/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200528.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 28, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 107 Headlines ABM INDUSTRY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Rodriguez Labor Suit ACADEMY BANK: Panda Accounting Files FDCPA Suit in New York ADT LLC: Preddy Sues Over Failure to Secure Security Services AKAL SECURITY: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Dean FLSA Suit ALLE PROCESSING: Faces Naiman Class Suit in District of Arizona ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Ikon Pass Holder Sues Over Shortened Season AMERICAN EXPRESS: Weiss Files Suit under FDCPA ANNTAYLOR INC: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Mendez ADA Suit ARCH INSURANCE: Faces Heidarpour Class Suit in D. Arizona ART OF SHAVING-FL: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in Calcano ADA Suit AUTO CLUB GROUP: Mickalovski Files Consumer Suit in E.D. Michigan BANANA REPUBLIC: Dominguez Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Circuit BED BATH: Levi & Korskinsky Files Class Action Suit BYTEDANCE INC: TikTok Collects Kids' Biometric Data, Suit Claims CANIDO BASONAS: Trujillo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CAVALRY SPV I: Hurney Calls Debt Collection Letter "Unlawful" CAVALRY SPV I: Pettway Alleges Violation under FDCPA CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Byrne Alleges Bait & Switch Scheme CHINA EASTERN: Jauregui Seeks Refund for Cancelled Flight COASTAL TREATMENT: Fails to Transmit Insurance Fees, Ritz Claims COLLECTO INC: Rivera Files Suit under FDCPA CONSUMER REPORTS: Faces Class Suit Over Automatic Service Renewals CONTRACT CALLERS: Knudsen Asserts Breach of FDCPA CORNED BEEF EXPRESS: Cortes et al. Seek Pay for Resto Staff CRYSTEEL MANUFACTURING: Proserv Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania DANBURY, CT: Sued for Failing to Protect Inmates From COVID-19 DARLING INGREDIENTS: Diaz Suit Removed to District of Colorado DELTA AIR: Hagens Berman Files Class Action Lawsuit DENNY'S INC: Fails to Pay for OT Work, Warren Claims DEVA CONCEPTS: DevaCurl Products Cause Hair Problems, Biles Says DON ALEX PERU: Castiblanco Sues in E.D.N.Y. Over FLSA Violation DOORDASH INC: Fails to Pay for All Time Worked, Corbin Suit Says DOUYU INT'L: Sokolove Investigating Class Action Claims EHEALTH INC: Frank R. Cruz Announces Filing of Class Action EMORY UNIVERSITY: Settles ERISA Lawsuit for $12.5 Million EMPIRE TODAY: Childress Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls FCA US: Romanchuk Sues Over Oil Consumption Defect in Vehicles FIFTH THIRD: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Motion Set for June 8 FREERATEUPDATE.COM LLC: Schick Sues to Stop Unsolicited Calls GEORGE HARMS: Narain et al Sue over Water Service Disruption GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Putative Class Action Complaint Dismissed GILEAD SCIENCES: Faces Suit for Disclosing HIV Patient Information GLAXOSMITHKLINE: DeCostanzo Alleges False Advertising of Boostrix GOLDEN STAR: Zhang Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Venator Securities Suit Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss VRDO-Related Suit Still Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Status Bid Pending in Interest Rate Swap Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Class Suits Over XP Inc. IPO GOLDMAN SACHS: Securities Lending Antitrust Suit v GS&Co. Underway GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in GSE Bonds Suit Wins Initial Approval GRAND CANYON: Offers Unaccredited Academic Programs, Ogdon Says GREAT LAKES EDUCATIONAL: Mishandled Student Loan Relief, Sass Says GSX TECHEDU: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey HAIN CELESTIAL: Gimpel Appeals Order, Judgment in Securities Suit HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS: Hair Studio Seeks Coverage of COVID Losses IQIYI INC: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit JPI SERVICES: Faces Lewis Class Suit in California Superior Court JPMORGAN CHASE: Misled PPP Applicants, Prioritized Larger Loans JPMORGAN: Violates First-Come, First-Served COVID Loan Policy KENTUCKY: Roberts Appeals E.D. Ky. Decision to Sixth Circuit KERRY INC: Mahan Sues Over False Marketing of Vanilla Chai Tea KNOXVILLE, TN: Mayor's COVID E.O. Is Unconstitutional, Simon Says LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend California Wage & Hour Suit LVNV FUNDING: Faces Raszewski Consumer Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania MDL 2804: Court Narrows Claims in National Prescription Opiate Suit MDL 2879: Negligence Claims in Marriott Data Breach Suit Junked MEADOW HILL: Singh Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages MEDGYN PRODUCTS: Thomas Sues over Unsolicited Fax Ads NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Lippitt Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir. NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC: 4 More Students Join Kelly Class Action NEXTERA ENERGY: Mattwaoshshe Challenges Building of Wind Towers NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Levi & Korsinksy Files Class Action Suit ONEIDA COUNTY: Williamson Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class OPAI THAI: Nava Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages OYSTER BAY: Underpays Warehousemen & Laborers, Sifuentes Claims PETE AND GERRY'S: Court Narrows Claims in Lugones False Ad Suit POSTMATES INC: Fails to Pay All Time Worked, McGhee Suit Alleges POWERSAT COMMUNICATIONS: Underpays Field Technicians, Jackson Says RENOVATE AMERICA: Contractors Seek Payment for PACE Projects RESIDENCE HERRON: Residents Launch Class Action Lawsuit REVENUE MANAGEMENT: Landau Files FDCPA Suit in New York SCION GROUP: Cristales Appeals D. Arizona Ruling to Ninth Circuit SEE'S CANDY SHOPS: Faces Ping Suit Over Unpaid Compensations SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL: Berger Montague Notes of June 9 Deadline SMALL BUSINESS: Frost Launches Class Action Over PPP Loans SOCIETY INSURANCE: Ambrosia Indy Seeks Pay for COVID-19 Losses SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST: Faces Breach of Contract Class Action STATE FARM: Denies Coverage of COVID-19 Losses, Royal Palm Claims STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Franchi Says Menarini Merger Deal Lacks Info SUNRISE CREDIT: Waller Sues in New York Alleging FDCPA Violation SWAROVSKI NORTH: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Calcano ADA Suit TEAM BEANS: Martinez Sues in E.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation TECNOVA ELECTRONICS: Unlawfully Cancels Job Offer, Ramirez Claims TIKTOK INC: Faces GR Suit Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Info UHS OF OKLAHOMA: McKinney Class Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma UNITED SPECIALTY: Bradley Files Insurance Suit in E.D. Arkansas UNITED STATES: ACLU Seeks Class-Action Status UNITED STATES: Department of Health Faces Class Action UNITED STATES: Doe Challenges Exclusion of Citizens in CARES Act UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Kincheloe Seeks Tuition Fee Refund VISION FINANCIAL: Defrauds Commodities Customers, Kumaran Alleges WHEREZ HEMP: Faces Klitzner TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Text WILMINGTON TRUST: Settles ERISA Lawsuit for $19.5 Million WW INTERNATIONAL: Faces Vodden Suit Over Unlawfully Charged Fees YANKA INDUSTRIES: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ZOOM VIDEO: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit [*] Timothy L. Miles Has Been Named Avvo Rated Top Lawyer [*] US Firms Bring Wave of Class Actions v. Insurance Cos. ********* ABM INDUSTRY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Rodriguez Labor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant ABM Industry Groups, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Gabriel Rodriguez, et al. v. ABM Industry Groups, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-06735-GW-RAO, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Gabriel Rodriguez, et al v. ABM Industry Groups, LLC, Case No. 20-55530, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule of the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by June 10, 2020; -- Transcript is due on July 10, 2020; -- Appellant ABM Industry Groups, LLC's opening brief is due on August 20, 2020; -- Appellees Gabriel Rodriguez and Jessica Sheehan's answering brief is due on September 21, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ and JESSICA SHEEHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Dale Alan Harris, Esq. Priya Mohan, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 N. Central Avenue, 17th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 962-3777 Defendant-Appellant ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is represented by: Daniel F. Fears, Esq. Laura Fleming, Esq. Robert Matsuishi, Esq. PAYNE & FEARS LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 851-1100 E-mail: dff@paynefears.com ACADEMY BANK: Panda Accounting Files FDCPA Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Academy Bank NA. The case is styled as Panda Accounting LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Academy Bank NA, JP Morgan Chase Bank NA doing business as: Chase Bank and MidFirst Bank, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-03922 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Academy National Bank operates as a full-service bank. The Bank accepts deposits, makes loans and provides other services for the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Meiselas, Esq. Geragos & Geragos APC 644 S Figueroa St. Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: (213) 625-3900 Fax: (213) 232-3255 Email: ben@geragos.com - and - Brian C Gudmundson, Esq. Zimmerman Reed LLP - Minneapolis, MN 1100 IDS Ctr. 80 S 8th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 341-0400 Fax: (612) 641-0844 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com - and - Harmeet K Dhillon, Esq. Dhillon Law Group Incorporated 177 Post St., Ste. 700 San Francisco, CA 94108 Tel: (415) 433-1700 Fax: (415) 520-6593 - and - Hart Lawrence Robinovitch, Esq. Zimmerman Reed PLLP 14646 N Kierland Blvd., Ste. 145 Scottsdale, AZ 85254-2762 Tel: (480) 348-6400 Fax: (480) 348-6415 Email: AZDocketing@zimmreed.com - and - Mark John Geragos, Esq. Geragos & Geragos APC 644 S Figueroa St. Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: (213) 625-3900 Fax: (213) 232-3255 Email: mark@geragos.com - and - Michael E Adler, Esq. Graylaw Group Incorporated 26500 Agoura Rd., Ste. 102-127 Calabasas, CA 91302 Tel: (818) 532-2833 Fax: (818) 532-2834 - and - Michael Laird, Esq. Zimmerman Reed LLP - Minneapolis, MN 1100 IDS Ctr. 80 S 8th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 341-0400 Fax: (612) 341-0844 - and - Michael S Popok, Esq. Zampano Patricios & Popok PLLC 417 5th Ave., Ste. 826 New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 381-9999 Fax: (212) 320-0332 - and - Mitchell G Mandell, Esq. Zampano Patricios & Popok PLLC 417 5th Ave., Ste. 826 New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 381-9999 Fax: (212) 320-0332 - and - Nitoj P Singh, Esq. Dhillon Law Group Incorporated 177 Post St., Ste. 700 San Francisco, CA 94108 Tel: (415) 433-1700 Fax: (415) 520-6593 ADT LLC: Preddy Sues Over Failure to Secure Security Services ------------------------------------------------------------- Alexia Preddy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT SECURITY SERVICES, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 0:20-cv-60971-RAR (S.D. Fla., May 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendant based on its intentional and negligent tortious acts in providing security services to its customers with remote-viewing capabilities. In April 2020, Alexia Preddy's mother received a terrifying phone call from ADT: the technician, who had installed their indoor security camera system had granted himself remote access--three years prior when Ms. Preddy was a teenager--and had used that access nearly one hundred times to spy on her and other household members in their most private and intimate moments. Ms. Preddy was not the only one. She soon found out that hundreds of households had experienced the same staggering invasion of privacy over at least a seven-year period. At fault for this breach of trust: ADT's unsecure and unmonitored "security" services. The Plaintiff asserts that ADT failed to provide the security services its customers relied on by leaving large vulnerabilities in the ADT Pulse application and, as a result, compromised the safety and security of its customers' homes and family members. She contends that the ADT vulnerability allowed any one of its technicians to grant themselves (or for them to grant anyone else for that matter) access to a customer's ADT Pulse application and control every aspect of the customers' home security systems, including surreptitiously opening locks and viewing security camera footage. Beyond the now-known technician, who accessed the Plaintiff's home, potentially countless other unknown individuals, have been accessing customer's ADT Pulse accounts and surreptitiously viewing their camera footage, for years, all around the country, according to the complaint. The mental and emotional impact this revelation has had on every person receiving these calls from ADT is immeasurable. Moments once believed to be private and inside the sanctity of the home are now voyeuristic entertainment for a third party. And worse, those moments could have been captured, shared with others, or even posted to the internet. ADT's failure to protect its customers irreparably destroyed their sense of security, safety, intimacy, and well-being, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff is a natural person and a citizen of the State of Texas. ADT is a home security company that touts its longstanding expertise in security, and claims to have been providing security services since the 19th century.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karina D. Rodrigues, Esq. KELLEY UUSTAL, PLC 500 North Federal Highway, Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 522-6601 Fax: (954) 522-6608 Email: kdr@kulaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com ewadescott@edelson.com - and - Matthew R. McCarley, Esq. N. Majed Nachawati, Esq. C. Bryan Fears, Esq. S. Ann Saucer, Esq. Misty A. Farris, Esq. FEARS NACHAWATI PLLC 5473 Blair Road Dallas, TX 75231 Phone: 214.890.0711 Fax: 214.890.0712 Email: mmccarley@fnlawfirm.com mn@fnlawfirm.com fears@fnlawfirm.com asaucer@fnlawfirm.com mfarris@fnlawfirm.com - and - Amy M. Carter, Esq. Heather V. Davis, Esq. CARTER LAW GROUP, P.C. 5473 Blair Rd. Dallas, TX 75231 Phone: (214) 390-4173 Email: amy@clgtrial.com hdavis@clgtrial.com AKAL SECURITY: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Dean FLSA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Hayward Dean filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Hayward Dean v. Akal Security, Incorporated, Case No. 20-30306, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has a company policy of docking one hour of pay on return flights for a lunch break. The Plaintiff alleges he and other air security officers did not get to take these breaks. The Plaintiff holds Akal Security Inc. responsible because the Defendant also allegedly did not pay regular wages for the hours worked that were improperly deducted for the forced lunch break and failed to pay overtime wages. The appellate case is captioned as Hayward Dean v. Akal Security, Incorporated, Case No. 20-30306, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant HAYWARD DEAN, individually and all others similarly situated, is represented by: James Edward Sudduth, III, Esq. SUDDUTH & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. 1109 Pithon Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 Telephone: (337) 480-0101 Email: James@saa.legal Defendant-Appellee AKAL SECURITY, INCORPORATED, is represented by: Charles Frederick Seemann, III, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, P.C. 650 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 208-1755 Email: Charles.Seemann@jacksonlewis.com ALLE PROCESSING: Faces Naiman Class Suit in District of Arizona --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alle Processing Corporation. The case is styled as Sidney Naiman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alle Processing Corporation, a New York Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00963-DGC (D. Ariz., May 18, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as other contract. Alle Processing is a fully vertically integrated company, engaged in the slaughtering, processing, and distribution of Glatt Kosher beef, veal, lamb, and poultry, as well as a wide variety of foodservice and retail consumer products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. Stephen A. Klein, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Phone: (720) 213-0676 Fax: (303) 927-0898 Email: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com sklein@woodrowpeluso.com - and - Penny L. Koepke, Esq. MAXWELL & MORGAN PC Pierpont Commerce Center 4854 E Baseline Rd., Ste. 104 Mesa, AZ 85206 Phone: (480) 833-1001 Fax: (480) 969-8267 Email: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Ikon Pass Holder Sues Over Shortened Season ------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Kremer, writing for Denver-based Business Den, reports that a California skier miffed at his shortened ski season has sued Denver-based Alterra, claiming that he and thousands of other pass holders are entitled to some sort of refund. Villa Park resident Robert Kramer, a regular at Mammoth Mountain in California, sued Alterra in federal court in Denver this week seeking class-action status, alleging that the ski season he paid for was supposed to last months longer. Alterra, which owns 15 resorts, closed all its mountains on March 14 as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. The lawsuit claims that the season goes as long as May at resorts such as Winter Park, and into June or July at Mammoth Mountain in California. "Defendants did not offer a refund (or even partial refund) on passes," the lawsuit said. "Defendants kept all of skiers' money. With hundreds of thousands of pass holders, this amounts to tens of millions (or more) in unjust profits." Alterra has said in previous news reports that it sells more than 250,000 Ikon passes annually priced at between $650 and $1,000 per pass. The company said it does not comment on pending litigation. Other companies faced with an abrupt closure have tried different tacks. Some local gyms, such as yoga chain CorePower, refunded customers who paid their monthly dues and then weren't able to access gyms because of the shut-down orders. Other gyms kept members' dues with no refunds. And then got sued. Alterra this week started marketing pass renewals with a discount of $200 on $1,000 Ikon passes and $100 on $700 passes if purchased by the end of May. That's double the renewal discount last season. In a press release the company said the price cut was a gesture of "gratitude" to customers. Kramer is attempting to form a class for a class-action lawsuit that includes all pass holders. "The core benefits of the Ikon Pass and Base Pass were substantially the same; unlimited access to Ikon resorts, with limited additional ski days at other destinations . . . Both groups seek the same type of relief: compensation for the early termination of pass benefits," the lawsuit reads. The case was filed by Gregory Dovel from the firm Dovel & Luner. [GN] AMERICAN EXPRESS: Weiss Files Suit under FDCPA ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Express Legal. The case is styled as Salomon Weiss, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. American Express Legal and American Express Company, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-03918-CS (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. American Express offers world-class Charge and Credit Cards, Gift Cards, Rewards, Travel, Personal Savings, Business Services, Insurance and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. Adam J. Fishbein, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Tel: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Alexander Fink, Esq. Raymond Alexander Garcia, Esq. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Tel: (212) 806-5485 Fax: (310) 407-6414 Email: rgarcia@stroock.com ANNTAYLOR INC: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Mendez ADA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Himelda Mendez filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated May 11, 2020, issued in her lawsuit styled Mendez v. AnnTaylor, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-10625, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is a class action lawsuit filed against AnnTaylor, Inc. pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The appellate case is captioned as Mendez v. AnnTaylor, Inc., Case No. 20-1550, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Himelda Mendez, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 175 Varick Street New York, NY 10014 Telephone: (646) 770-3775 Facsimile: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com Defendant-Appellee AnnTaylor, Inc. is represented by: Michael Fleming, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 309-6207 Email: michael.fleming@morganlewis.com ARCH INSURANCE: Faces Heidarpour Class Suit in D. Arizona --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arch Insurance Group Incorporated, et al. The case is styled as Fred Heidarpour, Sidney Naiman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arch Insurance Group Incorporated, a Delaware corporation; Affinity Insurance Services Incorporated doing business as: Aon Affinity, a Pennsylvania corporation; Case No. 2:20-cv-00968-MTL (D. Ariz., May 18, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as other contract. Arch Insurance Group Inc. provides insurance and reinsurance products. The Company offers a range of property, casualty, and specialty insurance for corporations, professional firms, and financial institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Penny L Koepke, Esq. MAXWELL & MORGAN PC Pierpont Commerce Center 4854 E Baseline Rd., Ste. 104 Mesa, AZ 85206 Phone: (480) 833-1001 Fax: (480) 969-8267 Email: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz ART OF SHAVING-FL: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in Calcano ADA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Marcos Calcano filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Calcano v. The Art of Shaving-FL, LLC, Case No. 19-cv-10432, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The appellate case is captioned as Calcano v. The Art of Shaving-FL, LLC, Case No. 20-1594, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Marcos Calcano, On behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, is represented by: Oliver Koppell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF G. OLIVER KOPPELL & ASSOCIATES 99 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 867-3838 Email: okoppell@koppellaw.com Defendant-Appellee The Art of Shaving-FL, LLC is represented by: Joseph J. Lynett, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 44 South Broadway White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 872-6888 Email: Joseph.Lynett@jacksonlewis.com AUTO CLUB GROUP: Mickalovski Files Consumer Suit in E.D. Michigan ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Auto Club Group. The case is styled as John B. Mickalovski, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Auto Club Group doing business as: AAA Chicago Motor Club, Case No. 2:20-cv-11230-SFC-RSW (E.D. Mich., May 18, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit. The Auto Club operates an auto repair facility. The Company provides insurance, travel, maintenance and repair, auto loan, and related services for its members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq. Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 581-5450 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com BANANA REPUBLIC: Dominguez Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Yovanny Dominguez filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment issued on May 11, 2020, in the lawsuit styled Dominguez v. Banana Republic, LLC, Case No. 19-cv-10171, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is a class action lawsuit filed against Banana Republic, LLC, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The appellate case is captioned as Dominguez v. Banana Republic, LLC, Case No. 20-1559, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Yovanny Dominguez, on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, is represented by: Oliver Koppell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF G. OLIVER KOPPELL & ASSOCIATES 99 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 867-3838 Facsimile: (212) 681-0810 Email: okoppell@koppellaw.com Defendant-Appellee Banana Republic, LLC is represented by: Beth Storper Joseph, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 415-3308 Email: beth.joseph@morganlewis.com BED BATH: Levi & Korskinsky Files Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, on April 29 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY) BBBY Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 2, 2019 - February 11, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bed-bath-beyond-inc-loss-form?prid=6254&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) due to "aggressive disposition of inventory," the Company lacked sufficient inventory in key categories to support holiday sales; (2) the Company's internal control over inventory levels and financial reporting was not effective; (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was likely to experience reduced sales; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] BYTEDANCE INC: TikTok Collects Kids' Biometric Data, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- H.S., a Minor, through her Guardian, J.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BYTEDANCE, INC., TIKTOK, INC., BEIJING BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD, and MUSICAL.LY, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03007 (N.D. Ill., May 20, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself as well as the putative Class, against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, each Defendant fails to inform individuals of the purposes and duration for which it collects, stores, and uses their biometric identifiers; fails to inform individuals that they discloses or disclosed their biometric identifiers between and among each Defendant; fails to inform individuals that they maintain backup servers with biometric database(s) outside of Illinois; fails to inform individuals that their biometric identifiers are disclosed to currently unknown third parties, which host the biometric identifiers in their data centers; and, fails to obtain written releases from individuals before collecting their biometric identifiers, as required by BIPA. Because Defendants neither publish a BIPA-mandated data retention policy nor disclose the purposes for their collection and use of biometric identifiers, TikTok users have no idea whether Defendants sell, disclose, redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their biometric data. Moreover, H.S., her legal guardian, and others similarly situated are not told to whom Defendants disclose TikTok user’s biometric data, or what might happen to the TikTok user's biometric data in the event of a merger or a bankruptcy. H.S. and her legal guardian J.S., were, at all times relevant, residents of the State of Illinois. ByteDance, Inc. is a Chinese multinational Internet technology company headquartered in Beijing. TikTok is a video-sharing social networking service owned by ByteDance. It is used to create short dance, lip-sync, comedy and talent videos. Beijing ByteDance Technology Co. Ltd. is a privately held company headquartered in Beijing, China. Musical.ly was a social media service headquartered in Shanghai with an office in Santa Monica, California, on which platform users created and shared short lip-sync videos. ByteDance Ltd. acquired musical.ly Inc. on November 9, 2017, and merged it into TikTok on August 2, 2018.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq. Megan E. Shannon, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com aficzko@stephanzouras.com mshannon@stephanzouras.com - and - Erik H. Langeland, Esq. ERIK H. LANGELAND, P.C. 733 Third Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 354-6270 Email: elangeland@langelandlaw.com - and - Jon A. Tostrud, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 278-2600 Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com CANIDO BASONAS: Trujillo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Amaro Ochoa Trujillo (a/k/a Emanuel Lopez) and Marcelo Mendoza Marin, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CANIDO BASONAS CONSTRUCTION CORP. (D/B/A CANIDO BASONAS CONSTRUCTION), THE RESTORATION SITE, INC. (D/B/A THE RESTORATION SITE), MIGUEL A. BRION, and RAMIRO ANGAMARCA, Case No. 1:20-cv-02241 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for the hours that they worked, according to the complaint. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Plaintiffs were employed as construction workers at the construction corporations. The Defendants own, operate, or control two construction companies, located in Brooklyn, New York, under the names "Canido Basonas Construction" and "The Restoration Site."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 CAVALRY SPV I: Hurney Calls Debt Collection Letter "Unlawful" ------------------------------------------------------------- FARIDA ROSE HURNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20CV366656 (Cal. Sup. Ct., May 20, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (CFDBPA). According to the complaint, Plaintiff was alleged to have incurred a debt in the form of credit account issued by Synchrony Bank which Plaintiff denied she owed any debt. The alleged debt was consequently treated as "charged-off consumer debt" by Synchrony Bank, which was then purchased by Defendant on or after January 1, 2014 for collection. Defendant contracted with Cawley & Bergmann, LLC as an authorized agent to collect the debt from Plaintiff. Thereafter, Defendant requested the authorized agent to send a written communication to Plaintiff on or about May 23, 2019 on Defendant's behalf. However, the notice failed to comply with CFDBPA requirements. The complaint contends that the collection of Plaintiff's alleged debt by Defendant was unlawful. Cavalry SPV I, LLC is a debt collector that engages in purchasing and collecting charged-off consumer debts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fred W. Schwinn, Esq. Raeon R. Roulston, Esq. Matthew C. Salmonsen, Esq. CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC. 1435 Koll Circle, Suite 104 San Jose, CA 95112-4610 Tel: (408)294-6100 Fax: (408)294-6190 Email: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com raeon.roulston@sjconsumerlaw.com matthew.samonsen@sjconsumerlaw.com CAVALRY SPV I: Pettway Alleges Violation under FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry SPV I, LLC. The case is styled as Anthony Pettway, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-03922 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Cavalry SPV I LLC is an affiliate of Cavalry Portfolio Services, a company established in 2002 with the sole purpose of buying up high risk debt.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Byrne Alleges Bait & Switch Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------- RANDALL BYRNE, DAVID KLEUSKENS, JERRY HENRY, JASON WEBER, and SUSAN FOSTER-HARPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, LLC, CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING, LLC, and SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00712-CSH (D. Conn., May 21, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Ohio and Kentucky Consumer Sales Practices Act, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in false and deceptive advertising of their cable television service packages by promising a fixed monthly rate for a period of one to two years, but after consumers sign up or renew their service for the promised fixed-rate period, Charter deceptively increases the monthly rate in multiple deceptive ways including imposing and increasing a so-called "Broadcast TV Surcharge"; pegging customer discounts to a list price rate, increasing that list price rate, and increasing the customer's "discounted" rates with it; removing channels originally presented as part of the package and then charging extra for them; and increasing the monthly price of customer equipment such as cable boxes which are utilized by customers to receive television service. Through this bait-and-switch scheme, Charter has unfairly and improperly extracted billions of dollars in ill-gotten gains from consumers across the country, including those in Ohio and Kentucky. Charter Communications, Inc. is a telecommunications company and a holding company whose principal asset is a controlling equity interest in Charter Communications Holdings, LLC. It is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 400 Atlantic Street, Stamford, Connecticut. Charter Communications Holdings, LLC is a holding company and the parent company of Charter Communications Operating, LLC. It is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 400 Atlantic Street, Stamford, Connecticut. Charter Communications Operating, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Charter Communications, Inc. and is the entity under which substantially all of Charter's operations reside. It is located at 400 Atlantic Street, Stamford, Connecticut. Spectrum Management Holding Company, LLC, formerly known as Time Warner Cable Inc., is a provider of video, high-speed data and voice services in the United States, with its principal place of business also located at 400 Atlantic Street, Stamford, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael W. Sobol, Esq. Roger N. Heller, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: msobol@lchb.com rheller@lchb.com - and – Daniel E. Seltz, Esq. Avery S. Halfon, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592 E-mail: dseltz@lchb.com ahalfon@lchb.com - and – Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq. HATTIS & LUKACS 400 108th Ave NE, Ste. 500 Bellevue, WA 98004 Telephone: (425) 233-8650 Facsimile: (425) 412-7171 E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com pkl@hattislaw.com - and – Hugh W. Cuthbertson, Esq. Steve C Rickman, Esq. ZANGARI COHN CUTHBERTSON DUHL & GRELLO PC 59 Elm Street, Suite 400 New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone: (203) 789-0001 Facsimile: (203) 782-2766 E-mail: hcuthbertson@zcclawfirm.com srickman@zcclawfirm.com CHINA EASTERN: Jauregui Seeks Refund for Cancelled Flight --------------------------------------------------------- The case CARLOS A. JAUREGUI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHINA EASTERN AIRLINES CORPORATION LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-04552 (C.D. Cal., May 20, 2020), is a class action lawsuit regarding the failure of Defendant China Eastern Airlines Corporation Limited to provide full refunds to customers including the Plaintiff whose flights were cancelled as a result of the coronavirus, or COVID-19. Plaintiff, like many other travelers, was scheduled to fly with China Eastern. As part of Plaintiff's trip, Plaintiff was to embark on a departing flight from or destined for the United States: a departing flight from Los Angeles, California to Shanghai, China, and a return flight from and from Shanghai to Los Angeles. As a result of the coronavirus pandemic, China Eastern suspended flights to and from the United States. China Eastern's customers who, like Plaintiff, were affected by the cancellations, have sought refunds from Defendant, to no avail. The Defendant's acts are in violation of the Enforcement Notice of the United States Department of Transportation to provide Plaintiff a prompt refund when it cancelled his flight as well as in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code. China Eastern Airlines Corporation Limited is the second largest airline in China.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com ykrivoshey@bursor.com COASTAL TREATMENT: Fails to Transmit Insurance Fees, Ritz Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Theresa Ritz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COASTAL TREATMENT CENTER, CLEARWATER LLC d/b/a THE WAVE OF CLEARWATER, Case No. 8:20-cv-01149-SDM-AAS (M.D. Fla., May 18, 2020), is brought as a matter of right alleging that the Defendant failed to transmit premium payments to the health/dental insurance companies, as required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of, as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985. The Defendant offered a qualified group health plan to its employees as a part of their benefit package ("Plan"). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated ERISA by failing to discharge fiduciaries duties with respect to the Plan. As a result of these violations, the Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and other appropriate relief. The Plaintiff was denied coverage for dental services on November 5, 2019, and December 27, 2019, and suffered losses, the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendant's failure to transmit premium payments to the insurer, which were deducted from the Plaintiff's paycheck is the direct cause of the losses suffered by the Plaintiff, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant as a Director of Clinical Services Program Director in February 2019, and she worked in this capacity until November 2019 and is a covered employee and participant in the Plan. The Defendant is a limited liability company and operates a residential treatment facility in Clearwater, Florida, in Pinellas County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donna V. Smith, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Main Number: 813-224-0431 Direct Dial: 813-386-0995 Facsimile: 813-229-8712 Email: dsmith@wfclaw.com rcooke@wfclaw.com COLLECTO INC: Rivera Files Suit under FDCPA ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collecto, Inc. The case is styled as James Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Collecto, Inc., doing business as: EOS CCA, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02274 (E.D.N.Y., May 20, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Collecto, Inc., doing business as EOS CCA, operates as a debt management and recovery resource company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com CONSUMER REPORTS: Faces Class Suit Over Automatic Service Renewals ------------------------------------------------------------------ Marian Johns, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Consumer Reports is facing a class action lawsuit alleging they violated California law by enrolling consumers in automatic renewal and continuous subscriptions. Nino Koller and Michelle Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint April 6 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Consumer Reports Inc., alleging violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs allege that Consumer Reports failed to disclose to consumers who signed up for their monthly magazine the terms of their automatic renewal and continuous service plans. They also claim Consumer Reports charge the consumer's credit, debit card or third party account without consent and failed to provide a cancellation policy. The plaintiffs seek monetary relief, interest, trial by jury and all other proper relief. They are represented by Zach Dostart of Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP in LaJolla. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California case number 20-CV0660-JLS-KSC. [GN] CONTRACT CALLERS: Knudsen Asserts Breach of FDCPA ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Contract Callers, Inc. The case is styled as Jesse Knudsen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Contract Callers, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02269 (M.D. Tenn., May 20, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Contract Callers Inc or CCI is a top tier provider of call center services and utility field services solutions for creditors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com CORNED BEEF EXPRESS: Cortes et al. Seek Pay for Resto Staff ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, BEATRIZ CORONA CORTES, CARLOS CLEMENTE MAXIMINO, FRANCISCO JAVIER GARCIA SANTOS, JOSE LUIS LARA TORRES, JOSE ORTIZ GARCIA, MIGUEL PANO SERRANO, SANTOS ALEJANDRO TZUBAN TAX, and VENANCIO SALDANA VILLANUEVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. CORNED BEEF EXPRESS, LLC, D/B/A ARTIE'S; JOHN DOE CORP., D/B/A NANJING; M A K FOOD GROUP INC., D/B/A COZUMEL TORTILLA; WALTER SINGH; AVATAR SINGH; and ARUN KUMAR, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03546 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs and all others similarly-situated restaurant workers of the required minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked by the Plaintiffs and Class members and refused to give them any breaks or meal periods of any kind. The Plaintiffs were employed as cooks, delivery workers, dishwashers, food preparers at the restaurants located at 2290 Broadway, New York, NY 10024, 241 W 51st Street, New York, NY 10019, and 877 10th Avenue, New York, NY 10019. Corned Beef Express, LLC, doing business as Artie's, is a restaurant operator located at 2290 Broadway, New York, New York. John Doe Corp., doing business as Nanjing, is a restaurant operator located at 241 W 51st Street, New York, New York. M A K Food Group Inc., doing business as Cozumel Tortilla, is a restaurant operator located at 877 10th Avenue, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 CRYSTEEL MANUFACTURING: Proserv Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CRYSTEEL MANUFACTURING, INC. The case is styled as Proserv Removal, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. CRYSTEEL MANUFACTURING, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02331 (E.D. Pa., May 18, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Crysteel Manufacturing, Inc. was founded in 2006. The Company's line of business includes the manufacturing of motor vehicle parts and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Golomb, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 985-9177 Fax: (215) 985-4169 Email: rgolomb@golombhonik.com DANBURY, CT: Sued for Failing to Protect Inmates From COVID-19 -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelan Lyons, writing for CTMIRROR.ORG, reports that attorneys from a Stamford law firm, Quinnipiac University School of Law and Yale Law School filed a class-action federal lawsuit on April 27 to force authorities to take emergency measures to protect the more than 1,000 men and women incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury. "Public health experts uniformly agree that prisons are hot spots for the spread of COVID-19 that require prison officials to take swift action to protect the lives of those in their custody," said Sarah Russell, a professor at Quinnipiac University and one of the lawyers on the case. "FCI Danbury has completely disregarded these warnings, placing incarcerated people at an unbearable and unconstitutional risk of contracting the disease." The lawsuit alleges the Bureau of Prisons and Danbury prison officials are aware of the dangers posed by COVID-19 but have failed to take action to protect those in their custody. Due to the "unlawful and unconstitutional confinement," the suit's petitioners are seeking an emergency order to immediately transfer the prison's most medically vulnerable inmates to home confinement, and the implementation of social distancing and hygiene measures for those who remain incarcerated, to lower the risk of spreading the virus. A request seeking comment from the Bureau of Prisons was not immediately answered on April 28. Attorney General William Barr ordered the expedited release of inmates from the low-security Danbury penitentiary to home confinement, but it is unclear how many incarcerated people have been sent home to serve out their sentence. More than 40 inmates and 30 staff have contracted the virus, making it one of the largest outbreaks in the federal prison system. The case features four named incarcerated plaintiffs, all of whom have underlying medical conditions that, the suit alleges, put them at risk of death if they contract COVID-19: Dianthe Martinez-Brooks, a 50-year-old woman who suffers from lupus, asthma and hypertension; Rejeanne Collier, a 64-year-old woman who also suffers from lupus, hepatitis C and hypertension, and who has been treated for cancer since becoming incarcerated; Jackie Madore, a 50-year-old woman who has hypertension, hypothyroidism and hepatitis C; and Kenneth Cassidy, a 54-year-old man who has suffered three heart attacks and suffers from chronic asthma. None of the plaintiffs are Connecticut residents. Because of each inmate's medical conditions, the suit says, they each face a "grave risk" that they will "not make it out of FCI Danbury alive or will become terribly ill." The lawsuit alleges officials have been "deliberately indifferent to the known serious medical needs" of the four plaintiffs. Officials routinely deny inmates have fevers by attributing high temperatures to medical equipment or operator error, or by requiring sick inmates to drink a glass of ice water before testing them again. Even when medical staff confirm the fever, inmates are often sent back to their units and told to take Tylenol. Those incarcerated at the prison live in close quarters, with 100 people sleeping beside each other in bunk beds, sharing communal bathrooms and dining areas. Many individuals have high fevers or difficulty breathing, the lawsuit says, but have not been tested or removed from crowded living spaces. Unlike many prisons in the federal system, the suit says, Danbury does not have a separate medical unit or facility for sick inmates. There is no space where someone who is ill can recover, isolated from their peers. And, the correctional facility has a "woefully inadequate" number of nasal swab COVID-19 test kits, requiring prison staff to ration them and refuse testing inmates exhibiting symptoms of the virus. Failure to isolate sick inmates and staff from the healthy population creates a serious risk for others, the class-action lawsuit states. The lawsuit also alleges that those who complain of symptoms of COVID-19 are unable to immediately obtain a medical exam, are not tested for the virus and are returned to the general population until the symptoms worsen. Instead, the lawsuit says, prison staff tell the sick they "did the crime" and should "do the time," and that the virus is not "going to get you out of prison." "The only effective way to minimize the potential devastation from COVID-19 in BOP facilities generally and at FCI Danbury in particular is to downsize immediately the incarcerated population and, for the prisoners who remain at the institution, to undertake aggressively the detection, prevention, and treatment measures that public health and medical experts have recommended, including effective social distancing," the lawsuit says. "These measures are not possible in prisons, like FCI Danbury, without substantial reductions in the prisoner population." [GN] DARLING INGREDIENTS: Diaz Suit Removed to District of Colorado -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Diaz, Nicole Diaz, Albert Maldonado, and Lorraine Maldonado, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Darling Ingredients Inc. doing business as: DarPro and Pepcol Manufacturing, Case No. 2020CV30728, was removed from the Colorado District Court, Denver County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on May 5, 2020. The District of Colorado Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01259-SKC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge S. Kato Crews. The lawsuit alleges violation of Torts to Land-related laws. Darling Ingredients collects and recycles animal processing by-products and used restaurant cooking oil. The Company also provides grease trap collection services to restaurants. Darling processes such raw materials into finished products, such as tallow, meat and bone meal, and yellow grease for sale in the United States and overseas.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey M. Lippa, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 1144 15th Street, Suite 3300 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 572-6535 Facsimile: (303) 572-6540 E-mail: LippaJ@gtlaw.com DELTA AIR: Hagens Berman Files Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- Delta Air Lines was the latest defendant to be named in a class-action lawsuit seeking refunds for consumers refused ticket refund requests for flights cancelled due to the outbreak of COVID-19, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman. The class-action law firm brought similar claims against United Airlines recently, in its suit against Delta. If an airline denied your refund request after your flight was cancelled due to the outbreak, find out more about the lawsuit and your rights. According to the lawsuit filed Apr. 17, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division, Atlanta-based Delta has acted in deceptive and unfair manners in failing to honor ticket refunds and requests from its passengers in light of the outbreak of the novel coronavirus. The suit's named plaintiff is a Maryland resident who booked four round-trip tickets for $3,090.22, for travel from Washington Dulles to Cairo, Egypt in April 2020. Delta twice cancelled his flights, according to the lawsuit, once for the initial departure date, and once after the plaintiff rebooked the flights to an earlier date. His requests for a refund were rejected, and Delta informed him he was limited to a voucher for travel to occur within one year of his original booking date. The lawsuit states, "At the time of his ticket purchase, Plaintiff understood that he would be entitled to a refund if his flight was . . . Plaintiff seeks a refund because he does not know when or if he will be able to use a travel voucher." Delta's Changing Refund Policy Under Delta's Contract of Carriage, if the airline cancelled a flight or changed a flight time by more than 90 minutes, passengers could receive a full refund. However, Delta is focused on keeping passenger money through providing travel credits, not refunds. The front page of Delta's website has a "Coronavirus Travel Updates" banner and a large red button to encourage consumers to "Change or Cancel" their flight, yet the refund request form is not referenced on Delta's "Coronavirus Travel Updates," and is only located by searching the website specifically for the refund request form. According to the suit, " . . . regardless of the method by which Delta sells its tickets, Delta has engaged in unfair, deceptive, and unjust conduct: it is refusing to issue refunds to passengers for coronavirus related flight cancellations," highlighting that with mounting cancellations, Delta tried to make it "difficult, if not impossible, for consumers to receive any refund on pandemic cancelled flights." As the Department of Transportation advises consumers of their rights: "If your flight is cancelled and you choose to cancel your trip as a result, you are entitled to a refund for the unused transportation—even for non-refundable tickets." Yet, Delta has refused to give its customers the option of a refund, going as far as automatically issuing a travel voucher if a passenger is travelling soon, and cannot get through to a customer service representative due to high demand. "Simply put, we find Delta's actions in light of the pandemic utterly unacceptable," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and attorney for consumers in the class action. "That Delta is offering time-limited vouchers during an unprecedented time of chaos and uncertainty in our nation's history only underscores its primary focus of profits over people, and we intend to fight for their right to monetary relief. Americans are losing their sources of income at alarming rates. Vouchers just won't cut it." "The separation caused by COVID-19 and related protective efforts has particularly impacted travel, including air travel. Opportunity and ability to travel is flat-out eliminated for many Americans, both financially and physically," the lawsuit states. "To add to the difficulties such passengers already face, Delta refuses to issue monetary refunds to passengers with canceled flights. It does so even though all airline passengers are entitled to a refund if the airline cancels a flight, regardless of the reason the airline cancels the flight. Instead, Delta represents it will only rebook and/or provide travel vouchers." The lawsuit against Delta seeks refunds for class members for the amount paid for airline tickets, punitive damages and an injunction directing United to issue refunds for cancelled flights. Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against airlines for failure to refund tickets due to COVID-19-related cancellations. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is a consumer-rights class-action law firm with nine offices across the country. The firm's tenacious drive for plaintiffs' rights has earned it numerous national accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm," and MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. Contact: Ashley Klann Hagens Berman E-mail: ashleyk@hbsslaw.com Tel: 206-268-9363 [GN] DENNY'S INC: Fails to Pay for OT Work, Warren Claims ---------------------------------------------------- The case, SAMANTHA WARREN, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DENNY'S INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00428 (M.D. Tenn., May 19, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged unlawful practice and policy of refusing to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in 2017 as a server. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the Collective Class either work or have worked within the past 3 years as non-exempt employees and were required to work more than 40 hours per week. Plaintiff regularly work 60 to 65 hours per week. However, Defendant refuses to properly pay servers, including Plaintiff, overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours. Plaintiff and the Collective Class contend that Defendant's General Manager manipulated their clock in and clock out records to reconcile in the computer system and to show that they were not constantly working. Denny's Inc. is a restaurant that serves American comfort food, including appetizer, breakfast, lunch or dinner, located at 1420 HWY 96 North. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle F. Biesecker, Esq. BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC 3200 West End Avenue, Suite 500 Nashville, TN 37203 Tel: (615)783-2171 Fax: (812)424-1005 Email: kfb@bdlegal.com DEVA CONCEPTS: DevaCurl Products Cause Hair Problems, Biles Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN BILES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. DEVA CONCEPTS, LLC, d/b/a DEVACURL, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03537 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, negligence, and violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all similarly-situated consumers who purchased Defendant's DevaCurl hair products, which are used for personal cosmetic purposes, alleges that the Defendant deceives consumers by claiming that the No-Poo Product and other DevaCurl Products can allow scalp regulation and do not contain sulfates found in shampoos that dry out curls. Due to the Defendant's product representation, the Plaintiff and consumers have purchased the No-Poo Product as a complete alternative to traditional shampoo at a premium price. However, despite the Defendant's assurances of the products' benefits, use of the products has caused scalp irritation, excessive shedding, hair loss, thinning, breakage, and/or balding during normal use by thousands of consumers. Moreover, the Defendant provides no warning about these consequences, and in fact makes numerous assertions about the gentle and beneficial nature of the products. Had the Plaintiff and other Class members known that Defendant's products would cause hair loss, scalp irritation and other problems, they would not have purchased the products. Deva Concepts LLC is a manufacturer of hair care products, with its principal place of business located at 560 Broadway Suite 206 New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene A. Spector, Esq. Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. John A. Macoretta, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. Diana J. Zinser, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA, 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 E-mail: espector@srkattorneys.com jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com jspector@srkattorneys.com dzinser@srkattorneys.com - and – Steven A. Kanner, Esq. Douglas A. Millen, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com dmillen@fklmlaw.com - and – Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. Kimberly A. Justice, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 234-6487 E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com kjustice@fklmlaw.com - and – Philip A. Steinberg, Esq. 124 Rockland Avenue Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 664-0972 E-mail: pasteinbe@aol.com DON ALEX PERU: Castiblanco Sues in E.D.N.Y. Over FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Don Alex Peru, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Karen Milena Guauque Castiblanco, Leidy Vivian Guauque Castiblanco, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Don Alex Peru, Inc. doing business as: Don Alex, BBQ Chicken Don Alex Inc. doing business as: Don Alex, BBQ Chicken Don Alex II Inc. doing business as: Don Alex, Diavi Osores, Gelsen Doe, Case No. 1:20-cv-02235 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Don Alex is a family owned and operated restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 Email: michael@faillacelaw.com DOORDASH INC: Fails to Pay for All Time Worked, Corbin Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- REGINA CORBIN, individually, and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated v. DOORDASH, INC., a Delaware company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-584342 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., May 5, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to reimburse necessary business expenses and to pay for all time worked in violation of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee in the position of "courier." The Plaintiff and fellow couriers provide food delivery throughout the State of California. Doordash offers local delivery of restaurant-prepared meals, groceries and other goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq. Lirit Ariella King, Esq BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com Iking@bradleygrombacher.com DOUYU INT'L: Sokolove Investigating Class Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Sokolove Law announces an investigation into a securities class action lawsuit filed against DouYu International Holdings Limited (DOYU) on behalf shareholders. DOYU investors who purchased stock during the IPO on July 18, 2019 or up to December 31, 2019 who are interested in learning more about the class action lawsuit should call 800-576-6505 to explore their legal rights. Time is extremely limited -- shareholders are encouraged to call without delay. For more information visit: DOYUFraud.com DouYu International Holdings Limited (DOYU) is a game-focused live streaming platform in China and a major company in the eSports platform as well. DouYu operates its platform on PC and mobile apps, through which users can play interactive games and live stream entertainment. The lawsuit in question against DouYu alleges that the IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus the company and other defendants used to ultimately secure over $489 million in net proceeds from investors hid extensive problems at the company. DouYu allegedly concealed that its top streamer was actively misrepresenting herself and costs associated with retaining top streamers was ballooning. DouYu also allegedly did not ensure that all of its products were fully compliant with current regulatory requirements before the products were made available online and key features of DouYu's "Lucky Draw" were non-compliant with current regulatory requirements. If you are a DOYU investor who purchased shares during the IPO on July 18, 2019 or up to December 31, 2019, call our experienced case managers now at 800- 576-6505 to discuss your legal rights in this securities fraud class action lawsuit. The class has not been certified yet. You are not represented by an attorney until certification occurs. If you do not take action you can remain an absent class member. There is no required minimum number of shares to be a class member. About Sokolove Law Sokolove Law provides quality legal services that help people obtain access to the civil justice system. For more than 40 years, Sokolove Law has worked to educate people about their legal rights and helped thousands of injured parties obtain the compensation they deserved from their legal claims. Sokolove Law is a national law firm with offices and a licensed attorney in nearly every state. The firm operates as a limited liability company in all states except Virginia, California, Michigan and Tennessee, where it operates as a limited liability partnership. For more information on Sokolove Law, please visit www.sokolovelawfirm.com [GN] EHEALTH INC: Frank R. Cruz Announces Filing of Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired eHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ:EHTH) securities between March 19, 2018 and April 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). eHealth investors have until June 8, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. On April 8, 2020, Muddy Waters Research published a report alleging, among other things, that eHealth misled investors regarding member churn and revenue recognition. The report stated that the Company's "member churn . . . skyrocketed" and "that EHTH is pursuing low quality, lossmaking growth while its LTVs are based on lower churn, pre-growth cohorts." On this news, eHealth's stock price fell $12.82, nearly 12%, to close at $103.20 per share on April 8, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) its highly aggressive accounting and modeling assumptions; (2) its skyrocketing rate of member churn, resulting from eHealth's pursuit of low quality, lossmaking growth; (3) its reliance on direct response television advertising, which attracts an unprofitable, high churn enrollee; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased eHealth securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than June 8, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased eHealth securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 310-914-5007 E-mail: info@frankcruzlaw.com Web site: http://www.frankcruzlaw.com/ [GN] EMORY UNIVERSITY: Settles ERISA Lawsuit for $12.5 Million --------------------------------------------------------- In Geneva Henderson et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Emory University, et al., Civil Action No. 16-2920-CAP (N.D. Ga.), Emory University in Atlanta will settle a 45,000-person class action targeting the fees and investment options in its retirement plan. According to Investment News, Putnam Investments is settling a longstanding 401(k) lawsuit for $12.5 million, recent court filings show. According to Pension & Investments, the lawsuit, originally filed in August 2016 by law firm Schlichter, Bogard & Denton in U.S. District Court in Atlanta, alleged Emory University and Emory Healthcare, a university-affiliated health system, breached their fiduciary duties by causing participants in their 403(b) plans to pay excessive record-keeping, administrative and investment management fees, and by retaining high-cost and poor-performing investment options. The motion for preliminary approval of the settlement is due on or before May 29, according to a court filing.[GN] EMPIRE TODAY: Childress Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- STACY CHILDRESS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMPIRE TODAY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02687 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, a pre-recorded voice call from Defendant's number (217) 413-4362 was received by Plaintiff to his cell phone on March 12, 2020 attempting to promote its flooring and carpeting products. Plaintiff asserts that she did not provide "prior express consent" to Defendant to receive such solicitation call. The complaint claims that Defendant's telemarketing calls have caused Plaintiff actual harm in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy. Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and costs, and injunctive relief requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited artificial or pre-recorded voice-calling activities. Empire Today, LLC is a Northlake, Illinois-based home improvement and home furnishing company, specializing in installed carpet, flooring, and window treatments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juneitha Shambee, Esq. SHAMBEE LAW OFFICE, LTD. 701 Main St., Ste. 201A Evanston, IL 60202 Tel: (773) 741-3602 Email: juneitha@shambeelaw.com - and – Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (877) 333-9427 Fax: (888) 498-8946 Email: Law@StefanColeman.com - and – Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Tel: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com FCA US: Romanchuk Sues Over Oil Consumption Defect in Vehicles -------------------------------------------------------------- Nathanael Romanchuk, Katie Kuczkowski, and Tera Castillo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-11233-GAD-MJH (E.D. Mich., May 19, 2020), is brought against the Defendant on behalf of current and former owners and lessees of 2014-2020 Jeep Cherokees, 2015-2020 Jeep Renegades, 2017-2020 Jeep Compasses, 2013-2016 Dodge Darts, 2015-2020 Ram ProMaster City's, 2015-2016 Chrysler 200's, and 2016-2020 Fiat 500X's that are all equipped with a 2.4L Tigershark multiair four-cylinder engine. The Plaintiffs allege that these engines suffer from a defect that causes them to burn or consume excessive amounts of engine oil (the "Oil Consumption Defect" or "Defect"). As a result of the Defect, the Class Vehicles stall unexpectedly and without warning, often when turning at an intersection or when accelerating or decelerating, creating a serious safety hazard, according to the complaint. The Defect can also result in engine damage and premature wear that necessitates costly repairs, including engine replacements. Owners and lessees are also forced to incur considerable expense and burden in continually having to add oil to their vehicles. Because the Oil Consumption Defect makes Class Vehicles unreliable and can render them inoperable, it affects their central functionality. FCA is aware of the Oil Consumption Defect but has refused to provide adequate repairs to eliminate it under warranty, and has continually sold the Class Vehicles without disclosing this known defect to purchasers, the Plaintiffs contend. FCA has been aware of the defect since at least 2013, as evidenced by, inter alia, large numbers of consumers who have complained about this Defect dating back to at least 2013, including when consumers brought their Class Vehicles to FCA's authorized dealers for repairs. In most instances, FCA has refused to perform any repair, instead telling consumers that it is acceptable to burn 1 quart for every 1,000 miles and advising them to add additional oil between oil changes, according to the complaint. In rare circumstances FCA will provide a full engine replacement but upon information and belief the replacement engines suffer the same defect. Despite FCA's knowledge of the Defect, which renders the Class Vehicles hazardous and unsuitable for their intended purpose, it has failed to provide adequate repairs and has also failed to disclose the Defect to unsuspecting consumers. Due to the undisclosed Oil Consumption Defect, the Plaintiffs and Class Members were deprived of the benefit of their bargain in purchasing or leasing their FCA vehicles. The Plaintiffs purchased one of the Class Vehicles from an authorized FCA dealership. FCA is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, warranting, marketing, advertising and selling vehicles, including the Class Vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas L. Toering, Esq. Kenneth R. Chadwell, Esq. MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C. 1361 E. Big Beaver Rd. Troy, MI 48083 Phone: (248) 457-9200 Email: dtoering@manteselaw.com kchadwell@manteselaw.com - and - Timothy N. Mathews, Esq. Alex M. Kashurba, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON SMITH LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Phone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 Email: tnm@chimicles.com amk@chimicles.com - and - Steven R. Weinmann, Esq. Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 556-4811 - and - Russell D. Paul, Esq. Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Abigail J. Gertner, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: rpaul@bm.net josterwise@bm.net apark@bm.net agertner@bm.net FIFTH THIRD: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Motion Set for June 8 -------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, on April 29 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Fifth Third Bancorp. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB) FITB Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 26, 2016 - March 6, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 8, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fifth-third-bancorp-loss-form?prid=6254&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Fifth Third Bancorp made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) as a result of Fifth Third Bank's aggressive incentive policies to promote its cross-sell strategy, Fifth Third Bank employees engaged in unauthorized conduct with customer accounts; (ii) since at least 2008, Fifth Third Bank, and by extension, Fifth Third, was aware of such unauthorized conduct and, thus, that it was violating relevant regulations and laws aimed at protecting its consumers; (iii) Fifth Third failed to properly implement and monitor its cross-sell program, detect and stop misconduct, and identify and remediate harmed consumers; (iv) all the foregoing subjected the Company to a foreseeable risk of heightened regulatory scrutiny or investigation; (v) Fifth Third's revenues were in part the product of unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] FREERATEUPDATE.COM LLC: Schick Sues to Stop Unsolicited Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- Debora Schick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FreeRateUpdate.com, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, and Home Mortgage Alliance Corporation d/b/a American Bay Financial, A California Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00969-MTL (D. Ariz., May 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendants under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to stop their practices of placing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system to the telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express consent. The Defendants have violated, and continue to violate, the TCPA by placing autodialed calls to telephone subscribers who have not expressly consented to receiving such calls, the Plaintiff contends. In effort to obtain leads for their services, the Defendants made (or had made on their behalves) autodialed calls to the telephone of the Plaintiff without first obtained express consent to do so--all in violation of the TCPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person and a citizen off the State of Arizona. The Defendant FRU is a licenses mortgage broker.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Penny L. Koepke, Esq. MAXWELL & MORGAN, P.C. 4854 E. Baseline Road, Suite 104 Mesa, AZ 85206 Phone: (480) 833-1001 Email: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz - and - Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Phone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 Email: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com GEORGE HARMS: Narain et al Sue over Water Service Disruption ------------------------------------------------------------ DIN NARAIN, HETRAM SINGH, JOHN SANTOS, and MAUREEN CHANDRA, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GEORGE HARMS CONSTRUCTION CO, INC., SUEZ, SUEZ NORTH AMERICA, SUEZ WATER NEW JERSEY, INC., ABC CORPS. 1-100, Defendants, Case No. HUD-L001702-20 (N.J. Sup. Ct., May 4, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged negligence and breach of duty. Plaintiffs are water customers and residents of Jersey City who experienced disruption of water service as a result of the water main break. The complaint arises from a water main rupture on April 28, 2020, allegedly caused by Defendant George Harms Construction Co, Inc. at its State of NJ construction project on Route 7, which consequently disrupted water service to Jersey City and Hoboken water customers and resident. Although the water has been restored to Jersey City customers on April 30, 2020 at 8:00 a.m., they were ordered to boil water and advised to run cold water to clear discolored water. The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to properly and accurately flag underground utility systems under its operation or control prior to excavating by Defendant Harms Construction. Suez, Suez North America, and Suez Water New Jersey, Inc. are water service companies in North America. George Harms Construction Co, Inc. is a construction company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul M. da Costa, Esq. Thomas Paciorkowski, Esq. SNYDER SARNO D'ANIELLO MACERI & DA COSTA LLC 425 Eagle Rock Avenue Roseland, NJ 07068 Tel: (973) 274-5200 Email: pdacosta@snydersarno.com tpaciorkowski@snydersarno.com GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Putative Class Action Complaint Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keller and Heckman LLP wrote an article on The National Law Review on the dismissal by a California federal judge on April 8, 2020, of a putative class action complaint challenging Ghirardelli Chocolate Co.'s labels on its cocoa-free white baking chips. Cheslow, et al. v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., Case No. 19-cv-07467-PJH, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62044 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2020). Plaintiffs asserted they purchased Ghirardelli's "Premium Baking Chips Classic White Chips" under the impression that they contained "real" white chocolate, and that the product label, advertising, and marketing (including use of the term "premium"; references to "white" chips; and inclusion (until at least June 2019) of the term "chocolate" on product packaging and website) would mislead and deceive a reasonable consumer to believe the product contained "real" white chocolate. Plaintiffs alleged that due to the absence of cocoa butter/cacao fat, however, and the use of purportedly inferior ingredients such as hydrogenated and palm oils, the product contains "fake" white chocolate instead. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton (Northern District of California) granted Ghirardelli's motion to dismiss, noting, among other things: the words "chocolate" and "cocoa" did not appear anywhere on the product label, at the time of the order (other than as part of Ghirardelli's logo, which did not apply); the word "white" in "White Chips" defined the color of the food and not the quality of the product ("white wine may define the characteristic of the wine's color but does not inform the consumer whether the wine is a zinfandel or gewürztraminer"); and the use of "premium" constituted mere puffery. While the motion was dismissed without prejudice and plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaint, Judge Hamilton noted that "[b]ecause defendant's product packaging would not change in an amended complaint, the court is skeptical that the complaint can be amended to state a claim." [GN] GILEAD SCIENCES: Faces Suit for Disclosing HIV Patient Information ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALABAMA DOE and INDIANA DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-03473 (N.D. Cal., May 21, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and California Unfair Competition Law, negligence, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly-situated individuals who are prescribed to Gilead's HIV-related medications and enrolled in Gilead's Advancing Access Program, allege that the Defendant disclosed their confidential HIV-related information. In or around April 2020, Gilead's HIV Prevention Team sent the Plaintiffs and Class members who enrolled in the Advancing Access Program a one-page letter titled "The Latest from Gilead Sciences." The letter was sent in an envelope which stated the name and address of the recipient and on the outside of the envelope, in large, red font, was the return address: HIV Prevention Team, 1649 Adrian Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. The words "HIV Prevention Team" were in a larger font than the mailing address causing it to stand out in relation to the address. Gilead's actions, carelessly, recklessly, negligently, and impermissibly revealed confidential HIV-related information of patients who were prescribed Gilead medications, including to their family, friends, roommates, landlords, neighbors, mail carriers, and complete strangers. Gilead easily could have avoided the disclosure of this private information by using a return address that did not identify the sender as the HIV Prevention Team. Gilead Sciences, Inc. is an American biopharmaceutical company that researches, develops, and commercializes drugs, including drugs used for the treatment and prevention of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), with principal place of business located in Foster City, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 - and – Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-4656 E-mail: scarson@bm.net sschalman-bergen@bm.net - and – John Albanese, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 43 SE Main Street, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: (612) 594-5997 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net jalbanese@bm.net - and – Ronda B. Goldfein, Esq. Yolanda French Lollis, Esq. Adrian M. Lowe, Esq. AIDS LAW PROJECT OF PENNSYLVANIA 1211 Chestnut Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 587-9377 E-mail: goldfein@aidslawpa.org alowe@aidslawpa.org lollis@aidslawpa.org - and – John J. Grogan, Esq. David A. Nagdeman, Esq. LANGER, GROGAN & DIVER PC 1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 320-5660 E-mail: jgrogan@langergrogan.com dnagdeman@langergrogan.com GLAXOSMITHKLINE: DeCostanzo Alleges False Advertising of Boostrix ------------------------------------------------------------------ LORI DECOSTANZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02284 (E.D.N.Y., May 20, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, common law unjust enrichment, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of New York General Business Law, the State Consumer Protection Statutes, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Plaintiff seeks to represent similarly-situated consumers who received Boostrix, a tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis biological product manufactured by the Defendant. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant made false and deceptive claims that those receiving Boostrix are less likely to infect babies with pertussis. In reality, Boostrix may reduce the symptoms of pertussis but it does not prevent those receiving this product from becoming infected with and transmitting pertussis. The complaint claims researchers at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and at premier universities have established that even though Boostrix decreases the odds of a person experiencing the symptoms of pertussis, it creates a defective form of immunity to pertussis in the person receiving the product. This defective immunity actually renders them susceptible to becoming repeatedly infected with pertussis, potentially every month, without knowing they are infected. Glaxosmithkline PLC is a multinational pharmaceutical company with its principal place of business located at 980 Great West Road, Brentford, Middlesex TW89GS, England. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Siri, Esq. Elizabeth Brehm, Esq. Jessica Wallace, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 200 Park Avenue, Seventeenth Floor New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: aaron@sirillp.com GOLDEN STAR: Zhang Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Golden Star Resources Ltd. (NYSE: GSS) between February 20, 2019 and July 30, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). 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. To join the class action, http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=golden-star-resources-ltd&id=2240 call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, the company failed to disclose and/or misstated: (1) the Company had insufficient geological and geotechnical data in its Prestea mine; (2) the Company had experienced deficiencies in its operating practices and mining methods including inaccurate long hole drilling and blasting in its Prestea mine; (3) the Company did not have the mining flexibility and more measured resources to ensure higher reserve grade; (4) the Company had experienced increased tonnage at much lower grade where it had to supplement some of the production with oxide material; (5) the Company had excessive dilution which drove lower mining rates at the Prestea mine; and (6) 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 has not been certified. You may retain counsel of your choice. You may take no action at this time and be an absent class member. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. Contact: Zhang Investor Law P.C. 99 Wall Street, Suite 232 New York, New York 10005 E-mail: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com Tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN] GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Venator Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in the federal action related to Venator Materials PLC's US$522 million August 2017 initial public offering and US$534 million December 2017 secondary equity offering remains pending. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions in Texas District Court, Dallas County, New York Supreme Court, New York County, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, filed beginning in February 2019, relating to Venator Materials PLC's (Venator) $522 million August 2017 initial public offering and $534 million December 2017 secondary equity offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Venator, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. GS&Co. underwrote 6,351,347 shares of common stock in the August 2017 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $127 million and 5,625,768 shares of common stock in the December 2017 secondary equity offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $127 million. On January 21, 2020, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the Texas District Court and dismissed the claims against the underwriter defendants, including GS&Co., in the Texas state court action for lack of personal jurisdiction. On February 18, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint in the federal action. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss VRDO-Related Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the class action suit related to variable rate demand obligations (VRDOs) is still pending. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the defendants named in a putative class action relating to variable rate demand obligations (VRDOs), filed beginning in February 2019 under separate complaints and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 31, 2019, generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to manipulate the market for VRDOs. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble and other damages. Defendants moved to dismiss on July 30, 2019. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Status Bid Pending in Interest Rate Swap Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class plaintiff's March 2019 motion for class certification in the Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation is still pending. The Company ("Group Inc."), Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co."), Goldman Sachs Bank USA ("GS Bank USA") and Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P. ("GSFM") are among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action relating to the trading of interest rate swaps, filed in November 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The same Goldman Sachs entities also are among the defendants named in two antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate swaps, commenced in April 2016 and June 2018, respectively, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their affiliates. These actions have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings. The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps. The complaints in the individual actions also assert claims under state antitrust law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss the class and the first individual action and the district court dismissed the state common law claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the first individual action and otherwise limited the state common law claim in the putative class action and the antitrust claims in both actions to the period from 2013 to 2016. On November 20, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second individual action, dismissing the state common law claims for unjust enrichment and tortious interference, but denying dismissal of the federal and state antitrust claims. On March 13, 2019, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion in the putative class action to amend their complaint to add allegations related to 2008-2012 conduct, but granted the motion to add limited allegations from 2013-2016, which the plaintiffs added in a fourth consolidated amended complaint filed on March 22, 2019. The plaintiffs in the putative class action moved for class certification on March 7, 2019. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Class Suits Over XP Inc. IPO -------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been named as a defendant in putative securities class action lawsuits related to XP Inc.'s (XP) $2.3 billion December 2019 initial public offering. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions pending in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of York, filed beginning March 19, 2020, relating to XP Inc.'s (XP) $2.3 billion December 2019 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include XP, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. GS&Co. underwrote 19,326,218 shares of common stock in the December 2019 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $522 million. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Securities Lending Antitrust Suit v GS&Co. Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.), continue to defend against a putative antitrust class action regarding alleged antitrust law breaches over securities lending transactions. The Company ("Group Inc.") and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) are among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action and three individual actions relating to securities lending practices filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in August 2017. The complaints generally assert claims under federal and state antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude the development of electronic platforms for securities lending transactions. The individual complaints also assert claims for tortious interference with business relations and under state trade practices law and, in the second and third individual actions, unjust enrichment under state common law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble, punitive and other damages. Group Inc. was voluntarily dismissed from the putative class action on January 26, 2018. Defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint was denied on September 27, 2018. Defendants moved to dismiss the second individual action on December 21, 2018. Defendants' motion to dismiss the first individual action was granted on August 7, 2019. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in GSE Bonds Suit Wins Initial Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has preliminarily approved the settlement between Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and class plaintiffs in the class action suit related to GSE Bonds. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the dealers named as defendants in numerous putative antitrust class actions relating to debt securities issued by Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation and Federal Home Loan Banks (collectively, the GSEs), filed beginning in February 2019 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The third consolidated amended complaint, filed on September 10, 2019, asserts claims under federal antitrust law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to manipulate the secondary market for debt securities issued by the GSEs. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in unspecified amounts. On December 12, 2019, the court preliminarily approved a settlement between the firm and class plaintiffs. The firm has reserved the full amount of its contribution to the settlement. Beginning in September 2019, the State of Louisiana and the City of Baton Rouge filed complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against the class defendants and a number of dealers alleging the same claims as in the class action. In January 2020, the State of Louisiana and City of Baton Rouge voluntarily dismissed their actions with prejudice against GS&Co. in favor of participating in the class settlement. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GRAND CANYON: Offers Unaccredited Academic Programs, Ogdon Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Katie Ogdon, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Grand Canyon University, Inc., an Arizona corporation, and Grand Canyon Education, Inc. d/b/a Grand Canyon University, a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00709-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal., May 20, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff to hold Defendants accountable for violating California law by unlawfully, unfairly, and fraudulently enrolling students in professional degree programs that are not accredited in such a way so as to qualify the students for licensure and/or practice in California. The Defendants' deceptive practice results in students taking classes and paying –- or becoming indebted for -– thousands of dollars in tuition for academic programs that will not be accepted for professional licensure. The Defendants perpetrate this scheme by aggressively marketing their unaccredited programs to potential students through financially-motivated salespeople Defendants term "advisors." These "advisors" are trained and incentivized by Defendants to push prospective students to take courses even when the courses will not qualify the students for licensure. According to the complaint, each Defendant knew that the other Defendant was engaging in or planned to engage in the violations of law alleged in this Class Action Complaint. Knowing that the other Defendant was engaging in such unlawful conduct, each Defendant nevertheless facilitated the commission of those unlawful acts. Each Defendant intended to and did encourage, facilitate, or assist in the commission of the unlawful acts alleged, and there by aided and abetted the other Defendant in the unlawful conduct. Grand Canyon University Inc. is a for-profit private Christian university in Phoenix, Arizona. Grand Canyon Education, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and is the publicly traded holding company that operates Grand Canyon University.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Annick Persinger, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com - and - Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, Northwest, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com ksimplicio@tzlegal.com GREAT LAKES EDUCATIONAL: Mishandled Student Loan Relief, Sass Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ KATHERINE SASS and CODY HOUNANIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GREAT LAKES EDUCATIONAL LOAN SERVICES, INC.; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; TRANS UNION, LLC; EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; and VANTAGESCORE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03424-DMR (N.D. Cal., May 20, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the California Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants have mishandled the federal relief granted to students by inaccurately reporting information about student loan payments that were suspended under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). Rather than reporting federal student loans held by the Department of Education as though the borrower had made all required payments, as dictated by the terms of the CARES Act, Defendants Great Lakes and Equifax instead reported millions of loans held by the Department of Education as "deferred." Also, Defendants Equifax, Experian, Trans Union and Vantage failed to adjust the Vantage Score algorithm to account for relief that was automatically provided to student loan borrowers whose loans are held by the Department of Education. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiffs and other Class members will suffer long lasting credit stigma, including inaccurate and lower credit scores resulting in no, limited or more costly access to credit. Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc. is a student loans servicer with its principal office in Madison, Wisconsin. Equifax Information Services, LLC is a foreign corporation that offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions, with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. Trans Union LLC is a global information and insights company with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is a corporation that operates as an information services company with its principal place of business in Costa Mesa, California. VantageScore Solutions, LLC is a Connecticut-based joint venture that focuses on credit data, credit risk modeling and analytics. [BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 - and – E. Michelle Drake, Esq. John G. Albanese, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 43 SE Main Street, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net jalbanese@bm.net - and – Alexander Hood, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE 1410 High Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (720) 239-2606 E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org GSX TECHEDU: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against GSX Techedu Inc. (NYSE: GSX) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and indexed under 20-cv-04457, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired GSX securities between June 6, 2019, and April 13, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased GSX securities during the class period, you have until June 16, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. GSX is a technology-driven education company that provides online K-12 after-school tutoring services in China. The Company also provides a variety of other tutoring courses and services, such as English courses for children in kindergarten, foreign language courses, English test preparation courses for students taking post-graduate entrance exams, professional courses for working adults preparing for professional qualification exams, personal interest courses, and offline business consulting courses. Additionally, the Company operates Weishi, an interactive learning platform on the popular Chinese digital application ("app") WeChat. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) GSX overstated its profitability, revenue, student enrollment figures, teacher qualifications, and teacher selection process; (ii) the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial results; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 25, 2020, Grizzly Research LLC ("Grizzly") published a report highlighting multiple alleged issues with GSX's business and financial operations (the "Grizzly Report"). Specifically, the Grizzly Report alleged, among other issues, that the Company "has been drastically overstating its profitability in its US public filings, especially for 2018"; Grizzly "found multiple strong indications of past and current order ‘brushing,'" which are "essentially fake student enrollments to boost student count"; "many of GSX's reported students do not actually exist"; and "[w]hile [GSX] touts its high-quality teacher recruitment mechanism, [Grizzly] found a sign-up website that was not functional, multiple allegations of GSX hiring teachers right out of college with no prior experience, and fabricated teachers profiles." Following publication of the Grizzly Report, GSX's ADS price fell $1.33 per share, or 2.93%, to close at $44.09 per share on February 25, 2020. Then, on April 14, 2020, Citron Research ("Citron") published a report highlighting additional alleged issues with GSX's business and financial operations (the "Citron Report"), including, among other issues, that the Company's "2019 revenue was overstated by 70%," that "sales revenues are largely exaggerated," and that the Company's "filings are riddled with suspicious transactions." Following publication of the Citron Report, GSX's ADS price fell $0.20 per share, or 0.64%, to close at $31.20 per share on April 14, 2020—a total decline of 31.31% since the truth concerning GSX's alleged fraud began to emerge. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] HAIN CELESTIAL: Gimpel Appeals Order, Judgment in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lead Plaintiffs Salamon Gimpel and Rosewood Funeral Home filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum of Decision and Order, dated April 6, 2020, and Judgment dated April 7, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled IN RE THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 16-cv-4581, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit involves allegations that the Hain and certain of its current and former officers and directors made materially false and misleading statements concerning Hain's inventory and revenues by allegedly engaged in the practice of "channel stuffing" in violation of Sections 10(b), Rule 10(b)-5 promulgated thereunder, and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Hain manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells organic and natural products in the United States and several other countries. During the Class Period, 55-60% of Hain's net sales were generated within the United States. Hain's products are marketed as "better for you" foods, and its product line includes brands such as Almond Dream, Arrowhead Mills, BluePrint, Celestial Seasonings, Coconut Dream, Earth's Best, Garden of Eatin', Hain Pure Foods, Joya, MaraNatha, Rice Dream, Soy Dream, Terra Chips, The Greek Gods, and WestSoy. Hain's largest customer during the Class Period was United Natural Foods, Inc. ("UNFI"), a distributor that accounted for 12% of Hain's net sales during the Class Period. Lead Plaintiffs Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel, along with the members of the proposed class, purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Hain, and call and put options on the publicly traded common stock, during the period from November 5, 2013, through February 10, 2017. The appellate case is captioned as In Re The Hain Celestial Group, Case No. 20-1517, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Lead Plaintiffs-Movants-Appellants Salamon Gimpel and Rosewood Funeral Home are represented by: Jonathan Gardner, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Email: jgardner@labaton.com Defendants-Appellees The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al., are represented by: John M. Hillebrecht, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 335-4590 Email: john.hillebrecht@dlapiper.com HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS: Hair Studio Seeks Coverage of COVID Losses ----------------------------------------------------------------- HAIR STUDIO 1208, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO., Case No. 2:20-cv-02171-TJS (E.D. Pa., May 5, 2020), seeks to ensure that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are entitled and for which they paid. Due to COVID-19, Governor Tom Wolf's "Stay at Home" Order, and Order of the Secretary of Health of the Pennsylvania, the Plaintiff has been required to close its business and cannot provide hair styling or other personal care services. In a letter dated April 3, 2020, the Defendant denied coverage for the Plaintiff's losses, the complaint says The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's insurance policy issued to them promises to pay them for "direct physical loss of or direct physical damage to" covered property. The Defendant's issued insurance policy includes Business Income Coverage, Extra Expense Coverage, Extended Business Income Coverage and Civil Authority Coverage. The Plaintiff adds that it paid all premiums for the coverage when due. The Plaintiff is a hair salon and personal care business located at 1208 Juniper St., in Quakertown, Pennsylvania. The Defendant is an insurance carrier incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200-0580 Facsimile: (610) 421-1326 E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com jbk@sstriallawyers.com - and - Lynn L. Sarko, Esq. Irene M. Hecht, Esq. Amy Williams-Derry, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Ian S. Birk, Esq. Maureen Falecki, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com ihecht@kellerrohrback.com awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com ibirk@kellerrohrback.com mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com - and - Alison Chase, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Facsimile: (805) 456-1497 E-mail: achase@kellerrohrback.com IQIYI INC: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow LLP announces that on April 17, 2020, it filed a securities class action lawsuit, captioned Shiferaw v. iQIYI, Inc., No. 20-cv-3115 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Action"), on behalf of its client Sintayehu Shiferaw ("Shiferaw") against iQIYI, Inc. ("iQIYI" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IQ) and certain executive officers (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 iQIYI's securities between March 29, 2018 through April 7, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), who were damaged thereby (the "Class"). iQIYI operates a Chinese online streaming platform which is currently one of the largest video-based websites in the world, with on-demand video content. The Company generates its revenue primarily from membership services and online advertising. The Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and omissions. Specifically, Defendants overstated iQIYI's 2019 revenue by 27%-44% and the Company's user numbers by 42%-60%. iQIYI also inflated its expenses to conceal these misstatements from investors. This fraud was revealed on April 7, 2020 by Wolfpack Research. On that date, Wolfpack Research published a 37-page report detailing Defendants' scheme to defraud investors. Among other things, this report explained how iQIYI had materially overstated its revenue and subscriber numbers. On this news, iQIYI's American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") fell $1.01 per share, or 5.8 percent, over the remainder of the day and the next full trading day to close at $16.51 per share April 8, 2020. As a result of Defendants false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions, the Class suffered harm under the Exchange Act. If you purchased iQIYI securities, including ADSs, 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 15, 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. Shiferaw 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. More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com. Contact: David J. Schwartz Labaton Sucharow LLP Tel: (800) 321-0476 E-mail: dschwartz@labaton.com [GN] JPI SERVICES: Faces Lewis Class Suit in California Superior Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jet Pro, Inc. The case is captioned as JEFFREY LEWIS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. JET PRO, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; JPI SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC20584347 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., May 5, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Garrett L. Wong. A case management conference will be held on Oct. 7, 2020. Jet Pro provides air freight services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Harmik Yeremian, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N Brand Blvd., Ste. 705 Glendale, CA 91203-1989 Telephone: (818) 230-8380 Facsimile: (818) 230-0308 E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Misled PPP Applicants, Prioritized Larger Loans --------------------------------------------------------------- KPA PROMOTIONS & AWARDS, INC. and ABOVE & BEYOND PRESCHOOL, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03910-MKV (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary Duty, negligence, and violations of New York General Business, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the Florida Statute. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated entities, allege that the Defendants engaged in unlawful acts and/or intentional practices of making false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions concerning their processing of economic assistance via the Federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). The U.S. Small Business Administration's Paycheck Protection Program is designed to provide a direct incentive for small businesses to help them keep their workers on the payroll following the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Defendants intentionally ignored the equitable and critical guideline set by the federal government that loans would be processed on a first come, first served basis and instead prioritized the processing of larger loans over smaller loans, thereby ensuring their receipt of greater origination fees, which were based on the loan amounts. Had the Plaintiffs and Class members known that the Defendants prioritized larger loans, they could have decided to apply for PPP assistance through another financial institution. As a result of the Defendants' misrepresentations, omissions, and wrongdoing, countless of small businesses, including the Plaintiffs, were prevented from benefitting from the program designed to help them survive during the COVID-19 pandemic. KPA Promotions & Awards, Inc. is a small business located in West Palm Beach, Florida that offers promotional products, recognition items, awards, medals, and plaques. Above & Beyond Preschool, LLC is a preschool that offers programs for children from six weeks of age through fifth grade with principal place of business in Royal Palm Beach, Florida. JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a multinational financial services institution headquartered in New York, New York. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a multinational financial services provider headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alex R. Straus, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 16748 McCormick Street Los Angeles, CA 91436 Telephone: (917) 471-1894 E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com - and – Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com - and – 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 - and – Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. William A. Ladnier, Esq. Arthur Stock, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 South Gay Street, Suite 100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com Will@gregcolemanlaw.com Arthur@gregcolemanlaw.com - and – Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Scott C. Harris, Esq. Patrick M. Wallace, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com scott@whitfieldbryson.com pat@whitfieldbryson.com JPMORGAN: Violates First-Come, First-Served COVID Loan Policy ------------------------------------------------------------- VR CONSULTANTS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06110 (D.N.J., May 20, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, fraudulent concealment, and tortious interference. The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly-situated small businesses, alleges that the Defendants are engaged in unlawful acts and/or intentional practices of making false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions concerning their processing of economic assistance via the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). The Defendants represented, and continues to represent, to PPP loan applicants that their applications would be processed on a first-come, first-served basis as mandated by the federal government. However, contrary to the Defendants' representations, Chase employed a two-tiered program that prioritized its wealthiest clients' PPP applications before it would process PPP loan applications from smaller, less wealthy clients, including the Plaintiff and Class members. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known that the Defendants prioritized larger loans, they could have decided to apply for PPP assistance through another financial institution. As a result of the Defendants' misrepresentations, omissions, and wrongdoing, countless of small businesses, including the Plaintiff, were prevented from benefitting from the program designed to help them survive during the COVID-19 pandemic. VR Consultants, Inc. is a provider of information technology solutions and management consulting with its principal place of business in New Jersey. JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a multinational financial services institution headquartered in New York, New York. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a multinational financial services provider headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Javier L. Merino, Esq. Marc E. Dann, Esq. THE DANN LAW FIRM PC 372 Kinderkamack Road, Suite 5 Westwood, NJ 07675 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com - and – Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. Sharon A. Harris, Esq. Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES PC 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com sharon@attorneyzim.com jeff@attorneyzim.com - and – Joshua W. Denbeaux, Esq. DENBEAUX & DENBEAUX 372 Kinderkamack Road, Suite 5 Westwood, NJ 07675 Telephone: (201) 664-8855 Facsimile: (201) 666-8589 E-mail: jdenbeaux@denbeauxlaw.com - and – Lee M. Perlman, Esq. 1926 Greentree Road, Suite 100 Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 Telephone: (856) 751-4224 Facsimile: (888) 635-5933 E-mail: lperlman@newjerseybankruptcy.com KENTUCKY: Roberts Appeals E.D. Ky. Decision to Sixth Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs THEODORE JOSEPH ROBERTS, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Theodore Roberts, et al v. Robert Neace, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00054, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit involves the alleged unconstitutional threats faced by the Plaintiffs that are solely as a result of their free exercise of their religious beliefs in attending an Easter Sunday service on April 12, 2020, in accordance with guidelines during the COVID-19 outbreak, where they practiced appropriate social distancing. As the evidence shows, the Plaintiffs are the subject of selective enforcement against their closely held religious beliefs and practices, while other activities either are not prohibited, or go on unchecked despite being prohibited. The appellate case is captioned as Theodore Roberts, et al. v. Robert Neace, et al., Case No. 20-5465, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants THEODORE JOSEPH ROBERTS, RANDALL DANIEL, and SALLY O'BOYLE, on behalf of themselves and all other similariy situated, are represented by: Christopher David Wiest, Esq. BECK LAW OFFICE 25 Town Center Boulevard Crestview Hills, KY 41017 Telephone: (859) 486-6850 - and - Robert Albert Winter, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT A. WINTER JR. P.O. Box 175883 Fort Mitchell, KY 41017-5883 Telephone: (859) 250-3337 Email: robertawinterjr@gmail.com - and - Thomas Bernard Bruns, esq. BRUNS, CONNELL, VOLLMAR & ARMSTRONG, LLC 4750 Ashwood Drive, Suite 200 Cincinnati, OH 45241 Telephone: (513) 312-9890 Defendants-Appellees HONORABLE ROBERT D. NEACE, only as Boone Co. Attorney on behalf of all other County Attorneys, et al., are represented by: Jeffrey C. Mando, Esq. Jennifer H. Langen, Esq. ADAMS, STEPNER, WOLTERMANN & DUSING 40 W. Pike Street Covington, KY 41012 Telephone: (859) 394-6200 Email: JMando@aswdlaw.com JLangen@aswdlaw.com - and - Steven Travis Mayo, Esq. Marc Griffin Farris, Esq. Taylor Allen Payne, Esq. OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 700 Capitol Avenue, Suite 106 Frankfort, KY 40601 Telephone: (502) 564-2611 - and - Wesley Warden Duke, Esq. David Thomas Lovely, Esq. KENTUCKY CABINET FOR HEALTH & FAMILY SERVICES 275 E. Main Street, Room 5W-B Frankfort, KY 40621 Telephone: (502) 564-4001 Amicus Curiae COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY is represented by: Barry Lee Dunn, Esq. OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 700 Capital Avenue, Suite 118 Frankfort, KY 40601 Telephone: (502) 696-5653 KERRY INC: Mahan Sues Over False Marketing of Vanilla Chai Tea -------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Mahan, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Kerry Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-03346 (N.D. Cal., May 18, 2020), seeks to stop the Defendant's false and misleading marketing practices with regards to its Vanilla Chai Tea Latte. Vanilla Chai Tea Latte is a powdered chai tea mix with a purported primary characterizing flavor of vanilla manufactured, sold and marketed by the Defendant under the Oregon Chai brand. During the Class Period, the Plaintiff purchased the Vanilla Chai Tea Latte in California. According to the complaint, the Defendant falsely and misleadingly markets Vanilla Chai Tea Latte to consumers as having a primary characterizing flavor of "Vanilla" that comes from the vanilla plant. In fact, Vanilla Chai Tea Latte has, at most, only a trace of real vanilla from the vanilla plant and what consumers taste is vanilla flavor provided by non-vanilla sources. Rather than having a primary characterizing flavor of real vanilla, Vanilla Chai Tea Latte contains non-vanilla flavors plant and vanilla enhancers which enhance vanilla, contrary to the legal requirements and expectations of reasonable consumers. The Defendant charges a price premium for Vanilla Chai Tea Latte. The Plaintiff would not have purchased or paid more for Vanilla Chai Tea Latte had the Plaintiff realized that much, if not all, of the vanilla flavor came from non-vanilla plant sources and that the primary characterizing flavor was not from the vanilla plant. The Plaintiff would not have purchased or paid more for Vanilla Chai Tea Latte had the Plaintiff known that what small amount of vanilla it did contain is not exclusively derived from vanilla beans, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Oregon Chai Vanilla Chai Tea Latte for personal, family, or household use at a supermarket in Brentwood, California, in December 2019. Kerry is one of the world's largest food conglomerates, started by Ireland's dairy industry, and produces and markets powdered chai tea mix products in the United States and throughout the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Phone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 Email: mreese@reesellp.com - and - George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515 Los Angeles, CA 90211 Phone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 Email: ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com KNOXVILLE, TN: Mayor's COVID E.O. Is Unconstitutional, Simon Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD PIERSON SIMON, class plaintiff, as well as all other similar situated individuals v. CITY OF KNOXVILLE, and KNOXVILLE MAYOR INDYA KINCANNON, Case No. 3:20-cv-00197-TRM-DCP (E.D. Tenn., May 5, 2020), arises out of Knoxville Mayor Indya Kincannon's Orders related to the Covid-19 disease, which blatantly violate the constitutional rights of individuals in the City of Knoxville. The Plaintiff contends that his job, and those of all others similarly situated employees, were adversely affected by their employers being ordered to shut down by way of the Mayor's Order. He adds that they were not provided fair notice of the shutdown Order before it occurred; neither have they been afforded a fair hearing to challenge the same. With the forced closures, the Defendants caused considerable damage to the Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated employees of the shut-down business, as to their wages, says the complaint. The World Health Organization and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention identified COVID-19 as a "public health emergency of international concern." Likewise, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared that COVID-19 has created a public health emergency. On March 16, 2020, Mayor Indya Kincannon, proclaimed the existence of a state of emergency throughout the City of Knoxville. The Plaintiff was a shoe salesman for Dillard's department store at West Town Mall located in Knoxville, Tennessee. The City of Knoxville is a duly organized City pursuant to the laws of the State of Tennessee. Defendant Indya Kincannon is the Knoxville Chief Executive Officer and Mayor, who issued the alleged unconstitutional Orders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russ Egli, Esq. THE EGLI LAW FIRM The Wisdom Building 11109 Lake Ridge Drive, FL3 Concord, TN 37934 Telephone: (865) 304-4125 Facsimile: (855) 827-0624 E-mail: russelleglilaw@gmail.com - and - Darren V. Berg, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DARREN V. BERG P.O. Box 33113 Knoxville, TN 37933 Telephone: (865) 773-8799 E-mail: dberglawfirm@gmail.com LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend California Wage & Hour Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit related to California wage and hour laws. Three putative class action lawsuits related to California wage and hour laws have been served on the Company. On September 21, 2018, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Alma Haro v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. On June 10, 2019, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Ignacio v. Laboratory Corporation of America, filed in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. On July 1, 2019, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Jan v. Laboratory Corporation of America, filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. All three cases were subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and then consolidated for all pre-trial proceedings. In the lawsuits, Plaintiffs allege that employees were not properly paid overtime compensation, minimum wages, meal and rest break premiums, did not receive compliant wage statements, and were not properly paid wages upon termination of employment. The Plaintiffs assert these actions violate various California Labor Code provisions and constitute an unfair competition practice under California law. The lawsuits seek monetary damages, civil penalties, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuits. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LVNV FUNDING: Faces Raszewski Consumer Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Raszewski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, and RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., Case No. 3:20-cv-00095-SLH (W.D. Pa., May 18, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, Chapter 63 of the Consumer Credit Code, and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law by regularly filing lawsuit against Pennsylvania consumers on "open end credit agreements" without meeting the prior notice requirements. At some time in the past, Capital One Bank issued the Plaintiff credit card accounts. In September 2019, the Defendants filed two lawsuits against the Plaintiff in the Somerset County Court of Common Pleas. The Defendants claimed LVNV purchased the Accounts from Capital One Bank. The Plaintiff filed preliminary objections in the lawsuits the Defendants filed against the Plaintiff. On October 21, 2019, the Plaintiff's preliminary objections were granted. On January 23, 2019, the lawsuits the Defendants filed were dismissed with prejudice. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff should not have had to defend the lawsuits, or pay an attorney to do so, because the Defendants could not lawfully collect the Accounts by filing suit against the Plaintiff or by subjecting the Plaintiff to legal process. In order to lawfully use the Pennsylvania court system to collect defaulted "open end credit agreements," holders of such accounts must provide prior notice that complies with Section 6309 of the CCC. The Defendants did not meet the prior notice requirements of Section 6309 of the CONTENDS, the Plaintiff contends. Prior to filing suit against the Plaintiff, the Defendants did not send the Plaintiff a notice that informed the Plaintiff of: i) right to cure the default on the Account within 21 days of the date of receipt of the notice; ii) the name, address and telephone number of the seller or holder of the Account; iii) the total amount due on the Account; iv) the exact date by which the amount due on the Account must be paid; v) the name, address and telephone number of the person to whom payment must be made; and vi) any other performance necessary to cure default on the Account, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of Somerset County, Pennsylvania. LVNV's sole business is purchasing defaulted consumer debt to collect debt for profit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 186 42nd Street, PO Box 40127 Pittsburgh, PA 15201 Phone: (412) 223-5740 Email: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Fax: (412) 231-0246 Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com ekilepal@carlsonlynch.com MDL 2804: Court Narrows Claims in National Prescription Opiate Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Dan Aaron Polster of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Ohio, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Health and Welfare Fund, et al. v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:18-op-45432-DAP, MDL No. 2804 (N.D. Ohio). On June 18, 2018, Plaintiffs, Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Health and Welfare Fund and Pipe Fitters Local Union No. 120 Insurance Fund, filed their First Amended Complaint. On Dec. 20, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their Corrected Unredacted Amended Complaint. The Complaint identifies two categories of the Dfendants: the Marketing Defendants and the Distributor Defendants. The Marketing Defendants are generally described by the Plaintiffs as having packaged, distributed, supplied, sold, placed into the stream of commerce, labeled, described, marketed, advertised, promoted, and purported to warn or purported to inform prescribers and users regarding the benefits and risks associated with the use of the prescription opioid drugs. The Distributor Defendants are described by the Plaintiffs as wholesale pharmaceutical distributors who distributed, supplied, sold, and placed prescription opioids into the stream of commerce without fulfilling their alleged duty to detect and warn of the diversion of these drugs for non-medical purposes. Four of the Distributor Defendants -- CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreens, and Walmart -- are also National Retail Pharmacies. The Plaintiffs refer to the Marketing Defendants and the Distributor Defendants collectively as the Defendants. Similar to insurance companies, the two Plaintiff Funds provide health and welfare benefits to members of their respective unions. Both the Plaintiffs are headquartered in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Unlike the plaintiffs in Summit County and Cuyahoga County, neither Plaintiff is a governmental entity. Instead, they are private third-party payors ("TPPs") who indirectly purchased, paid for, and/or reimbursed others for the costs of opioids intended for consumption by their covered participants and their dependents. To qualify for payment or reimbursement by the Plaintiffs, a prescription opioid had to be listed on a Plaintiff's formulary. A formulary is a list of prescription drugs covered by a prescription drug plan or another insurance plan offering prescription drug benefits. In essence, access to the formulary is the 'ticket' that ensures that TPPs will pay for prescriptions. The Plaintiffs also paid for hospital stays, emergency department visits, and medications associated with opioid misuse, addiction, and overdose. The Plaintiffs contend the Defendants sought to increase their opioid sales and profits by selling more of their opioid products to broader groups of users. In contrast, they assert TPAs sought to limit the opioids listed on their formularies and control opioid costs. They contend that, to advance their goals and circumvent barriers to formulary inclusion, the Marketing Defendants made numerous misrepresentations concerning prescription opioids, targeting them through the agents that established their formularies -- rheir TPAs, such as MMO and OptumRx, and the PBMs that assisted them. The Plaintiffs further contend their TPAs and PBMs relied on the Defendants' misrepresentations when making formulary decisions for them. The Plaintiffs advance claims against the Marketing Defendants for participating in a false marketing campaign designed to expand the opioid market and, in turn, gainer higher profits from selling more opioids. They advance claims against all the Defendants based on their roles in the opioid supply chain, complaining each Defendant profited by failing to monitor and restrict improper opioid distribution. The Plaintiff Funds' alleged injuries are their economic losses, which they explain occurred in two ways: (i) opioid pill payments and (ii) addiction treatment payments. The Complaint describes the following 11 causes of action: (A) Federal Law Claims: Count 1 Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961, et seq. -- Opioid Marketing Enterprise (against Purdue, Cephalon, Janssen, Endo and Mallinckrodt); Count 2 Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961, et seq. -- Opioid Supply Chain Enterprise (against Purdue, Cephalon, Endo, Mallinckrodt, Actavis, McKesson, Cardinal, and AmerisourceBergen); and (B) State Law Claims: Count 3 Violation of the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.31, et seq. -- Opioid Marketing Enterprise (against Purdue, Cephalon, Janssen, Endo, and Mallinckrodt); Count 4 Violation of the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.31, et seq. -- Opioid Supply Chain Enterprise (against Purdue, Cephalon, Endo, Mallinckrodt, Actavis, McKesson, Cardinal, and AmerisourceBergen); Count 5 Statutory Public Nuisance (against all the Defendants); Count 6 Common Law Absolute Public Nuisance (against all the Defendants); Count 7 Negligence (against all the Defendants); Count 8 Common Law Fraud (against the Marketing Defendants); Count 9 Injury Through Criminal Acts - Ohio Revised Code Section 2307.60 (against all the Defendants); Count 10 Unjust Enrichment (against all the Defendants); and Count 11 Civil Conspiracy (against all the Defendants). On July 23, 2018, the Manufacturer Defendants and the Distributor Defendants filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. On July 24, 2018, the Pharmacies filed a motion to dismiss. On Aug. 20, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an omnibus response in opposition to the motions to dismiss. On Sept. 10, 2018, the Defendants filed reply briefs. Judge Polster denied the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss with the following exceptions: (i) the Plaintiffs Statutory Nuisance Claim (Count Five) is dismissed for lack of standing; and (ii) to the extent the Plaintiffs' Negligence Claim (Count Seven) asserts a claim for negligence per se, the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim and this portion of their negligence claim is dismissed. Count Five alleges statutory nuisance liability based on the Defendants' violations of federal and state laws and regulations controlling the distribution of a "drug of abuse," which conduct is declared by the Ohio legislature to "constitute a public nuisance." The Defendants contend the Plaintiffs lack standing to maintain the cause of action asserted under Ohio nuisance statutes O.R.C. Sections 3767 and 4729.35. Judge Polster agrees. Analyzing standing under these provisions, the Court in Summit County previously concluded that Section 4729.35, as the special or local provision concerning authority to sue to abate a nuisance resulting from a violation of applicable drug laws, prevailed over the more general provisions of Section 3767. Section 3767 includes a significantly broader list of parties authorized to bring a public nuisance claim than Section 4729.35; the latter vests authority to maintain a nuisance action to enjoin violations of drug control laws only in the attorney general, the prosecuting attorney of any county in which the offence was committed or in which the person committing the offense resides; or the state board of pharmacy. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs in the instant action -- private TPPs -- are excluded from maintaining Ohio statutory nuisance claims for the drug law violations they allege. Count Seven alleges a negligence claim against all the Defendants. It is the Plaintiffs' position that the Defendants breached their duties by distributing and selling opioids (i) in ways that facilitated or encouraged their flow into the illegal, secondary market; (ii) without maintaining effective controls against their diversion; (iii) without effectively monitoring for, investigating, reporting, or stopping suspicious orders; and (iv) prescribed by "pill mills." They further assert the Marketing Defendants breached their duties to them by deceptively marketing opioids. They also contend their injuries were foreseeable to the Defendants to the extent reasonably prudent manufactures and distributors of opioids should have anticipated injury to them as a probable result of their marketing, distributing, and selling opioids. And the Plaintiffs allege they were damaged as a result of the Defendants' acts and omissions. Judge Polster holds that the Defendants' alleged scheme to increase opioid sales and, in turn, increase profits, would only succeed if they were paid for prescriptions. They do not argue that TPPs and individual patients were not ultimately responsible for these payments. Based on these allegations in the Complaint, Judge Polster finds the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded that the Defendants owed them a duty of care. Judge Polster also finds the Complaint adequately alleges the Distributor Defendants breached their alleged duties to the Plaintiffs for purposes of the Court's limited 12(b)(6) analysis. The Distributers, as well as the Marketing Defendants and Pharmacies, will have the opportunity to request the identity of specific pharmacies during discovery. If the Plaintiffs cannot support their theories with evidence, the Distributor Defendants will have the opportunity to file appropriate motions later in these proceedings seeking judgment on these claims. The Judge further finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded proximate cause. Because none of the statutes cited by the Plaintiffs are intended to protect them or other TPPs from the harms alleged, to the extent their Negligence Claim (Count Seven) asserts a claim for negligence per se, the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim and this portion of their negligence claim is dismissed. The dismissal is not intended to impact the Plaintiffs' remaining claim for negligence. Finally, the Court assumes, without deciding, the Plaintiffs' intended to bring suit against the Pharmacies as retailers. Based on this assumption, the Court finds the portions of the Compliant referenced by the Pharmacies satisfy the requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The allegations provide the necessary short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, so the Plaintiffs' dispensing claims against the Pharmacy Defendants do not warrant dismissal. A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 21, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/SDMv6c from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Peter H. Weinberger, Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber, Steven J. Skikos, Skikos Crawford Skikos & Joseph, Troy A. Rafferty, Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor, Bonnie A. Kendrick, Dugan Law Firm, Celeste Brustowicz, Cooper Law Firm, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Frank L. Gallucci, III -- fgallucci@pglawyer.com -- Plevin & Gallucci, James R. Dugan, II, Dugan Law Firm, Linda J. Singer, Motley Rice, Michael J. Fuller, Jr., McHugh Fuller Law Group, Paul T. Farrell, Jr., Greene Ketchum Farrell Bailey & Tweel & Peter James Mougey, Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor. Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph F. Rice -- jrice@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice, Paul T. Farrell, Jr., Greene Ketchum Farrell Bailey & Tweel, Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Simmons Hanly Conroy, Amy M. Carter, Simon Greenstone Panatier, Bonnie A. Kendrick, Dugan Law Firm, Celeste Brustowicz, Cooper Law Firm, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Frank L. Gallucci, III, Plevin & Gallucci, James R. Dugan, II, Dugan Law Firm, Linda J. Singer, Motley Rice, Peter James Mougey, Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor, Peter H. Weinberger, Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber & Steven J. Skikos, Skikos Crawford Skikos & Joseph. Plaintiffs' Executive Committee, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Ellen Relkin, Weitz & Luxenberg, Erin K. Dickinson, Crueger Dicksonson, Hunter J. Shkolnik -- hunter@napolilaw.com -- Napoli Shkolnik, James E. Cecchi, Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, James R. Dugan, II, Dugan Law Firm, James Dennis Young, Morgan & Morgan, Lynn L. Sarko, Keller Rohrback, Michael J. Fuller, Jr., McHugh Fuller Law Group, Peter James Mougey, Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor, R. Eric Kennedy, Weisman, Kennedy & Berris, Roland K. Tellis, Baron & Budd, W. Mark Lanier, Lanier Law Firm, Aelish Marie Baig, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Anthony D. Irpino, Irpino Avin Hawkins, Anthony J. Majestro, Powell & Majestro, Bonnie A. Kendrick, Dugan Law Firm, Celeste Brustowicz, Cooper Law Firm, Evan M. Janush, Lanier Law Firm, Frank L. Gallucci, III, Plevin & Gallucci, Linda J. Singer, Motley Rice, Mark P. Chalos, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Mark P. Pifko, Baron & Budd, Paul T. Farrell, Jr., Greene Ketchum Farrell Bailey & Tweel, Paul J. Geller, Law Office of Robert J. Hunt, Paulina Do Amaral, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Peter H. Weinberger, Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber, Salvatore C. Badala -- sbadala@napolilaw.com -- Napoli Shkolnik & Steven J. Skikos, Skikos Crawford Skikos & Joseph. Melissa Ambrosio, Erin Doyle, Darren and Elena Flanagan, James and Teri Holland, Shannon Hunt, Tyler M Roach, Walter and Virginia Salmons, Ms. Rachel Wood & Amanda M. Hanlon, Plaintiffs, represented by Celeste Brustowicz, Cooper Law Firm & Theresa A. Richthammer, Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman. Derric and Ceonda Rees, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste Brustowicz, Cooper Law Firm, Scott R. Bickford, Martzell & Bickford & Theresa A. Richthammer, Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman. Purdue Pharma L.P., Defendant, represented by Andrew W. Durland, Blair Graffeo Mattei, Frazer Greene Upchurch & Baker, Booker T. Shaw, Thompson Coburn, Colin H. Hunter, Angeli Law Group, Donna M. Welch, Kirkland & Ellis, Eric A. Riegner, Locke, Reynolds, Boyd & Wiesell, Hannah E. Tokerud, Holland & Hart, Hayden A. Coleman, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Jenai M. Brackett, FROST BROWN TODD LLC, Judy L. Leone, Dechert, Noelle M. Reed, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Robert S. Hoff, Wiggin and Dana LLP, pro hac vice, Ronald J. Friedman, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Samuel E. Masur, Gordon Arata Montgomery Barnett, Stephanie R. Lakinski, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Stephen C. Matthews, DLA Piper, Thomas Dean Adams, Karr Tuttle Campbell, William W. Mercer, Holland & Hart, Christopher Boisvert, Copo Strategies, Daniel J. Buckley, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Elizabeth Y. Ryan, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, Gretchen Maria Wolf, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP, John T. Cox, III, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, John D. Volney, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, Kevin James Minnick, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Lisa Michelle Gilford, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Mark S. Cheffo, Dechert, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Paul Byrd Simon, Gordon Arata, R. Ryan Stoll, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Sean O. Morris, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Sheila L. Birnbaum , Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Troy A. Bozarth, HeplerBroom, Victor A. Walton, Jr., Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & W. Jason Rankin, HeplerBroom LLC. Purdue Pharma Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew W. Durland -- adurland@karrtuttle.com -- Blair Graffeo Mattei, Frazer Greene Upchurch & Baker, Booker T. Shaw, Thompson Coburn, Colin H. Hunter, Angeli Law Group, David H. Angeli, Angeli Law Group, Donna M. Welch, Kirkland & Ellis, Eric A. Riegner, Locke, Reynolds, Boyd & Wiesell, Hannah E. Tokerud, Holland & Hart, Hayden A. Coleman, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Jenai M. Brackett, FROST BROWN TODD LLC, Judy L. Leone, Dechert, Noelle M. Reed, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Robert S. Hoff, Wiggin and Dana LLP, pro hac vice, Ronald J. Friedman, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Samuel E. Masur, Gordon Arata Montgomery Barnett, Stephanie R. Lakinski, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Stephen C. Matthews, DLA Piper, Thomas Dean Adams, Karr Tuttle Campbell, William W. Mercer, Holland & Hart, Christopher Boisvert, Copo Strategies, Daniel J. Buckley, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Elizabeth Y. Ryan, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, Gretchen Maria Wolf, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP, John T. Cox, III, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, John D. Volney, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, Kevin James Minnick, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Lisa Michelle Gilford, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Mark S. Cheffo, Dechert, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Paul Byrd Simon, Gordon Arata, R. Ryan Stoll, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Sean O. Morris, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Sheila L. Birnbaum, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Troy A. Bozarth, HeplerBroom, Victor A. Walton, Jr., Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & W. Jason Rankin, HeplerBroom LLC. Purdue Frederick Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew W. Durland, Booker T. Shaw, Thompson Coburn, Colin H. Hunter, Angeli Law Group, David H. Angeli, Angeli Law Group, Donna M. Welch, Kirkland & Ellis, Eric A. Riegner, Locke, Reynolds, Boyd & Wiesell, Hannah E. Tokerud, Holland & Hart, Jenai M. Brackett, FROST BROWN TODD LLC, Judy L. Leone, Dechert, Noelle M. Reed, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Ronald J. Friedman, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Samuel E. Masur, Gordon Arata Montgomery Barnett, Stephanie R. Lakinski, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Stephen C. Matthews, DLA Piper, Thomas Dean Adams, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Christopher Boisvert, Copo Strategies, Daniel J. Buckley, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Elizabeth Y. Ryan, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, John T. Cox, III, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, John D. Volney, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, Kevin James Minnick, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Lisa Michelle Gilford, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Mark S. Cheffo, Dechert, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Paul Byrd Simon, Gordon Arata, R. Ryan Stoll, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Sean O. Morris, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Troy A. Bozarth, HeplerBroom, Victor A. Walton, Jr., Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & W. Jason Rankin, HeplerBroom LLC. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Andrew Stanfield, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Donna M. Welch, Kirkland & Ellis, Harvey Bartle, IV, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Leland G. Horton, Bradley Murchison, Matthew Ambrose Martin, Haar & Woods, Mitchell G. Blair, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Richard S. Crisler, Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, Robert T. Haar, Haar & Woods, Thomas F. Hurka, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, pro hac vice, Thomas E. Rice, Jr., Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, Adam M. Hammoud, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Albert J. Lucas, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Alison Tanchyk, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Brian M. Ercole, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Collie Fitch James, IV, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Eric W. Sitarchuk, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Eric M. Sommer , Sommer Udall Hardwick & Jones, Georgia K.E. Yanchar, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Jason J. Blake, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Jeremy A. Menkowitz, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Jonathan L. Stern, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Mark S. Cheffo, Dechert, Mark Fiore, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Michael C. Mims, Bradley Murchison et al, Nancy Patterson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Nathan J. Andrisani, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Rebecca J. Hillyer, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Richard G. Shephard, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Sean O. Morris, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Stacey Anne Mahoney, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Steven A. Reed, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Tinos Diamantatos, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius & Wendy West Feinstein, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. Cephalon, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Andrew Stanfield, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Donna M. Welch, Kirkland & Ellis, Harvey Bartle, IV, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Leland G. Horton, Bradley Murchison, Matthew Ambrose Martin, Haar & Woods, Mitchell G. Blair, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Richard S. Crisler, Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, Robert T. Haar, Haar & Woods, Thomas F. Hurka, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, pro hac vice, Thomas E. Rice, Jr., Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, Adam M. Hammoud, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Albert J. Lucas, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Alison Tanchyk, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Brian M. Ercole, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Collie Fitch James, IV, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Eric W. Sitarchuk, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Eric M. Sommer , Sommer Udall Hardwick & Jones, Georgia K.E. Yanchar, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Jason J. Blake, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Jeremy A. Menkowitz, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Jonathan L. Stern, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Mark S. Cheffo, Dechert, Mark Fiore, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Michael C. Mims, Bradley Murchison et al, Nancy Patterson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Nathan J. Andrisani, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Rebecca J. Hillyer, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Richard G. Shephard, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Sean O. Morris, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Stacey Anne Mahoney, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Steven A. Reed, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Tinos Diamantatos, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius & Wendy West Feinstein, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. MDL 2879: Negligence Claims in Marriott Data Breach Suit Junked --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Paul W. Grimm District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss in IN RE: MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. CONSUMER ACTIONS, MDL No. 19-md-2879 (D. Md.). The case involves the consolidated complaint filed by consumers against Marriott and related entities following one of the largest data breaches in history. It is part of the Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") pending before the Maryland District Court concerning the data breach. The Plaintiffs and Marriott have selected ten "bellwether" claims to test the sufficiency of the pleadings. The Plaintiffs argue that Marriott is liable under theories of tort, contract, and statutory duties in various states. On Nov. 30, 2018, Marriott announced that it was the target of one of the largest data breaches in history. The breach took place in its Starwood guest reservation database. Marriott International acquired Starwood Hotels & Resorts in September 2016. The acquisition made Marriott the largest hotel chain in the world -- accounting for 1 in 15 hotel rooms worldwide -- with Marriott, Courtyard, Ritz-Carlton, Sheraton, Westin, W Hotels, and St. Regis properties under its umbrella. When guests make a reservation to stay at a Marriott property, they must provide personal information including name, address, email address, phone number, and payment card information. In some instances, Marriott also collects passport information, room preferences, travel destinations, and other personal information. Both Marriott and Starwood had privacy statements, dated May 18, 2018 and Oct. 5, 2014 respectively, concerning their collection and use of the personal information and touting their ability to protect the security of the sensitive information. Investigations into the data breach indicated that for over four years, from July 2014 to September 2018, hackers had access to Starwood's guest information database. In other words, the data breach was ongoing before and after Marriott's acquisition of Starwood. The Plaintiffs allege that Marriott failed to conduct appropriate due diligence of Starwood's cybersecurity risks before and after the merger, despite the fact that Starwood disclosed a data breach affecting more than 50 locations days before Marriott's announcement of the merger, and after knowing that it and other hotel chains were the targets of security threats in the months and years preceding the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that several cybersecurity assessments that were conducted revealed deficiencies in Starwood's system. During the course of the four-year data breach, the hackers allegedly stole names, mailing addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, passport numbers, Starwood Preferred Guest account information, dates of birth, gender, arrival and departure information, reservation dates, communication preferences, payment card numbers, payment card expiration dates, and tools needed to decrypt cardholder data. Further, several files that the hackers exfiltrated were deleted, so Marriott does not fully know how much data was stolen. In total, Marriott allegedly disclosed that the breach impacted at least 383 million guest records, including nearly 24 million passport numbers and more than 9 million credit and debit cards. The Plaintiffs allege that Marriott discovered the breach on Sept. 8, 2018 when Accenture (a consulting company providing cybersecurity assistance to the Defendants, and now a third-party Defendant itself) reported an anomaly on Starwood's database, but that Marriott waited more than two months to notify guests. The Plaintiffs are consumers who allegedly provided their personal information to Marriott to stay at a Marriott property or use Marriott's services before the data breach. They allege that Marriott is liable for the data breach under theories of tort, contract, and breach of statutory duties. The gravamen of these allegations is that Marriott failed to take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiffs' personal information against the foreseeable risk of a cyber attack and contrary to their express privacy statements and statutory duties. Pending is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the bellwether claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). They argue that most of the Plaintiffs lack standing and that all of them failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted. Judge Grimm granted in part and denied in part Marriott's motion to dismiss. The Judge held that the Plaintiffs have standing to bring their claims. They have adequately alleged injury-in-fact in the form of losses from identity theft, imminent threat of identity theft, costs spent mitigating the harms from the data breach, loss of the benefit-of-their-bargain, and loss of value of their personal information. These injuries are fairly traceable to the Defendants' conduct. The Plaintiffs have also adequately alleged their respective tort, contract, and statutory claims under the laws of California, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, New York, and Oregon. These claims may proceed. Judge Grimm dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims for negligence under Illinois law. The Judge found that based on the current state of Illinois law, the Defendants did not owe a duty to the Plaintiffs to protect their personal information, notwithstanding that the Illinois Supreme Court itself has not spoken to the issue. A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 21, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/wNTxUb from Leagle.com. Harry Bell, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jessica H. Meeder, Fegan Scott, LLC, John A. Yanchunis -- jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com -- Morgan and Morgan PA, pro hac vice, Patrick A. Barthle -- pbarthle@forthepeople.com -- Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation Group, pro hac vice, Ryan McGee -- jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com -- Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation Group, pro hac vice, William H. Murphy, III, Murphy Falcon and Murphy, pro hac vice & Veronica Byam Nannis -- vnannis@jgllaw.com -- Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA. Edward Claffy, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jessica H. Meeder, Fegan Scott, LLC, John A. Yanchunis, Morgan and Morgan PA, pro hac vice, Patrick A. Barthle, Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation Group, pro hac vice, Ryan McGee, Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation Group, pro hac vice & William H. Murphy, III, Murphy Falcon and Murphy, pro hac vice. James Sprowl, Philip S. Friedman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Sarah Stone, Sheila Wolff, Jeanine St. Hill, Kim Miller, Eilene Shaffer, Brandon Post, Destiny Esper, Terrie Bennett, Bruce Fitzgerald, Terrance D. Bulger, Benjamin Quinn, Jose Herrera, William Muckelroy II, Brad Ellish, Diane Bernard, Gwendolyn McNeal, Ted Michelakos, Lisa Dotson, Andrea Marwill, Juli Poloway, Cindy Medeiros, Jill Fleisher, Parth Detroja, Latoya Aguillard, Doug Smith, Heidi Myers, Jeremiah Moore, Terella Williams, Cleary Johs, Timothy Hawkins, Joseph Rollins, Richard Williams, Nikki Davis, Debra Anthony, David Fasolino, Lillian Harris, Lauren Vasiliadis, Shakimberly Jones, Brian Herman, Ron Jones, James Schultz, Yong Woo Stephano Kwon, Oscar Moreno, Camara Karamatic, Bret Crockett, Mark Catuogno, Kia Thomas, Louann Cashill, Howard William Myones, Africa Green, Salvatore Caponigro, Mark Maxey, Danny Tolver, Alan Teitleman, Davin Christiansen, Patricia Daughtery, Abdjul Martin, Luis Herrera, Peter Karkazis, Lawrence Brenner, Linda Quinones, Kevin S. Rogers, Elizabeth Collins, Paul Vannoy, Samantha Hendricks, John Coakley, William Forrester, Anthony Latore, Jobe Anthony Diagne, Alice Poole, Alyssa Groski, Tanya Harris, Pete Tittl, Sherri Cook, Darren Perks, Robeson Heard, Cynthia Griffith, Julie Evans, Ashley Logan, James Hardin, Matthew Russo, Kathryn Lucas, Tenise Houston, Earline Williams, Justin J. Schmid, Jennifer White, Dean Schrickel, Tracy Bradford Lockaby, David Collins, Erik Goudie, Elizabeth Cunningham, Trish Hamilton Cobourn, Julie Shippy, Nathan Royce Banks, Connie Bowman, Eddie Williams, Lisa Ramirez, Elizabeth Maxwell, Robert Josephberg, Ashley Webster, Deborah Koulpasis, Lisa McGuire, Robert Jamerson, Brittany Cliff Snyman, LaToya Brown, Mike Galvin, Samantha Summers, Brian Sharnick, Jesse Gore & Savannah Louise Lyon, Consol Plaintiffs, represented by Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson and Mason LLP & Veronica Byam Nannis, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA. Tracy Bradford & Marlo Johnson, Consol Plaintiffs, represented by Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson and Mason LLP. Kashanna Price, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Inc., pro hac vice, Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson and Mason LLP, Jay Paul Holland, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, Steven M. Pavsner, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, Timothy Francis Maloney, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA & Veronica Byam Nannis, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA. Deborah M. Harrison, Debra L. Lee, Bruce Hoffmeister & Stephanie C. Linnartz, Defendants, represented by Adam Offenhartz, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Llp & Laura O'Boyle, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Llp. Bank of Louisiana, Defendant, represented by Christopher Macchiaroli, Silverman Thompson Slutkin White LLC. Marriott International, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by Daniel R. Warren -- dwarren@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice, Gilbert S. Keteltas -- gketeltas@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and Hostetler LLP, Lisa M. Ghannoum -- lghannoum@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice, Adam Offenhartz, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Llp, Jason Jacob Mendro, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Jeffrey Saul Rosenberg, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Laura O'Boyle, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Llp & Dante A. Marinucci. Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, LLC, Consol Defendant, represented by Daniel R. Warren, Baker and Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice, Gilbert S. Keteltas, Baker and Hostetler LLP, Lisa M. Ghannoum, Baker and Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice & Dante A. Marinucci. Arne M. Sorenson, Kathleen Kelly Oberg, Bao Giang Val Bauduin & Bruce Hoffmeister, Consol Defendants, represented by Jason Jacob Mendro, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Jeffrey Saul Rosenberg, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Adam Offenhartz, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Llp & Laura O'Boyle, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. MEADOW HILL: Singh Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Kulwinder Singh, and Bikramjit Singh, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MEADOW HILL MOBILE INC d/b/a Meadow Hill Mobil Mart; ABUJABER HAZIM, and AHMED GHADEER, Case No. 7:20-cv-03853 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2020), is brought pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wage compensation and unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and or attorney's fees and cost. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including the Plaintiffs, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, according to the complaint. The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiffs their lawful overtime compensation of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to work as Gas Station Minimart Attendants. Meadow Hill Mobile Inc., doing business as Meadow Hill Mobil Mart, is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-1324 MEDGYN PRODUCTS: Thomas Sues over Unsolicited Fax Ads ----------------------------------------------------- KENNETH A. THOMAS MD, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDGYN PRODUCTS, INC., an Illinois corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02691 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). According to the complaint, Plaintiff received eight unsolicited faxed pages from Defendant on March 21, 2019 and on February 24, 2020 in an attempt to advertise and/or promote medical products availability and quality of Defendant's products and including pricing. Plaintiff has never provided prior express consent to Defendant to send solicitation faxes. The complaint asserts that Plaintiff has suffered actual damages. Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, pre-judgment interest and costs and injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from further TCPA violations. MedGyn Products, Inc. manufactures and distributes medical devices for the women's healthcare industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juneitha Shambee, Esq. SHAMBEE LAW OFFICE, LTD. 701 Main St., Ste. 201A Evanston, IL 60202 Tel: (773) 741-3602 Email: juneitha@shambeelaw.com - and – Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (877) 333-9427 Fax: (888) 498-8946 Email: Law@StefanColeman.com - and – Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Tel: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Lippitt Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Elizabeth Ann Lippitt filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Elizabeth Lippitt v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 8:19-cv-01115-DOC-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff filed the case against the firm in relation to its mortgage foreclosure procedures. The appellate case is captioned as Elizabeth Lippitt v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 20-55529, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by June 15, 2020; -- Transcript is due on July 14, 2020; -- Appellant Elizabeth Ann Lippitt's opening brief is due on August 24, 2020; -- Appellee Nationstar Mortgage, LLC's answering brief is due on September 23, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant, ELIZABETH ANN LIPPITT, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, is represented by: Gabriel Shanti Barenfeld, Esq. Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq. NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP 601 S. Figeroa Street, Suite 2050 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (844) 622-6469 Email: gbarenfeld@nflawfirm.com gnelson@nflawfirm.com - and - Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. WHATLEYKALLAS, LLP 16870 W. Bernardo Drive, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (619) 308-5034 Email: amansfield@whatleykallas.com Defendant-Appellee NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, DBA Mr. Cooper Group, a Corporation, is represented by: Jan T. Chilton, Esq. Mark Douglas Lonergan, Esq. John B. Sullivan, Esq. SEVERSON & WERSON APC One Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 398-3344 Email: jtc@severson.com mdl@severson.com jbs@severson.com - and - Courtney Wenrick, Esq. SEVERSON & WERSON, APC 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 700 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 442-7110 Email: ccw@severson.com NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC: 4 More Students Join Kelly Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Joey Chandler, writing for North Carolina-based Star News Online, reports that four additional students of former Isaac Bear and Laney teacher Michael Kelly have come forward to join a class action lawsuit against him and the New Hanover County Board of Education and school district employees. On June 25, Kelly pleaded guilty to 59 charges related to child sexual abuse. According to attorney Martin Ramey of the Rhine Law Firm, the four new plaintiffs were not part of the sentencing hearing last June. Their details, part of a new amendment to the lawsuit, were filed April 16 and brings the total number of plaintiffs to 10, with abuse spanning from 2001-2018. The class action complaint is against the Board of Education, Kelly, former deputy superintendent Rick Holliday and former Superintendent Tim Markley, among others. By filing a class action suit, additional plaintiffs can sign on. One of the new plaintiffs -- all named as John Does in the complaint -- alleges that Kelly began taking him to the local YMCA, where they would work out and then meet in the sauna. Kelly made fun of him for wearing board shorts in the sauna and asked him to take them off and sit with him. Kelly would sometimes touch himself in the sauna. [GN] NEXTERA ENERGY: Mattwaoshshe Challenges Building of Wind Towers --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Mattwaoshshe, and Justin Staullbaumer and on behalf of a Putative Class similarly situated v. NEXTERA ENERGY, INC. and NEXTERA ENERGY RESOURCES LLC and all of its wholly and substantially owned subsidiaries incorporated in Delaware and with the same "Mailing Address" with directions as listed: SOLDIER CREEK WIND, LLC to "Attn Corp Gov", NEXTERA ENERGY CONSTRUCTORS LLC and NEXTERA ENERGY TRASMISSION SOUTHWEST LLC to "CORPORATE GOVERNANCE LAW/JB", NEXTERA ENERGY MARKETING LLC and NEXTERA ENERGY OPERATING SERVICES LLC and NEXTERA ENERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT LLC to "Corporate Governance", and JANE DOE NEXTERA SUBSIDIARIES 1-5, WESTAR ENERGY of Kansas c/o Parent Corp Evergy Kansas Central, Inc.; and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION with SECRETARY ELAINE CHAO in official capacity, and FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION with ADMINISTRATOR STEVE DICKSON in official capacity, the FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF ARMY with RYAN MCCARTHY Secretary in official capacity, and the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BAR in his official capacity, and all other subordinate departments, agencies, offices, and entities of the Government herein implicated, Case No. 1:20-cv-01317 (D.D.C., May 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to enjoin further construction of a massive wind tower project in Nemaha County, Kansas. The Soldier Creek Wind LLC project by NextEra Energy, Inc., is proposed to have 140 separate wind towers, each 499 feet in height, in a densely arrayed footprint in southern Nemaha County, Kansas, a relatively highly populated rural county with over 10,000 residents. The footprint of the project will completely surround two Kansas municipalities with distinct city councils and traditional main street, Corning, Kansas, Goff, Kansas, and Wetmore, Kansas and within two miles of two additional cities, Centralia and Kelly. The Plaintiffs contend that this project heavily impacts the environment around their properties and residences and is being constructed without adequate review, oversight, or involvement by a number of federal agencies in contravention of multiple federal statutes. They add that the project will cause irreparable harm and a radical transformation of their and the putative class' surrounding environment. According to the complaint, the project is being rushed into final construction prior to the undertaking of, or as a result of deficient, statutorily mandated processes, approvals, determinations, and adjudications that have deprived, have harmed and will harm the Plaintiffs' rights and interests. Further, NextEra will operate these wind tower turbines near residential communities in a way that will cause a nuisance and interfere with property owners' and lease holders' use and enjoyment of their property. The Plaintiffs assert that the United States Government has failed to comply with federal law to include but not be limited to the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Indian Religious Freedom Act. For instance, there is an airport in the vicinity of the project that is used extensively for crop dusting. It involves low level flying all over the area, which shortly will include the need to dip down under and around the 140 wind towers currently being erected. This creates a serious aeronautical hazard for both the airplanes and the property owners into whose homes and on whose property the planes could easily crash. However the NextEra defendants seem to be presumptively rushing hoping to complete enough work so a judge would never dare to order them removed, says the complaint. Plaintiff Justin Stallbaumer resides in Kansas. Plaintiff Jeremy Mattwaoshshe is a citizen of the Kickapoo Nation and Indian Tribe living on their sovereign land and federally recognized Native American Reservation that runs adjacent to the eastern edge of the huge Soldier Creek Wind LLC wind tower project. NextEra Energy, Inc. is engaged in power generating activities on a worldwide basis, to include other locations within the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Blair Drazic, Esq. Grand Junction, Colorado - and - James Renne, Esq. 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 110521 Arlington, VA 22203 NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Levi & Korsinksy Files Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, on April 29 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. (NCLH) NCLH Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 20, 2020 - March 12, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 11, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/norwegian-cruise-line-holdings-ltd-loss-form?prid=6254&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was employing sales tactics of providing customers with unproven and/or blatantly false statements about COVID-19 to entice customers to purchase cruises, thus endangering the lives of both their customers and crew members; and (2) as a result, Defendants' statements regarding the Company's business and operations were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] ONEIDA COUNTY: Williamson Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as NICOLE WILLIAMSON, SARAH BARRETT, and SHANNON TERRELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ROBERT MACIOL, Oneida County Sheriff, in his official capacity; and LISA ZUREK, Chief Deputy Oneida County Jail, in her official capacity, Case No. 9:20-cv-00537-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on July 7, 2020 for an order certifying this proceeding as a class action together with other relief as may be just pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Oneida County is a county located in the state of New York.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Cotter, Esq. Sara Adams, Esq. Maurie Heins, Esq. Samuel C. Young, Esq. LEGAL SERVICES OF CENTRAL NEW YOR 221 S. Warren Street, Suite 300 Syracuse, NY 13202 E-mail: jcotter@lscny.org OPAI THAI: Nava Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Isael Robles Nava, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. OPAI THAI INC. (D/B/A OPAI THAI), OPAI INC. (D/B/A OPAI THAI), YAN BING CHEN, TINA DOE, and NOE CARRETERO, Case No. 1:20-cv-03848 (S.D.N.Y., May 18, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The lawsuit also alleges violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay the Plaintiff wages on a timely basis. The Plaintiff was employed as a cook and food preparer at the restaurant. The Defendants own, operate, or control a Thai restaurant, located in the City of New York under the name "Opai Thai."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 OYSTER BAY: Underpays Warehousemen & Laborers, Sifuentes Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JULIO SIFUENTES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OYSTER BAY ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a America Fence, RONALD J. ROBLEDO, individually, and LISA ROBLEDO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-00777 (M.D. Fla., May 4, 2020) is a class action complaint seeking to recover unpaid wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a warehouseman and laborer from approximately 2005 through approximately March or April of 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and those similarly situated warehousemen and laborers worked with Defendant for a fixed hourly rate and were required by Defendant to work well in excess of 40 hours per week. However, Defendant failed to pay them at the premium rate for most of those hours they worked in excess of 40. The complaint asserts that Defendant: -- failed to maintain time-keeping records to memorialize the number of hours worked by Plaintiff and other warehousemen and laborers; -- intentionally under-records the number of hours worked by taking unauthorized reductions from the hour-worked data; and -- avoids payment of overtime wages by bifurcating the number of hours worked by Plaintiff and other warehousemen and laborers. Moreover, Plaintiff charges Defendant of retaliation and breach of agreement to pay wages. Plaintiff also seeks reinstatement of employment and promotion. Ronald J. Robledo and Lisa Robledo own and control Oyster Bay Enterprises, Inc. Oyster Bay Enterprises, Inc. markets aluminum fencing, gates, canopies, shutters & trellises, balcony & stair railings, spiral staircases, stairs & siding. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq. ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A. 6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101 Miami, FL 33143 Tel: (305) 665-9211 Fax: (305) 328-4842 Email: AFS@LABORLAWFLA.COM PETE AND GERRY'S: Court Narrows Claims in Lugones False Ad Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHELLE LUGONES; TRICIA RIZZI; MARCUS SIEZING; CLAUDIA VASSALLO; DENISE ALVARADO; MINOEE MODI; ISABELLE GRAY; KARINE SEWELL; ANNE FLOURNOY; and SONJA ROMANO, Plaintiffs, v. PETE AND GERRY'S ORGANIC, LLC and NELLIE'S FREE RANGE EGGS, Defendants, Case No. 19 Civ. 2097 (KPF) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's (i) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and (ii) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs are residents of New York, California, Massachusetts, Georgia, Maryland, and North Carolina. The Defendant is a limited liability company formed and headquartered in New Hampshire. The Plaintiffs commenced the action, on behalf of themselves and as proposed representatives of a putative class of similarly situated individuals, against Defendant Pete and Gerry's. The Plaintiffs allege that they purchased the Defendant's eggs, branded as Nellie's Free Range Eggs, based on its advertisements indicating that its hens are loved and are given ample access to open, green spaces in which they can peck, perch, and play. However, they allege that the advertising is a lie, and conceals the facts that (i) the Defendant's hens are kept in tightly constricted spaces, with no real access to the outdoors, and (ii) the hens are subject to numerous husbandry practices that they oppose, such as beak-cutting and culling. The Plaintiffs allege that if they had known the truth about Defendant's practices, they would not have paid premium prices for the Defendant's eggs. Moreover, they would only consider purchasing Nellie's eggs in the future if the Defendant were to treat chickens in a manner consistent with its advertising. The Plaintiffs initiated the action and filed their original Complaint on March 6, 2019. They then amended their Complaint and added additional parties on May 7, 2019, prior to the Defendant responding. The Plaintiffs bring a wide variety of state-law statutory claims relating to false and deceptive advertising, as well as claims for fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of express warranty, and request damages and injunctive relief. The Defendant moves, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), both to dismiss the claims brought by the non-New York Plaintiffs and putative class members for lack of personal jurisdiction and to dismiss the complaint as a whole for failure to state a claim for relief. Judge Failla will not at this stage in the litigation dismiss the claims of potential class members who may not reside in New York. At this point, any claims brought by the putative class are hypothetical, and the Court has no knowledge of who will be asserting such claims or what the bases for specific jurisdiction might be. The Judge concludes that it is wiser to follow the course of its sister courts and defer any assessment of whether there is specific jurisdiction over the claims of putative non-New York class members until the class certification stage. Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the claims of putative non-New York class members is denied without prejudice to renewal at the class certification stage. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs cannot show that they are likely to suffer any future injury because they have alleged that they do not intend to purchase Nellie's Free Range Eggs unless the Defendant changes its practices to mirror its advertising. The Plaintiffs contend that this misstates the law, and point to Petrosino v. Stearn's Prod., Inc., for support. Indeed, the Second Circuit has held that where a plaintiff has failed to allege that he intends to use the offending product in the future, there is no likelihood of future harm. The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege any actual intent to purchase Nellie's Free Range Eggs again, and therefore they have not established a likelihood of future injury sufficient to show standing. The Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief are dismissed. Next, Judge Failla finds that there is significant authority supporting the idea that it is inappropriate for a court to decide whether a reasonable consumer could be misled at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, and the Judge finds that authority persuasive. The Judge cannot conclude as a matter of law that a significant portion of the general consuming public would not read the Defendant's claims about its hens having plenty of green space to peck, perch, and play in -- together with its verdant images and slogans of "OUTDOOR FORAGE" -- and not believe that Defendant's hens have significant access to the outdoors. The Plaintiffs have alleged that they believed the advertising to mean that the Defendant's hens had "space to move around both indoors and outdoors," and that the portrait of a free range lifestyle is far from the cramped reality alleged in the SAC. These allegations are all that is needed for the Plaintiffs' Section 349 and Section 350 claims to survive a motion to dismiss. It is clear that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged reasonable reliance. The Defendant's containers gave the Plaintiffs no reason to be on alert as to potential misrepresentations. Moreover, the latter would have had no independent means of ascertaining the truth of the Defendant's misrepresentations -- short of driving themselves to the Defendant's facilities and sleuthing about the grounds for the truth. Such an effort would go far beyond the "minimal diligence" required. Therefore, on the basis of the same representations found actionable in their GBL Sections 349 and 350 claims, the Plaintiffs have successfully alleged fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation under New York law. Finally, Judge Failla finds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged any physical or personal injury as a result of the Defendant's alleged breach. The Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claim must be dismissed for failure to provide timely notice. In sum, Judge Failla holds that the Plaintiffs have stated claims for fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation and claims pursuant to GBL Section 349 and 350 on the basis of the Defendant's statements on its containers regarding its hens' access to the outdoors, and therefore denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss as to those specific claims. However, Judge Failla grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss insofar as it relates to any representations made on its website, or to representations on its egg container involving love, or to the statement "BETTER LIVES FOR HENS MEAN BETTER EGGS FOR YOU," and grants its motion to dismiss as to the entirety of the Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claim. Judge Failla likewise dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief for failure to allege standing, and dismisses the non-New York named Plaintiffs' claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Judge denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction insofar as it relates to non-New York putative class members. Accordingly, Judge Failla granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant Nellie's Free Range Eggs is dismissed from the case. Defendant Pete and Gerry's' motion is granted with respect to all claims brought on behalf of the non-New York named Plaintiffs, and to the Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief. The Defendant's motion is further granted with respect to the Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claim and with respect to their fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, and GBL Sections 349 and 350 claims that rely on statements identified as non-actionable puffery in the Opinion. Judge Failla denied the Defendant's motion with respect to claims that may be brought on behalf of non-New York putative class members at a later stage in the litigation. The Defendant's motion is further denied with respect to the Plaintiff's fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation and GBL Sections 349 and 350 claims that rely on statements identified as actionable in the Opinion. The Clerk of Court is further directed to dismiss Denise Alvarado, Minoee Modi, Isabelle Gray, Karine Sewell, and Sonja Romano as Plaintiffs in the action. A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 21, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/mTO1I4 from Leagle.com. Anne Flournoy, member of the putative Class, Claudia Vassallo, on behalf of themselves and as proposed class representatives of a Class of similarly situated individuals, Marcus Siezing, on behalf of themselves and as proposed class representatives of a Class of similarly situated individuals, Michelle Lugones, on behalf of themselves and as proposed class representatives of a Class of similarly situated individuals & Tricia Rizzi, on behalf of themselves and as proposed class representatives of a Class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, represented by Asher Smith -- AsherS@petaf.org -- Peta Foundation & Jeanne-Marie Bates Christensen -- jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com -- Wigdor LLP. Pete and Gerry's Organics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Peter T. Shapiro -- Peter.Shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. POSTMATES INC: Fails to Pay All Time Worked, McGhee Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- APRIL MCGHEE, individually, and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated v. POSTMATES INC., a Delaware company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-584341 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., May 5, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to reimburse necessary business expenses and to pay for all time worked in violation of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee in the position of "courier." The Plaintiff and fellow couriers provide food delivery throughout the State of California. Postmates offers local delivery of restaurant-prepared meals, groceries and other goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq. Lirit Ariella King, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com Iking@bradleygrombacher.com POWERSAT COMMUNICATIONS: Underpays Field Technicians, Jackson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWERSAT COMMUNICATION (USA) LP and POWERSAT COMMUNICATIONS (USA) GP LTD, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00486-KRS-GJF (D.N.M., May 20, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Field Technician. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated Field Technicians regularly work more than 12 hours in a day and more than 80 hours in a week. But, Defendants paid them a base salary and a day-rate only regardless of the number of hours they worked. Allegedly, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated Field Technicians overtime for hours they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek at one and one-half times of their regular rates of pay under the FLSA. Powersat Communications (USA) LP and Powersat Communications (USA) GP Ltd are oilfield services companies that provide communications services to wells throughout the U.S., including in New Mexico. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq. HOMMEL LAW FIRM 5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115 Tyler, TX 75703 Tel: 903-596-7100 Fax: 469-533-1618 Website: http://www.hommelfirm.com - and – Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. John D. Garcia, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Tel: (361)452-1279 Emails: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com john@a2xlaw.com RENOVATE AMERICA: Contractors Seek Payment for PACE Projects ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, DEPENDABLE HOME REMODELING LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. RENOVATE AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00940-JLS-WVG (S.D. Cal., May 20, 2020), alleges that the Defendant breached California's Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and violated the California Unfair Competition Law due to its failure to assist contractors, including the Plaintiff, in receiving payments for Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) projects that they completed on behalf of third-party property owners under the Defendant's Home Energy Renovation Opportunity (HERO) program and pursuant to their participation agreements. Under the agreements, the Defendant will not release payment to contractors for a PACE-funded project until a third-party property owner certifies that a project has been completed to his or her subjective satisfaction. Unfortunately for the Plaintiff and members of the Class, the Defendant provides no standards by which third-party property owners must assess completion or determine their satisfaction with a PACE project and, as a result, the agreements essentially permit property owners to refuse payment even after a contractor has completed a project in an objectively satisfactory and timely manner. The Plaintiff and Class members have suffered serious financial damages because of the Defendant's actions and inactions. Dependable Home Remodeling LLC is a registered contractor with principal place of business at 5323 Millenia Lakes Boulevard, Suite 300, Orlando, Florida. Renovate America, Inc. is a registered PACE program administrator and finance lender in California, Florida, and Missouri, with principal place of business located at 16409 West Bernardo Drive, San Diego, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Shah, Esq. Jaclyn M. Reinhart, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1230 Columbia Street, Suite 1140 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 235-2416 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com jreinhart@sfmslaw.com - and – Michael P. Ols, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: mols@sfmslaw.com RESIDENCE HERRON: Residents Launch Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Global News Canada reports that an application to launch a class-action lawsuit against the Residence Herron in Dorval, Que., where at least 30 people have died in the past month amid the novel coronavirus pandemic, has been filed in Quebec Superior Court. Lead plaintiff Barbara Schneider, whose mother Mary died after contracting COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus, while at the long-term care facility, is asking permission to seek at least $2 million in punitive damages for what the proposed lawsuit claims is "inhumane and degrading maltreatment" of residents. As part of the application, the plaintiff is also seeking $25,000 per resident in moral damages. It is also asking for $25,000 per family for residents who have died since March 13, when COVID-19 was declared a public health emergency by the Quebec government. Story continues below advertisement If allowed to move forward, it will seek $10,000 in moral damages for families of each of the 130 residents and reimburse rent fees for the months of March and April 2020 for all residents. The application states that Mary Schneider, 93, died on April 10 at the Herron residence after she was diagnosed with the respiratory illness and her condition rapidly deteriorated. She had been a resident at the long-term care facility since late February. [GN] REVENUE MANAGEMENT: Landau Files FDCPA Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Revenue Management Services Corp. The case is styled as Faigy Landau, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Revenue Management Services Corp, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-03922 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Revenue Management Services Corp is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com SCION GROUP: Cristales Appeals D. Arizona Ruling to Ninth Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Janelle Cristales, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Janelle Cristales, et al. v. Scion Group LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-04950-DGC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs seek damages and remedies pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The appellate case is captioned as Janelle Cristales, et al. v. Scion Group LLC, Case No. 20-15930, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by June 15, 2020; -- Transcript is due on July 14, 2020; -- Appellants Marianna Carvajal and Janelle Cristales' opening brief is due on August 24, 2020; -- Appellee Scion Group LLC's answering brief is due on September 23, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JANELLE CRISTALES and MARIANNA CARVAJAL, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are represented by: Aaron David Radbil, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913 Austin, TX 78704 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com Defendant-Appellee SCION GROUP LLC is represented by: Jessica D. Gallegos, Esq. KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone: (404) 400-7316 Email: jgallegos@kcozlaw.com SEE'S CANDY SHOPS: Faces Ping Suit Over Unpaid Compensations ------------------------------------------------------------ Laci Ping, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SEE'S CANDY SHOPS, INC., SEE'S CANDIES, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 20CV01023 (Cal. Super., Butte Cty., May 15, 2020), seeks unpaid compensations for uniforms, damages, restitution, and penalties, as well as interest, attorney's fees, costs, and injunctive relief pursuant to the California Labor Code, IWC Wage Order No. 7, California Code of Civil Procedure, and California Business & Professions Code. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants has required, by company-wide policy, that the Plaintiff purchase and wear clothing articles consistent with the brand image the Defendants attempt to project in their stores, specifically, that of a 1940s-era candy shop, according to the complaint. These clothing items are of a distinctive design or color and are not generally usable in the occupation and, therefore, constitute a uniform under the Wage Order. By failing to pay for these uniforms, the Defendants violate this provision of the wage order, the Plaintiff contends. Because these clothing items are required as a condition of employment, they constitute necessary business expenses, which must be reimbursed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff adds. By failing to reimburse the Plaintiff for these clothing items, the Defendants violate the Labor Code, according to the complaint. Furthermore, by requiring the Plaintiff, most of whom are paid at or near the minimum wage, to purchase their own uniforms, the Defendants pushes the Plaintiff's wages below the legal minimum as well as the promised contractual rate of pay in violation of Labor Code. Ms. Ping was employed by the Defendants in Chico, California, as a non-exempt store employee from October 2010 until December 2018. The Defendants own and operate retail candy stores in California, throughout the United States, and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq. Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq. Hallie Von Rock, Esq. Carey A. James, Esq. AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY 7677 Oakport St., Suite 1150 Oakland, CA 94621 Phone: 510.817.2711 Fax: 510.562.6830 Email: ras@asmlawyers.com rwlm@asmlawyers.com hvr@asmlawyers.com caj@asmlawyers.com bar@asmlawyers.com SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL: Berger Montague Notes of June 9 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Berger Montague is investigating securities fraud claims against ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc. on behalf of all purchasers of ServiceMaster common stock (NYSE: SERV) between February 26, 2019 and November 4, 2019 (the "Class Period"). If you purchased ServiceMaster shares, have information, would like to discuss this investigation, or have any questions concerning your rights or interests, please contact: BERGER MONTAGUE Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. Tel: (215) 875-3080 Andrew Abramowitz, Esq. Tel: (215) 875-3015 E-mail: www.bergermontague.com/servicemaster-global According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, ServiceMaster and its senior management represented that the Company was successfully executing upon initiatives to improve the performance of its Terminix segment. Unbeknownst to investors, however, the Terminix segment had experienced an adverse trend of costly termite litigation, primarily related to Formosan activity, in recent years. Investors began to learn the truth when, on October 22, 2019, ServiceMaster announced disappointing preliminary financial results for the third quarter 2019 and blamed the poor performance on "termite damage claims arising primarily from Formosan termite activity" primarily in Mobile, Alabama. At that time, the Company revealed that this was a known issue for which mitigation efforts had commenced "starting in 2018." The Company also announced that the President of Terminix Residential had abruptly departed. On this news, shares of ServiceMaster fell 20%, or $11.44 per share. On November 5, 2019, ServiceMaster released its final Q3 2019 financial results, informing investors that: (1) the increase in termite claims litigation that occurred "[i]n the past few years" impacted termite revenue by 7-8% and would continue throughout 2020; and (2) contract price increases in Mobile were part of an effort to "mitigate" termite damage claims (essentially by discouraging contract renewals). Shares fell further on this news, dropping $1.42 (3.5%) on November 5, and another $3.41 (9%) on November 6, as the market absorbed the news. If you purchased ServiceMaster common stock during the Class Period, you may seek Court appointment as lead plaintiff to represent other injured investors in a class action. The lead plaintiff appointment deadline is June 9, 2020. You do not need to be a lead plaintiff to share in any potential Class recovery. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc. should consider their options to help Berger Montague's investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under this program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to thirty percent (30%) of successful recoveries obtained by the SEC. For more information, contact us. Berger Montague, with offices in Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Washington, D.C., and San Diego, has been a pioneer in securities class action litigation since its founding in 1970. Berger Montague has represented individual and institutional investors for five decades and serves as lead counsel in courts throughout the United States. Contact: Michael Dell'Angelo Managing Shareholder Berger Montague Tel: (215) 875-3080 E-mail: mdellangelo@bm.net - and - Andrew Abramowitz Senior Counsel Berger Montague Tel: (215) 875-3015 E-mail: aabramowitz@bm.net SMALL BUSINESS: Frost Launches Class Action Over PPP Loans ---------------------------------------------------------- Eye on Annapolis reports that Frost Law, an Annapolis based law office has filed a class action lawsuit against the Small Business Association relating the administration of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan component of the federally funder CARES Act. The suit alleges that the SBA discriminated against minority-owned small business owners by disbursing loans and funds to larger companies before even allowing smaller, self-employed businesses to apply. Self-employed business owners were unable to apply for the loans until the end of last week (April 10, 2020), and the funds had been exhausted by April 16, 2020. In a statement released by Glen Frost, Managing Partner: Frost Law filed a Class Action Lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against the Small Business Administration and Treasury Department for discrimination against minority-owned and women-owned small businesses. The Paycheck Protection Program, part of the $2 trillion government relief package, was written to be ‘first-come, first-served' relief for small businesses suffering as a result of the global pandemic. But that's not what happened. Instead, the government published guidance that expressly prioritized the applications for larger businesses, knowing that it would disproportionately harm minority and women owned businesses, and even gave these larger businesses credit for particular expenses that were specifically excluded in calculating loan amounts and loan forgiveness for the smallest businesses. Moreover, the government gave these larger, more sophisticated businesses a one-week head start to apply for relief. Remarkably, banks were not even provided with the guidance needed for processing loans for self-employed individuals until April 14, 2020, just two days before the funds were depleted. The funds are gone now, and the government's discriminatory actions have resulted in a disproportionate number of minority-owned and female-owned business owners unfairly left without relief. [GN] SOCIETY INSURANCE: Ambrosia Indy Seeks Pay for COVID-19 Losses -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, AMBROSIA INDY LLC D/B/A AMBROSIA RESTAURANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, A MUTUAL COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00771-NJ (E.D. Wis., May 21, 2020), arises from the Defendant's breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and on behalf of all others similarly-situated restaurants in Indiana that purchased comprehensive business insurance coverage from Defendant Society Insurance which includes coverage for business interruption, alleges that the Defendant denied its claim for business interruption coverage and argued that a slowdown in business due to the public's fear of the coronavirus or a suspension of business because a governmental authority has ordered or recommended all or certain types of businesses to close is not a direct physical loss. Ambrosia and other Indiana restaurants reasonably believed they had comprehensive coverage that would apply to business interruptions under circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic where they have done everything right to protect their businesses and the public, especially that the Defendant did not identify any exclusions from coverage. The Plaintiff purchased comprehensive business owners' liability and property insurance from Society Insurance for the policy period of January 24, 2020 to January 24, 2021 to insure against risks the business might face. Such coverage includes business income with extra expense coverage for the loss, as well as additional civil authority coverage. Once triggered, the policy pays actual losses sustained for the business income and extra expense coverage. Ambrosia Indy LLC, doing business as Ambrosia Restaurant, a restaurant owner based in Indianapolis, Indiana. Society Insurance, A Mutual Company, is an insurance company with its principal place of business in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Austin Doan, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com austind@turkestrauss.com - and – Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. Lisa LaFornara, Esq. COHEN & MALAD LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com ltoops@cohenandmalad.com athomas@cohenandmalad.com llafornara@cohenandmalad.com - and – Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com - and – Andrew N. Friedman, Esq. Victoria S. Nugent, Esq. Julie Selesnick, Esq. Geoffrey Graber, Esq. Eric Kafka, Esq. Karina G. Puttieva, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com vnugent@cohenmilstein.com jselesnick@cohenmilstein.com ggraber@cohenmilstein.com ekafka@cohenmilstein.com kputtieva@cohenmilstein.com - and – J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST: Faces Breach of Contract Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Billboard.com reports that South by Southwest is the subject of a class action lawsuit for not offering refunds to ticket buyers after its 2020 edition was canceled due to the spread of coronavirus. The class action suit is claiming breach of contract and unjust enrichment. [GN] STATE FARM: Denies Coverage of COVID-19 Losses, Royal Palm Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROYAL PALM OPTICAL, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 9:20-cv-80749-RS (S.D. Fla., May 5, 2020), alleges that the Defendants denied claims for lost business income and extra expenses as a result of social distancing and/or stay-at-home orders issued in connection with the COVID-19 global pandemic. The Plaintiff purchased State Farm-branded "all risk" commercial property insurance policies that included Loss of Income and Extra Expense Coverage. The Plaintiff contends that it fully performed its obligations under the Policy and paid over $3,000 to the Defendants in annual premium payments. It asserts that the Policy, which remains in force as of today, promised them the reimbursement of lost income and other expenses in the event that its business was suspended. As a result of the Defendants' breach of the Policy, the Plaintiff and Class members have sustained substantial damages for which Defendants are liable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff owns and operates Royal Palm Optical, which has provided prescription eyewear and sunglasses to the Boca Raton and Delray Beach areas since 1985. State Farm Florida Insurance Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The Company writes property insurance in the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary S. Bower, Esq. James E. Cecchi, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. Security Building 117 NE 1st Avenue Miami, FL 33132-2125 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: zbower@carellabyrne.com jcecchi@carellabyrne.com ltaylor@carellabyrne.com - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Darren J. Check, Esq. Naumon Amjed, Esq. Ethan Barlieb, Esq. Jordan Jacobson, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com dcheck@ktmc.com namjed@ktmc.com ebarlieb@ktmc.com STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Franchi Says Menarini Merger Deal Lacks Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS, INC., RON BENTSUR, IVAN BERGSTEIN, DARREN CLINE, ALAN FORMAN, MARK SARD, KENNETH ZUERBLIS, BERLIN-CHEMIE AG, and MERCURY MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00683-UNA (D. Del., May 20, 2020) arises from a proposed transaction announced on May 4, 2020, pursuant to which Stemline Therapeutics, Inc. will be acquired by affiliates of A. Menarini–Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite S.r.l. On May 3, 2020, Stemline's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Berlin-Chemie AG and Mercury Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer to purchase all of Stemline's outstanding common stock for $11.50 in cash and one contingent value right, which represents the right to receive $1.00 per CVR, per share. The Tender Offer is set to expire on June 9, 2020. The Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction on May 12, 2020. The Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges herein that defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Solicitation Statement. First, the Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisors in connection with the Proposed Transaction, PJT Partners LP and BofA Securities, Inc. Second, the Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding PJT's and BofA's engagements. Third, the Solicitation Statement fails to disclose the timing and nature of all communications regarding future employment and directorship of the Company’s officers and directors, including who participated in all such communications. Stemline Therapeautics Inc. is a New York-based commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of novel oncology therapeutics. Berlin-Chemie AG is a German Pharmaceutical company based in Berlin, Germany. It is part of the Menarini Group. Mercury Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Berlin-Chemie AG, and a party to the Merger Agreement.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com SUNRISE CREDIT: Waller Sues in New York Alleging FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Waller, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SUNRISE CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02229 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff has an alleged obligation that arises from a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services that are the subject of the transaction were incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes—namely, personal consumer products (the "Debt"). In connection with the collection of the Debt, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a letter dated December 24, 2019. The Defendant's December 24, 2019 letter was its initial communication with the Plaintiff with respect to the Debt. The front-side of the Defendant's December 24, 2019 letter lists the name of the creditor, the creditor's account number, the Defendant's account number, and the balance of the Debt. However, the Plaintiff asserts, nowhere on the front-side of the Defendant's December 24, 2019 letter does it advise the Plaintiff that important information is printed on the back-side of the letter. Upon receiving the Defendant's December 24, 2019 letter, the Plaintiff, or the least sophisticated consumer, would not be alerted that important information is printed on the back-side of the letter. Thus, by failing to alert the Plaintiff, or the least sophisticated consumer, that important information is on the back-side of the Defendant's December 24, 2019 letter, the Defendant overshadowed the Plaintiff's right to dispute and request verification of the Debt within the 30-day time period, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt. The Defendant is a debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Auslaender, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC 5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Phone: (347) 960-9671 Facsimile: (347) 960-9252 Email: justin@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com SWAROVSKI NORTH: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Calcano ADA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Marcos Calcano filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated May 11, 2020, issued in his lawsuit styled Calcano v. Swarovski North America Limited, Case No. 19-cv-10536, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is a class action lawsuit filed against Swarovski North America Limited pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The appellate case is captioned as Calcano v. Swarovski North America Limited, Case No. 20-1552, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Marcos Calcano, On behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, is represented by: Oliver Koppell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF G. OLIVER KOPPELL & ASSOCIATES 99 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 867-3838 Facsimile: (212) 681-0810 Email: okoppell@koppellaw.com Defendant-Appellee Swarovski North America Limited is represented by: Michael Fleming, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 309-6207 Email: michael.fleming@morganlewis.com TEAM BEANS: Martinez Sues in E.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Team Beans, L.L.C. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Team Beans, L.L.C. doing business as: Forever Collectibles, Case No. 1:20-cv-02223 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Forever Collectibles is a manufacturer and now eCommerce retailer of sports and entertainment merchandise, with a product line that includes apparel, accessories, toys, collectibles, novelty items, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com TECNOVA ELECTRONICS: Unlawfully Cancels Job Offer, Ramirez Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, LUIS RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TECNOVA ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02676 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). According to the complaint, Plaintiff applied for employment with Defendant in the Spring of 2020 and accepted the offered job as an SMT Operator 1 on March 9, 2020, though with pending background check result. However, Defendant emailed Plaintiff on March 25 informing Plaintiff that the job offered is cancelled when Plaintiff's background check finally came through which was purchased by Defendant from a consumer reporting agency. The complaint contends that Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with a copy of their consumer reports and a description of his right under the FCRA before taking an adverse employment action against him basing on the consumer report. Tecnova Electronics, Inc. is an electronic manufacturing company specializing in electronic manufacturing and engineering services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Burtnett, Esq. Eugene Bilmes, Esq. HECHT SCHONDORF, LLC 900 Skokie Blvd., Suite 104 Northbrook, IL 60062 Tel: (312) 878-1202 Emails: jburtnett@hechtschondorf.com ebilmes@hechtschondorf.com - and – Andrew L. Weiner, Esq. Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq. WEINER & SAND LLC 800 Battery Ave. SE, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30339 Tel: (404) 205-5029 (404) 254-0842 Fax: (866) 800-1482 Emails: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com TIKTOK INC: Faces GR Suit Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Info ------------------------------------------------------------- The case G.R., a Minor, by and Through Her Guardian Mayra De La Cruz, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TIKTOK, INC., a California Corporation, and BYTEDANCE INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-04537 (C.D. Cal., May 20, 2020) arises from Defendants' unlawful and intentional collection and use of minors' confidential biometric information without their consent and subsequent unauthorized disclosure of that information to third parties from approximately May 14, 2017 to the present in violation of state law, in violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 and the California Unfair Competition Law. In direct violation of the CCPA, the TikTok app's proprietary facial recognition technology scans every video uploaded to the app for faces, extracts geometric data relating to the unique points and contours of each face, and then uses that data to create and store a template of each face -- all without ever informing anyone of this practice. According to the complaint, Defendants engaged in this conduct: (a) without adequately informing the impacted individuals, including Plaintiff and members of the proposed class, that their biometric identifiers were being collected, captured, obtained, disclosed, redisclosed, or otherwise disseminated; (b) without informing the impacted individuals in writing of the purpose of the collection, capture, obtainment disclosure, redisclosure, and dissemination of the biometric identifiers and information; and (c) without seeking and obtaining written releases from such impacted individuals or their authorized representatives. Plaintiff G.R. is a minor and brings this suit by and through her legal guardian, Mayra De La Cruz. TikTok is a video-sharing social networking service used to create short videos, favored by children and teens. ByteDance, Inc. is the parent company of TikTok, Inc. which first launched the TikTok app in China in September 2016.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William A. Baird, Esq. BAIRD LAW FIRM 2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 267-1209 Facsimile: (866) 747-3905 Email: william.a.baird.1@gmail.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com - and - Erin Green Comite, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 Email: ecomite@scott-scott.com - and - Joseph A. Pettigrew, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 Email: jpettigrew@scott-scott.com - and - E. Kirk Wood, Esq. WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC P. O. Box 382434 Birmingham, AL 35238-2434 Telephone: (205) 908-4906 Facsimile: (866) 747-3905 Email: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net UHS OF OKLAHOMA: McKinney Class Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Michael McKinney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UHS of Oklahoma LLC, Case No. CJ-20-00099-03, was removed from the Oklahoma District Court, Garfield County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on May 18, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-00459-G to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as other contract. UHS of Oklahoma, Inc., provides health care services. The Company offers cardiology, neurology, radiology, and rehabilitation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Paige Lee, Esq. PAIGE LEE ATTORNEY AT LAW PC 204 E Grand Ponca City, OK 74601 Phone: (580) 762-5553 Fax: (580) 762-2271 Email: paige@paigeleelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: John D. Russell, Esq. Justin A. Lollman, Esq. GABLE & GOTWALS 100 W 5th St., Suite 1100 Tulsa, OK 74103-4217 Phone: (918) 595-4800 Fax: (918) 595-4990 Email: jrussell@gablelaw.com jlollman@gablelaw.com - and - Paula M Williams, Esq. GABLE & GOTWALS-OKC 211 N Robinson Ave., 15th Floor Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (405) 235-5500 Fax: (405) 235-2875 Email: pwilliams@gablelaw.com - and - Philip D Hixon, Esq. GLASS WILKIN PC 1515 S Utica Ave., Suite 250 Tulsa, OK 74104 Phone: (918) 582-7100 Fax: (918) 582-7166 Email: phixon@glf.us.gov UNITED SPECIALTY: Bradley Files Insurance Suit in E.D. Arkansas --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Specialty Insurance Company. The case is styled as James Bradley, On Behalf of Himself, and all Others Similarly Situated v. United Specialty Insurance Company, Case No. 4:20-cv-00520-JM (E.D. Ark., May 18, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract. United Specialty Insurance Company operates as an insurance company. The Company offers property and casualty insurance products and solutions, as well as reinsurance and investments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dylan Hugh Potts, Esq. GILL RAGON OWEN P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3800 Little Rock, AR 72201-2413 Phone: (501) 376-3800 Email: potts@gill-law.com UNITED STATES: ACLU Seeks Class-Action Status --------------------------------------------- Liz Evans Scolforo, writing for the York Dispatch, reports that on the heels of securing the temporary release of federal immigration detainees being held in York County Prison and jails in Pike and Clinton counties, the ACLU of Pennsylvania has now asked a federal judge to convert its original case to a class-action lawsuit. In mid-April 2020, the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union amended its petition, filed in federal court in Harrisburg, to add 11 new detainees that the organization argues should be released. The 13 named in the original petition remain on the amended one. Six of the 11 new petitioners are being held in York County Prison, according to Andy Hoover, spokesman for the ACLU of Pennsylvania. Like those already released, the 11 civil detainees now added to the case are particularly vulnerable to contracting and dying from COVID-19 because of their medical conditions and/or because they are age 45 or older. The ACLU is also asking a federal judge to define the class of people affected by the ruling "as anyone in immigration detention who is at heightened risk of serious illness or death if they contract COVID-19 due to age or underlying medical condition," according to a news release. "It's increasingly clear to us that federal immigration authorities are not serious about preventing the spread of COVID-19 in county jails where our clients are held," Reggie Shuford, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said in an emailed statement. "In all of the facilities, people who are detained cannot physically distance from each other. And they are still not being rationed enough personal hygiene items, including soap. The court has to act because ICE will not." Class-action suit: The ACLU is asking that all U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees at the three prisons who are age 45 or older or who have a serious medical condition that makes them particularly vulnerable to the coronavirus, be released and recognized as a class so that a class-action case can move forward. ICE has opposed the two earlier ACLU filings that convinced U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III to issue a temporary restraining order that released two groups of detainees being held in the prisons. In both filings, York County Prison Warden Clair Doll is named as a respondent by the ACLU. Jones' first ruling, on March 31, ordered ICE to release 10 of 13 detainees being represented by ACLU of Pennsylvania and Dechert Law Firm in Philadelphia. The other three detainees were released by ICE prior to the judge's order. [GN] UNITED STATES: Department of Health Faces Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ WHTM reports that the Department of Health is facing a class-action lawsuit for not inspecting long-term care facilities. The Brighton Rehabilitation and Wellness Center in Beaver County had 58 residents die of COVID-19 and 248 others test positive. According to the lawsuit the Department of Health did not regularly inspect the facility and allegedly did not stop the facility from using an experimental treatment on residents without their consent. The suit demands a court ordered injuction requiring these inspections. The Department of Health has not commented on it but says it is following the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services recommendations and guidelines. [GN] UNITED STATES: Doe Challenges Exclusion of Citizens in CARES Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, MITCH MCCONNELL, in his official capacity as Senate Majority Leader and sponsor of S.3548 CARES Act, STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury, Case No. 2:20-cv-04129-SVW-JEM (C.D. Cal., May 5, 2020), alleges that the CARES Act discriminates against any United States citizen, who is married to an individual, who do not have a Social Security number by preventing them from receiving critical payments. On March 27, 2020, President Trump signed S.3548, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), in response to the economic impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. The Plaintiff is a United States citizen, who resides in Gardena, California, with his wife, a Belizean citizen, and his two young children, both of whom are United States citizens. The CARES Act provides funding for $1,200 payments to individuals, plus an additional $500 payments per qualifying child, and phases out when incomes exceed $75,000 (or $150,000 for joint filers). The Plaintiff contends that the prohibition infringes on the fundamental right to marry, the freedom of expression, and the right to assemble, discriminates based on alienage and marital status, and deprives United States citizens of due process rights and equal protection as guaranteed by the Constitution. Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States who signed into law the CARES Act and insisted that his name appear on the "memo" line of each stimulus check issued under it.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Joshua D. Boxer, Esq. Corey B. Bennett, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com jboxer@maternlawgroup.com cbennett@maternlawgroup.com UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Kincheloe Seeks Tuition Fee Refund --------------------------------------------------------- ARICA KINCHELOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03015 (N.D. Ill., May 20, 2020), sues Defendant for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff was enrolled as a full-time student for 2020 third and fourth academic quarters at Defendant's institution and paid tuition and fees for in-person activities and the benefit of taking courses at the campus with live teacher interaction. However, Defendant announced on March 12, 2020 that all class were moving online and in-person on-campus activities were suspended or restricted. Plaintiff and members of the putative class claim that they were deprived of fully utilizing services for which they already paid, and thus, they demand for a refund of their tuition fees which Defendant failed to adequately and properly comply. The University of Chicago is a private research university located in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julie O. Herrera, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JULIE O. HERRERA 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1615 Chicago, IL 60604 Tel: 312-834-7150 Email: jherrera@julieherreralaw.com - and - Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON 501 Fifth Ave., 19th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 983-1300 Emails: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com VISION FINANCIAL: Defrauds Commodities Customers, Kumaran Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA SIVA KUMARAN, CUSTOMERS 1-100, CTA'S 1-100, NEFERTITI RISK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VISION FINANCIAL MARKETS, LLC; VISION INVESTMENT ADVISORS, INC; VISION BROKERAGE SERVICES, LLC; H ROTHMAN FAMILY ADVISORS, INC.; BOSHNACK FAMILY, LLC; HIGH RIDGE HOLDING CORPORATION, INC.; HIGH RIDGE FUTURES, LLC; HOWARD ROTHMAN; ROBERT BOSHNACK; JOHN FELAG; JULIE VILLA; GERARD STEPHEN LAZZARA; and LAZZARA CONSULTING, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03871-UA (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, fraud, fraudulent inducement of contract, aiding and abetting in fraud, civil conspiracy, misappropriation of trade secrets, aiding and abetting in misappropriation, unfair competition and misappropriation of confidential information, interference in economic advantage, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly-situated individuals who opened accounts at ADM Investors Services, Inc. (ADMIS) during the period September 2014 until present date, allege that the Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme, together with ADMIS, and the owners, employees, and affiliates of the disbarred futures clearing merchant Vision Financial Markets, LLC, and aided by various key insiders at the National Futures Association, Tom Kadlec, and two compliance officers, to deceive, and defraud thousands of commodities futures customers and commodity trading advisors (CTA) in the commodities futures markets, who innocently opened accounts at ADMIS. The Defendants' illegal acts include (a) to extract an amount estimated to be over $50 million in dollars of unauthorized fees (b) to deplete the performance history of their competitor CTA's, including Kumaran, to diminish their profitability of as much as 12% in return a year, by suppressing performance of their trading account, in unfair market competition, (c) improperly acquired, disseminated and used, the confidential trading records, and risk management strategies of their competitor, CTA's and customers, and then, in direct competition formed a computing CTA called Vision Investment; (d) through the trading of numerous proprietary accounts under the family offices of Rothman, Boshnack and other affiliates named as Defendants, used and incorporate the proprietary trading strategies and risk management strategies in direct competition; (e) materially took actions to harm their competitors CTA's, by the diversion of Assets Under Management by having direct acquisition of their trade secrets, diverting capital raise away from their competitors, and improperly acquired access to all their confidential and proprietary trading record. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, the Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered damages that include without limitation, irreparable harm in loss of their confidential and trade secrets, financial losses in their trading accounts, depletion and losses in CTA's performance records, damages to their good will and other impacts to their CTA careers, reductions to the financial trading account balances, financial losses to their property, livelihoods and investments in the futures industry, as well as other significant damages. Nefertiti Risk Capital Management, LLC was a minority women-owned small business and sole proprietor located in New York. Vision Financial Markets, LLC is a brokerage firm with principal place of business located at 4 High Ridge Park, Suite 100, Stamford, Connecticut. Vision Investment Advisors, LLC is a money management and advisory firm headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut. Vision Brokerage Services, LLC is a brokerage services provider headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut. H Rothman Family Advisors, Inc. is a family office and trading firm located at 4 High Ridge Park, Suite 100, Stamford, Connecticut. Boshnack Family, LLC is a family office and trading firm located at 631 Long Ridge Rd, Unit 56, Stamford, Connecticut. High Ridge Holding Corporation, Inc. is a registered holding company located at 120 Long Ridge Road 3, North, Stamford, Connecticut. High Ridge Futures, LLC is an introducing broker located at 4 High Ridge Park, Suite 100, Stamford, Connecticut. Lazzara Consulting, Inc. is an introducing broker located at 11610 Fm 2244, Suite 210 Austin, Texas. [BN] WHEREZ HEMP: Faces Klitzner TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Text ----------------------------------------------------------- Scott Klitzner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WHEREZ HEMP, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00926-JLS-MSB (S.D. Cal., May 18, 2020), arises from the illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading the Plaintiff's privacy. Through an unsolicited message, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff's cellular telephone regarding an unsolicited service via an "automatic telephone dialing system" ("ATDS"), as defined by and prohibited by the TCPA, according to the complaint. At no time did the Plaintiff provide the Plaintiff's cellular number to the Defendant through any medium, nor did the Plaintiff consent to receive such unsolicited texts. The Plaintiff has never signed-up for, and has never used, the Defendant's services, and has never had any form of business relationship with the Defendant. The Defendant is and was aware that it is placing unsolicited telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff and other consumers without their prior express consent The Plaintiff was damaged by the Defendant's message. The Plaintiff is a resident of Broward County, Florida. The Defendant is a California Profit Corporation and citizen of the state of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Facsimile: 954-524-2822 Email: seth@epllc.com WILMINGTON TRUST: Settles ERISA Lawsuit for $19.5 Million --------------------------------------------------------- Pensions & Investments reports that Wilmington Trust agreed to pay $19.5 million to settle an ERISA class-action lawsuit filed against the company while denying the allegations or any wrongdoing. "We are pleased to resolve the claims in this case and avoid what could have been a protracted and expensive legal proceeding," a spokeswoman said in an email. "While we deny all allegations with respect to these claims, we feel that this settlement is the best way for all parties to move forward." The spokeswoman added: "As always, we believe we have acted in accordance with all applicable laws, industry best practices and will continue to carry out our legacy and commitment to quality client services." The class action, filed Nov. 2, 2017, in U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Del., by Lyle J. Guidry and Rodney Choate, claimed participants in the Martin Resource Management Corp. ESOP Plan were "deprived of their hard-earned retirement benefits" as a result of Wilmington Trust acquiring shares of Martin Resource Management Corp. In 2012 and 2013, Wilmington Trust bought stock in MRMC. Some of the stock was purchased through loan proceeds. The two transactions "allowed party in interest sellers to unload their interests in MRMC at more than fair market value, and saddle plan participants with millions of dollars of debt payable to parties in interest to finance the transaction," the complaint said. Martin Resource Management Corp. ESOP Plan had $60 million in assets and $128 million in liabilities as of Dec. 31, 2018, according to its latest Form 5550.[GN] WW INTERNATIONAL: Faces Vodden Suit Over Unlawfully Charged Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Vodden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WW INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-03856 (S.D.N.Y., May 18, 2020), accuses the Defendant of violating the New York General Business Law, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all of the Defendant's customers nationwide, who have paid or were charged fees while the Defendant's in person Weight Watchers workshops were cancelled. The Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of express warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion, and breach of contract. To sign up for the Defendant's memberships, customers provide the Defendant with their credit card or debit card information. The Defendant then automatically charges their customers' credit or debit cards as payments are due on a monthly basis. On March 14, 2020, the Defendant announced that all of its workshops would be transitioned to virtual Workshops through April 4, 2020, due to the COVID-19 crisis. As of May 2020, all workshops were conducted virtually, and the Defendant no longer offers in-person workshops. However, the Plaintiff contends, unlike other companies, the Defendant charged its customers for the full price of their memberships and an additional virtual workshop fee, even though their in-person workshops have been terminated and members have already paid for workshops. Simply put, the Defendant is double dipping by retaining members' usual in-person workshop fees and charging them each month for their virtual workshops, the Plaintiff alleges. She adds that the Defendant has also refused to reimburse pre-paid customers for the time they were unable to attend in-person workshops, or for the additional virtual workshop fee. The Defendant has made the unconscionable decision to keep charging its hundreds of thousands of members' membership fees while stopping 100 percent of its in-person workshops as the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, rages throughout the world and the United States economy has gone into a deep recession, says the complaint. Ms. Vodden became a member of the Defendant's in-person workshop program. The Defendant is the operator of more than 3,000 Weight Watchers locations in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: fklorczyk@bursor.com YANKA INDUSTRIES: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yanka Industries, Inc. The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Yanka Industries, Inc. doing business as: MasterClass, Case No. 1:20-cv-02228 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Yanka Industries Inc, doing business as MasterClass, provides online education solutions. The Company offers online video education solutions that includes class workbooks, interactive assignments, and community activities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com ZOOM VIDEO: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Labaton Sucharow LLP announces that on April 8, 2020, it filed a securities class action lawsuit, captioned Brams v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., No. 20-cv-2396 (N.D. Cal.) (the "Action"), on behalf of its client Kim Brams against Zoom Video Communications, Inc. and certain executives (collectively, "Defendants"). The Action, which 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, is brought on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Zoom securities from April 18, 2019 through April 6, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), who were damaged thereby (the "Class"). Zoom designs, develops, and sells a popular cloud-based communications platform that concentrates on video conferencing. Zoom's flagship product is "Zoom Meetings" which is a service that allows remote users to communicate with one another through video conferencing, collaborative meetings, text based chat, and file sharing. During the first quarter of 2020 and moving into April 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic placed millions of people under directives from their state and local governments to "stay at home" or "shelter in place." Because of Zoom's purported security, reliability, and ease of use, the Company was seemingly well positioned to capture this new market and see exponential growth. Accordingly, Zoom video meetings exploded in popularity. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Zoom had inadequate data privacy and security measures; (ii) contrary to Zoom's assertions, the Company's video communications service was not end-to-end encrypted; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, users of Zoom's communications services were at an increased risk of having their personal information accessed by unauthorized parties, including Facebook; (iv) usage of the Company's video communications services was foreseeably likely to decline when the foregoing facts came to light; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. While reports of deficiencies in Zoom's software encryption began to come to light as early as July 2019, its services would only come under enhanced scrutiny following its boom in popularity in 2020. Beginning in late March 2020, countless news reports detailed shocking privacy issues and vulnerabilities with Zoom's products, and revealed that the company had significantly overstated the degree to which its video communication software was encrypted. Zoom would be forced to issue numerous apologies, including the admission by the Company's CEO that he "really messed up." Following these revelations, the Company's stock price experienced significant declines, thereby damaging investors. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Zoom securities 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 Northern District of California no later than June 8, 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 learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact: David J. Schwartz, Esq. Labaton Sucharow, Tel: (800) 321-0476, E-mail: dschwartz@labaton.com [GN] [*] Timothy L. Miles Has Been Named Avvo Rated Top Lawyer --------------------------------------------------------- Avvo confirmed that Timothy L. Miles, a nationally recognized securities class action attorney from Hendersonville, Tennessee, has achieved the Avvo Rated Top Lawyer 2020, after first achieving this rating in 2017. Mr. Miles is a Superb Rated Attorney by Avvo, (10.0 out of 10), their Highest Rating Possible, and has maintained this rating since since 2017. Mr. Miles is a native of Nashville, Tennessee whose practice focuses exclusively on representing investors in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative actions and corporate mergers and acquisitions class actions. Mr. Miles has maintained the AV Preeminent Rating by Martindale-Hubbell since 2014, their highest rating for both legal ability and ethics. This rating is only awarded to approximately 10% of all attorneys across the United States, and is the highest rating offered by the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory. According to Martindale-Hubbell, "[a]n elite group of approximately 10 percent of all attorneys holds an AV Preeminent Rating, a designation trusted worldwide by buyers and referrers of legal services. Previously, Mr. Miles was awarded The Top-Rated Lawyer in Litigation™ in Litigation for Ethical Standards and Legal Ability by Martindale-Hubbell® (2015). Mr. Miles also maintains an AV Preeminent Rating on Lawyers.com, after first achieving this rating in 2018. Additionally, Mr. Miles was recently selected for the second year in a row as a 2020 Top Rank Litigator and 2020 Top Ranked Lawyer by Martindale-Hubbell(R) and ALM. Last year, Mr. Miles was selected by Martindale-Hubbell® and ALM as a 2019 Top Ranked Lawyer; 2019 Top Rated Litigator; and a 2019 Elite Lawyer of The South. Mr. Miles is also member of the prestigious Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyers: The National Trial Lawyers Association, which is by invitation only and is "extended to those attorneys who exemplify superior qualifications, trial results, and leadership in their respective state based upon objective and uniformly applied criteria." Mr. Miles was also recognized as a Distinguished Lawyer, Recognizing Excellence in Securities Law, Lawyers of Distinction (2019) and named as a recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award by Premier Lawyers of America, a prestigious, invitation-only organization which recognizes the best lawyers in America. View photos About Timothy L. Miles Timothy L. Miles is a nationally recognized shareholder rights attorney raised in Nashville, Tennessee. Awards: Top Ranked Lawyer by Martindale-Hubbell® and ALM (2019-20); Top Rated Litigator by Martindale-Hubbell® and ALM (2019-20); 2019 Elite Lawyer of The South by Martindale-Hubbell® and ALM (2019); Member of the Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyers: The National Trial Lawyers Association (2017-2020); AV® Preeminent™ Rating by Martindale-Hubble® (2014-2020); PRR AV Preeminent Rating on Lawyers.com (2018-20); The Top-Rated Lawyer in Litigation™ for Ethical Standards and Legal Ability (Martindale-Hubble® 2015); Lifetime Achievement Award by Premier Lawyers of America (2019); Superb Rated Attorney (Avvo); Avvo Top Rated Lawyer (Avvo) (2017-20). Mr. Miles has authored numerous publications advocating for shareholdings including most recently: Free Portfolio Monitoring Services Offered by Plaintiff Securities Firms Provides Significant Benefits To Investors (Timothy L. Miles, Dec. 3, 2019). Contact: Timothy L. Miles, Esq. Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles 124 Shiloh Ridge Hendersonville, TN 37075 Telephone: (855-846-6529) E-mail: tmiles@timmileslaw.com Web site: http://www.timmileslaw.com/ [GN] [*] US Firms Bring Wave of Class Actions v. Insurance Cos. ---------------------------------------------------------- U.S. businesses decimated by the COVID-19 pandemic filed federal class-action lawsuits against six insurance companies for denial of policy claims they had purchased to protect against business interruptions. The suits represent the broadest effort yet to compel insurance companies to fulfill promises made to hundreds of thousands of U.S. businesses that purchased insurance coverage to protect against precisely this situation. The class actions are filed against Aspen American Insurance, Auto-Owners Insurance, Lloyd's of London, Society Insurance, Oregon Mutual Insurance, and Topa Insurance Company. Initial plaintiffs include a San Diego restaurant and nightclub; a Cleveland-area bridal retailer; a Madison, Wisc. bakery and cafe; a local Minnesota chain of restaurants and bars; a St. Paul, Minn. dental practice; a Portland, Ore. restaurant; and a New York restaurant group and pizzeria. Each of the lawsuits claims that the businesses purchased special property insurance coverage to protect against business interruptions or disruptions outside of their control. These policies included business income coverage, which promises to pay for losses due to necessary suspension of operations. In all instances, these coverages either included or did not expressly or effectively exclude losses caused by viruses such as COVID-19, which caused state and municipal governments to mandate widespread business closures. Despite these facts, the insurers have, on a broad and uniform basis, refused to uphold their contractual responsibilities for losses suffered due to COVID-19, as well as losses caused by executive orders by civil authorities and any efforts to prevent further property damage or to minimize the suspension of business and continue operations. "Businesses nationwide have, for years, purchased expensive insurance policies to protect them from losses exactly like those they are currently enduring," said Adam Levitt, co-counsel to the plaintiffs' and a partner at DiCello Levitt Gutzler. "For many small business owners trying to provide for their families and employees, this type of insurance coverage was an additional expense that they would have preferred not to carry but felt a responsibility to do so. For insurers to now tell them, in the most challenging of times, that the joke was on them and their policies were worthless, is unethical and abhorrent." Most property insurance policies sold in the United States, including those sold by the defendants, are all-risk property damage policies. These types of policies cover all risks of loss, except for risks that are expressly and specifically excluded. "Insurers will deny almost every claim – even the most legitimate ones – because that's just how they operate," said Mark Lanier, co-counsel to the plaintiffs and founder of The Lanier Law Firm. "But at the end of the day, this really is a straightforward issue about honoring their agreements. As our nation emerges from this horrific pandemic, businesses of all sizes will be critical to restarting the economy. In playing their usual claim-denial games, these insurers are threatening the welfare of not only small-business owners and their families, but the entire U.S. economy." The plaintiffs are represented by Adam Levitt, Mark DiCello and Ken Abbarno of DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC; Mark Lanier and Alex Brown of the Lanier Law Firm PC; Timothy Burns, Jeff Bowen, Freya Bowen and Jesse Bair of Burns Bowen Bair LLP; and Douglas Daniels of Daniels & Tredennick. They are joined by local counsel in all jurisdictions. "Countless businesses across the United States are pinning their hopes of reopening and rehiring laid-off or furloughed employees on proceeds from insurance," said Timothy Burns, a partner at Burns Bowen Bair LLP. "Insurance companies thrive by selling protection against maladies of all kinds. They pocket huge profits when material events are avoided but must bear the responsibility of honoring their policies on the rare occasions when these events occur. By refusing to do so, they are not running a business at all, but a large-scale rigged carnival game where no matter the scenario, the customer always loses. It's just not right, and we will do everything in our power to ensure that these businesses are made whole." The cases include: * Gio Pizzeria & Bar Hospitality, LLC and Gio Pizzeria Boca, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York * Rising Dough, Inc., et al. v. Society Insurance, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin * Bridal Expressions LLC v. Owners Insurance Company, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio * Caribe Restaurant & Nightclub, Inc. v. Topa Insurance Company, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California * Dakota Ventures, LLC d/b/a/Kokopelli Grill v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Co.; U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon * Christie Jo Berkseth-Rojas DDS v. Aspen American Insurance Company; U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Copies of each of the complaints can be provided upon request and the plaintiffs' attorneys are available for media interviews. About DiCello Levitt DiCello Levitt combines excellence in commercial litigation, class action litigation, mass tort litigation, catastrophic injury litigation, medical malpractice litigation, and civil rights litigation. Practicing nationwide—and internationally—from offices in Chicago, Cleveland, New York, and St. Louis, we are an aggressive, attentive, and creative plaintiffs' firm whose work speaks for itself—billions of dollars in recoveries in some of the highest-profile matters in U.S. history. Revered by clients and respected by defense counsel, our team gets results. About The Lanier Law Firm PC For more than 30 years, the men and women at the Lanier Law Firm have worked tirelessly, throughout the United States, to find unique and effective solutions for their clients. More than 60 skilled attorneys practice law in a broad array of areas, including business litigation, pharmaceutical litigation, asbestos exposure, oil and gas litigation, personal injury, and defective and dangerous products, among others. Named an Elite Trial Law Firm by The National Law Journal, the Lanier Law Firm has offices in Houston, New York, Los Angeles, and Oklahoma City. To learn more about Mark Lanier and the Lanier Law Firm, visit https://www.lanierlawfirm.com. About Burns Bowen Bair LLP Based in Madison, Wisc., Burns Bowen Bair represents corporations, boards of directors, investment funds, public entities, professional firms, unions, tribes, hospitals, bankruptcy trustees, churches, plaintiff classes, and individuals in complex coverage, bad faith, financial fraud, and counterparty disputes with insurance companies. About Daniels & Tredennick Daniels & Tredennick is a trial firm in Houston, Texas. Our lawyers have over 100 years of combined experience practicing law. We come from a variety of backgrounds having been involved in public service, education, large law firms, and boutique personal injury firms. We have grown to twenty-three attorneys: seven Partners, eleven Associates, and five Of Counsel. Contact: Jason Milch Baretz+Brunelle E-mail: jmilch@baretzbrunelle.com Tel: (312) 379-9406 [GN] ********* 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 ***