13, 2020, in connection with the Merger, a complaint,
Ezebunwa v. Neon Therapeutics, Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-03001, was
filed as an individual action by purported Company stockholder
Esther Ezebunwa against the Company and its directors in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On April 15, 2020, in connection with the Merger, a putative class
action lawsuit, Marks v. Neon Therapeutics, Inc., et al.,
1:20-cv-03033, was filed by purported Company stockholder John
Marks against the Company and its directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
On April 15, 2020, in connection with the Merger, a complaint, Shen
v. Neon Therapeutics, Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-03035, was filed as an
individual action by purported Company stockholder David Shen
against the Company and its directors in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
On April 15, 2020, in connection with the Merger, a complaint,
Gilbert v. Neon Therapeutics, et al., 1:20-cv-01816, was filed as
an individual action by purported Company stockholder Phillip
Gilbert against the Company and its directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The Franchi, Alvarado, Ezebunwa, Marks, Shen, and Gilbert cases are
collectively referred to as the "Merger Actions."
The Merger Actions generally allege that the Definitive Proxy
Statement misrepresents and/or omits certain purportedly material
information relating to financial projections, analysis performed
by Duff & Phelps, LLC ("Duff & Phelps"), and past engagements of
Duff & Phelps and Ondra Partners.
The Merger Actions assert violations of Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder against the Company and its directors and violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company's directors.
The Franchi Merger Action also asserts violations of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act against BioNTech and Merger Sub.
The Shen Merger Action also asserts claims for breach of fiduciary
duty against the Company's directors.
The Merger Actions seek, among other things: an injunction
enjoining consummation of the Merger, costs of the action,
including plaintiff's attorneys' fees and experts' fees,
declaratory relief and any other relief the court may deem just and
proper.
The Company believes the Merger Actions to be without merit. It is
possible that additional similar cases could be filed in connection
with the Merger.
Neon Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a biotechnology company. The
Company offers a neoantigen platform to develop neoantigen-targeted
therapies for the treatment of cancer by directing the immune
system. Neon Therapeutics offers its services in the United States.
The company is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
PETSMART INC: Clark Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINA CLARK, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. PETSMART, INC., a
Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
CIVMSC19-00954-EW (Filed Jan. 30, 2020), was removed from the
California Superior Court, Contra Costa County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on May 5, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-03097 to the proceeding.
The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants failed to pay lawful wages,
including overtime and minimum wages, in violation of the
California Labor Code.
PetSmart is an American retail chain operating in the United States
and Canada that is engaged in the sale of specialty pet animal
products, such as food, furniture, habitats, and accessories, and
services, such as dog grooming and dog training.[BN]
Petsmart is represented by:
Paul S. Cowie, Esq.
Brooke S. Purcell, Esq.
Amanda E. Beckwith, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
Telephone: 415 434 9100
Facsimile: 415 434 3947
E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com
bpurcell@sheppardmullin.com
abeckwith@sheppardmullin.com
PHILIP MORRIS: ADESF Class Suit vs. Unit Still Ongoing in Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------
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's
subsidiary, Philip Morris Marketing, S.A., continues to defend a
class action suit in Brazil entitled, The Smoker Health Defense
Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A.
In the class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health Defense
Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central Courts
of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July 25,
1995, the company's subsidiary and another member of the industry
are defendants.
The plaintiff, a consumer organization, is seeking damages for all
addicted smokers and former smokers, and injunctive relief.
In 2004, the trial court found defendants liable without hearing
evidence and awarded "moral damages" of R$1,000 (approximately
$183) per smoker per full year of smoking plus interest at the rate
of 1% per month, as of the date of the ruling.
The court did not award actual damages, which were to be assessed
in the second phase of the case. The size of the class was not
estimated.
Defendants appealed to the São Paulo Court of Appeals, which
annulled the ruling in November 2008, finding that the trial court
had inappropriately ruled without hearing evidence and returned the
case to the trial court for further proceedings. In May 2011, the
trial court dismissed the claim. In February 2015, the appellate
court unanimously dismissed plaintiff's appeal.
In September 2015, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of
Justice. In February 2017, the Chief Justice of the Superior Court
of Justice denied plaintiff's appeal.
In March 2017, plaintiff filed an en banc appeal to the Superior
Court of Justice. In addition, the defendants filed a
constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis
that plaintiff did not have standing to bring the lawsuit.
Both appeals are still pending.
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 Bourassa 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, Bourassa v.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al.
In a class action pending in Canada, Bourassa 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, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the
decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from
emphysema 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 were alive on June 12,
2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases 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.
In December 2014, plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim.
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: Jacklin Class Suit Ongoing 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, Suzanne Jacklin
v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.
In a class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, filed June 20, 2012, 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)
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, 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.
PHOENIX TREE: Faces IPO Related Class Suit in SDNY
--------------------------------------------------
Phoenix Tree Holdings Limited 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 has
been named as a defendant in a putative shareholder class action
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York related to its initial public offering.
On April 24, 2020, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the
company, certain of its directors and officers, and other
defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit in
connection with the company's initial public offering.
The complaint alleges that the prospectus for our initial public
offering contains material misstatements and omissions and seeks
remedies under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.
This case is in its preliminary stages.
Phoenix Tree said, "We have not accrued any loss contingencies as
we cannot reliably estimate the likelihood of an unfavorable
outcome or provide any estimate of the amount or range of any
potential loss. We believe that the claims against us are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit."
Phoenix Tree Holdings Limited provides residential rental services
and operates co-living platform. The Company operates apartments
sourced from property owners and rents out to residents, as well as
offers design, renovation, and furnishing of apartment units.
Phoenix Tree Holdings serves clients throughout China.
PLURALSIGHT INC: Amended Complaint in Utah Class Suit Due June 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pluralsight, 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 an amended complaint is
due to be filed by June 3, 2020 in the class action suit pending
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.
In August 2019, a class action complaint was filed by a stockholder
of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the Company, and certain of the Company's
officers alleging violation of securities laws and seeking
unspecified damages.
In October 2019, the action was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah and in March 2020, a lead plaintiff
was appointed. An amended complaint is due to be filed by June 3,
2020.
The Company believes this suit is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously.
Pluralsight said, "The Company is unable to estimate a range of
loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse final
decision. If an unfavorable outcome were to occur, it is possible
that the impact could be material to the Company's results of
operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes
probable and estimable."
Pluralsight, Inc. operates as a software company. The Company
provides a platform which offers assessments, learning paths and
courses to businesses and individuals seeking to enhance their
programming and IT related skill sets. Pluralsights servces
customers around the world. The company is based in Farmington,
Utah.
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Rozo Class Suit Against Principal Life Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, 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 Principal Life, a
company subsidiary, continues to defend a class action suit
initiated by Frederick Rozo.
On November 12, 2014, Frederick Rozo filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa against Principal Life and the company. The company was later
dismissed as a defendant.
The Plaintiff alleged that defendants breached fiduciary duties and
engaged in prohibited transactions under The Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) in connection with a general
account guaranteed product known as the Principal Fixed Income
Option ("PFIO").
On May 12, 2017, the district court certified a nationwide class of
participants and beneficiaries who had funds invested in one of the
PFIO contracts.
On September 25, 2018, the district court granted Principal Life's
motion for summary judgment.
On February 3, 2020, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
that ruling and remanded the case back to the district court.
Principal Life will continue to aggressively defend the case.
Principal Financial Group, Inc., is a global investment management
company offering retirement services, insurance solutions and asset
management. The company is based in Des Moines, Iowa.
PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Ira Suit Moved From D.N.J. to S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL A. BERNSTEIN IRA,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., KAREN JEAN FERRANTE, BRADLEY L.
CAMPBELL, ERIC J. ENDE, DAVID W. MIMS, ANN L. MACDOUGALL, GERARD
BER, HEINZ MAUSLI, LANTHEUS HOLDINGS, INC., and PLATO MERGER SUB,
INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-21200 (Filed Dec. 9, 2019), was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square) on May 6, 2020.
The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-03521-UA to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with an alleged false and
misleading Registration Statement.
Progenics is an oncology company focused on the development and
commercialization of innovative targeted medicines and artificial
intelligence to find, fight, and follow cancer, including
therapeutic agents designed to treat cancer (AZEDRA (TM), 1095, and
PSMA TTC); prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) targeted
imaging agents for prostate cancer (PyLTM and 1404); and imaging
analysis technology (aBSI and PSMA AI). The Individual Defendants
are officers and directors of the Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Howard Theodore Longman, Esq.
STULL STULL & BRODY
6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 687-7230
Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
E-mail: tsvi@aol.com
PURDUE UNIVERSITY: Millberg Files Class Action Over Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Phillips Grossman LLP, a member firm of the Coronavirus
Litigation Task Force, said that on April 9, 2020, it filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of Purdue University students who were
forced to leave campus and take online courses due to the COVID-19
outbreak. The lawsuit claims that students were not offered
adequate refunds for tuition, housing, meals, and fees and seeks
appropriate compensation on a pro-rata basis. It also seeks damages
for the difference in value between online and in-person
instruction.
To prevent the spread of the coronavirus, hundreds of colleges and
universities across the country have either shut down student
housing or strongly suggested that students leave. These same
students were only offered online learning for the remainder of the
semester. Students are now wondering if they can get refunds for
housing, meal plans, and fees for services such as health clinics,
recreation centers, and parking. They're further questioning the
value of remote learning compared to classroom teaching.
Some--but not all--schools are offering pro-rated refunds for
unused room and board services. In certain cases, schools offering
non pro-rated refunds are providing only a minimal amount, given
the cost of housing per semester. Purdue University, which for the
2019-2020 academic year charged $10,030 for room and board, is only
crediting $750 to students who vacated university housing by March
30. With respect to meal plans, Purdue offers credits for the
purchase of future meals, but does not offer full reimbursement.
The use of remote classes ostensibly allows students to continue
their education outside of the classroom. But not all students find
online learning to be as valuable as on-campus learning. They cite,
among other factors, the lack of real-time feedback from in-person
peers and teachers. According to Brookings Institute research,
taking courses online reduces a student's grades and increases the
probability that they will drop out of school.
"COVID-19 has forced everyone to make sacrifices," said Marc
Grossman, a Managing Partner at Milberg. "While school closures
were an appropriate response to the coronavirus, Purdue and other
schools should not profit at the expense of their students, who
deserve to be fairly refunded for services they paid for but didn't
receive."
The Coronavirus Task Force was formed to investigate suspected
wrongdoing related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Its partners
collectively have decades of legal experience and billions of
dollars in client recoveries. The Task Force is currently
investigating other schools and will announce additional lawsuits
as the outbreak unfolds.
For legal inquiries please contact Jennifer Czeisler, Senior
Counsel at jczeisler@milberg.com or via phone 212-946-9408.
For media inquiries please contact Angel Persaud, Director of
Marketing at apersaud@milberg.com or via phone (646) 733-5727.
[GN]
RENUKE SERVICES: Underpays Senior Technical Instructors, Page Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TIMOTHY PAGE, individually and for others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RENUKE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00184 (E.D. Tenn., April 28, 2020) arises from Defendant's
alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as Senior Technical Instructor
from approximately March 2019 until February 2020 at Entergy's
nuclear power plant in Port Gibson, Mississippi.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked over 40
hours in a week and although he often worked 45-50 hours per
workweek, Defendant never paid him any overtime. Allegedly,
Defendant applied unlawful straight-time-for-overtime payment
scheme, thereby failing to pay wages and overtime compensation at
the rates required by the FLSA.
ReNuke Services, Inc. provides staffing services and turnkey
project execution for the nuclear power industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer B. Morton, Esq.
Maha M. Ayesh, Esq.
JENNIFER MORTON LAW, PLLC
8217 Pickens Gap Road
Knoxville, TN 37920
Tel: 865-579-0708
Fax: 865-579-0787
Emails: jen@jmortonlaw.com
maha@mortonlaw.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: 713-352-1100
Fax: 713-352-3300
Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
cfitz@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: 713-877-8788
Fax: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
RIVERSIDE CTY, CA: Atty. Seeks Sheriff's Plan to Curb Virus in Jail
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Desert Sun reports that an attorney who prevailed against the
Riverside County Sheriff's Department in a federal class-action
lawsuit that sought improved inmate health care in the county's
jails is now asking a federal judge to order the department to make
public its plans to protect staff and inmates from the
coronavirus.
The judge, in turn, ordered Riverside County to respond to the
request.
Sara Norman, with The Prison Law Office, a nonprofit public
interest law firm based in Berkeley that provides free legal
services to offenders to improve their "conditions of confinement,"
represented Riverside County inmates in a 2014 civil rights lawsuit
that contended they were being deprived of their constitutional
rights to adequate health care.
In 2016, a settlement was reached that established a consent
decree, which included the creation of an oversight panel comprised
of two doctors who, during the subsequent four years, advised the
jail system on how to improve inmate access to medical and mental
health care services.
The court order that established that monitoring agreement was set
to expire later this year. But, the onset of the coronavirus
pandemic and concerns about its potential effects on the health of
inmates and jail staff have given new life to these concerns.
"First and foremost, we need information," Norman said. "I know
very little about the conditions my clients are experiencing in the
jails (as a result of the pandemic)."
"The conditions in the Riverside jails create a tinderbox for rapid
spread of the virus, imperiling the people who live there, the
staff who work there and the community-at-large," Norman wrote in
her request. [GN]
RTI SURGICAL: Hagens Berman Call Investors to Join Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges RTI Surgical Holdings (RTIX) investors who have
suffered significant losses to submit their loss now. A securities
fraud class action has been filed and important investor deadlines
have been established.
Class Period: Mar. 7, 2016 - Mar. 16, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 22, 2020
Sign Up: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/RTIX
Contact an Attorney Now: RTIX@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc. (RTIX) Securities Class Action:
The Complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented and concealed
that the Company inappropriately recognized revenues, including
with its other equipment manufacturer (OEM) customers.
The truth emerged, according to the Complaint, on Mar. 17, 2020
when the Company announced it would not timely file its 2019 annual
report. Defendants blamed the delay on an ongoing investigation
into "the Company's revenue recognition practices involving the
timing of revenue recognition with respect to certain contractual
arrangements, primarily with OEM customers." This news drove the
price of RTI Surgical shares sharply lower on Mar. 17, 2020.
Recent developments have strengthened investors' securities fraud
claims. On Mar. 20, 2020, the Company announced the termination of
Johannes W. Louw, RTI Surgical's former interim CFO, who headed the
Company's financial planning and analysis.
Most recently, on Apr. 9, 2020, the company announced it will
restate all previously audited financial statements for 2014 –
2018, and its unaudited financial statements for the quarterly
periods for 2016 – 2018 and the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2019.
The Company explained, in effect, it recognized revenue prematurely
by shipping products to customers earlier than agreed upon. The
Company further noted that on some "occasions the goods were
delivered early without obtaining the customers' affirmative
approval." Additionally, the Company divulged that in July 2017, an
adjustment was improperly made to a product return provision in the
Direct Division.
"We're focused on recovering investors' losses and proving that RTI
Surgical engaged in improper revenue recognition practices to
deceive investors into believing it was more profitable," said Reed
Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding RTI
Surgical should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email RTIX@hbsslaw.com.
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation.
Contact:
Reed Kathrein
HAGENS BERMAN
Tel: 844-916-0895
Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com/
Twitter: @classactionlaw
[GN]
RTI SURGICAL: Schall Announces Filing of Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against RTI Surgical
Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:RTIX) for violations of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 7,
2016 and March 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before May 22, 2020.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. RTI improperly recognized revenues from
certain contracts including those with other equipment
manufacturers. The Company failed to maintain effective controls on
financial reporting. These problems forced the Company to delay the
filing of its Form 10-K for fiscal year 2019. Based on these facts,
the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about RTI, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
Contact:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
Web site: http://www.schallfirm.com/
Office: 310-301-3335
E-mail: info@schallfirm.com
[GN]
SENTINEL INSURANCE: Buff Alo Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case BUFF ALO XEROGRAPHIX INC., for itself and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated policyholders, -v Plaintiffs, SENTINEL
INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.; THE HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP a/k/a THE
HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.; HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY; HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY; HARTFORD CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY; HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS; HARTFORD
INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST; HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE
COMPANY; NEW ENGLAND INSURANCE COMPANY; NEW ENGLAND REINSURANCE
CORPORATION; PACIFIC INSURANCE COMP ANY, LIMITED; PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD; TRUMBULL INSURANCE COMPANY;
and TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00520 (W.D.N.Y., April 29, 2020) alleges that the
Defendants deny coverage to Plaintiff and other Class members for
losses and other damages arising from and related to the Virus,
COVID-19, that prohibit, limit or restrict access and/or use,
directly or indirectly, of the premises ("CA Orders").
The Policies issued by Defendants to Plaintiff and the Class
members are generally known as commercial property insurance, and
include, without limitation: (a) policies identified by Defendants
as "Spectrum Business Owner's Policy"; and (b) Special Property
Coverage Form SS 00 07 07 05 (the "Policy"). The Policy issued by
Defendants to Plaintiff and the other Class members is "all risk"
and, as such, provides coverage for physical loss of property
resulting from any cause unless the loss is "Excluded" or
"Limited." The Policy issued by Defendants to Plaintiff and Class
members also do not contain an exclusion or limitation expressly
addressing losses caused by or related to a virus.
The Defendants breached their insurance contracts with Plaintiff
and other Class members by failing to provide the coverage and
benefits as identified herein.
According to the complaint, Defendants made coverage decisions
concerning policyholder claims related to the Virus, COVID-19, and
the CA Orders without consideration of the unique facts or
circumstances of each loss and, rather, adopted a pattern and/or
practice to deny such claims.
Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd. is a stock insurance company of
Hartford Insurance Group headquartered in New York.
The Hartford Insurance Group a/k/a The Hartford Financial Services
Group, Inc. is an insurance company organized under the laws of the
State of Delaware and registered and duly authorized to transact
insurance business in the State of New York.
New England Insurance Company is a New York-based insurance
company.
Pacific Insurance Company, Limited is an insurance company based in
New York.
Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford is an insurance
company based in New York.
Trumbull Insurance Company is an insurance company headquartered in
New York.
Twin City Fire Insurance Company is a New York-based insurance
company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles C. Ritter, Jr., Esq.
Christopher M. Berloth, Esq.
Thomas D. Lyons, Esq.
DUKE HOLZMAN PHOTIADIS & GRESENS LLP
701 Seneca Street, Suite 750
Buffalo, NY 14210
Telephone: (716) 855-1111
Email: critter@dhpglaw.com
cberloth@dhpglaw.com
tlyons@dhpglaw.com
SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP announces that on April 10, 2020, it filed a
securities class action lawsuit, captioned Ruttenberg v.
ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc., No. 20-cv-02976 (S.D.N.Y.)
(the "Action"), on behalf of its client Michael Ruttenberg
("Ruttenberg") against ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc.
("ServiceMaster" or the "Company") and certain officers and
directors (collectively, "Defendants"). The Action asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of
ServiceMaster between February 26, 2019 and November 4, 2019, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), who were damaged thereby (the
"Class").
ServiceMaster is a leading provider of essential services to
residential and commercial customers in the termite, pest control,
cleaning and restoration markets. ServiceMaster's largest and most
profitable business segment is Terminix, a termite and pest control
business that primarily operates in the United States. Among other
services, Terminix offers an annual coverage plan for its termite
customers, which indemnifies the customer against the cost of
treatments and repairs.
During the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly assured the market
that ServiceMaster was successfully executing upon initiatives to
improve the performance in the Terminix segment. In addition,
Defendants stated that Terminix would reach a positive "inflection
point" and was "definitely the driver" for positive trends expected
in the second half of 2019. Unbeknownst to investors, however, in
the past several years the Terminix segment had experienced an
adverse trend of costly termite litigation, primarily related to
Formosan termite activity. This negative trend, which would
ultimately impact ServiceMaster's current and future financial
results, was known to Defendants throughout the Class Period, as by
their own later admission they had been taking mitigating measures
since 2018.
On October 22, 2019, ServiceMaster announced disappointing
preliminary financial results for the third quarter 2019, having
missed revenue and earnings estimates, and issued downward adjusted
EBITDA guidance. The press release attributed the disappointing
results to "termite damage claims arising primarily from Formosan
termite activity," primarily in Mobile, Alabama. The Company
further stated that this had been a known issue, having taken
mitigating measures "starting in 2018." Finally, the Company
announced the sudden departure of Matthew J. Stevenson in his role
as President of Terminix Residential.
On this news the price of ServiceMaster common stock fell $11.44 or
20 percent, closing at $44.70 on October 22, 2019, down from its
$56.14 closing price on October 21, 2019.
On November 5, 2019, before the start of trading, ServiceMaster
released its third quarter 2019 financial results. In this press
release discussing the "challenging quarter," the Company revealed
that it had been impacted by certain "legacy risks," including
"termite damage claims." That same day, Defendants held an earnings
call with analysts and investors to discuss ServiceMaster's third
quarter 2019 financial results. On the call, Defendants informed
the market that the increase in termite litigation--which had
occurred "[i]n the past few years"--had impacted termite revenue
and these issues would continue throughout 2020.
On this news, the price of ServiceMaster common stock fell $1.42,
or 3.5 percent, to close at $39.15 on November 5, 2019. As the
market continued to digest the disappointing news, ServiceMaster
shares further declined by $3.41, or 9 percent, closing at $35.74
on November 6, 2019. All told, following the November 5, 2019
disclosure, ServiceMaster stock suffered a total decline of $4.83
from the November 4, 2019 closing price.
If you purchased ServiceMaster common stock during the Class Period
and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may
be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff
motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York no later than June 9, 2020. The Lead
Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of
the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to
share in any Class recovery in the Action. If you are a Class
member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that
recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your
choice to represent you in the Action.
If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact David J. Schwartz,
Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email at
dschwartz@labaton.com.
Ruttenberg is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents
many of the largest pension funds in the United States and
internationally with combined assets under management of more than
$2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its
excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked
in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York,
NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C.
Contact:
David J. Schwartz
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
Tel: (800) 321-0476
E-mail: dschwartz@labaton.com
recover@labaton.com
Web site: http://www.labaton.com/
[GN]
SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL: Thornton Announces Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thornton Law Firm LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc. on behalf of
ServiceMaster shareholders (SERV). SERV investors interested in
participating as a lead plaintiff in the case are encouraged to
contact the firm at https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/SERV. Shareholders
may also email shareholder@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.
The lawsuit alleges that ServiceMaster did not disclose material
information to investors in a timely manner, causing investors to
suffer losses on October 22, 2019 and November 5, 2019.
On October 22, 2019, ServiceMaster announced disappointing
preliminary financial results for the third quarter 2019, having
missed revenue and earnings estimates, and issued downward adjusted
EBITDA guidance. The press release attributed the disappointing
results to "termite damage claims arising primarily from Formosan
termite activity," primarily in Mobile, Alabama. The Company
further stated that this had been a known issue, having taken
mitigating measures "starting in 2018." Finally, the Company
announced the sudden departure of Matthew J. Stevenson in his role
as President of Terminix Residential.
On this news the price of ServiceMaster common stock fell $11.44 or
20 percent, closing at $44.70 on October 22, 2019, down from its
$56.14 closing price on October 21, 2019.
On November 5, 2019, before the start of trading, ServiceMaster
released its third quarter 2019 financial results. In this press
release discussing the "challenging quarter," the Company revealed
that it had been impacted by certain "legacy risks," including
"termite damage claims." That same day, Defendants held an earnings
call with analysts and investors to discuss ServiceMaster's third
quarter 2019 financial results. On the call, Defendants informed
the market that the increase in termite litigation-which had
occurred "[i]n the past few years"-had impacted termite revenue and
these issues would continue throughout 2020.
On this news, the price of ServiceMaster common stock fell $1.42,
or 3.5 percent, to close at $39.15 on November 5, 2019. As the
market continued to digest the disappointing news, ServiceMaster
shares further declined by $3.41, or 9 percent, closing at $35.74
on November 6, 2019. All told, following the November 5, 2019
disclosure, ServiceMaster stock suffered a total decline of $4.83
from the November 4, 2019 closing price.
Investors who have suffered a loss as a result of their investment
in SERV stock (SERV) are encouraged to contact the Thornton Law
Firm's shareholder rights team at http://www.tenlaw.com/cases/SERV,
by email at shareholder@tenlaw.com, or calling 617-531-3917.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/SERV
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing individual shareholders and institutional investors in
recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its
attorneys have established track records litigating securities
cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on
behalf of shareholders.
Contact:
Thornton Law Firm LLP
State Street Financial Center
1 Lincoln Street
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/SERV
[GN]
SKO BRENNER: Griffin Lee Calls Collection Letter "Illegal"
----------------------------------------------------------
GRIFFIN LEE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SKO BRENNER AMERICAN, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 9:20-cv-80703-DMM (S.D. Fla., April 27, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.
Plaintiff allegedly has an obligation to pay his Consumer Debt
arising from a transaction between him and the original creditor.
According to the complaint, Defendant sent a collection letter to
Plaintiff internally dated April 9, 2020 in an attempt to collect
the Consumer Debt. However, Defendant is not lawfully authorized or
has no license to collect consumer debts from Florida consumers
because Defendant is not registered as a consumer collection agency
with the Florida Department of State.
SKO Brenner American, Inc. regularly collects or attempts to
collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to
be owed or due another. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: 954-907-1136
Fax: 855-529-9540
Emails: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: NZ Government's Liability Could Exceed $400M
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New Zealand Herald reports that data on 200 cases that are part
of the class action against Southern Response suggest the
government's liability to the about 3,000 potential plaintiffs
could exceed $400 million.
The cases are those whose claims were settled before Oct. 1, 2014
by Southern Response, but where the government-owned insurer
concealed from claimants the true cost of rebuilding their homes.
Southern Response took over claims on policies written by AMI
before the private insurer failed in 2012.
In July 2015, the Supreme Court held that Southern Response's
behaviour was unlawful, but the company chose to correctly settle
only those claims that occurred after Oct. 1, 2014.
In August last year, the High Court in Christchurch ordered
Southern Response to pay more than $200,000 in compensation,
including interest and GST, in a different but essentially similar
case to those represented by the class action.
Karl and Alison Dodds were the successful couple in that case while
Brendan and Colleen Ross are the representative plaintiffs in the
class action.
Of the 200 cases, the highest amount concealed from a policyholder
was $447,129.50.
"The data received is shocking. Generally, the amounts concealed
are in six figures with the average concealment on this limited
sample being more than $149,000," said Grant Cameron, the solicitor
for the class action.
"If ultimately all 3,000 policyholders are entitled to recover the
concealed funds, Southern Response will face over $400 million in
compensation, damages and costs," Cameron said.
The class action won a landmark Court of Appeal decision last
September allowing it to proceed on an "opt out" basis, meaning
that it represents all potential claimants unless they expressly
opt out.
The government has appealed that decision and the Supreme Court had
been scheduled to hear the case on May 23 and 24, but that has been
delayed by the coronavirus crisis and the national lockdown.
The government is also appealing the decision in the Dodds'
favour.
Cameron told BusinessDesk it is difficult to estimate the
government's potential liability because the exact number of
claimants would not be determined until Southern Response has
provided accurate data on all potential claimants.
And the courts will still have to determine which payments should
fall within the claim and which outside – such as the cost of
house demolition, if the house doesn't need to be demolished.
"Subject to final claimant numbers being confirmed and clarity
being received about which payments might fall outside the claim,
we still have a large claim. I have suggested $400 million as a
minimum," he said.
"Then there will be a very large interest bill, given that
settlements took place from soon after the quakes and through to
October 2014 and of course, the ever-lengthening period to payment
is driving up that cost, regardless of the interest rate that might
finally be imposed or agreed," he said.
"The costs award will itself be large."
Australia-based litigation funder Maurice Blackburn is backing the
class action. [GN]
STARR SURPLUS: Nola Sues Over Denial of COVID-19 Claims Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
NOLA GROUP HOTEL, L.L.C. v. STARR SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01373 (E.D. La., May 4, 2020), is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated in
connection with the Defendant's assertion that the Plaintiff's loss
due to COVID-19 pandemic was likely excluded from coverage under
its insurance policies.
The Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant two identical insurance
policies bearing Policy Numbers SLSTPTY11271220 and
SLSTPTY11271320. The all-risk Policy provides coverage for Business
Interruption, Extra Expense, Civil Authority, and Extended Business
Income.
On March 11, 2020, World Health Organization Director General
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared the COVID-19 outbreak a
pandemic. On March 23, 2020, Governor John Bel Edwards entered a
"Stay At Home" Order restricting public access to non-essential
businesses and limiting restaurants to take out only.
The Plaintiff contends that it has suffered and will continue to
suffer a direct physical loss of and damage to its property. The
Plaintiff notified the Defendant of its loss and made a claim under
the all-risk Policy. By letters dated April 21, 2020, and April 28,
2020, the Defendant issued reservation of rights letters asserting
that its loss was likely excluded from coverage under the all-risk
Policy.
Starr Surplus offers insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
Brian D. Katz, Esq.
Soren E. Gisleson, Esq.
Joseph E. Jed, Esq.
John S. Creevy, Esq.
HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
820 O'Keefe Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70113
Telephone: (504) 581-4892
E-mail: sherman@hhklawfirm.com
bkatz@hhklawfirm.com
sgisleson@hhklawfirm.com
jcain@hhklawfirm.com
jcreevy@hhklawfirm.com
- and -
Robert J. Dilberto, Esq.
DILIBERTO LAW FIRM
3636 S. I-10 Service Rd., Suite 210
Metairie, LA 70002
Telephone: (504) 828-1600
E-mail: Robert@GetRJD.com
TAMPA BAY PLUMBING: Higueros Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GEOVANNI HIGUEROS, on behalf of himself And all other Similarly
situated v. TAMPA BAY PLUMBING, LLC, Case No. 20-002219-CI (Fla.
Cir., Pinellas Cty., May 5, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and unpaid
wages and attorney's fees pursuant to Fla. Stat.
The Plaintiff contends that he was typically scheduled to work 40
hours per week; however, he was repeatedly instructed by his
supervisor to work prior his scheduled start time, and to stay past
his scheduled end time. As result of this "off the clock" work, he
worked between 50-70 or more hours each week on average. He alleges
that he was not paid for this unscheduled "off the clock" hours.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a plumbing crew
member/helper on June 2018 to August 2019.
The Defendant provides plumbing services in the Tampa Bay
area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cari Lee Clark, Esq.
TAMPA BAY FLORIDA LAWYERS
108 12 Gandy Blvd.
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
Telephone: (727) 202-691
Facsimile (727) 202-6918
E-mail: cari@tamoabayfloridalawyers.com
linda@tampabayfloridalawyers.com
service@tampabayfloridalawyers.com
TELADOC HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Reiner Securities Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Teladoc Health, 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
the purported securities class action suit entitled, Reiner v.
Teladoc Health, Inc., et al., is pending.
On December 12, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint
(Reiner v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et.al.) was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of the Company's officers and a former
officer.
The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of the Company's common stock during the period March 3,
2016 through December 5, 2019.
The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or
misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other
things, the alleged misconduct of one of the Company's previous
Executive Officers.
The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.
The Company believes that the claims against the Company and its
officers are without merit, and the Company and its named officers
intend to defend the Company vigorously, including filing a motion
to dismiss the complaint.
Teladoc Health, Inc. provides telehealth services. It offers a
portfolio of services and solutions covering 450 medical
subspecialties, such as flu and upper respiratory infections,
cancer, and congestive heart failure. Teladoc Health, Inc. was
founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.
TELADOC HEALTH: Unit Continues to Defend Thomas TCPA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teladoc Health, 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 Best Doctors, Inc., a
company subsidiary, continues to defend a purported class action
suit entitled, Thomas v. Best Doctors, Inc.
On May 14, 2018, a purported class action complaint (Thomas v. Best
Doctors, Inc.) was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts against the Company's wholly owned
subsidiary, Best Doctors, Inc.
The complaint alleges that on or about May 16, 2017, Best Doctors
violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by
sending unsolicited facsimiles to plaintiff and certain other
recipients without the recipients' prior express invitation or
permission.
The lawsuit seeks statutory damages for each violation, subject to
trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit and any potential
loss is currently deemed to be immaterial.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Teladoc Health, Inc. provides telehealth services. It offers a
portfolio of services and solutions covering 450 medical
subspecialties, such as flu and upper respiratory infections,
cancer, and congestive heart failure. Teladoc Health, Inc. was
founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.
UNITED STATES: Reaches Deal Over Student Debt Relief Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Douglas-Gabriel of the Washington Post reports that the
Trump administration has agreed to process nearly 170,000 debt
cancellation claims within 18 months from borrowers who say they
were defrauded by their colleges.
The proposed settlement agreement, filed in U.S. District Court in
California, stems from a class-action lawsuit brought against
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and her agency in June by a group
of borrowers awaiting decisions on their applications, some for as
long as five years.
The courts cleared the way for DeVos to grant student debt relief.
So why are 180,000 people still waiting for an answer?
A 1995 law, known as "borrower defense to repayment," provides
federal loan forgiveness to students whose colleges lied to get
them to enroll. The Education Department has been inundated with
claims from former students of defunct for-profit chains Corinthian
Colleges and ITT Technical Institutes. Both spent their final days
fighting state and federal lawsuits over alleged fraud, deceptive
marketing and steering students into predatory loans.
After taking office, DeVos refused to approve or deny applications
for debt relief, saying her administration needed time to review
the process created under the Obama administration. Tens of
thousands of claims piled up before the secretary decided to grant
partial debt relief, which led to a lawsuit from former Corinthian
students. DeVos said the case ground the system to a halt. But
borrowers argued that it had no bearing on their applications and
took legal action against the secretary.
"It is outrageous that students who were cheated by their school
have had to go to court and fight for years, across multiple
administrations, to get the Department of Education to consider
their requests to discharge their bogus loans," said Toby Merrill,
director at the Project on Predatory Student Lending, a legal-aid
group representing the students. The organization worked alongside
Housing and Economic Rights Advocates, a nonprofit legal service.
If the settlement is approved by the court, the Education
Department would have a year and a half to clear out the backlog of
claims, except for those tied to the Corinthian case. The agency
must also cancel any interest that accrued on the loans while the
applications were pending.
AD
"This proposed settlement would be an important win for students
and for taxpayers," said Angela Morabito, a spokeswoman for the
Education Department. "Rather than have their claims needlessly
delayed by unnecessary litigation, students will now have their
cases adjudicated promptly."
Borrowers who are still waiting for a decision after 18 months
would get 30 percent of their federal loans discharged for every
month that the department is late. If the agency garnishes their
wages or seizes their tax refunds before issuing a decision, the
borrowers would be entitled to have 80 percent of their loan
discharged, according to the settlement. Applicants retain the
right to challenge the department's decision about their claim.
The Education Department must produce quarterly reports with
information such as the number of decisions made and the number of
people approved for loan cancellation.
AD
"Having the Department of Education be forced to put a time frame
on making these decisions is vindicating," Theresa Sweet, a
plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement. "People have been
paralyzed with debt and forced to put their education, personal
goals and financial plans on hold because we didn't know if or when
we might get a decision."
Sweet, like many applicants, has been waiting for a decision since
the Obama administration. She submitted her claim against Brooks
Institute of Photography in 2016. Sweet amassed $46,107 in federal
loans attending the California school, where she said she was told
that 90 percent of graduates were employed right out of school. The
for-profit college was the subject of numerous state investigations
into alleged misleading and aggressive sales tactics before it shut
down in 2016.
Another plaintiff, Jessica Jacobson, submitted her application for
debt relief a few months before the New England Institute of Art
stopped enrolling students in 2015. The for-profit school, which
ultimately closed in 2017, was sued by the Massachusetts attorney
general for lying about its job placement rates, costs of
attendance and financial aid. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY: Long Class Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as AMELIA LONG, KAREN DEVIN,
RICHARD HARDY II, TABITHA MARCUM, and KAREN SANSOM individually,
and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY
OF KENTUCKY; PENNY COX in her official capacity as Treasurer,
University of Kentucky; COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE; and ALLISON BALL, in her official capacity as Kentucky
State Treasurer (Filed June 19, 2018), was removed from the
Kentucky Circuit Court, Franklin County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Frankfort) on May 5, 2020.
The Eastern District Kentucky Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-00032-GFVT to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated their
constitutional right to due process by referring their medical debt
incurred at the University of Kentucky hospital to the Kentucky
Department of Revenue for collection.
The University of Kentucky is a public university in Lexington,
Kentucky. The Kentucky Department of Revenue administers tax laws
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Douglas Richards, Esq.
Chevy Chase Plaza
836 Euclid Avenue, Suite 321
Lexington, KY 40502
E-mail: Edrichards714@gmail.com
- and -
Bryan C. Hix, Esq.
MCNAMARA & JONES
315 High Street
Frankfort, KY 40601
E-mail: bhix@mjlawky.com
- and -
William Michael Hamilton, Esq.
Guy Fisher, Esq.
PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM LLP
4205 Hillsboro Pike, Suite 303
Nashville, TN 37215
E-mail: mhamilton@provostumphrey.com
gfisher@pulf.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Kevin G. Henrym, Esq.
Bryan H. Beauman, Esq.
Donald C. Morgan, Esq.
STURGILL, TURNER, BARKER & MOLONEY
333 W. Vine Street, Suite 1500
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (859) 255-8581
E-mail: khenry@sturgillturner.com
bbeauman@sturgillturner.com
dmorgan@sturgillturner.com
- and -
William E. Thro, Esq.
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
301 Main Building
Lexington, KY 40506
E-mail: william.thro@uky.edu
- and -
R. Campbell Connell, Esq.
Frank L. Dempsey, Esq.
DIVISION OF COLLECTIONS; LEGAL BRANCH
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION CABINET
P. O. Box 5222
Frankfort, KY 40602
E-mail: RCConnell@ky.gov
- and -
Noah R. Friend, Esq.
GENERAL COUNSEL
KENTUCKY STATE TREASURY
1050 U.S. Highway 127 S, Suite 100
Frankfort, KY 40601
E-mail: Noah.Friend@ky.gov
- and -
R. Campbell Connell, Esq.
Frank L. Dempsey, Esq.
DIVISION OF COLLECTIONS; LEGAL BRANCH
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION CABINET
P. O. Box 5222
Frankfort, KY 40602
US BANK: Baldiviezo Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JESSIE BALDIVIEZO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S.
BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV02978 (Filed Jan. 24, 2020), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
May 6, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-04137 to the proceeding.
The lawsuit alleges claims for willful misclassification of
employees; overtime and double time wages; and minimum wages and
liquidated damages under the California Labor Code.
U.S. Bank NA provides financial services.[BN]
Defendant U.S. Bank is represented by:
Joan B. Tucker Fife, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 559-1000
Facsimile: (415) 559-1400
E-mail: jfife@winston.com
- and -
Emilie C. Woodhead, Esq.
Samuel R. Freeman, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
Telephone: (213) 615-1700
Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
E-mail: ewoodhead@winston.com
sfreeman@winston.com
USC: Watson Seeks Refunds of Tuition & Fees Over COVID-19 Crisis
----------------------------------------------------------------
LATISHA WATSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, and THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Case No.
2:20-cv-04107-CJC-AFM (C.D. Cal., May 5, 2020), seeks refunds 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 lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated USC students, who paid tuition and fees for the
Spring 2020 academic semester and who did not receive their
bargained-for educational and other services and have not been
refunded a prorated portion of their tuition and fees after the
University ceased providing such services to students during the
Spring 2020 academic semester due to COVID-19 pandemic.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the proposed Class
have not received any refund or reimbursement for the unused
services for which they paid and/or received inadequate
reimbursements for unused meal plan amounts that they were unable
to use after USC's campus was closed due to COVID-19.
On April 28, 2020, USC Provost Charles Zukoski sent a campus email
announcing that the University would not offer students any
prorated tuition refunds for the Spring semester or upcoming Summer
sessions. He also announced that both Summer sessions would be
conducted exclusively online. The University has not provided any
in-person classes since March 13, 2020.
USC is a private university in California. In 2019, USC enrolled
more than 20,000 undergraduate and approximately 28,000 graduate
students for a total enrollment of approximately 48,500
students.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 340
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (619) 489-0300
E-mail: bgaldston@bm.net
VALLEY FORGE: JDL Sues Over Denial of COVID-19 Insurance Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JDL INC (d/b/a Vegas Image) and LV Candy LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02681 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2020), arises
from VFIC's refusal to pay its insureds under its Business Income,
Civil Authority, Extra Expense, and Sue and Labor coverages for
losses suffered due to COVID-19 crisis.
The Plaintiffs contend that unlike many policies that provide
Business Income coverage, VFIC's Special Property Coverage Form
does not include, and is not subject to, any exclusion for losses
caused by the spread of viruses or communicable diseases. But VFIC
has denied the Plaintiffs' claim under its VFIC policy.
The Plaintiffs were forced to suspend or reduce business at Vegas
Image and LV Candy due to COVID-19 and the resultant closure orders
issued by civil authorities in Nevada, says the complaint.
JDL owns and operates Vegas Image, a distributor of bulk casino and
gambling-themed chocolates and candy gift boxes, plus plush toys,
located in Las Vegas, Nevada. Vegas Image is family-owned and
family-run. Vegas Image products can be found in most of the major
Casinos along the Las Vegas Strip, and are also offered for sale on
VegasImage.com.
LV Candy is the owner and landlord of the building located at 3060
E Post Rd., in Las Vegas, Nevada. LV Candy leases this building to
JDL.
VFIC operates as an insurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
Mark Hamill, Esq.
Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: 312 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
dferri@dicellolevitt.com
mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
lreasons@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Mark Lanier, Esq.
Alex Brown, Esq.
Skip McBride, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC
10940 West Sam Houston Parkway North, Suite 100
Houston, TX 77064
Telephone: 713-659-5200
E-mail: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com
- and -
Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: 608-286-2302
E-mail: tburns@bbblawllp.com
jbowen@bbblawllp.com
jbair@bbblawllp.com
fbowen@bbblawllp.com
- and -
Douglas Daniels, Esq.
DANIELS & TREDENNICK
6363 Woodway, Suite 700
Houston, TX 77057
Telephone: 713-917-0024
E-mail: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com
VIKING CLIENT: Sergio et al. Find Collection Letter "Confusing"
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA SERGIO and KYNDALL LANE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VIKING CLIENT SERVICES,
LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00579-JEO (N.D. Ala., April 28, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Plaintiffs allegedly owed defaulted consumer debts for Credit One
Bank credit card accounts.
According to the complaint, Plaintiffs received a collection letter
from Defendant -- Sergio's dated November 1, 2019 and Lane's dated
January 13, 2020. Both collection letters were demanding payment of
Plaintiffs' debts, but the letters were confusing because it
mentioned two creditors, "original creditor" and "creditor" and
contained a "Privacy Notice" which further confused the identity of
the creditor to whom the debt was owed and on whose behalf
Defendant was attempting to collect the debt.
The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to identify effectively
the current creditor to whom the debt was owed.
Viking Client Services, LLC operates a nationwide debt collection
business and attempts to collect defaulted debts from consumers in
virtually every state, including consumers in the State of Alabama.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David J. Philipps, Esq.
Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
Palos Hills, IL 60465
Tel: (708)974-2900
Fax: (708)974-2907
Emails: davephilipps@aol.com
mephilipps@aol.com
- and –
Bradford W. Botes, Esq.
BOND, BOTES, REESE & SHINN, P.C.
15 Southlake Lane, Suite 140
Birmingham, AL 35244
Tel: (205)802-2200
Fax: (205)870-3698
Email: bbotes@bondnbotes.com
VINEYARD VINES: App Not Fully Accessible to Blind, Lucius Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
WINDY LUCIUS v. VINEYARD VINES RETAIL, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-21925-KMW (S.D. Fla., May 7, 2020), is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and others similarly situated under the Americans
with Disabilities Act alleging that the Defendant's mobile
application does not properly interact with Apple's assistive
technology in a manner that will allow the blind and visually
impaired to enjoy the app, nor does it provide other means to
accommodate the blind and visually impaired.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is blind. She has been
blind for the past nine years. She uses the internet to help her
navigate a world of goods, products and services. She contends that
the Defendant's app is not fully accessible and independently
usable by visually impaired consumers like her.
The Defendant owns, operates and controls the app from which it
sells women's and men's clothing and other goods. They sell those
same goods from their corresponding brick and mortar stores. The
Defendant's app also helps users locate stores, view pricing and
specials, shop, and a variety of other functions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.
J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC
8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: 305-351-2014
E-mail: cc@cunninghampllc.com
VMWARE INC: Schall Announces Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against VMware, Inc.
(NYSE:VMW) for violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 30,
2019 and February 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before June 1, 2020.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. VMWare's failed to maintain compliance
with accounting and disclosure guidelines with respect to the
reporting of its backlog of unfilled orders. This failure opened
the Company to a greater risk of regulatory scrutiny and
investigation. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about VMWare,
investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
E-mail: info@schallfirm.com
[GN]
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Sunroofs Leak
---------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood of CarComplaints.com reports that a Volkswagen class
action lawsuit alleges multiple models are equipped with leaking
sunroofs that damage electrical components and all parts of the
interiors.
According to the class action, VW has failed to honor its
warranties and has forced owners to pay for sunroof-related
repairs.
According to the plaintiff, the automaker has been unable to
correctly repair the leaking sunroofs since at least 2016 because
of defects of the drainage systems and seals.
In addition, alleged problems in the difference in the expansion
rate between the plastic water channels and steel reinforcement
plates may cause stress cracks to occur at the edges of the
reinforcement plates.
The class action lawsuit alleges these models are affected if they
are equipped with sunroofs.
2016-present Audi A1
2016-present Audi A3
2016-present Audi TT
2016-present Audi Q2
2016-present Audi Q3
2016-present Volkswagen Arteon
2016-present Volkswagen Atlas/Teramont
2016-present Volkswagen Golf
2016-present Volkswagen Jetta
2016-present Volkswagen Passat
2016-present Volkswagen Polo
2016-present Volkswagen Tiguan
2016-present Volkswagen Touran
VW allegedly knowingly sold and continues to sell tens of thousands
of vehicles equipped with sunroofs that have defects that damage
the carpet, roof headliners, audio systems, seats, upholstery and
electrical systems.
Damage to sensors allegedly cause the vehicles to suddenly brake on
their own even when the vehicles are moving at high speeds.
The VW class action also alleges the automaker knows of numerous
customer complaints about leaking sunroofs and the damage caused by
the water. Volkswagen has also issued at least 12 technical service
bulletins (TSBs) to dealerships concerning the sunroofs.
The class action lists multiple bulletins issued since 2016.
In September 2016, VW issued a 2015-2017 Golf and the Golf GTI TSB
providing dealers with a "PANORAMIC SUNROOF INSPECTION AND REPAIR
PROCEDURE" in the event of a water leak.
In October 2016, VW issued a 2015-2017 Golf Sportwagen TSB titled,
"Water Leaks from the Rear of the Panoramic Sunroof," telling
dealers how to inspect and replace the rear sunroof drain hoses and
ensure the correct routing of those hoses.
A "Tech Tip" was also issued to provide a "Sunroof Concern
Diagnostic Tree to address Water Leaks, Wind Noise, Mechanical
Concerns" on November 18, 2016. In the diagnostic tree, VW
allegedly acknowledges the dealer may not be able to replicate the
issue.
In the case of a water leak that cannot be replicated, dealers were
told to clean the sunroof drains and adjust the sunroof glass.
In November 2016, VW issued a 2015-2017 Golf Sportwagen and Golf
Alltrack TSB concerning "Water Leak from Panoramic Sunroof." This
TSB also asks dealers to refer to the October 2016 TSB 2045672,
"Water Leaks from the Rear of the Panoramic Sunroof."
VW again issued a TSB in December 2016 where the required parts
included the repair kit and sealant, just like the September 2016
TSB.
In January 2017, VW issued Special Notice SM 14-2016 to "inform
dealers to return all sunroof repair kits" labeled 5GM898041, and
to order repair kit 5GM898041A going forward. The sunroof repair
kit to be returned is the same one that was ordered to be used in
the September 2016 TSB.
In February 2017, VW issued a TSB to supersede the one it issued in
December 2016 to include a different title and clarify the models,
VIN range, and the application of additional foil patches. This new
TSB mentioned water leaks from the panoramic roofs on 2015-2017
Golf and GTI models.
In August 2017, VW issued an "Important Notice to Dealers – For
Immediate Distribution" to inform dealers about an upcoming update
that would provide specific repair instructions on sunroofs "to
prevent water leaks into the interior of the vehicle that could be
caused by cracks in the sunroof frame."
Dealerships were told that "each vehicle should be completed when
it comes into the dealer for maintenance or any other service
visit[,]" and "[d]ealer stock vehicles cannot, however, be
delivered to consumers until the Update is completed." In addition,
Volkswagen said that customers weren't being notified.
In August 2017, VW issued a 2015-2017 Golf and Golf GTI TSB telling
dealers to "[p]erform this UPDATE on all applicable vehicles within
New Vehicle Limited Warranty" and "[i]t is MANDATORY to perform
UPDATES on all applicable vehicles in dealer inventory PRIOR TO
RETAIL SALE."
In September 2017, VW issued a TSB that superseded the one
previously issued in November 2016, with the new bulletin adding
the Golf Alltrack. This TSB concerned "Water Leak from Panoramic
Sunroof" just as the previous November 2017 TSB did.
The class action lawsuit proceeds to name more sunroof TSBs, three
"Tech Tips" three "Service Actions," one "Special Notice" and one
"Important Notice," all which allegedly show the VW sunroofs are
defective.
The Volkswagen class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey: Ziarno, et al., v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc., et al.
The plaintiffs are represented by Berger Montague PC, Simmons Hanly
Conroy LLC, Greg Coleman Law PC, and Bryant Law Center PSC.
CarComplaints.com has complaints about the models named in the VW
class action lawsuit. [GN]
WALMART INC: Castro Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA CASTRO, individually
and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated v. WALMART
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. SCV0044650 (Filed March 24, 2020), was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Placer
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
on May 6, 2020.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-at-00450 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq.
Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213 239-9800
Facsimile: 213 239-9045
E-mail: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com
mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com
WALMART INC: Castro Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA CASTRO, individually
and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated v. WALMART
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 2:20-at-450 (Filed March 24, 2020), was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Placer
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
on May 6, 2020.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00928-JAM-KJN to the proceeding.
The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all wages,
failed to pay all wages owed at termination, and failed to furnish
an accurate itemized wage statement upon payment of wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]
Defendant Walmart Inc. is represented by:
Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq.
Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213 239-9800
Facsimile: 213 239-9045
E-mail: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com
mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com
XP INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 20 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in XP Inc. If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will
be no obligation or cost to you.
XP Inc. (NASDAQ:XP)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/xp-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=5996&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 20, 2020
Class Period: or otherwise acquired XP's securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus
issued in connection with XP's December 2019 initial public
offering.
Allegations against XP include that: (1) XP engaged in undisclosed
related party transactions; (2) XP failed to disclose its common
and large system failures and connected losses; (3) XP's aggressive
IFA strategy was and is tenuous; (4) XP had material weaknesses;
(5) XP fired its previous accounting firm due to that firm finding
and disclosing material weaknesses; and (6) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.
Contact:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway, Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel: 212.425.1140
Fax: 866.699.3880
E-mail: vw@wongesq.com
[GN]
ZOOM VIDEO: Buxbaum, Blum Allege Inappropriate Security Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM BUXBAUM and DEBORAH BLUM, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-02939 (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2020)
is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs alleging claims for
negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, breach
of confidence, along with violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, California Consumer Privacy Act, and California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and seeking to compel Zoom to adopt
appropriate cyber security practices in order to ensure that
personal information provided to Zoom and made through its video
conferencing platform remain private and secure.
The Plaintiffs each registered with Zoom and used the platform for
video conferencing. Plaintiffs and Class Members were obligated to
provide Zoom with their personal information and entrust the
personal information transmitted via the Zoom platform would remain
private and secure.
Plaintiffs and Class Members used Zoom's services in reliance on
its alleged exercise of due care and fulfillment of its duties
which Zoom breached by, among other things: (a) disclosing
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personal information to third
parties without knowledge or consent; (b) misleadingly representing
that Zoom's video conference was private and secure; (c) failing to
maintain measures sufficient to protect users' privacy and to
implement proper cyber security hygiene.
According to the complaint, the Defendant improperly and
inadequately safeguarded Plaintiffs’ and Class members' personal
information in deviation of standard industry rules, regulations,
and practices.
The Defendant's unfair or deceptive acts and practices were capable
of deceiving a substantial portion of the public. Zoom did not
disclose the facts of its disclosure of personal information and
its lack of capacity to secure videoconferences because it knew
that consumers would not use its products or services, and instead
would use other products or services, had they known the truth.
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. is an American communications
technology company headquartered in San Jose, California. It
provides videotelephony and online chat services through a
cloud-based peer-to-peer software platform and is used for
teleconferencing, telecommuting, distance education, and social
relations.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Leslie Guillon, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 777-7777
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
Email: aberry@justice4you.com
lguillon@justice4you.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
Kenya J. Reddy, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
Email: JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com
RMcGee@ForThePeople.com
KReddy@ForThePeople.com
ZOVIO INC: Bid to Dismiss Stein Securities Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zovio 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 all defendants in the securities class
action suit initiated by Shiva Stein are awaiting a court decision
on their motion to dismiss.
On March 8, 2019, a securities class action complaint (the "Stein
Complaint") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California by Shiva Stein naming the Company, Andrew
Clark, Kevin Royal, and Joseph D'Amico as defendants.
The Stein Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and
materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts regarding the Company's business, operations and
prospects, specifically that the Company had applied an improper
revenue recognition methodology to students enrolled in the Full
Tuition Grant (FTG) program.
The Stein Complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from
March 8, 2016 to March 7, 2019. The Stein Complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
On October 1, 2019, the plaintiff filed a substantially similar
amended complaint. On November 27, 2019, all defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, which is currently pending with the Court.
Zovio said, "The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at
this point because of the many questions of fact and law that may
arise. The Company has not accrued any liability associated with
this action."
Zovio Inc. operates as an education technology services company in
the United States. The company was formerly known as Bridgepoint
Education, Inc. and changed its name to Zovio Inc in April 2019.
Zovio Inc was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.
[^] 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 ***