/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200611.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 11, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 117 Headlines 4BUSH HOLDINGS: Bacon Slams Unsolicited SMS Ad Blasts ACT INC: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Bais Yaakov TCPA Suit AFSCME COUNCIL 5: Faces Class Action Over Union Fees AKAZOO SA: June 23 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ALBERTA: Court Refuses to Award Costs in Class Action ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Faces Redmond Suit Alleging Price Gouging ALLERGAN INC: Appeals Decision in Restasis MDL to Second Circuit ALLERGAN PLC: AbbVie Merger Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ALLERGAN PLC: Dismissal of Generic Drug Pricing Suit Challenged ALPHA RECOVERY: Judgment on Pleadings in Sturm Suit Partly Granted AM NET SERVICES: Crockett et al. Seek OT Pay for RF Engineers AMAZON INC: Settles Security Search Class Action for $11 Million AMERANT BANK: Full Compliance et al. Seek Pay for PPP Loan Agents AMERICAN AIRLINES: Parties Must Sharpen Class Action Arguments ATOSC GROUP: Fowler Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Security Guards AURORA EXPEITIONS: Greg Mortimer Passengers Launch Class Action AXIS REINSURANCE: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Court Ruling AZ MOBILE: McCotter Sues Over Robocalls, Spam Text Ads AZORIO LLC: Ginsberg Says Dietary Supplement Mislabeled BALL STATE UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Suit Seeking Tuition Fee Refund BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Provide COBRA Notice, Rodriguez Says BEK ENTERPRISES: Underpays General Laborers, Lloyd Claims BELLICUM PHARMA: Kakkar Putative Class Suit Dismissed BILLINGS, MT: Certification of 3 Classes in Houser Suit Affirmed BILLY RANDALL: Faces Brantley Suit Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime BIMBO BAKERIES: Misclassifies Distributors, Harrington Claims BLACKSTONE LABS: Food Supplements Unsafe , Quidera Says BNSF RAILWAY: Court Orders Macias to File 3rd Amended Suit BOOKING HOLDINGS: Agoda Promotes Phantom Discounts, Martinez Says BOSCH SOLAR: Court Denies Relief From Protective Order in Rojas BOSCH SOLAR: Court Narrows Claims in Second Amended Rojas Suit BOYCE HYDRO: Homeowners Seek Damages Over Dam Mishap BP EXPLORATION: 5th Cir. Flips Trammo's $77MM Settlement Order C & M ASSOCIATES: Debt Collection Calls "Misleading," Kendle Says CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid to Dismiss New Jersey Securities Suit Pending CANADA GOOSE: Bid to Dismiss Cheng Class Suit Pending CARGILL INC: Samuels Alleges Price-Fixing of Beef CARNIVAL CORP: Elmensdorp Sues over Drop in Share Price CARNIVAL CORP: Exposed Passengers to COVID-19, Chung et al. Claim CARPENTER DESIGN: Bennick et al. Seek Overtime Pay for Builders CHILDREN'S PLACE: Dougan Sues Over Phantom Discounts CNA FINANCIAL: Faces Lost-Income Insurance Class Action CNH INDUSTRIAL: Court Narrows Claims in Farms' Amended Suit COLUMBUS ELECTRIC: Walsh Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENCE: Final Approval of Blackerby Deal Denied CONIFER HOLDINGS: Captain Skrip's Slams Denied Insurance Coverage COTY INC: Website Inaccessible to Deaf, Jones Claims COVINGTON SPECIALTY: Till Metro Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims CREDIT CONTROL: Missouri Court Dismisses Watson FDCPA Suit DEFENDERS LLC: Faces Herron Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls DELI MANAGEMENT: Eltayeb Seeks Proper Pay for Delivery Drivers DOLLAR TREE: Deal Reached in Distribution Center Employee's Suit DOLLAR TREE: Suits Against Family Dollar Over ADA Breach Ongoing DOUGH MANAGEMENT: Settlement in Rechtoris Suit Gets Prelim Approval DUKE UNIVERSITY: Student Files Suit Seeking Tuition Fee Refund DXC TECHNOLOGY: California Securities Class Suits Ongoing DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Draetta Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime EMORY UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Seeking Tuition Fee Refund ETERNITY BEACHWEAR: Faces Whelan Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages EVERI HOLDINGS: Awaits Approval of Donahue Settlement EVERI HOLDINGS: Jessop Suit Nixed Pending Donahue Settlement Okay EVERI HOLDINGS: Rehman Suit Nixed Pending Donahue Settlement Okay FAIR ISAAC: Credit Union Alleges Monopoly in Credit Scores Market FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Ober Sues Over "Oppressive" Collection Letter FIREMAN'S FUND: Water Sports Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses GACO WESTERN: Court Grants Bid to Deny Feamster Class Certification GENERAL ELECTRIC: Judge Dismisses Investor Class Action GOJO INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Burgett Claims GRAND CANYON EDUCATION: Retirement System Files Securities Suit GRIDSUM HOLDING: Gordon Class Action Still Stayed GRIDSUM HOLDING: Securities Litigation Underway in New York GRUBHUB: Faces Class Action in Denver HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Dentist Files Business Interruption Class Suit HENDREN PLASTICS: Settles DARP Class Action HEWLETT PACKARD: 4th Amended Complaint in Forsyth Due July 9 HEWLETT PACKARD: Demurrer in Ross and Rogus Suit Granted in Part HEWLETT PACKARD: Jackson Suit Dismissed HEWLETT PACKARD: Wall Class Action Closed HONDA: Faces Class Action Over Acura Software Defects IANTHUS CAPITAL: June 15 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set INTEGRITY INSPECTION: Spivey Seeks Overtime Pay IU BLOOMINGTON: Undergrad. Student Seeks Refund of Tuition, Fees J.M. SMUCKER: Faces Class Action in California JAB INSPECTION: Underpays Office Managers, Dogie Alleges JOHNSON & WALES: Washington Sues Over Failure to Provide Refunds JPMORGAN CHASE: ImpAcct LLC Seeks Payment of PPP Loan Agent Fees KONICA MINOLTA: Mismanaged 401(k) Plan, Luense Alleges LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING: Austin Sues Over Illegal Processing Fees LG ELECTRONICS: 9th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Frost Antitrust Suit LINEBARGER GOGGAN: Morgan Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls LITIES CORP: Velasquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages LOWE'S HOME: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Robles ERISA/COBRA Suit LUMOS PHARMA: Appeal in Nguyen Class Action Still Pending MAPCO EXPRESS: Underpays Female Store Managers, Hil et al Claim MAYBERRY INC: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Jackson Claims METLIFE SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Campbell Claims MICHIGAN: Otworth Balks at Quarantine Protocols MUELLER WATER: Bid to Substitute Ms. Hyland in Peterson Suit Denied MUFG AMERICAS: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agent Fees, Fahmia Claims NAT'L AUSTRALIA BANK: Court Approves $49.5MM Class Suit Settlement NEVADA: Faces Class Action Over Coronavirus Shutdowns NEW YORK: Property Owners Challenge Moratorium on Evictions NEWREZ LLC: Bayer Sues over Misleading Collection Letter NORTH DALLAS HONEY: Pierce Suit on Mislabeled Product Dismissed ORGANIGRAM: N.S. Court of Appeal Tosses Part of Class Action PARADISE SHOPS: Bailey Sues Over Deductions, Seeks Overtime Pay PATHWAY HEALTH: Underpays Consultants, Abel Claims PATRIOT AUTO: Mitchell Balks at Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages PET SUPERMARKET: Snyder's Opinion in Eldridge Suit Partly Excluded PETRO INC: Underpays Manual Workers, Cohen Claims PHILADELPHIA, PA: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in T.R. Class Suit PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Butler, Robinson Sue Over Abrupt Termination PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Stoltz Balks at Acquisition by Alexion PREMIUM MILLWORK: Montoya Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages PRIME COMMS: Underpays Retail Sales Consultants, Hurtado Claims PROJECTOTRES LLC: Lemus Seeks OT Pay for Electricians QUEENS ADULT CARE: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violation RHODE ISLAND: Settles Class Action Over Food Stamp Program RJC REMODELING: Misclassifies & Underpays Laborers, Steagall Says ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Freedland et al. Balk at Platform Outages ROSEHILL RESOURCES: Trahan Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA SANDERSON FARMS: Bid to Dismiss Calif. Consumer Class Suit Pending SANDERSON FARMS: Broiler Chicken Litigation Ongoing SANDERSON FARMS: Class Suit in North Carolina Remains Stayed SANDERSON FARMS: Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Due July 17 SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Denies Caterers' COVID-19 Coverage Claims SENTINEL INSURANCE: Glow Medispa Seeks Payment for COVID Losses SERGEANT'S PET: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Penikila Suit SK ENERGY: Faces Richardson Anticompetitive Suit Over Gas Prices SMJ CONSTRUCTION: Yang Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages SOLIANT HEALTH: Casement Appeals E.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir. STATEWIDE HARVESTING: Appeals Ruling in Ramirez Suit to 11th Cir. SUPERCUTS INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Delamarter FACTA Suit SUR TRANSPORTE: Underpays Drivers, Sotelo Claims SYSCO CORP: Walker Sues Over Health Insurance Loss TIKTOK INC: Sued Over Collection of Minors' Biometric Info TOPPERS INTERNATIONAL: Underpays Exotic Dancers, Bryant Says TRINITY PROPERTIES: Huey Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Pay TWO RIVERS: Court Denies Bid to Stay Paulson Securities Suit UNITED AIRLINES: England Sues over Unpaid Days Off UNITED STATES: Faces Cole Suit Over Illegal Offset of Tax Refunds UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Breached Duties to 401(k) Plan, Boley Alleges UP FINTECH: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Action USA DEBUSK: Press Sues Over Unlawful Employment Practices VERSO CORP: Nears Settlement of Life Insurance Class Action VOCUS: Judge Refuses to Make Common Fund Order in Class Action WAG LABS: $375K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Darsey FLSA Suit WAKEFERN FOOD: Vanilla Almond Milk Label "Deceptive," Cleary Says WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Mabe Sues over Failure to Timely Pay Wages WELSPUN PIPES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Ward Says WESTERN SUGAR: Settles Class Action Over Sugar Plant Odors WIPRO: Former Employees File Discrimination Class Action WYETH INC: August 14 HRT Suit Settlement Approval Hearing Set ZUORA INC: Judge Tosses Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action [*] Coronavirus-Related Lawsuits to Flood Courts [*] Higher Education Institutions Target of COVID-Related Suits [*] Kelley Drye Attorneys Discuss Pandemic-Related Class Actions [*] Slater & Gordon Gets Huge Response to Potential Class Action [*] U.S. Class Actions Create Risk of "Copycat" Claims in Canada ********* 4BUSH HOLDINGS: Bacon Slams Unsolicited SMS Ad Blasts ----------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bacon, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 4Bush Holdings, LLC and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 20-cv-04649 (D. N.J., May 20, 2020), seeks statutory and treble damages, injunctive relief, compensation and attorney fees for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. 4Bush operates as "Herbalist Oils" and/or "First Class Herbalist CBD" private medical practice in Livonia, Michigan. In or around January 2020, via multiple text messages using an "automated telephone dialing system", 4Bush contacted Bacon on her cellular telephone in an attempt to solicit her to purchase CBD oils and products. Bacon is on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob J. Ventura, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: (310) 507-7924 Fax: (310) 507-7906 Email: jacob@kristensenlaw.com john@kristensenlaw.com jesenia@kristensenlaw.com ACT INC: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Bais Yaakov TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley filed an appeal from a court ruling in its lawsuit entitled Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. ACT, Inc., Case No. 4:12-cv-40088-TSH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Worcester. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 23, 2018, Judge Timothy S. Hillman denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify two classes. The Plaintiff brought the putative class action against the Defendant alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") for faxing unsolicited advertisements without an opt-out provision. The Plaintiff sought certification of these two classes: i. Class A comprises all persons in the United States from July 30, 2008 through July 30, 2012 to whom the Defendant sent or caused to be sent an unsolicited facsimile advertisement, the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services, which contained no opt-out notice; and ii. Class B includes all persons in the United States from July 30, 2008 through July 30, 2012 to whom the Defendant sent or caused to be sent a facsimile advertisement, advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services, which contained no opt-out notice. The appellate case is captioned as Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. ACT, Inc., Case No. 20-1537, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner BAIS YAAKOV OF SPRING VALLEY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 50 Main Street White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 358-5345 E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com - and - Matthew P. McCue, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE 1 South Avenue Natick, MA 01760 Telephone: (508) 655-1415 E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net Defendant-Respondent ACT, INC., is represented by: Robert A. Burgoyne, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 700 13th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005-3960 Telephone: (202) 654-1744 E-mail: RBurgoyne@perkinscoie.com - and - Robert L. Leonard, Esq. DOHERTY WALLACE PILLSBURY & MURPHY PC 1414 Main Street, Suite 1900 Springfield, MA 01144-1002 Telephone: (413) 733-3111 E-mail: Rleonard@dwpm.com AFSCME COUNCIL 5: Faces Class Action Over Union Fees ---------------------------------------------------- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation disclosed that on May 11, 2020, six Minnesota state employees sued two of the state's largest government unions for an estimated recovery of $19 million in union fees paid by state and local employees. The two class action lawsuits claim that because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it is illegal to require public employees to pay union fees as a condition of employment, past fees should be refunded to workers. The unions, AFSCME Council 5 and Minnesota Association of Professional Employees (MAPE) collected fees for years from workers who did not want to join a union. The lawsuit against AFSCME may net $13 million in recovered fees for 8,000 state and local workers who paid fees to the union prior to the 2018 Supreme Court ruling. The lawsuit against MAPE could recover as much as $5.8 million for state employees. The two lawsuits, Brown et al., v. AFSCME Council 5 and Fellows et al., v. MAPE were filed on May 11 by attorneys from the same nonprofit legal foundations that brought the U.S. Supreme Court case ending forced union fees, the Liberty Justice Center and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. "From 1993 to 2018 I was forced to pay AFSCME union dues for a union I never wanted to join in order to work for the state of Minnesota," said Eric Brown, lead plaintiff of the class action case against AFSCME. "It is time for AFSCME to abide by the Supreme Court's ruling, return the money that was taken out of my paycheck without my permission, and return money to other Minnesota state employees who were victim to this as well." MAPE also took dues as a condition of employment from state workers, and three employees who have worked in a variety of roles are suing the union to reclaim their money. Mark Fellows, a licensed social worker for the Department of Human Services paid fees from July 2007 through June 27, 2018, and said, "I joined this lawsuit because MAPE took money I didn't want to pay and shouldn't have been forced to pay. With the Supreme Court's ruling, I should be entitled to get my money back." "Thousands of employees in Minnesota had millions of dollars illegally taken from them by AFSCME and MAPE and we're suing to get that money back," said Patrick Hughes, president and co-founder of the Liberty Justice Center. "Unions around the country have been playing this same game for years, and AFSCME and MAPE need to be held accountable because they violated the U.S. Constitution by taking money from public workers who weren't union members. Liberty Justice Center is representing these public employees so that their hard-earned money is back in their pockets where it belongs." "It's outrageous that almost two years after the Supreme Court ruled in Janus that requiring public sector employees to pay union dues to keep their jobs is a First Amendment violation, scofflaw union officials still refuse to give back millions and millions of forced fees seized from workers in violation of the First Amendment," observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "The Foundation is proud to fight alongside the plaintiffs in these cases and the countless other workers across the country challenging attempts by union officials to continue to profit from their past unconstitutional behavior." [GN] AKAZOO SA: June 23 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP disclosed that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased Akazoo S.A. ("Akazoo" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SONG) securities between September 11, 2019 and April 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). All investors who purchased shares of Akazoo S.A. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in the shares of Akazoo S.A. you may, no later than June 23, 2020, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the shares of Akazoo S.A. The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: -- that Akazoo overstated its revenue, profits, and cash holdings; -- that Akazoo holds significantly lesser music distribution rights than it has stated and implied; -- that as opposed to Akazoo's continued statements, it does not operate in 25 countries; -- that Akazoo has a significantly smaller user base than it states; -- that Akazoo has closed its headquarters and other offices around the world; and -- as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. On April 20, 2020, Quintessential Capital gave a presentation regarding Akazoo, stating that the Company looks like an accounting scheme because its users, subscribers, revenue and profit may be "profoundly overstated." On this news, Akazoo's share price fell as much as $0.71, or over 26%, during intraday trading on April 20, 2020. Akazoo remains halted for trading as of May 11. It last traded on May 1, 2020 at $1.16 per share. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Kevin Cooper, Esq. Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN] ALBERTA: Court Refuses to Award Costs in Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Lyndsey Delamont, Esq. -- ldelamont@mccarthy.ca -- and Sydney Hamilton, Esq. -- syhamilton@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy Tetrault, disclosed that in Elder Advocates of Alberta Society v Alberta, 2020 ABQB 54 ("Elder Advocates"), the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench refused to award costs following trial against the unsuccessful plaintiff class because their claim was in the public interest and promoted access to justice. Background Elder Advocates was a class action commenced by long-term care residents who challenged the Alberta government's ability to charge accommodation fees for long-term care facilities. The Court held that the accommodation charges complied with the Nursing Homes Act, RSA 2000, c N-7, as well as section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment, breach of contract, negligence, bad faith and discrimination (see 2018 ABQB 37). Despite Alberta's success, Justice Ross granted the Plaintiffs' application for a no costs award. Costs Award Costs in a class action are governed, in part, by Rule 10.32 of the Alberta Rules of Court, AR 124/2010, which provides that, when determining whether costs should be awarded against the unsuccessful representative party, the Court may take into account: (a) public interest; (b) whether the action involved a novel point of law; (c) whether the proceeding or action was a test case; and (d) access to justice considerations. Justice Ross held that the public interest, novel point of law and access to justice considerations all weighed in favour of a no costs award. Public Interest Justice Ross noted that this was not a case where a law firm initiated a class action and then sought to recruit plaintiffs. Rather, the class action was brought and maintained at the initiative of an established society that advocated for seniors' rights and on behalf of the class members, namely residents of nursing homes and similar long-term care facilities, who are disadvantaged members of society and who are required to live in these facilities because of their extreme medical needs. Justice Ross concluded that the class action was in the public interest, both with respect to the interests of the class members and the potential to have a broader impact, including by changing government practices relating to charges imposed on residents of long-term care facilities. Novel Point of Law Justice Ross rejected Alberta's argument that the class action was meritless and noted that a claim does not need to be successful in order to have merit. In particular, Justice Ross held that, while guiding principles of statutory interpretation are not novel law, their application in the context of a complex legislative scheme that has not previously been considered by the courts certainly can be novel, and was novel in this case. Therefore, it was necessary for the Plaintiffs to have access to the courts to resolve their claim. Access to Justice Justice Ross found that, although Plaintiffs' counsel had agreed to act pursuant to a contingency agreement and indemnify the class against a costs award, the case was not "lawyer driven" and the Plaintiffs had legitimate concerns about the increase in accommodation fees. The Court held that Plaintiffs' counsel's indemnification should not be given weight in determining whether costs should be awarded against the Plaintiffs, as access to justice should be considered "in the broader context of the effect of a costs award against citizens who seek to resolve matters affecting society generally." Justice Ross ultimately concluded that this factor weighed in favour of the Plaintiffs' position, including because the Defendants' claimed costs were "clearly out of proportion" (over $5M in claimed costs compared to the approximately $10,000 to be gained by each individual Plaintiff had the claim been successful), and would have a chilling effect on future class actions. Key Takeaway Costs awards are always within the discretion of the judge. Elder Advocates emphasizes that public interest and access to justice considerations remain bases on which a court may deny a costs award to a successful class action defendant, particularly where the plaintiffs initiated a class action raising a novel point of law. Justice Ross also specifically cited the Defendants' conduct as a factor in favour of not awarding costs, on the basis that their conduct did not contribute to, and arguably made more difficult, a quick and efficient resolution of the matter. While this position may be difficult for Defendants to reconcile with their right to fully defend a claim (that, here, was ultimately dismissed), it is a reminder that parties should be live to potential cost consequences with respect to their conduct throughout litigation. [GN] ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Faces Redmond Suit Alleging Price Gouging --------------------------------------------------------------- Eleisha Redmond, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., and Does 1-10, Case No. 3:20-cv-03692-JSC (N.D. Cal., June 3, 2020), is brought to hold the Defendants accountable for price gouging at its many grocery stores across the country and throughout California. In the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, since federal, state, and local governments around the country declared states of emergency and issued mandates requiring citizens to stay home and practice social distancing in order to avoid spreading the highly contagious novel coronavirus, which often causes a severe and sometimes fatal respiratory infection, unscrupulous sellers have taken the opportunity to profit from desperate members of the public by gouging prices of essential items--from basic necessities such as toilet paper to personal protective equipment including face masks, hand sanitizer, and cleaning agents and tools that consumers need to protect themselves, the Plaintiff alleges. Not only is such gross misconduct unfair and inhumane, it is a criminal offense that constitutes a per se violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, the Plaintiff contends. Unfortunately, the Defendant sold numerous items far in excess of their pre-pandemic prices, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff made a number of purchases, in the days, weeks, and months after the governor of California declared a state of emergency, for items that Defendant priced far in excess of 10% above the pre-emergency price for such items. For instance, on or about April 13, 2020, the Plaintiff paid $18.99 for Angel Soft toilet paper normally priced at $10-11 at that same Safeway location. The Plaintiff brings this action to hold Defendant liable for its unlawful price increases during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff made a number of purchases from the Safeway located in San Francisco, California. The Defendant owns a large number of supermarket chains under a variety of brands, including Safeway stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Theodore Maya, Esq. Rachel Johnson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com rjohnson@ahdootwolfson.com ALLERGAN INC: Appeals Decision in Restasis MDL to Second Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Allergan Inc. filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated May 5, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled IN RE RESTASIS (CYCLOSPORINE OPHTHALMIC EMULSION) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 18-md-2819, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). The question presented is: Whether the Court should grant Rule 23(f) review where the district court's order certifies a class encompassing tens of thousands of uninjured persons and risks evading end-of-case review because of the size of the classwide claim it creates. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Nina Gershon entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on behalf of: "all persons or entities who indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for Restasis, other than for resale, who made their purchases in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin from May 1, 2015, through the present (in the case of Arkansas only, July 31, 2017), for consumption by themselves, their families, or their members, employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries. In Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, and Vermont, class members are only consumers, not third-party payors." Excluded from the class are: Allergan, its officers, directors, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates; all federal and state government entities except for cities, towns, municipalities, or counties with self-funded prescription drug plans; all persons or entities who purchased Restasis for purposes of resale or directly from Allergan of its affiliates; fully insured health plans, i.e., plans that purchased insurance covering 100 percent of their reimbursement obligations to members; any "flat copay" consumers who purchased Restasis only via a fixed dollar copayment that does not vary on the basis of the drug's status as brand or generic; pharmacy benefit managers; and all judges assigned to this case and their chambers staff and any members of the judges' or chambers staff's immediate families.; 2. appointing Girard Sharp LLP, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc. as co- lead counsel for class plaintiffs, and appointing Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP as liaison counsel for the class; and 3. appointing 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund; 1199SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund; 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund for Home Care Workers; 1199SEIU Licensed Practical Nurses Welfare Fund; American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health and Security Plan; Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Ironworkers Local 383 Health Care Plan; Self-Insured Schools of California; Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund; St. Paul Electrical Workers' Health Plan; and United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund, as class representatives. This multi-district litigation arises out of Defendant Allergan's alleged actions to improperly delay the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in approving generic competitors to its dry-eye medication Restasis(R). The Plaintiffs allege that Allergan engaged in a number of unlawful, anticompetitive measures to delay generic drug manufacturers from entering the market and to allow Allergan to continue charging inflated monopoly prices for Restasis(R). These measures include: (1) filing frivolous citizen petitions with the FDA to delay its approval of generics; (2) defrauding the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) into issuing second-wave patents on Restasis(R) by submitting a false and misleading affidavit; (3) wrongfully listing those patents in the FDA's Orange Book, which delayed the generic approval process; (4) suing generic manufacturers for infringing on those fraudulently obtained patents without a good-faith belief that its suits could succeed; and (5) transferring the patents to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (and then leasing them back) in order to avoid their invalidation by renting the Tribe's sovereign immunity. The appellate case is captioned as IN RE RESTASIS (CYCLOSPORINE OPHTHALMIC EMULSION) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 20-1603, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Petitioner Allergan Inc. is represented by: Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7804 Respondents American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan, et al., are represented by: Adam Gitlin, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 - and - Alfred Luke Smith, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM 34 Sunset Boulevard Long Beach, NJ 08008 Telephone: (267) 570-300 - and - Christina H.C. Sharp, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC 45 West Court Street Doylestown, PA 18901 Telephone: (215) 230-8043 - and - Dan Drachler, Esq. Sona R. Shah, Esq. ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 1904 3rd Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 223-2053 - and - Frank R. Schirripa, Esq. HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP 185 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 213-8311 - and - Bethany R. Turke, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 - and - Mark A. Tamoshunas, Esq. LAW OFFCIES OF MARK TAMOSHUNAS, P.C. 161 Remsen Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 - and - Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP 1625 North Commerce Parkway Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 903-3170 - and - Alfred Luke Smith, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM 34 Sunset Boulevard Long Beach, NJ 08008 Telephone: (267) 570-3000 - and - Lanson Leon Bordelon, Esq. Bonnie Adele Kendrick, Esq. THE DUGAN LAW FIRM 1 Canal Place, 365 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 648-0180 - and - Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 122 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC. 601 California Street San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 - and - Dianne M. Nast, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 923-9300 - and - Kristen Anne Johnson, Esq. David S. Nalven, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway Cambridge, MA 02142 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 - and - Scott Eliot Perwin, Esq. KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A. 1441 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 373-1000 - and - Andrew Erdlen, Esq. HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL PUDLIN & SCHILLER 1 Logan Square Philadelphhia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 568-6200 - and - Christopher Coffin, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP 1100 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 355-0086 ALLERGAN PLC: AbbVie Merger Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the putative class action suit filed against the company, related to AbbVie Inc.'s acquisition has been voluntarily dismissed. On June 25, 2019, the Company and AbbVie Inc. announced that the companies had entered into a definitive transaction agreement whereby AbbVie will acquire the Company in a cash and stock transaction. On September 20, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company by one of its shareholders alleging that the Company and its Board of Directors violated the Securities laws by omitting or misrepresenting material information in the proxy statement the Company filed on September 16, 2019 seeking shareholder approval of the transaction with AbbVie. In addition to the complaint in this action, the Company received a shareholder demand letter from a shareholder following the issuance of the preliminary proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2019. The lawsuit and demand letters were voluntarily dismissed and withdrawn. Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical, and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The Company operates in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International. The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ALLERGAN PLC: Dismissal of Generic Drug Pricing Suit Challenged --------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the ERISA plaintiffs have taken an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals from a district court's decision granting the company's motion to dismiss the complaint in the Generic Drug Pricing Securities and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) Litigation. Putative classes of shareholders and two individual opt-out plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its current and former officers alleging that defendants made materially false and misleading statements between February 2014 and November 2016 regarding the Company's internal controls over its financial reporting and that it failed to disclose that its former Actavis generics unit had engaged in illegal, anticompetitive price-fixing with its generic industry peers. These lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, but the court denied the motion in a ruling on August 6, 2019. The parties are now engaging in discovery in these cases. In addition, class action complaints have been filed premised on the same alleged underlying conduct that is at issue in the securities litigation but that assert claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). These complaints have been consolidated in the district court in New Jersey. The court granted the Company's motion to dismiss this complaint. The ERISA plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical, and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The Company operates in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International. The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ALPHA RECOVERY: Judgment on Pleadings in Sturm Suit Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DONNA A. STURM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALPHA RECOVERY CORP. and OLIPHANT FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-0556 (SJF) (AYS) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Donna Sturm commenced the putative class action against the Defendants, alleging that the latter have used unlawful collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Plaintiff is an individual who is a citizen of New York. Alpha is a Colorado corporation with its principal place of business in Colorado, and Oliphant is a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business in Florida. The Defendants are "debt collectors" as defined by the FDCPA. Plaintiff is alleged to owe a debt for which she fell behind on the payments. The debt was assigned or otherwise transferred to Alpha "at an exact time known only to the Defendants." In their efforts to collect the debt, Alpha sent the Plaintiff the Letter, dated Oct. 13, 2018, which the Plaintiff claims is the initial communication received from the Defendants. The Plaintiff commenced the instant action on Jan. 29, 2019, alleging two causes of action pursuant to the FDCPA on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The first count alleges a violation of § 1692g in that the validation notice contained in the Letter is not conveyed clearly and is overshadowed or contradicted by other language. The complaint alleges, inter alia, that the validation notice is "visually inconspicuous," and that the Letter is structured to make the validation notice difficult to read and easy to overlook, appear as "boilerplate language, and appear unimportant. The second count alleges that the Letter violates Sec. 1692e, which provides that a debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt The Plaintiff claims that the Letter violates this section since she does not owe money to, never contracted with, never incurred a debt to, and does not have an account with Oliphant. The Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff opposes the motion in its entirety. The Plaintiff does not challenge the sufficiency of the validation notice but rather claims it was overshadowed by other parts of the Letter. Although not apparent from the Complaint, the Plaintiff in opposition to the motion identifies the violation of Section 1692g as "the Letter's direction to the Plaintiff to 'see reverse for important information'-- where the validation language was not -- which operates to divert the Plaintiff's attention from her most important rights-- that being her right to dispute the debt. She argues that this instruction overshadows the validation notice appearing on the front side of the Letter. Judge Feuerstein holds that the Plaintiff's contention that the validation notice is overshadowed by other portions of the Letter is also without merit. The only bold-faced type is used in the box at the top of the Letter and consists only of factual information that in no way impacts the debtor's validation rights. To the extent the reverse side information addresses federal rights, it only reiterates the prohibition on a debt collector's harassing behavior including the use of threats of violence or arrest, or the use of obscene language. There is simply no language on the reverse side that pertains to a debtor's rights as set forth in the Section 1692g notice, and thus no basis for a reasonable consumer to be uncertain of her rights as set forth in the body of the Letter. The Judge finds no inconsistency or overshadowing impacting the Letter's clear validation notice. The Judge has reviewed the cases cited by the Plaintiff and finds them to be either lacking in relevance or unpersuasive. The Plaintiff alleges that the Letter's statement that she owed money to Oliphant was a false representation of the character, amount, or legal status of any debt in violation of Section 1692e(2)(A), and that the Letter's request for payment of a debt she did not owe constituted a false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt in violation of Section 1692e(10). The Defendants argue that there is no false representation in the Letter since it expressly advises that Oliphant purchased the debt from Evine and is thus the current creditor. Utilizing the validation procedures set forth in Section 1692g may have resolved this issue short of the time and expense of litigation. Be that as it may, the Plaintiff's failure to avail herself of those procedures is not a bar to suit as the FDCPA's text does not make consumer exhaustion of Section 1692g dispute procedures a condition precedent to a consumer Section 1692e claim. Assuming the allegations of the complaint to be true, the Plaintiff has stated a claim under Section 1692e and accordingly the motion to dismiss the claim is denied. For all the foregoing reasons, Judge Feuerstein granted the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Plaintiff's first claim pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g; and denied as to the Plaintiff's second claim pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 6, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/901vmA from Leagle.com. Donna A. Sturm, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Craig B. Sanders -- csanders@barshaysanders.com -- Barshay Sanders, PLLC, David M. Barshay, Barshay Sanders, PLLC, Erica Carvajal, Sanders Law LLC, Jacob Silver, Jacob Silver, Attorney At Law, Jitesh Dudani, Barshay Sanders PLLC & Jonathan Mark Cader -- jcader@sbglawny.com -- Barshay Sanders, PLLC. Alpha Recovery Corp, Defendant, represented by Cindy D. Salvo -- csalvo@salvolawfirm.com -- The Salvo Law Firm, P.C. Oliphant Financial, LLC, Defendant, represented by Arthur Sanders -- asanders@bn-lawyers.com -- Barron & Newburger, P.C. & Cindy D. Salvo, The Salvo Law Firm, P.C. AM NET SERVICES: Crockett et al. Seek OT Pay for RF Engineers ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL CROCKETT and PATRICK IVLOW-PAQUETTE on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated PLAINTIFFS, v. AM NET SERVICES, INC. and CROSSLINK WIRELESS, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00417-JTM (W.D. Mo., May 29, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiffs action against Defendants for unpaid wages overtime compensation and related penalties and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants' practices and policies misclassify employees as independent contractors, and willfully fail and refuse to properly pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, for all hours worked in violation of federal and state mandated overtime wages. Plaintiffs currently work for Defendants as RF Engineers since approximately 2017. Am Net Services, Inc. is a New Jersey-based telecommunication and technology company dedicated to providing engineering solutions and technology consulting services. Crosslink Wireless, L.L.C. is a New Jersey-based company that provides service solutions for telecommunication networks.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan M. Paulus, Esq. Brittany C. Mehl, Esq. CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM 5821 NW 72nd Street Kansas City, MO 64151 Telephone: (816) 581-4040 Facsimile: (816) 741-8889 Email: r.paulus@cornerstonefirm.com b.mehl@cornerstonefirm.com AMAZON INC: Settles Security Search Class Action for $11 Million ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Burden, writing for HRDive, reports that Amazon has agreed to pay $11 million to settle a class action lawsuit filed by California workers alleging they should have been paid for time spent during mandatory security searches. The parties said the proposal "represents the remainder" of a wage and hour lawsuit filed in 2013 (In re: Amazon.com, Inc., Fulfillment Center Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wage and Hour Litigation in relation to Saldana v. Amazon.com, LLC, No. 3:14-md-2504 (W.D. Ky., April 30, 2020)). The class of 200,000 non-exempt, hourly warehouse workers said the online retailer violated California labor laws when it failed to pay them for mandatory security searches lasting up to 30 minutes after they clocked out, both for meals and at the end of their shifts. The workers also alleged Amazon failed to provide accurate wage statements and did not pay all wages owed when workers left the company. The parties asked the court to sign off on the proposed settlement. Amazon did not respond to request for comment by publishing time. Dive Insight: California law generally provides stronger protection for workers than federal wage and hour law. For example, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the federal "de minimis" standard didn't apply in two cases involving off-the-clock exit inspections at Nike and Converse. Employers in the state are increasingly facing such claims. Earlier this year, the state's Supreme Court ruled that Apple had to pay employees for time spent waiting on bag checks. The California court said the state requires compensation when employees are subject to an employer's control and that the time Apple employees spent waiting for and undergoing security checks clearly qualified. In a settlement reached around the same time, Ulta agreed to pay $1.75 million to settle four class action lawsuits alleging it violated California law by requiring employees to submit to security checks and other work tasks off the clock. Similarly, Big Lots Stores paid $7 million late last year to end a class action post-shift waiting time suit under California law. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that they were forced to undergo unpaid security checks at the end of their shifts. Dick's Sporting Goods also recently paid out $2.9 million to a class of nearly 11,000 current and former employees in California who, like the Nike and Converse employees, claimed they were required to undergo off-the-clock security checks. The U.S. Department of Labor offers guidance on compensable working time under federal law, but employers may need to consider applicable state and local mandates, too. [GN] AMERANT BANK: Full Compliance et al. Seek Pay for PPP Loan Agents ----------------------------------------------------------------- FULL COMPLIANCE, LLC and ZAMORA & HERNANDEZ, PLLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERANT BANK, N.A.; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BANKUNITED, N.A.; CAMBRIDGE TRUST COMPANY; CELTIC BANK CORP. d/b/a CELTIC BANK; CIBC BANK USA; FIRST CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY; FIRST HORIZON BANK; GROVE BANK & TRUST; INTERAMERICAN BANK, A FSB; J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; LIVE OAK BANKING COMPANY; OCEAN BANK; PARADISE BANK; PROFESSIONAL BANK; REGIONS BANK; TD BANK, N.A.; TRUIST BANK; VALLEY NATIONAL BANK; and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-22339-JEM (S.D. Fla., June 5, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust enrichment, conversion, and violations of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Regulations. According to the complaint, the Defendants have either failed and refused to pay, or are willing to pay only a partial percentage of, the monies owed in agent fees to the Plaintiffs and all others similarly-situated agents in the Federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) despite the work performed by the Plaintiffs and other agents in assisting the borrowers in securing their PPP loans. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants retain for themselves all of the statutory fees allotted by the Government for agents as part of the PPP scheme. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful acts, the Plaintiffs and the Class Members are not being compensated for their work and for their valuable and necessary contribution to the PPP as intended by Congress. Full Compliance, LLC is a provider of accounting, tax, bookkeeping, payroll and consulting services with a principal place of business located in Coral Gables, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Zamora & Hernandez, PLLC is a provider of a broad range of tax, accounting, and consulting services with a principal place of business located in Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Amerant Bank, N.A. is a federally-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Coral Gables, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Bank of America, N.A. is a federally-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Charlotte, North Carolina. Celtic Bank Corporation, d/b/a Celtic Bank, is a state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Salt Lake City, Utah. First Citizens Bank & Trust Company is a state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Raleigh, North Carolina. TD Bank, N.A. is a federally-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. BankUnited, N.A. is a federally-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Miami Lakes, Florida. Cambridge Trust Company is a state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. CIBC Bank USA is a state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Chicago, Illinois. First Horizon Bank is a state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in in Memphis, Tennessee. Grove Bank & Trust is a state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Interamerican Bank, a FSB, is a federally-chartered savings banking institution with its headquarters located in Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a federally-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in New York, New York. Live Oak Banking Company is a state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Wilmington, North Carolina. Ocean Bank is a state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Paradise Bank is a state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Boca Raton, Florida. Professional Bank is a state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Coral Gables, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Regions Bank is a state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Birmingham, Alabama. Truist Bank is a state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Charlotte, North Carolina. Valley National Bank is a federally-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Passaic, New Jersey. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a federally-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael S. Popok, Esq. Mitchell G. Mandell, Esq. ZUMPANO PATRICIOS & POPOK, PLLC 417 Fifth Avenue, Suite 826 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 381-9999 Facsimile: (212) 320-0332 - and – Michael S. Popok, Esq. Mitchell G. Mandell, Esq. ZUMPANO PATRICIOS, P.A. 312 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 444-5565 Facsimile: (305) 444-8588 - and – Mark Geragos, Esq. Ben Meiselas, Esq. GERAGOS & GERAGOS, PC 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 625-3900 Facsimile: (213) 232-3255 - and – Michael E. Adler, Esq. GRAYLAW GROUP, INC. 26500 Agoura Road, #102-127 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 532-2833 Facsimile: (818) 532-2834 - and – Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq. Nitoj P. Singh, Esq. DHILLON LAW GROUP INC. 177 Post St., Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 433-1700 Facsimile: (415) 520-6593 AMERICAN AIRLINES: Parties Must Sharpen Class Action Arguments -------------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the parties to a lawsuit accusing American Airlines Inc. of miscalculating certain retirees' pension benefits must sharpen their legal arguments before a federal judge in Texas will decide whether the case can proceed as a class action. Judge Reed C. O'Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ordered both the airline and a proposed class of retirees to submit new briefs providing legal citations for their "diametrically opposed positions." O'Connor's May 8 order chided both parties for relying on "conclusory statements and what they assert is commonplace and obvious." [GN] ATOSC GROUP: Fowler Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Security Guards ------------------------------------------------------------- ROYCE FOWLER, individually and on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. ATOSC GROUP, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00456 (M.D. Tenn., May 29, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged unlawful pay practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid security guard. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly-paid security guards routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week performing security services for Defendant. However, Defendant willfully failed to properly pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and those similarly situated by automatically deducting 30 minute meal periods and not paying "off the clock" holdover times. ATOSC Group, LLC provides security services to companies, businesses, institutions and government entities in Tennessee, Texas, Georgia and other states. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 754-8524 Emails: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com AURORA EXPEITIONS: Greg Mortimer Passengers Launch Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Hamish Goodall, writing for Sunrise, reports that an Australian law firm is launching a class action against a luxury cruise liner after 128 of the 217 people on board became infected with COVID-19. The Greg Mortimer set sail for Antarctica from Argentina on March 15, four days after coronavirus was declared a pandemic. At the time, the federal government had banned flights from China and recommended Australians avoid non-essential travel. "Four days after a global pandemic was declared by the World Health Organisation, they set off on this cruise, which was extremely dangerous," Larry Dent from Arnold Thomas & Becker Lawyers said on Sunrise. "They also reassured the passengers, even hours before the cruise left, that everything was safe when clearly it wasn't." "They were told that if they did cancel, the normal policy would apply and that they would lose their money." A passenger started displaying flu-like symptoms after one week at sea, prompting the Greg Mortimer to change course and head towards Uruguay. Holidaymakers, who had paid more than $50,000 each for the cruise, were instructed to stay in their cabins. On March 27, Uruguayan authorities allowed the ship to anchor in its waters and it was not until April 10 that passengers were able to to disembark and catch a medevac flight home. Seventy per cent of the 112 Australians and New Zealanders who stepped off the repatriation flight at Melbourne Airport tested positive for COVID-19. The ship's operator, Sydney-based Aurora Expeditions, has now been accused of "endangering the safety" of the 217 people on board by allowing the vessel to leave and for forcing passengers to self-isolate in their cabins for more than two weeks. [GN] AXIS REINSURANCE: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Court Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Larry P. Schiffer, Esq. -- larry.schiffer@squirepb.com -- of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that successive lawsuits with similar facts often give rise to fights between insurers over which insurance policy must defend the lawsuit. Why? Because many insurance policies have provisions that define losses to include those that relate to an earlier claim. This may mean that if a claim was brought two years ago and noticed to that policy, a subsequent claim brought two years later would relate back to the original claim and would be the responsibility of the original carrier to defend. Recently, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals addressed this issue. In Northrup Grumman Corp. v. Axis Reinsurance Co., No. 19-1949 (3rd Cir. Apr. 22, 2020), the insured purchased towers of insurance policies to cover potential liabilities arising out of its fiduciary obligations in sponsoring retirement plans for its employees. There was a primary insurer each year and several excess insurers each year. The excess policies followed form to the primary policies. The towers had a large self-insured retention, after which the primary policy would kick in and then the excess policies as each attachment point was reached. The policies also had a prior notice exclusion and a relation-back clause. The prior notice exclusion disclaimed coverage for claims arising out of the same or related wrongful act in any claim reported to a prior policy. The relation-back clause provided that coverage was provided for any subsequent claim alleging a wrongful act that is the same as or related to any wrongful act alleged in the original claim. In this case, there were two class actions filed alleging breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The one filed in 2006 alleged claims of "fee capture," excessive fees, and pay-for-play. The class and discovery periods were limited to 2009, so a second class action was filed to pick up claims and issues after 2009. The second action had some different defendants because of personnel changes, was more narrowly drawn because of years of discovery and fewer retirement plans, and focused on the following claims: "fee-capture" (on a different basis), active management, and record-keeping fees. When the second class action was filed, the insured presented it to the current tower of insurance. The primary carrier denied coverage, arguing that the factual relationship between the wrongful acts in the two actions triggered the prior notice exclusion and the earlier policy's relation-back clause. When the insured filed the claim with the relevant excess insurer on the earlier insurance tower, that insurer disclaimed coverage reading the clauses differently. So the insured sued both carriers seeking a declaration that one of them was responsible to cover the second class action. The district court found that the earlier tower of insurance had to cover the later class action, finding the cases related. The insurer responsible in the earlier tower appealed. The circuit court affirmed, holding that while "[s]ome allegations in the two class actions are like siblings; others are more like cousins. But all of them belong to the same family." In affirming, the court only addressed the duty to defend. The court reviewed the record for a causal or logical relationship between the alleged wrongful acts in both class actions. Based on its review, the court concluded that each of the wrongful acts alleged in the second class action related to wrongful acts alleged in the first class action. The full analysis is laid out in the opinion. The court also found that there was significant overlap between the defendants and that the wrongful acts alleged in the second action began during the earlier action's class period and were the logical descendants into the second class period. Thus, the court found that the duty to defend the second action was shifted from the later insurance tower to the earlier insurance tower because of the relation-back provision. [GN] AZ MOBILE: McCotter Sues Over Robocalls, Spam Text Ads ------------------------------------------------------ TANIKA MCCOTTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AZ MOBILE APPLICATIONS, LLC, a California company, Case No. 2:20-cv-00951-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal., May 11, 2020) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant to stop it from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and North Carolina Telephone Privacy Protection Act by sending unsolicited autodialed text messages to consumers and making unsolicited prerecorded voice calls to consumers, including to consumers whose phone numbers are registered on the national Do Not Call registry, and to otherwise obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by AZ Mobile’s conduct. Plaintiff has never provided her consent to Defendant to send her text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system, to call her using a prerecorded voice, or to otherwise contact her. The Defendant's unsolicited call and texts were a nuisance that aggravated Plaintiff, wasted her time, invaded her privacy, diminished the value of the cellular services she paid for, caused her to temporarily lose the use and enjoyment of her phone, and caused wear and tear to her phone's data, memory, software, hardware, and battery components. AZ Mobile Applications, LLC is a company that provides marketing tools for businesses, including lead generation tools for car dealers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com AZORIO LLC: Ginsberg Says Dietary Supplement Mislabeled ------------------------------------------------------- CORI ANN GINSBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AZORIO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-22329-CMA (S.D. Fla., June 4, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and fitness, breach of express warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated consumers who purchased S-adenosylmethionine (SAMe) dietary supplement capsules from the Defendant on Amazon.com, alleges that Azorio falsely labeled its dietary supplement products, including Naturetition Supplements, PureControl Supplements, and Earth Natural Supplements, to contain 1500 milligrams of SAMe per serving, when, in reality, the products contain less than 25% of that claimed amount of active SAMe. The Defendant's deceptive conduct misled consumers, including the Plaintiff, into purchasing Azorio's SAMe dietary supplement capsules under false pretenses instead of selecting other accurately labeled SAMe supplements available for purchase on Amazon.com and in the rest of the market. The false claims may also lead to significant injury or health concerns to unknowing purchasers who rely on the accuracy of the advertised amount of SAMe to make informed purchasing decisions and consume a proper dosage of the dietary supplements. Azorio, LLC is an independent company which sells vitamins and nutritional supplements on Amazon.com. It maintains a principal place of business at 333 Kendall Drive, Marco Island, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tod Aronovitz, Esq. Barbara Perez, Esq. ARONOVITZ LAW Town Center One, Suite 2201 8950 SW 74 Court Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 372-2772 E-mail: ta@aronovitzlaw.com bp@aronovitzlaw.com - and – Dennis G. Pantazis, Esq. D.G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0500 Facsimile: (205) 254-1500 E-mail: dgp@wigginschilds.com dgpjr@wigginschilds.com BALL STATE UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Suit Seeking Tuition Fee Refund ------------------------------------------------------------------ Seth Slabaugh, writing for Muncie Star Press, reports that Attorney Eric S. Pavlack has an answer for anyone who thinks he's taking advantage of the coronavirus pandemic by suing Ball State University for sending students home and transitioning to an online school: You could ask Ball State the very same thing. Why is it shifting the financial burden onto its students for not getting what they paid for? Somebody has to bear the burden. Why should it be the students? Pavlack has added Ball State to the list of universities around the country that are being sued for recovery of tuition and fees. "We have decided not to refund tuition because, through our prompt and effective transition to remote learning and other alternative teaching and learning activities, our faculty and staff enabled our students to complete their courses and continue making satisfactory progress toward earning their degrees," BSU spokesperson Kathy Wolf told The Star Press. But while there are fully online universities, BSU isn't one of them, Pavlack noted in an interview. By comparison, classes Ball State taught after closing down campus in spring semester "were not online by design," the attorney said. "They were online by necessity." Pavlack said he has heard from students who call the virtual classes "a poor substitute for the in-person instruction they paid for, not to mention the recreational fees . . . and all sorts of other fees they paid for." Because of its access to financial relief from its endowment, state government and federal government, "Ball State is in a better position than students to deal with this," Pavlack said. The lawsuit against Ball State was filed on behalf of Keller Mellowitz, a Ball State junior from Marion County whose undergraduate focus is legal studies. The complaint was brought in Marion County Superior Court Civil Division 14 as a proposed class action -- on grounds that "the pursuit of thousands of individual lawsuits would not be economically feasible for individual proposed class members and would cause strain on judicial resources, yet each proposed class member would be required to prove an identical set of facts in order to recover damages." The case alleges breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Regardless of the reason why, there is no question that the students paid for something they didn't get -- in-person classes -- the lawsuit claims. Pavlack, an Indianapolis attorney, compares Ball State's alleged breach of contract to fitness centers not suspending billing after closing their clubs due to the coronavirus. Some of those centers have stopped billing members but others have continued to do so, resulting in lawsuits. In addition, the lawsuit against BSU goes on to say closing campus deprived students of access to services for which fees were paid, including transportation, recreation and the health center. "We will respond to the complaint through the appropriate legal processes," said Wolf, BSU's spokesperson. The suit doesn't seek damages related to students being evicted from their residence halls. "With respect to housing and dining . . . we decided to offer credits and refunds to our students because we were not able to provide comparable services," Wolf said. Indiana and Purdue universities are among many other schools facing similar lawsuits. Indiana University accuses lawyers of taking advantage of the coronavirus crisis. "In the midst of a global pandemic that has wreaked havoc on our entire way of life, Indiana University has acted responsibly to keep our students safe and progressing in their education," Chuck Carney, a spokesperson at IU, was quoted as saying. "We are deeply disappointed that this lawsuit fails to recognize the extraordinary efforts of our faculty, staff, and students under these conditions while it seeks to take advantage in this time of state and national emergency." Ball State recently asked in a Facebook post: "Ready to become a Ball State Cardinal? You have until June 1 to confirm your enrollment." To which Jennifer Hope Waiz responded, "If you could give an update on refunds, that would be incredibly helpful. Parents would like to know what you are doing for credits or refunds? How you have figured the amount?" On May 11, she told The Star Press that Ball State told her if she was late making her son's monthly tuition payment a late fee would be added. "No mention of any credit for the subpar online education or lack of campus facilities to help with their education," she said. [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Provide COBRA Notice, Rodriguez Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Sheila Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Case No. 8:20-cv-01272 (M.D. Fla., June 3, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, by failing to provide a timely COBRA notice that complies with the law. Despite having access to the Department of Labor's Model COBRA form, BOA chose not to use the model form--presumably to save BOA money by pushing terminated employees away from electing COBRA Put another way, instead of utilizing the DOL Model Notice and sending a single COBRA notice "written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan participant" containing all required by law, to save money BOA instead opted to break the information into multiple documents, mailed separately under different cover, containing bits and pieces of information on COBRA, both of which are still missing critical information, the Plaintiff alleges. In fact, the DOL Model Notice was designed to avoid precisely the issues caused by BOA's confusing and piecemeal COBRA rights notification process, according to the complaint. The deficient COBRA notices at issue in this lawsuit both confused and misled the Plaintiff. The Notice also caused the Plaintiff economic injuries in the form of lost health insurance and unpaid medical bills, as well as informational injuries. According to the complaint, BOA, the plan sponsor and plan administrator of the BOA Welfare Plan ("Plan"), has repeatedly violated ERISA by failing to provide participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice, as prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health coverage upon the occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by the statute. The Defendant's COBRA notice and process violates the law. Rather than including all information required by law in a single notice, written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan participant, the Defendant's COBRA notification process instead offers only part of the legally required information in haphazard and piece-meal fashion. The Plaintiff suffered a tangible injury in the form of economic loss, specifically the loss of insurance coverage and incurred medical bills, due to BOA deficient COBRA forms, says the complaint. In addition to a paycheck, health insurance is one of the most valuable things employees get in exchange for working for an employer like BOA. Insurance coverage has a monetary value, the loss of which is a tangible and an economic injury. And, not only did the Plaintiff lose her insurance coverage, after the Plaintiff lost her insurance she incurred medical bills resulting in further economic injury. The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant. She was covered under the Defendant's Health Plan, making her a participant/beneficiary under the Plan. The Defendant is a foreign corporation but is registered to do business in the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. George G. Triantis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: 813-223-5505 Fax: 813-257-0572 Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com GTriantis@forthepeople.com BEK ENTERPRISES: Underpays General Laborers, Lloyd Claims --------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM LLOYD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEK ENTERPRISES, INC. and ASHLEE GRAVES, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01442 (E.D. La., May 13, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for their alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a general laborer in Defendant's construction and landscape businesses from approximately May or June 2019 to April 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated general laborers, who were employed by Defendants over the past three years, were required by Defendants to work over 40 hours in a workweek. However, because Defendants have a common policy of paying their employees straight-time for all hours worked with no overtime pay, Defendants failed to pay them overtime at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours they worked in excess of 40 hours each week. Ashlee Graves is the owner and operator of BEK and has had control over BEK's personnel and payroll decisions. BEK Enterprises, Inc. is a contractor providing construction and landscaping services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. Amanda E. McGowen, Esq. BOHRER BRADY LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Ste. B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Tel: 225-925-5297 Fax: 225-231-7000 Emails: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com amcgowen@bohrerbrady.com BELLICUM PHARMA: Kakkar Putative Class Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on June 3, 2020, that the purported class action suit entitled, Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair and Alan Musso, has been dismissed. On May 29, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division granted the Company's motion to dismiss with prejudice in the purported class action complaint filed on February 6, 2018 against the Company and certain of its current and former employees, captioned Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair and Alan Musso. The complaint alleged that the Company and members of its management violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements. The court’s written order dismissed the case in its entirety with prejudice, resulting in a termination of all claims. The plaintiffs have not indicated whether they will appeal the dismissal. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on discovering and developing novel cellular immunotherapies for the treatment of hematological cancers, solid tumors, and orphan inherited blood disorders in the United States and internationally. Bellicum was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. BILLINGS, MT: Certification of 3 Classes in Houser Suit Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TERRY HOUSER, CLAYTON FISCUS, TERRY ODEGARD, MAE WOO, THOMAS ZURBUCHEN, KATHRYN ZURBUCHEN, ROGER WEBB, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. CITY OF BILLINGS, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. DA 19-0277 (Mont.), the Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the district court order certifying three classes of more than 30,000 Billings ratepayers who challenge certain "franchise fees" that the City imposed on water, wastewater, and solid waste disposal services. In 1992, the City enacted and imposed franchise fees on several city services. The fees were based on various city regulations and City Council resolutions. The City ceased imposing the franchise fees in 2018. The Ratepayers sued the City, contending that the fees constituted unlawful sales taxes. The complaint alleged breach of contract and constitutional due process violations and sought restitution. The Ratepayers sought class action certification for those similarly situated persons who paid the water and wastewater fees since Jan. 18, 2010, and the solid waste disposal fees since July 1, 2012; the District Court granted their motion on April 10, 2019. After examining the requirements of M. R. Civ. P. 23, the District Court certified three classes: a. Water Class: All persons or entities who paid monthly metered water charges and were charged franchise fees under Sections 16-2 and 16-11 of the City of Billings Rules and Regulations Governing Water and Wastewater Service since Jan. 18, 2010. b. Wastewater Class: All persons or entities who paid monthly wastewater charges and were charged franchise fees under Sections 16-6 and 16-11 of the City of Billings Rules and Regulations Governing Water and Wastewater Service since Jan. 18, 2010. c. Solid Waste Disposal Class: All persons or entities who paid solid waste disposal charges and were charged franchise fees under Section 21-226 of the City of Billings Solid Waste Collection Code and City Resolution[s] 12-19179, 13-19277, 14-10349, 15-10460, 16-10560, and 17-10635 since July 1, 2012. The City appeals the District Court's order. The City disputes only the commonality factor of Rule 23(a). It argues that the District Court abused its discretion when it found that the "questions of law or fact" were common to the class. The City argued that there is no commonality because: (1) the Water Class included members who were barred from the claim by the statute of limitations and thus were not "common to the class"; and (2) the District Court failed to exclude from the certified classes those claims derived from the City's legislative acts for which the City has legislative immunity. The Supreme Court holds that in McDonald v. Washington, the Court upheld class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) because the question whether the defendant was generally liable for failing to provide adequate quality water and services predominated over questions of individual damages and individual causation. Unlike in McDonald, the City does not point to any concerns regarding individual liability claims preventing class certification. Instead, the same legal question common to all the class members -- the City's potential legislative immunity -- predominates over any questions affecting only individual members. The determination whether the City is liable will be uniform for all the members. The District Court did not abuse its discretion when it certified the classes under Rule 23(b)(3), the Supreme Court finds. For these reasons, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling on class certification. A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's March 3, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/usL3mR from Leagle.com. Doug James -- Doug.James@moultonbellingham.com -- Ariel Overstreet-Adkins, Moulton Bellingham PC, Billings, Montana, for Appellant. Kristen G. Juras, Attorney at Law, Great Falls, Montana. Matthew G. Monforton -- matthewmonforton@yahoo.com -- Monforton Law Offices, PLLC, Bozeman, Montana, for Appellees. BILLY RANDALL: Faces Brantley Suit Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOYCELYN BRANTLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated PLAINTIFF vs. BILLY RANDALL MACHEN DDS, PA, and BILLY RANDALL MACHEN DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:20-cv-00502-LPR (E.D. Ark., May 12, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA") for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated a lawful minimum wage and an overtime premium as required by the FLSA and the AMWA. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid dental assistant from around March of 2019 until April of 2020. Billy Randall Machen DDS, PA is an Arkansas-based dental care company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tess Bradford, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501} 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: tess@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com BIMBO BAKERIES: Misclassifies Distributors, Harrington Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, JOSHUA HARRINGTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., and BIMBO FOODS BAKERIES DISTRIBUTION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00084-GWC (D. Vt., June 3, 2020) challenges Defendants' alleged unlawful misclassification of their employees in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Vermont's Wage Laws. Plaintiff worked with Defendant to deliver and distribute breads and baked goods from approximately June 2006 to December 2016. Plaintiff claims that he often worked in excess of 60 hours per week during his tenure working for Defendants. But, Defendants do not provide any overtime premium for those hours worked over 40 each week. The complaint asserts that Defendants: -- misclassified Plaintiff and other similarly situated distributors as independent contractors rather than employees; -- unlawfully deprived them of the wage treatment and benefits accorded employees; and -- failed to reimburse them for work-related expenses they incurred. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. and Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC delivers breads and baked goods to grocery stores and other outlets across the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Geoffrey R. Bok, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GEOFFREY BOK 1938 East Craftsbury Road Craftsbury, VT 05826 Tel: (802) 586-2334 Fax: (802) 419-8334 Email: geoffreybok@gmail.com - and - Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Matthew W. Thomson, Esq. Zachary L. Rubin, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Tel: (617) 994-5800 Fax: (617) 994-5801 Emails: hlichten@llrlaw.com mthomson@llrlaw.com zrubin@llrlaw.com BLACKSTONE LABS: Food Supplements Unsafe , Quidera Says ------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD QUIDERA and JEREMY CAVOLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. BLACKSTONE LABS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 9:20-cv-80898-RAR (S.D. Fla., June 4, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and the New York General Business Law. The Plaintiffs seek to represent similarly-situated purchasers of the Defendant's Dust X and Arson supplements containing the stimulant dimethyl hexylamine (DMHA). The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violates the law by manufacturing and distributing supplements containing the stimulant DMHA, an ingredient which is illegal and is not generally recognized among experts to be safe under the conditions of its intended use, and for failing to disclose to consumers that the supplements contain an illegal and unsafe ingredient. The supplements were originally manufactured with an ingredient called dimethylamylamine (DMAA) but were stopped after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and a federal court in Georgia determined it to be illegal stimulant ingredient. The Defendant has used a compound called DMHA as replacement of DMAA but as it pertains to legality and safety, there is no difference between the two compounds. The Plaintiffs and Class members were never informed about the serious health implications of the supplements containing DMHA ingredient. The Defendant knew that DMHA carries the same risks and dangers of the previously banned ingredient DMAA, but included DMHA in its products nonetheless. Had the Defendant disclosed that the supplements were unsafe and illegal, the Plaintiffs and Class members would have been aware and would not have purchased the products. Blackstone Labs, LLC is a distributor and seller of supplements in the U.S. with its principal place of business located at 1120 Holland Dr., Ste. 14, Boca Raton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave., Ste. 1420 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: scott@bursor.com swestcot@bursor.com - and – Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 7th Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7126 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com BNSF RAILWAY: Court Orders Macias to File 3rd Amended Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Leticia Macias, Elizabeth Magana Zamora, San Juanita Schneider, Ashley Negrete, and Juan Carlos Vasquez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BNSF Railway Company; Miles Leasing, LLC; Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas; Terminal Consolidation Co.; Amino Bros. Co., Inc.; and Jane/John Doe Construction Companies, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-2305-JWL (D. Kan.), Judge John W. Lungstrum of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas ordered the Plaintiffs to file their third amended complaint. On Feb. 6, 2020, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to show cause why the court should not dismiss their amended complaint against all the Defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on their failure to plead that they have satisfied the notice requirements of the Kansas Tort Claims Act, and their failure to plead sufficient facts from which CAFA jurisdiction might be inferred. In that order, the Court also advised the Plaintiffs to cure the facially overbroad class definition set forth in their amended complaint. Finally, it directed them to attach to their response any proposed amended complaint that they would intend to file if the Court accepted their response to the show cause order. In paragraph 30 of their response to the show cause order, the Plaintiffs articulated a theory of damages in excess of $5 million. In paragraph 31 of their response to the show cause order, the Plaintiffs have attempted to explain why they believe that the putative class has approximately 150 members. Nonetheless, while the Plaintiffs have at least articulated a theory as to why CAFA jurisdiction is appropriate in the case, they have totally failed to include any of those allegations in the proposed third amended complaint attached to their response nor included any other facts from which CAFA jurisdiction may be inferred. They have further failed to plead (and have failed to mention in their response to the show cause order) that they have satisfied the notice requirements of the Kansas Tort Claims Act and have failed to amend the class definition in any way, the Court says. In fact, the proposed amended complaint attached to their response is identical to the one attached to their motion for leave to file an amended complaint that the court flatly rejected based on the deficiencies outlined in the order to show cause. The decision by the Plaintiffs' counsel to submit the same deficient draft of their complaint is frustrating to the Court and an incredibly inefficient way to process the claims of his clients. Nonetheless, to ensure that the Plaintiffs are not unduly prejudiced by their counsel's failure to abide by the Court's order, the Court permitted the Plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint on March 18, 2020. The Plaintiff's counsel was strongly advised to include in that third amended complaint sufficient facts from which CAFA jurisdiction may be inferred and facts indicating that the notice requirements of the KTCA have been satisfied -- information which should be readily available to the Plaintiffs and not at all onerous to include in their third amended complaint. The Defendants may challenge the third amended complaint as they deem appropriate. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 3, 2020 Memorandum & Order is available at https://is.gd/dO3wqb from Leagle.com. Leticia Macias, on behalf of self and all others similarly situated, Elizabeth Magana Zamora, on behalf of self and all others similarly situated, San Juanita Schneider, on behalf of self and all others similarly situated, Ashley Negrete, on behalf of self and all others similarly situated & Juan Carlos Vasquez, on behalf of self and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Gerald Lee Cross, Jr. -- lcross@cross-lawfirm.com -- Cross Law Firm, LLC. BNSF Railway Company, Defendant, represented by Carson M. Hinderks -- CHINDERKS@BERKOWITZOLIVER.COM -- Berkowitz Oliver, LLP, Jennifer B. Wieland -- JWIELAND@BERKOWITZOLIVER.COM -- Berkowitz Oliver, LLP & Thomas P. Schult -- TSCHULT@BERKOWITZOLIVER.COM -- Berkowitz Oliver, LLP. Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas, Defendant, represented by Daniel E. Kuhn, Unified Government of Wyandotte County & Susan Alig, Unified Government of Wyandotte County. Terminal Consolidation Company, Defendant, represented by Angela M. Higgins, Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, John E. Patterson, Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC & Shawn M. Rogers, Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC. Amino Bros. Co, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ellen ChristinaTolsma Mathis, Simpson, Logback, Lynch, Norris, PA, pro hac vice & Jeffrey A. Bullins, Simpson, Logback, Lynch, Norris, PA. BOOKING HOLDINGS: Agoda Promotes Phantom Discounts, Martinez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID E. MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOOKING HOLDINGS, INC.; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2020-00018413-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., June 3, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendant's dissemination of false and misleading advertising messages, correct the false and misleading perception those messages have created in the minds of consumers, and obtain redress for those who have reserved hotel rooms from or through Defendant. According to the complaint, the Defendant made false advertising, through its "Agoda" branded travel website and app, of (1) phantom "discounts" on rates for hotel rooms and (2) a false urgency through fake deadlines by which the fake discounts will allegedly expire, as well as faked scarcity of those discounted rooms. With respect to rates, the Defendant has a uniform policy and practice of claiming fake discounts. It does this by, among other ways, expressly claiming that rooms are "discounted" and by listing an arbitrary and fake base price (which it calls the "original price"), which purports to be the price at which the room is ordinarily rented to consumers. The fake original prices are in fact significantly higher than the true prices at which the rooms are ordinarily rented. With respect to urgency, the Defendant, first, falsely states that the "discounted" rate is only available for a very limited time, such as "TODAY," when in fact such rates are available longer. Defendant also routinely claims that there are only a limited number of rooms left. These statements -- totally made up by Defendant -- are made with great specificity to increase their believability. These deceptive policies and practices were, and continue to be, consistently and uniformly deployed by Defendant on its agoda.com website and Agoda mobile app and serve as Defendant's primary method of selling hotel rooms to consumers and gaining a foothold for competitive success versus its rivals. Booking Holdings Inc. operates as an online travel company. The Company offers a platform that allows to make travel reservations with providers of travel services, as well as provides accommodation reservations, rentals cars, airline tickets, and vacation packages. Booking Holdings serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex M. Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: craig@nicholaslaw.org alex@nicholaslaw.org - and - Marc Phelps, Esq. PHELPS LAW GROUP 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 629-2533 Facsimile: (949) 629-2501 - and – Roger R. Carter, Esq. Bianca A. Sofonio, Esq. THE CARTER LAW FIRM 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 245-7500 BOSCH SOLAR: Court Denies Relief From Protective Order in Rojas --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Defendant's Motion for Relief from a Stipulated Protective Order issued by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on January 15, 2020 in the case captioned STEVE R. ROJAS and ANDREA N. ROJAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BOSCH SOLAR ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-05841-BLF, (N.D. Cal.). Under the putative class action, Plaintiffs Steve R. Rojas and Andrea N. Rojas sued Defendant Bosch Solar Energy Corporation for breach of warranty and related claims arising out of alleged defects in solar panels manufactured by Bosch. The Stipulated Protective Order at issue governs production of documents by non-party NB Baker Electric, Inc., dba Baker Electric Solar ("Baker"), in response to a subpoena duces tecum served by Plaintiffs in November 2019. Bosch had retained Baker to help facilitate Bosch's voluntary recall of certain solar panels in 2017. For each recall claim it approved, Bosch provided the consumer's name and contact information to Baker, which then was to remove the faulty panels and install replacement panels. This consumer contact information is contained in documents in Baker's possession that are responsive to Plaintiffs' subpoena. Baker initially objected to the subpoena based in part on third-party privacy interests. However, Plaintiffs and Baker ultimately agreed to production under the Stipulated Protective Order issued by Judge Cousins on January 15, 2020. Under the Stipulated Protective Order, Plaintiffs may utilize the documents produced by Baker to contact potential witnesses and potential class members. However, "Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' counsel shall first explain the purpose of their communication and then inform each contacted individual or entity that he/she/it has the right not to speak with Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' counsel and, upon a declination, Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' counsel shall immediately terminate the conversation and will not contact such individual or entity again." The Stipulated Protective Order contains provisions to ensure that documents produced by Baker are kept confidential and are used solely for purposes of the lawsuit. Bosch is now seeking relief from Judge Cousins' Stipulated Protective Order. Bosch asserts two bases for the relief. First, Bosch argues that the Stipulated Protective Order provides for discovery that is not relevant within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). Second, Bosch argues that the Stipulated Protective Order does not adequately protect the privacy interests of putative class members. On review, the Court finds that Bosch has failed to establish that the Stipulated Protective Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 20, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/scm8jps from Leagle.com Steve R. Rojas & Andrea N. Rojas, Plaintiffs, represented by David Michael Birka-White - dbw@birka-white.com - Birka-White Law Offices, John D. Green - jgreen@fbm.com - Farella Braun + Martel LLP, Russell E. Taylor , Farella Braun Martel LLP, 235 Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA 94104 & Steven Todd Knuppel - sknuppellaw@gmail.com - Law Offices of Steven T. Knuppel. Bosch Solar Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Matthew Gordon Ball -matthew.ball@klgates.com - K&L Gates LLP, John William Edward Rotunno - john.rotunno@klgates.com - K and L Gates LLP, pro hac vice & Joseph C. Wylie, II - joseph.wylie@klgates.com - K and L Gates LLP, pro hac vice. BOSCH SOLAR: Court Narrows Claims in Second Amended Rojas Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, STEVE R. ROJAS and ANDREA N. ROJAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BOSCH SOLAR ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-05841-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted in part and denied in part, without leave to amend, Bosch's motion to dismiss the operative second amended complaint ("SAC") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In the putative consumer class action, Plaintiffs Steve and Andrea Rojas seek to represent a class and subclasses of persons and entities who are "the final customers, end-users or subsequent owners" of solar panels manufactured by Defendant Bosch. The Plaintiffs allege that Bosch's model number c-Si M 60 NA30119 solar panels, suffer from two defects -- excessive heat generated at the panels' solder joints and "delamination" of the panels' backsheets. With respect to the solder joint defect, Bosch initiated a voluntary recall of roof-mounted NA30119 Panels based on a determination that the solder joints generate excessive heat, posing a safety risk that roofing materials could be ignited. The Plaintiffs claim that the recall was ineffective to cure the solder joint defect, because most consumers of roof-mounted NA30119 Panels never received notice of the recall, and consumers with ground-mounted NA30119 Panels were not covered by the recall. With respect to the delamination defect, the Plaintiffs allege that the NA30119 Panels suffer from an undisclosed defect that causes peeling and cracking of the plastic backsheet that protects the panels from moisture penetration. The operative SAC asserts claims for: (1) breach of express warranty under the common law of Arizona, California, Hawaii, Missouri, and North Carolina; (2) breach of express warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; (3) breach of express warranty under Ariz. Rev. Stat. Section 47-2313; Cal. Com. Code Section 2313; Haw. Rev. Stat. Section 490:2-313; Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 400.2-313; and N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 25-2-313; (4) violation of California's unfair competition law ("UCL"); (5) unjust enrichment under the common law of Arizona, California, Hawaii, Missouri, and North Carolina; and (6) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedy Act ("CLRA"). The Plaintiffs assert putative class claims for breach of warranty with respect to both the solder joint and delamination defects. In the alternative to the warranty claims, they assert a putative class claim for unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs also assert putative class claims for unfair competition and statutory consumer remedies based on allegedly unconscionable warranty provisions governing the requirements for making a warranty claim. Defendant Bosch moves to dismiss the SAC. The claims fall into two categories. The first category includes Claims 1, 2, 3, and 5. Claims 1-3 assert that Defendant Bosch breached its "Limited Warranty for photovoltaic modules." The Plaintiffs never received a copy of the Limited Warranty prior to the filing of the lawsuit. However, they allege that during the Oct. 28, 2012 telephone call between Rojas and Berg, Berg stated that the panels would be backed by a Bosch warranty and accurately explained the essential terms of the warranty. The Plaintiffs assert warranty claims based on both the alleged solder joint defect and alleged delamination defect. Claim 5 asserts an alternative claim for unjust enrichment, alleging: Pleading in the alternative to an express warranty, Bosch has been unjustly enriched in that Bosch received the purchase price of the panels, a benefit which Defendant retained at the Plaintiffs' expense. The second category includes Claims 4 and 6, brought under California's UCL and CLRA respectively, which are grounded in the Limited Warranty's allegedly unconscionable requirements for making a warranty claim. Before addressing the parties' specific arguments with respect to these two sets of claims, Judge Freeman takes up the more general questions of the Plaintiffs' standing to assert claims on behalf of putative class members residing in states other than California, and what state law(s) apply to their claims. Judge Freeman finds that the Plaintiffs' waiver argument, which is asserted in a footnote of their opposition brief, to be unpersuasive. Their SAC supersedes their prior pleadings. Even if she were to conclude that the choice of law provision should have been raised in Bosch's earlier motions to dismiss, courts faced with a successive motion often exercise their discretion to consider the new arguments in the interests of judicial economy. The Judge concludes that Bosch may raise the choice of law provision in its current Rule 12(b)(6) motion filed in response to the SAC. The cases cited by Plaintiffs do not compel a contrary result. Accordingly, Judge Freeman finds that Bosch has not waived enforcement of the choice of law provision in the Limited Warranty. Judge Freeman concludes that Bosch has demonstrated a reasonable basis for the choice of Michigan law, and the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of showing that Michigan law is contrary to a fundamental policy of California and that California has a materially greater interest in the determination of the suit. The Judge therefore applies Michigan law to the Plaintiffs' warranty claims (Claims 1-3). The Judge agrees with the Plaintiffs, however, that the choice of law provision does not support application of Michigan law to the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim (Claim 5). As they point out, the choice of law provision is limited by its own terms to "disputes arising from the warranty." The Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim does not arise from the warranty, but rather is pled in the alternative to the Plaintiffs' warranty claims. In other words, the unjust enrichment claim will come into play only if the claims based on Bosch's Limited Warranty fail. Under these circumstances, Judge Freeman finds that the unjust enrichment claim falls outside the scope of the Limited Warranty's choice of law provision. In summary, the Judge will apply Michigan law to the Plaintiffs' warranty claims (Claims 1-3) and California law to their unjust enrichment claim (Claim 5). Claims 1, 2, and 3 assert that Bosch breached its Limited Warranty, covering both material and workmanship ("Product Warranty") and loss of performance ("Performance Warranty"). Bosch moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' warranty claims on the ground that they have not alleged facts showing that the warranty was part of the basis of any relevant bargain. It moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' state law warranty claims on the ground that they have not alleged compliance with the 90-day warranty provision in the Limited Warranty. Because Bosch successfully has established that the Plaintiffs' warranty claims are governed by Michigan law, not California law, Bosch's arguments based on California law are not on point. Bosch does not challenge the Plaintiffs' third-party beneficiary theory under applicable Michigan law. The motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' state law warranty claims (Claims 1 and 3) for failure to allege that the warranty was part of the basis of the bargain is denied. Judge Freeman notes that Bosch's Limited Warranty requires that the 90-day notice be submitted "in writing." Bosch has not argued that the Plaintiffs' alleged Nov. 1, 2017 notice to Bosch was verbal rather than written. In any event, the Plaintiffs allege that in addition to telephoning Bosch on Nov. 1, 2017, Rojas also engaged in written correspondence with Bosch on that date via email. The motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' state law warranty claims (Claims 1 and 3) for failure to allege compliance with the Limited Warranty's 90-day notice requirement is denied. Bosch argues that the Plaintiffs' warranty claims are subject to dismissal because they have not alleged damages that are recoverable on a breach of warranty theory. The Judge determined that Bosch's damages argument did not show that the Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for breach of warranty. Nothing in Bosch's current motion persuades the Court that its earlier determination on that point was in error. The motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' state law warranty claims (Claims 1 and 3) for failure to allege recoverable damages is denied. The Judge further finds that Claim 2 allegations give rise to a reasonable inference that the Plaintiffs would have had no better luck had they informed Bosch that they were acting on behalf of a class of individuals with warranty claims. The Judge therefore concludes that, for pleading purposes, the Plaintiffs have alleged facts excusing them from compliance with the MMWA's pre-suit notice requirement. The Judge denied the the motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' MMWA claim (Claim 2). Bosch makes a passing reference to the Court's prior dismissal of the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim under California law. The Judge found that the FAC had not identified a benefit that Bosch retained at the Plaintiffs' expense, and that all of their allegations supporting their unjust enrichment claim were conclusory. The Plaintiffs have cured that defect in the SAC, and now have alleged the basis for their unjust enrichment claim with specificity. The motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim (Claim 5) is denied. The Judge concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts establishing the loss of money or property, or any damage, as required to state a claim under the UCL and CLRA. The Judge granted the motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' UCL and CLRA claim (Claims 4 and 6). Finally, having determined that the Plaintiffs' UCL and CLRA claims are subject to dismissal, the Judge must decide whether leave to amend those claims is warranted. The Judge finds no undue delay (factor 1) or bad faith (factor 2). However, despite her prior order dismissing the Plaintiffs' UCL and CLRA claims for failure to allege concrete harm, the Plaintiffs still have not alleged a viable claim (factor 3). Granting further opportunity to amend would impose undue prejudice on Bosch, which already has had to bring multiple Rule 12(b)(6) motions (factor 4). Moreover, given Plaintiffs' the failure to allege viable UCL and CLRA claims to date, and the Court's determination that their latest effort based on investigation costs is unavailing, it appears that granting further leave to amend the UCL and CLRA claims would be futile (factor 5). After weighing these factors, the Judge concludes that further leave to amend is not warranted. Accordingly, the UCL and CLRA claims (Claims 4 and 6) are dismissed without leave to amend. In sum, Judge Freeman granted in part and denied in part, without leave to amend, Defendant Bosch's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Judge granted without leave to amend the motion as to all claims asserted on behalf of residents of states other than California. The ruling is without prejudice to a future noticed motion for leave to amend to add new class representatives. The Judge granted without leave to amend the motion as to Claim 4 under California's UCL and Claim 6 under California's CLRA. The Judge denied the motion as to Claims 1-3 for breach of warranty and Claim 5 for unjust enrichment. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 6, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/3CJuCs from Leagle.com. Steve R. Rojas & Andrea N. Rojas, Plaintiffs, represented by David Michael Birka-White -- dbw@birka-white.com -- Birka-White Law Offices, John D. Green -- jgreen@fbm.com -- Farella Braun + Martel LLP, Russell E. Taylor -- rtaylor@fbm.com -- Farella Braun Martel LLP & Steven Todd Knuppel -- sknuppellaw@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Steven T. Knuppel. Bosch Solar Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Matthew Gordon Ball -- matthew.ball@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP, John William Edward Rotunno -- john.rotunno@klgates.com -- K and L Gates LLP, pro hac vice & Joseph C. Wylie, II -- joseph.wylie@klgates.com -- K and L Gates LLP, pro hac vice. BOYCE HYDRO: Homeowners Seek Damages Over Dam Mishap ---------------------------------------------------- Whitney Cable, Tyler Smith, Nico Anthony Smith, John D. Surfus Enterprise Inc. and John Surfus Rental Account Inc., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Boyce Hydro Power, LLC, Edenville Hydro Property, LLC, Boyce Michigan, LLC, Boyce Hydro LLC, WD Boyce Trust 2350, WD Boyce Trust 3659, WD Boyce Trust 3650, Lee W. Mueller, Stephen B. Hultberg and Michele G. Mueller, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-11293 (E.D. Mich., May 22, 2020), seeks actual damages, including those arising from loss of real property loss, loss of temporary or permanent living expenses, loss of use and enjoyment of property, diminution in value of the real property, humiliation, mental anguish, loss of reputation, emotional distress and other harm, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, disbursements and costs, prejudgment interest and such other and further relief resulting from negligence, nuisance and trespass. Defendants operate the Edenville Dam in Michigan's Gladwin County, impounding the Tittabawassee River and its tributary the Tobacco River, resulting in the formation of Wixom Lake. The dam generates hydroelectric power and is also used for flood control. On May 19, 2020, following heavy rains and flash floods, the Edenville Dam's earthen dike collapsed eviscerating Wixom Lake and allowing a massive flood to spill out toward Midland. Plaintiffs are home owners whose homes were damaged by the flood. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Rebekah L. Bailey, Esq. Matthew H. Morgan, Esq. Rebekah L. Bailey, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 256-3200 Fax: (612) 338-4878 Email: morgan@nka.com - and - Jonathan R. Marko, Esq. MARKO LAW, PLLC 1300 Broadway Street, 5th Floor Detroit, MI 48226 Tel: (313) 777-7LAW Email: jon@jmarkolaw.com BP EXPLORATION: 5th Cir. Flips Trammo's $77MM Settlement Order -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP, P.L.C., Requesting Parties-Appellants, v. CLAIMANT ID 100191715, Objecting Party-Appellee, Case No. 19-30264 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court order granting discretionary review and affirming a $77 million award against BP. After the April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, BP negotiated and entered into the Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement Agreement to resolve the claims of those individuals and businesses who suffered damages as a result of the spill. To participate in the Settlement Agreement, a claimant must first submit a "claim form." The claim form is signed under penalty of perjury and requires claimants to attest that their damage was due to the Deepwater Horizon disaster. The claimants who suffered a Business Economic Loss ("BEL") are classified into one of four geographic zones, which range from most impacted (Zone A) to least impacted (Zone D). Exhibit 4B to the Settlement Agreement addresses the causation requirements claimants must meet according to their assigned zone. It provides for the use of proof of loss as a substitute for proof of causation. Some claimants are entirely exempt from presenting any evidence that their loss was caused by the spill. The claimants located in Zone D, such as the claimant here, must pass one of seven qualitative tests to demonstrate that their loss was caused by the oil spill. One of those tests is the "V-Shaped Revenue Pattern," which is demonstrated by: (a) a 15% or more drop in revenue in three consecutive months between May-December 2010 compared to the same months in other benchmark year(s), and (b) a 10% upturn in the same months in 2011 compared to 2010. Once causation is proved under Exhibit 4B, the Claims Administrator, as part of the Court Supervised Settlement Program ("CSSP"), calculates the amount of the award due under the formulae set forth in Exhibit 4C. Appellee, Trammo, Inc. ("Claimant"), filed its BEL claim under the Settlement Agreement on March 8, 2013. The Claimant is a global commodities merchandiser that purchases and supplies ammonia and fertilizers around the world. It has a distribution port in Zone D in Tampa, Florida, and its claim was based on alleged damages it suffered at that location. After it satisfied the "V-Shaped Revenue Pattern" in Exhibit 4B, the Claimant was allotted $77,688,762.55 under the Settlement Agreement's award calculations. BP unsuccessfully appealed the award to an appeals panel. It then sought discretionary review from the district court, which granted review but affirmed the Claimant's award. Striking out below, BP finally appealed to the Fifth Circuit. BP argues that the Claimant passed the V-Shaped Revenue Pattern due solely to a price spike and drop in the price of fertilizer that was unrelated to the oil spill. According to BP, the spike caused Claimant's revenues to soar and crash back down to normal rates thereafter. And, only because the Claimant used months during the price spike as its benchmark period was it able to satisfy the "V-Shape Revenue Pattern" test in Exhibit 4B. In other words, the Claimant's loss was not due to the spill; rather, the price spike in fertilizer was the sole, superseding cause for its loss. The Claimant disputes BP's interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and maintains that because its revenue curve passed one of the tests in Exhibit 4B, it was not required to proffer any additional evidence that its loss was caused by the oil spill. The issue before the Court is a narrow one: Whether an investigation into a claimant's attestation is required when BP presents credible evidence that the purported loss is not due to the spill but a sole, superseding cause. The appeals panel answered in the negative. The district court did not specifically consider the issue but affirmed without qualification the appeals panel decision, which found that (1) the Claimant satisfied the requirements of Exhibit 4B of the Settlement agreement and that is all that was required of it; and (2) BP's alternative causation argument has been soundly rejected in recent federal court pronouncements interpreting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. To the contrary, the Fifth Circuit recognized that such an investigation may be warranted in one of the Court's earliest decisions in the Deepwater Horizon progeny, Deepwater Horizon III. There, they held that causation was "certainly subordinated" in the Settlement Agreement and we therefore refused to impose a gatekeeping function on the CSSP. However, they also caveated that not all claims must be accepted no matter how clear the absence of the required nexus may be. They left open the possibility that real examples of implausible claims could be resolved by the claims administrator, parties and district court as they resolve other questions that arise in the handling of specific claims. But it was not until 2019, in West, that the Court found an example of such an "implausible claim." The Court vacated the award in West after finding that the "loss" the claimant suffered was not caused by the spill but was instead due solely to the front-loaded compensation scheme in his employment contract. West was followed shortly thereafter by BP Expl. & Prod., Inc. v. Claimant ID 100141850 (Howard Industries). Though it did not exist in Howard Industries, the Court advised that credible evidence of a sole, superseding cause for a claimant's loss" may warrant an investigation into the plausibility of the attestation. Since Howard Industries, the Court has remanded two other claims for consideration of whether there was a sole, superseding cause of the claimant's purported loss. Thus, reversal is warranted because the appeal panel's categorical rejection of credible evidence of a sole, superseding cause stands in conflict with the Court's precedent. In addition, the district court's decision was made without the benefit of the Court's recent guidance on causation in West and Howard Industries. Because the district court has not considered whether there was credible evidence of a sole, superseding cause and because we are not the factfinder, the district court should review the argument in the first instance and determine whether to remand to the Claims Administrator for additional factfinding. Finally, the Fifth Circuit emphasizes that the reach of today's holding is limited: an investigation into the plausibility of a claimant's attestation is required only when BP presents credible evidence of a sole, superseding cause. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's order, and remanded for proceedings consistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's March 3, 2020 Decision is available at https://bit.ly/2YhZ2mW from Leagle.com. C & M ASSOCIATES: Debt Collection Calls "Misleading," Kendle Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, BEN KENDLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C & M ASSOCIATES GROUP, INC., an Illinoi Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-14164-KMM (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes from a credit card with Citibank, N.A. According to the complaint, Plaintiff received at least 5 voice messages from Defendant since December 18, 2018 through July 25, 2019. But, the voice messages failed to indicate that it was from a debt collector or that it attempted to collect a debt. The complaint asserts that Defendant's voice messages were confusing and misleading to the least sophisticated consumer since it failed to identify the correct name of the debt collector. C & M Associates Group, Inc. collects consumer debts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leo W. Desmond, Esq. DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C. 5070 Highway A1A, Suite D Vero Beach, FL 32963 Tel: 772-231-9600 Fax: 772-231-0300 Email: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid to Dismiss New Jersey Securities Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Campbell Soup Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 26, 2020, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, In re Campbell Soup Company Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS, is still pending. On January 7, 2019, three purported shareholder class action lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey were consolidated under the caption, In re Campbell Soup Company Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS (the Action). Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System was appointed lead plaintiff in the Action and, on March 1, 2019, filed an amended consolidated complaint. The company, Denise Morrison (the company's former President and Chief Executive Officer), and Anthony DiSilvestro (the company's former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer) are defendants in the Action. The consolidated complaint alleges that, in public statements between July 19, 2017 and May 17, 2018, the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted material information about the company's business, operations, customer relationships, and prospects, specifically with regard to the Campbell Fresh segment. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On April 30, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Campbell said, "We are vigorously defending against the Action." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Campbell Soup Company, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and markets branded food and beverage products. It operates through three segments: Americas Simple Meals and Beverages, Global Biscuits and Snacks, and Campbell Fresh. Campbell Soup Company was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in Camden, New Jersey. CANADA GOOSE: Bid to Dismiss Cheng Class Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Canada Goose Holdings Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2020, for the fiscal year ended March 29, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss the putative class action suit entitled, Cheng v. Canada Goose Holdings, Inc., et al., 19-cv-08204, is pending. In September 2019, a purported company shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. That action was captioned Cheng v. Canada Goose Holdings, Inc., et al., 19-cv-08204. In December 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York appointed a different purported shareholder as the lead plaintiff in the Action to represent the proposed class of company shareholders. On February 18, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims against the company, certain of its officers, and Bain Capital, LP and certain related entities, alleging violations of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made certain false and misleading statements and/or omissions relating to the company's levels of inventory and the demand for its products. The company intends to vigorously defend against this action and, on May 12, 2020, filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims asserted in the amended complaint. Canada Goose said, "However, we are unable to predict the outcome of this action or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any, and cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss, if any, at this time." Canada Goose Holdings Inc. is a Canadian holding company of winter clothing manufacturers. The company was founded in 1957 by Sam Tick, under the name Metro Sportswear Ltd. CARGILL INC: Samuels Alleges Price-Fixing of Beef ------------------------------------------------- HOWARD B. SAMUELS, solely as chapter 7 trustee of the estates of CENTRAL GROCERS, INC.; STRACK AND VAN TIL SUPER MARKET, INC.; and SVT, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARGILL, INC.; JBS USA FOOD COMPANY HOLDINGS; NATIONAL BEEF PACKING COMPANY; and TYSON FOODS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:20-cv-01319 (D. Minn., June 6, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of Central Grocers and all others similarly-situated persons and entities who purchased beef in the United States directly from one or more of the Defendants from at least January 1, 2015, until the present, alleges that the Defendants engaged in conspiracy to constrain beef supplies sold to Central Grocers and others in the U.S. wholesale market, thereby artificially inflating domestic beef prices paid by direct purchasers. The Defendants furthered their conspiracy by routinely exchanging supply, pricing, and other competitively sensitive information in several ways. One method was routinely selling beef to each other. In these buyer-seller relationships, the Defendants were each other's competitors and customers, thus allowing them to share information that competitive businesses would conceal from each other. Another method was frequent meetings between each other's executives and key employees. Trade association conferences and other industry events offer convenient opportunities to exchange information, plans and strategies, and build relationships. The Defendants seized these opportunities to further their collusive supply restrictions. As a result, Central Grocers and other Class members paid higher prices than they would have paid in a competitive market. Central Grocers, Inc. is a retailers' cooperative with its principal place of business at 2600 Haven Avenue, Joliet, Illinois. Strack and Van Til Super Market, Inc. is a grocery store chain with locations in Northwest Indiana. SVT, LLC is an operator of grocery stores throughout Northwest Indiana. Cargill, Inc. is an American privately held global corporation with its principal place of business at 15407 McGinty Road, Wayzata, Minnesota. JBS USA Food Company Holdings is a processor of beef, pork and prepared foods in the U.S. and Canada, with its principal place of business located at 1770 Promontory Circle, Greeley, Colorado. National Beef Packing Company is a processor and marketer of beef products with its principal place of business located at 12200 North Ambassador Drive, Suite 500, Kansas City, Missouri. Tyson Foods, Inc. is a processor and marketer of chicken, beef, and pork meat products headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Vincent J. Esades, Esq. HEINS, MILLS & OLSON LLP 310 Clifton Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 Telephone: (612) 338-4605 E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com - and – Jason S. Hartley, Esq. HARTLEY LLP 101 W. Broadway, Suite 820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-5822 E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com - and – Daniel R. Karon, Esq. KARON LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 622-1851 E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com - and – Douglas A. Millen, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite, 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com CARNIVAL CORP: Elmensdorp Sues over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------- JOHN P. ELMENSDORP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION; CARNIVAL PLC; ARNOLD W. DONALD; DAVID BERNSTEIN; and MICKY ARISON, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-22319 (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2020) is a federal class action on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Carnival's common stock (NYSE: CCL) and Carnival's American Depository Shares ("ADSs") between September 26, 2019, and April 30, 2020, inclusive. Plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that on September 26, 2019, when Carnival filed its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2019, and a Form 8-K, the Defendant omitted any reference to the potential harm to shareholders that would be caused by the Company's inadequate facilities and preparation for a viral infection and/or other outbreaks of diseases on one or more of its ships. The Company's 2018 Form 10-K filed with the SEC on January 28, 2019, consistent with Defendants' past statements, made numerous representations about the Company's commitment to the health and safety of its guests and crew members, but made no references to the threat of infectious disease or the susceptibility of its own ships to infectious disease and/or its inability to control such outbreaks (the "2018 10-K"). The 2018 10-K also failed to disclose that the Company lacked effective means to control an outbreak of an infectious disease on its ships, and that an outbreak on any of its ships due to an infectious disease could harm its passengers and crew and lead to death. The Company's 2019 Form 10-K, filed with the SEC on January 28, 2020, during the Class Period, repeated the same statements and omissions (the "2019 10-K"). Investors began to learn the relevant truth about the Company's disregard for health and safety when operating its cruise ships and selling and retaining reservations, including the Company's disregard for the true risks of COVID-19, through a series of disclosures beginning on February 3, 2020, when the Company admitted that a passenger who had recently been onboard the Company's Diamond Princess cruise ship, then docked in Yokohama, Japan, had tested positive for COVID-19 after disembarking. The revelation forced Carnival to sequester passengers and crew while Japanese authorities examined other guests and crew members for the virus. Ultimately, more than 700 cases of COVID-19 (nearly 20% of people aboard the ship) -- and at least 14 deaths -- were connected to the Diamond Princess outbreak. On this news, the price of Carnival's common stock declined $0.78 per share, or approximately 2%, from a close of $43.53 per share on January 31, 2020, to close at $42.75 per share on February 3, 2020. Similarly, the price of Carnival's ADSs declined $0.45 per share, or 1.1%, from a close of $41.10 per ADS on January 31, 2020, to close at $40.65 per ADS on February 3, 2020. On May 1, 2020, as a result of the many outbreaks on Carnival ships, as well as reporting that exposed the effects of Carnival's actions and inactions, the United States House of Representatives opened an investigation into Carnival's handling of COVID-19, initiated by a letter addressed to Carnival's chief executive officer requesting records regarding the Company's COVID-19 response. The Congressional Letter, which cited prior outbreaks, stated that the request for records was based on concerns that Carnival was "ignoring the public health threat posed by coronavirus to potential future passengers and crew," and that "officials at Carnival were aware of the threats to some of its ships and did not take appropriate actions, which may have led to greater infections and the spread of the disease." On this news, the price of Carnival's common stock declined $1.97 per share, or 12.4%, from a close of $15.90 per share on April 30, 2020, to close at $13.93 per share on May 1, 2020. Similarly, the price of Carnival's ADSs declined $1.49 per ADS, or 10.7%, from a close of $13.92 per ADS on April 30, 2020, to close at $12.43 per ADS on May 1, 2020. Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America, United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates hotels and lodges. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary S. Bower, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 117 NE 1st Avenue Miami, FL 33132-2125 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: zbower@carellabyrne.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068-1739 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Naumon A. Amjed, Esq. Ryan T. Degnan, Esq. Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq. Mark C. Franek, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Tel: (610) 667-7706 Fax: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com gjarvis@ktmc.com rdegnan@ktmc.com mfranek@ktmc.com CARNIVAL CORP: Exposed Passengers to COVID-19, Chung et al. Claim ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, DUC CHUNG, BERNETTA EVERETT, DWIGHT EVERETT, DEBRA LEONELLI, DAVID REGE, CONNIE SIMMONS, JAMES SIMMONS, and MICHAEL SIMMONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, CARNIVAL PLC, and PRINCESS CRUISE LINES LTD., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-04954-SVW-MAA (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2020), arises from the Defendants' negligence, gross negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly-situated passengers onboard the M/V Grand Princess cruise ship from February 11, 2020, to disembarkation on February 21, 2020, allege that the Defendants boarded them and over 2,000 other passengers onto the M/V Grand Princess cruise ship for a roundtrip voyage to Mexico without conducting any effective medical screenings for passengers and without providing any additional information about best practices to mitigate or prevent the spread of COVID-19 despite the Defendants' awareness of an outbreak of COVID-19 aboard the Diamond Princess cruise ship in or early February 2020. Moreover, on or around February 19, 2020, the Defendants became aware of at least one passenger suffering from COVID-19 symptoms onboard the M/V Grand Princess, but they did not alert the Plaintiffs or other passengers aboard the ship, and did not put into place any quarantine requirements or shelter-in-place and social distancing protocols. As a result of the Defendants' actions and inactions, at least 100 passengers who traveled on board the M/V Grand Princess have tested positive for COVID-19, and at least two passengers have died after disembarking. The Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered injuries and emotional distress of the nature and type that reasonable persons would suffer under the circumstances alleged in the complaint, including, but not limited to, suffering anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation and shame. Carnival Corporation is a travel leisure company and cruise operator with principal place of business located in Miami, Florida. Carnival PLC is a cruise operator that was incorporated in 2000, in Wales, United Kingdom. It also has its headquarters in Miami, Florida. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd. is a cruise operator incorporated in Bermuda, with its headquarters in Santa Clarita, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq. Carlos F. Llinas Negret, Esq. NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP 601 So. Figueroa Street, Suite 2050 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 622-6469 Facsimile: (213) 622-6019 E-mail: gnelson@nflawfirm.com cllinas@nflawfirm.com - and – Mary E. Alexander, Esq. Brendan D.S. Way, Esq. MARY ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1303 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-4440 Facsimile: (415) 433-5440 E-mail: malexander@maryalexanderlaw.com bway@maryalexanderlaw.com - and – Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com jselbin@lchb.com - and – Mark P. Chalos, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 Facsimile: (212) 313-9965 E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com CARPENTER DESIGN: Bennick et al. Seek Overtime Pay for Builders --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, CHRISTOPHER BENNICK, and DAVID WILSON, JR., on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARPENTER DESIGN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00136 (W.D.N.C., June 4, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged willful failure to pay overtime compensation to its workers in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs worked as builders for Defendant in Rutherford, North Carolina – Bennick from approximately 2017 to end of 2019 and Wilson from approximately mid-2018 to mid-2019. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs and those similarly situated workers routinely worked overtime hours during their employment with Defendant. But, they were paid primarily by piece rate only without additional overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. Carpenter Design, Inc. is a human resources company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam A. Smith, Esq. RIDDLE & BRANTLEY, LLP P.O. Box 11050 Goldsboro, NC 27532-1050 Tel: (919) 432-1516 Fax: (919) 432-1751 Email: aas@justicecounts.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Tel: (407) 420-1414 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com CHILDREN'S PLACE: Dougan Sues Over Phantom Discounts ---------------------------------------------------- ELAINE DOUGAN, for Herself, as a Private Attorney General, and/or On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. THE CHILDREN'S PLACE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00818 (W.D. Wash., May 30, 2020) alleges that Defendant has violated and continues to violate the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act by transmitting to Washington consumers emails which contain false or misleading information in the subject lines. Defendant creates purported list prices for its products which are inflated far above the products' regular and true selling prices. Defendant advertises virtually all of its products in its brick-and-mortar stores and on its website as being (perpetually) discounted from Defendant's self-created list prices. On The Children's Place website, the list prices are advertised as the "Was" price, and/or as the strike-through price adjacent to an "XX% OFF" discount representation. For nearly all of its products, the list prices and claimed discounts are false and inflated because Defendant rarely or never offers the products at their stated list price. Plaintiff's allegations concerning The Children's Place's false discount advertising scheme are based on a comprehensive investigation by Plaintiff's counsel of Defendant's pricing practices over a more than five-year period. The Children's Place is a retailer and manufacturer of baby and young children's clothing and apparel with headquarters in Secaucus, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq. Che Corrington, Esq. HATTIS & LUKACS 400 108th Avenue NE, Suite 500 Bellevue, WA 98004 Telephone: (425) 233-8650 Facsimile: (425) 412-7171 Email: dan@hattislaw.com pkl@hattislaw.com che@hattislaw.com CNA FINANCIAL: Faces Lost-Income Insurance Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Habitat reports that the looming battle over lost-income insurance claims during the coronavirus pandemic has migrated from the New York State Legislature to a courtroom in Chicago, the Real Deal reports. A Las Vegas-based company called Vegas Image has filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court in Chicago, arguing that its lost-income insurance policy, also known as business income insurance, does not exclude losses caused by "the spread of viruses." Dino Robusto, chief executive of the company's insurer, CNA Financial, counters that all of its policies have "exclusion barring coverage for viruses," adding that "our property policy exclusionary language does not provide coverage for COVID-19, and as such we never collect a premium for it." The lawsuit could have major implications for co-op and condo boards in New York, where most insurers have stated they will not cover claims related to income lost due to the coronavirus, such as rental from businesses in the building that were shuttered by state decree. These insurers base their stance either on specific exclusions for losses caused by viruses or bacteria, or on the fact that physical damage to a property -- such as a fire or flood -- must occur before lost-income claims are paid. Many insurers began excluding pandemic and disease coverage following the SARS epidemic of the 2000s, when many paid millions out in claims. Meanwhile, two state lawmakers from Brooklyn have introduced legislation in Albany that would force insurers to pay such claims. "This is an interruption on business on a very large scale," state Sen. Andrew Gounardes, who introduced the bill in the Senate, says of the crippling financial fallout of the pandemic. "What good is carrying insurance if the insurance won't pay a claim?" Assemblyman Robert Carroll, who sponsored similar legislation in the Assembly, adds: "The insurance industry is sitting on $900 billion in reserves while small businesses who have paid business interruption premiums for years have their claims denied over and over again because the insurance industry claims COVID-19 doesn't constitute a business interruption. This is absurd, greedy, immoral and factually incorrect. [GN] CNH INDUSTRIAL: Court Narrows Claims in Farms' Amended Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, T&M FARMS and P&J FARMS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CNH INDUSTRIAL AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-C-0085 (E.D. Wis.), Judge Lynn Adelman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted in part and denied in part CNH's motion to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint for failure to state a claim. In the action, two cotton farms allege that they purchased cotton-picking machines manufactured by CNH, that failed to perform as expected. The Farms bring claims for breach of implied warranty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of Wisconsin's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, fraud, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs, T&M Farms and P&J Farms, are cotton farms that have each purchased CNH's "Module Express" cotton picker. T&M Farms is a general partnership; its two partners are citizens of Arkansas. P&J Farms is a general partnership; its four partners are citizens of Alabama. CNH is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Racine, Wisconsin. Its sole member is Case New Holland Industrial Inc., a Delaware corporation that is also headquartered in Racine. CNH manufactures agricultural equipment, including the Module Express pickers at issue in the suit. On Jan. 14, 2019, T&M Farms commenced the action on behalf of itself and a class consisting of all purchasers, owners, and lessees of Module Express pickers in the United States. On April 3, 2019, the complaint was amended to add P&J Farms as a Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs allege five counts against CNH relating to the marketing and sale of the Module Express: (1) violation of the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (3) breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing; (4) unjust enrichment; and (5) common-law fraud. The Defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Before addressing the motion, Judge Adelman briefly explains the basis for the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs allege that the Court may exercise diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. However, at this point, it is unnecessary to consider whether the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act are satisfied. The Plaintiffs are citizens of Alabama and Arkansas, the Defendant is a citizen of Delaware and Wisconsin, and each Plaintiff alleges a claim against the Defendant in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Therefore, traditional diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). CNH concedes for purposes of the motion to dismiss that Wisconsin law governs all claims. CNH contends that T&M has failed to adequately plead a basis for equitable estoppel. However, a plaintiff has no obligation to plead around affirmative defenses, and thus its failure to "adequately" plead around a defense is not grounds for dismissal. In any event, the complaint alleges that when the Plaintiffs and the class members would inquire as to the problems they experienced with the pickers, CNH (directly and through its agents and captive dealers) would repeatedly and consistently promise 'patches' and fixes to its customers, falsely representing that the flaws with the Module Express pickers were isolated and fixable, so as to prevent customers from acting on any legal claims. Accordingly, T&M Farms' claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability cannot be dismissed as untimely. T&M Farms asserts a claim for breach of implied warranty in connection with the used Module Express 635 it purchased in 2016. CNH moves to dismiss the claim for lack of privity. The Judge finds that the complaint does not allege that CNH participated in the transactions or received any part of the sales price. It does not state a claim for breach of implied warranty in the context of used pickers. The will, however, grant T&M farms leave to replead if it thinks that it can allege facts giving rise to a reasonable inference that the used picker was owned by CNH at the time of sale. Although T&M Farms has already had one opportunity to amend its complaint in response to CNH's motion to dismiss, it did so before the Court addressed the motion. The Court cannot say that it is certain that T&M Farms will be unable to plead facts giving rise to a reasonable inference that CNH was the seller of the used picker. Therefore, the Court grant it leave to amend. However, T&M Farms should not exercise its opportunity to amend unless it either has a good-faith basis to believe that CNH owned the picker at the time of sale or is able to develop a cogent legal argument supporting its claim that CNH became a party to the sales contract by some other means. Next, the Court concludes that the complaint fails to state a claim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged the existence of a contract between CNH and the buyer of a used picker. If there was no contract, then of course CNH could not have breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing that is implied in a contract. However, to the extent the Plaintiffs believe they can allege that CNH intentionally interfered with the supply of replacement parts in order to evade the spirit of repair warranties, the Court will grant them leave to replead. Eeven if T&M Farms dealt with CNH directly when purchasing the used picker, it would have no claim under Section 100.18 based on the failure to disclose the picker's history of prior breakdowns. Hence, T&M Farms' claim under Section 100.18 based on its purchase of a used picker will be dismissed. However, the Court will grant it leave to replead. If T&M farms chooses to replead, it must allege facts from which it reasonably can be inferred that CNH -- rather than its dealer -- made untrue, deceptive, or misleading statements about the quality of the used picker it purchased. Because the Plaintiffs' fraud claims are barred by the economic loss doctrine, the Court will dismiss them. Moreover, because it is certain from the face of the complaint that the Plaintiffs cannot avoid the economic loss doctrine by repleading, the Court will not grant them leave to amend. Finally, the Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment on the ground that such a claim may succeed only in the absence of an enforceable contract between the parties. However, at this point it is not clear whether the Plaintiffs have entered into contracts with CNH. Because claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment can be pleaded in the alternative, the Court will not dismiss the unjust-enrichment claims at this time. For the reasons stated, Judge Adelman granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint. The motion is granted to the extent that the following claims are dismissed: (1) T&M Farms' claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability regarding its used picker; (2) all claims for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing; (3) all claims for violation of the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act; and (4) all claims for common-law fraud. In all other respects, the motion is denied. Furthermore, Judge Adelman granted the Plaintiffs leave to replead their claims under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and their claim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing involving the failure to supply replacement parts. The Judge granted T&M Farms leave to replead its claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability regarding its used picker. The Plaintiffs are not granted leave to replead their claims for common-law fraud. The Judge denied as moot the Defendant's motion to dismiss the original complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 6, 2020 Decision & Order is available at https://is.gd/iBblvl from Leagle.com. T&M Farms, Plaintiff, represented by Garrett A. Owens, Price Armstrong LLC, Jacob M. Tubbs, Price Armstrong LLC, Mark A. Eldridge -- meldridge@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Nicholas W. Armstrong, Price Armstrong LLC, Shpetim Ademi -- sademi@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP & John D. Blythin -- jblythin@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP. P&J Farms, Plaintiff, represented by John D. Blythin , Ademi & O'Reilly LLP & Nicholas W. Armstrong, Price Armstrong LLC. CNH Industrial America LLC, Defendant, represented by Bobby R. Burchfield -- bburchfield@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP & Patrick J. Murphy -- patrick.murphy@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP. COLUMBUS ELECTRIC: Walsh Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Walsh, Bradley Miller, and Matt Kropf, Jr., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. COLUMBUS ELECTRIC, INC., COLUMBUS ROOTER, LLC, CLEVELAND ROOTER, LLC, CLEVELAND ELECTRIC LLC, TOLEDO ROOTER, LLC, NORTHWEST OHIO ROOTER, LLC, MEGAN MCKAY, Case No. 2:20-cv-02857-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, June 2, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their failure to pay certain overtime wages due and owing under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Defendants did not record the Plaintiffs' time worked or they, otherwise, did not accurately record all time worked, according to the complaint. Moreover, the Defendants required the Plaintiffs to continue working a job until completion regardless of how many hours were necessary to complete the job. Consequently, the Plaintiffs routinely worked past their scheduled "shift." Therefore, the Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiffs worked as commissioned electrical technicians and plumbing technician. The Plaintiffs were not paid one- and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. Columbus Electric is a corporation for profit that provides residential and commercial electrical services in Ohio, including Columbus and the surrounding area.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Ste. 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENCE: Final Approval of Blackerby Deal Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, AMBER BLACKERBY, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENCE INC., or any other related entities, Defendant, Docket No. 156571/2017, Motion Seq. No. 004 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Barbara Jaffe of the New York County Supreme Court denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement and class counsel's fee application. The settlement agreement was preliminarily approved on July 26, 2019. It was found to be fair, adequate, and reasonable to all potential class members, and the proposed class was certified for settlement purposes only. It was further ordered that within 30 days, the class counsel was to disseminate a notice to the class members informing them of the settlement and their rights in it, and advising them of the deadline to file a claim or an objection and that they may appear in person for a fairness hearing scheduled for Jan. 15, 2020. The class counsel was also directed to file and serve papers in support of final settlement approval on Jan. 8, 2020. After failing to file papers in support of the motion seeking final approval in accordance with the July 26, 2019 order, by email dated Jan. 14, 2020, the class counsel advised the Court that the class consisted of over 9,000 members with 2,500 members having filed opt-in forms electing to participate in the settlement, and that due to the size of the class, additional time was needed to finalize the settlement's allocation. Thus, the counsel sought leave to adjourn the fairness hearing to Jan. 28, 2020. On Jan. 15, 2020, the class counsel's request for an adjournment was granted and the fairness hearing was rescheduled for Feb. 26, 2020. The counsel was also ordered to disseminate a notice to the class advising them of the adjournment. By affirmation dated Feb. 19, 2020, the class counsel stated that the claims administrator had provided him with a list of 9,582 class members, and that 2,524 of those members filed claims forms. However, 1,110 of those who filed claims forms were later found to be not eligible to participate in the settlement, and after determining that the original class was too expansive, the Plaintiff's counsel advised the Court that the class actually comprises 4,148 members, of which 1,414 class members filed claims. The counsel also advised that the settlement provides for a distribution of $720,305.24, divided as follows: $315,288.18 for class members; $300,000 for attorneys fees and costs; $10,000 in a reserve fund; $47,842 for the class administrator; $37,175.06 for the employer's share of withholding taxes; and $10,000 split evenly between the Plaintiff and a nonparty. The counsel stated that his firm had devoted 398.40 hours to the matter for a total of $145,660 in billings and $819.99 in costs. By non-notarized declaration dated Feb. 20, 2020, the settlement claims administrator reiterated the counsel's affirmations. A fairness hearing was held on Feb. 26, 2020. While no objections were made by class members, it was ordered that before the settlement and the class counsel's fee application could be approved, the counsel was to provide evidence that it had disseminated notice of the adjournment of the fairness hearing to all the class members, a notarized affidavit from the settlement claims administrator, the ounsel's and the claims administrator's billing statements and receipts, and additional support for the counsel's request for service awards. By letter dated March 4, 2020, the class counsel provides billing statements and receipts for itself and the claims administrator, a copy of a notice sent to the class members reflecting the fairness hearing as having been held on Jan. 15, 2020, and additional legal support for its request for a service award. Moreover, the counsel advises that at the time of settlement, he was unaware that the majority of the class was predominantly monolingual Spanish speakers, and the notice disseminated was in English only. He seeks leave to publish a supplemental notice in Spanish to the class members, which reflects that they have 30 days to file a claim, opt-out, or object to the settlement, and that a fairness hearing had already been held but that another one may be held in the event that a class member objects to the settlement or wishes to be heard. Judge Jaffe finds that the class counsel fails to provide evidence that it disseminated a notice to class members advising them of the adjournment of the fairness hearing. Moreover, in light of the revelation that a majority of the class consists of monolingual Spanish speakers, the original class notice, and presumably the adjournment notice, which was composed in English, did not provide adequate notice to the class members of their rights. That only approximately 34% of over 4,000 class members filed claims demonstrates that the language barrier may have led to confusion and misinformation about absent class members' rights. The confusion is compounded by the fact that half of those who received the original settlement notice are not members of the class. In addition, the settlement statistics counsel offers are derived from the non-notarized declaration of the claims administrator, and counsel has failed to provide a properly executed affidavit, as was ordered on Feb. 26, 2020. The class counsel's candor concerning the language barrier with the class members is acknowledged. However, the issues in finalizing the settlement and disseminating notices is too pervasive to ensure that the absent class members were given sufficient information and time to participate and object to the settlement and to be heard by the Court at a fairness hearing. A limited supplemental notice to Spanish speakers giving them only 30 days from mailing of the notice to compile all necessary documentation and participate in or object to the settlement is inadequate to remedy these issues. Thus, final approval of the settlement is not appropriate at this time, and renewal of the final settlement approval process is warranted. Accordingly, Judge Jaffe denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement and the class counsel's fee application. The July 26, 2019 order remains in effect, and the following dates will govern the schedule in the action: (i) on April 4, 2020: mailing of class notice, as approved by the order dated July 26, 2019, in English and in Spanish, reflecting the new schedule, via United States first-class mail, postage prepaid; (ii) May 4, 2020: last day for class members to submit written objections to settlement, to opt-out of the settlement, or to submit a claim form; (iii) May 19, 2020: last day for the class members to submit bona fide late claims; (iv) June 10, 2020: last day for the counsel to file and serve papers in support of final settlement approval; and (v) June 17, 2020 at 11:00 a.m.: fairness hearing at 60 Centre Street, New York, NY, room 341. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 6, 2020 Decision & Order is available at https://is.gd/rW6jvu from Leagle.com. CONIFER HOLDINGS: Captain Skrip's Slams Denied Insurance Coverage ----------------------------------------------------------------- Captain Skrip's Office LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Conifer Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-11291 (E.D. Mich., May 22, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate, attorney's fees and costs and such other relief from breach of contract. Captain Skrip's Office operates a family-owned restaurant in Port Huron, Michigan. It purchased an all-risk commercial property insurance policy from Conifer Holdings, a national property-casualty insurance company, to protect it in the event of property loss and business interruption. But during the COVID-19 pandemic, Conifer denied coverage despite that policy does not contain an exclusion for pandemic and/or virus-related losses. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Nick Suciu III, Esq. BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC 1644 Bracken Rd. Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Tel: (313) 303-3472 Email: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. Bradley K. King, SBN 274399 AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com COTY INC: Website Inaccessible to Deaf, Jones Claims ---------------------------------------------------- KAHLIMAH JONES, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. COTY INC. d/b/a Clairol.com, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02334-FB-PK (E.D.N.Y., May 26, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiff is legally deaf and a member of a protected class under the ADA. According to the complaint, Plaintiff attempted to watch several videos on Defendant's website most recently in April 2020, but was not able to do so due to the inaccessibility of the Website to deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. Plaintiff claims that Defendant failed to update or remove access barriers on its website to be independently accessible to the Class of people who are legally deaf or has hearing disability. Coty Inc. operates its website at http://www.clairol.comwhich provides a wide array of goods and services to the public. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Hardwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com COVINGTON SPECIALTY: Till Metro Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- TILL METRO ENTERTAINMENT, D/B/A/ The Vanguard Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Covington Specialty Insurance Company, A New Hampshire Stock Company Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00255-GKF-JFJ (N.D. Okla., June 4, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff after Defendant denied Business Income coverage for the suspension of business resulting from the presence or threat of COVID-19. According to the complaint, Plaintiff purchased insurance coverage from Covington, including special property coverage, as set forth in Covington's Business Income (and Extra Expense) Coverage Form to protect its businesses in the event that it suddenly had to suspend operations for reasons outside of its control, or if it had to act in order to prevent further property damage. Unlike many policies that provide Business Income coverage, the Defendant's Business Income (and Extra Expense) Coverage Form does not include, and is not subject to, any exclusion for losses caused by the spread of viruses or communicable diseases. Plaintiff was forced to suspend or reduce business at The Vanguard due to COVID19 and the resultant closure orders issued by civil authorities in Oklahoma. The complaint states that Covington has, on a widescale and uniform basis, refused to pay its insureds, including the Plaintiff, under its Business Income, Civil Authority, Extra Expense, and Sue and Labor coverages for losses suffered due to COVID-19, any orders by civil authorities that have required the necessary suspension of business, and any efforts to prevent further property damage or to minimize the suspension of business and continue operations. Indeed, Covington has denied Plaintiff's claim under its Covington policy. By denying coverage for any Business Income losses incurred by Plaintiff and the other Business Income Breach Class members in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, Covington has breached its coverage obligations under the policies. Covington Specialty Insurance Company is an insurance company organized under the laws of the State of New Hampshire, with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. It is authorized to write, sell, and issue insurance policies providing property and business income coverage in Oklahoma, as well as other states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Smith, Esq. CARUSO LAW FIRM, P.C. 1325 East 15th Street, Suite 201 Tulsa, OK 74120 Telephone: (918) 583-5900 Facsimile: (918) 583-5902 E-mail: msmith@carusolawfirm.com - and - Daniel E. Smolen, Esq. SMOLEN, SMOLEN & ROYTMAN, PLLC 701 S. Cincinnati Ave. Tulsa, OK 74119 Telephone: (918) 585-2667 Facsimile: (918) 585-2669 Email: danielsmolen@ssrok.com CREDIT CONTROL: Missouri Court Dismisses Watson FDCPA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SHANEQUA WATSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:19CV137 HEA (E.D. Mo.), Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. On Jan. 30, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Plaintiff alleges that she incurred a financial obligation to World Financial Network National. The Defendant began attempting to collect on the debt allegedly owed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants violated the FDCPA by sending her a collection letter on Feb. 14, 2018 that was misleading, confusing, deceptive, and unfair as it misrepresented the nature, character, and/or legal status of the alleged debt. In relevant part, the collection letter indicated that the Plaintiff owed an outstanding balance and listed various options to pay off the debt. The collection letter also stated that the law limits how long she can be sued on the debt. Because of the age of her debt which was originated by World Financial Network National Bank, LVNV Funding LLC will not sue you for it, and LVNV Funding LLC will not report it to any credit reporting agency. The Defendant filed the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the case should be dismissed. The Plaintiff opposes the motion. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's collection letter violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e by failing to disclose that her debt's statute of limitations could be reset if she made partial payments and, thus, she would have been worse off than if she had rejected the offer, they failed to inform her of the true ramifications of making a payment. She also asserts that the collection letter is misleading because it states, "we will not sue you for the debt," which implies that Defendant has chosen not to sue, rather than stating that it is time-barred from doing so. The Defendants contend that they are entitled to judgment on the pleadings on numerous grounds and ask for dismissal of the case. Specifically, they contend that: (1) their attempt to collect a time-barred debt is not actionable under the FDCPA absent a threat of litigation; (2) Defendant's collection letter is not misleading because it specifically disclosed that the current creditor would not sue Plaintiff because of the age of the debt; (3) the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that LVNV Funding LLC intended to sue the Plaintiff if partial payment was made. The Plaintiff argues that none of these arguments warrant judgment on the pleadings and the instant motion should be denied. Judge Autrey finds that the Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant threatened litigation or commenced litigation in association with their efforts to collect a potentially time-barred debt. Thus, the Defendant's collection letter does not make any false representations about the character, amount, or legal status of the debt, resulting in a violation of the FDCPA. Consequently, taking the Plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations as true, and giving her the benefit of all reasonable inferences, the Judge finds that judgment on the pleadings is proper and that the Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed. The Judge agrees with the rationale in these cases. Although the Defendant's collection letter does not warn that partial payments could revive the time-barred debt, the Judge concludes that no unsophisticated consumer could be misled as to the debt's legal status in light of the inclusion of language stating that the law limits how long a debtor can be sued on a debt and that the Defendant would not sue the Plaintiff on her debt because of its age. Thus, after taking her well-pleaded allegations as true and giving her the benefit of all reasonable inferences, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim that the Defendant violated the FDCPA by misrepresenting the debt's legal status and her claims should be dismissed. The Judge is likewise unpersuaded by the Plaintiff's argument that the Defendant's use of the language "we will not sue you," rather than "we cannot sue you" or other similar language, presents a plausible FDCPA violation. Multiple courts have found that the exact (or substantially similar) language does not violate the FDCPA. Based upon the foregoing analysis, Judge Autrey finds that the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is well taken. Accordingly, the Judge granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed the Plaintiff's Complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 6, 2020 Memorandum & Order is available at https://is.gd/WhMjJU from Leagle.com. Shanequa Watson, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Zemel -- dz@zemellawllc.com -- ZEMEL LAW LLC. Credit Control, LLC, Defendant, represented by Patrick A. Watts -- pat.watts@wattslawfirmpa.com -- Watts Law Group, LLC & Matthew John Bell, MJB LAW LLC DEFENDERS LLC: Faces Herron Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rick Herron, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. DEFENDERS, LLC f/k/a DEFENDERS, INC. a/k/a DEFENDERS, Case No. 5:20-cv-01129 (C.D. Cal., June 2, 2020), is brought for damages resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant in negligently placing unsolicited automated calls to the Plaintiff's cellular phone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant has violated the TCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to place marketing calls on consumers' mobile phones with non-emergency advertising and marketing without prior express written consent, according to the complaint. Receipt of the Defendant's unauthorized call caused the Plaintiff frustration, annoyance, aggravation, and invasion of Plaintiff's privacy. The Defendant did not place the unsolicited call for an emergency purpose. The Plaintiff is an individual, who resided in the City of Winchester, County of Riverside, California. Defenders is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Indiana, with its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 800.400.6808 Facsimile: 800.520.5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com - and - Yana A. Hart, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 Email: yana@kazlg.com DELI MANAGEMENT: Eltayeb Seeks Proper Pay for Delivery Drivers -------------------------------------------------------------- MOHAMED HISHAM ELTAYEB, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. DELI MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a "Jason’s Deli", Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00385 (E.D. Tex., May 11, 2020) is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendant at their Jason's Deli stores. The Defendant's systematic failure to adequately reimburse automobile expenses constitutes a "kickback" to Defendant such that the hourly wages it pays to Plaintiff and Defendant's other delivery drivers are not paid free and clear of all outstanding obligations to Defendant. Defendant fails to reasonably approximate the amount of their drivers' automobile expenses to such an extent that its drivers’ net wages are diminished beneath the federal minimum wage requirements. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately July 2007 to November 2019 as a delivery driver at one of Defendant's stores in North Texas and took deliveries around the DFW metroplex, including in this district and division. Deli Management, Inc. d/b/a Jason's Deli is a fast casual delicatessen restaurant chain headquartered in Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Meredith Black-Mathews, Esq. J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St Paul St. Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 Email: mmathews@foresterhaynie.com jay@foresterhaynie.com DOLLAR TREE: Deal Reached in Distribution Center Employee's Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2020, that the company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the class action suit initiated by a distribution center employee in California. In April 2015, a distribution center employee filed a class action in California state court with allegations concerning wages, meal and rest breaks, recovery periods, wage statements and timely termination pay. Dollar Tree said, "We have reached an agreement and are awaiting court approval." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake, Virginia. DOLLAR TREE: Suits Against Family Dollar Over ADA Breach Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2020, that Family Dollar continues to defend purported nationwide and state class action suits related to its violation with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), initiated by a law firm. Beginning in 2019, a law firm has filed lawsuits around the country, including purported nationwide and state class actions, alleging that Family Dollar violated the public accommodation requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act or its state law equivalent, by systemically blocking the aisles with merchandise. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake, Virginia. DOUGH MANAGEMENT: Settlement in Rechtoris Suit Gets Prelim Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, COREY RECHTORIS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. DOUGH MANAGEMENT, INC., d/b/a "Domino's pizza," and JAMES GRONEMANN, Defendants, Cause No. 3:18CV708-PPS/MGG (N.D. Ind.), Judge Philip P. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, granted the parties' Consent Motion for (1) Certification of a Collective and Class Action for Settlement Purposes, (2) Approval of a Collective Action Settlement, (3) Preliminary Approval of a Class Action Settlement, (4) Approval of Notice to Putative Claimants, and (5) Scheduling a Hearing for Final Approval of the Parties' Class Action Settlement Agreement. Corey Rechtoris is a former delivery driver for a Domino's pizza franchise owned and operated by Defendants Dough Management and James Gronemann. The Defendants own and operate a chain of 16 Domino's pizza stores in Indiana and Illinois. Rechtoris worked for the Defendants as a pizza delivery driver from February 2018 to September 2018. On behalf of himself and other current and former delivery drivers, Rechtoris brings the lawsuit as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that, during a defined period of time, the Defendants under-reimbursed delivery drivers' vehicle expenses, so that their net wages fell below the federal and state minimum wage rates. The litigation proceeded to the Defendants' disclosure of delivery data necessary for the evaluation of liability and damages. After the Plaintiff's counsel throughly reviewed and analyzed that data, the parties proceeded to mediation, which they engaged in for a full day on Nov. 19, 2019 with an experienced wage and hour mediator in Chicago. The result is the settlement agreement now before the Court on the parties' Consent Motion. The Court has held two telephone conferences with the counsel concerning the proposed settlement. The first, on February 6, addressed the parties' request to file settlement documents under seal. The second telephone conference on February 24, at which those questions and concerns were addressed. As a result of that conference, various amendments and corrections were made to the settlement documents, which have been filed on Feb. 28, 2020 and on March 2, 2020. Judge Simon has carefully reviewed the agreement, and after the amendments and corrections the parties have made in response to his critique, he is satisfied that the agreement constitutes a fair and reasonable compromise of a bona fide dispute of both legal and factual issues, and that the proposed settlement fairly takes into account the potential value of the class claims, balanced against the risk, effort, expense and delay of further litigation and possible appeals. The class is defined as all persons who worked for Dough Management, Inc. or Gronemann Pizza, Inc. at their Domino's pizza stores in Indiana and Illinois as delivery drivers at any time during the Release Period. The Release Period is defined as the period from Jan. 1, 2017 through the date the court grants preliminary approval of the parties' settlement. The proposed settlement would distribute to each class member who does not opt out at least a minimum payment, and a total payment reflecting the ratio of the class member's individual miles recorded making deliveries, divided by the aggregate of all class members' miles. An additional service award is proposed to be paid to Corey Rechtoris for his service to the class in initiating the lawsuit and working with counsel to assist in prosecuting the case. The Plaintiff's counsel will receive an award of fees and litigation costs equal to one-third of the gross settlement amount. The parties will jointly select a third-party settlement administrator, whose fees will be paid from the gross settlement amount. A notice of the action and a claim form will be mailed to all putative class members, explaining the nature of the case and the settlement, and the recipient's options. Each class member will have 60 days from the mailing of the notice to submit a claim form, choose to opt out, or file objections. Based on his consideration of the parties' detailed and comprehensive motion, and his discussion with counsel at both telephonic conferences, Judge Simon is persuaded to grant preliminary approval to the proposed settlement. The Judge concludes that the terms the parties have reached, and now propose to the Court, adequately and reasonably reflect the balance of all relevant considerations. The attorney's fee proposed and agreed by the parties is reasonable. The settlement agreement contemplates a fee award equal to one-third of the total settlement amount, a percentage well within the range typically charged by counsel as a contingency fee in such cases. Finally, an incentive award to the named Plaintiff is reasonable and appropriate. Rechtoris has substantially assisted the class in obtaining the recovery represented by the settlement. He sought and retained experienced counsel, initiated the lawsuit, and provided assistance and information necessary to prosecute the action. The Defendants do not oppose the relatively modest service award that is proposed in the settlement agreement. For these reasons, Judge Simon granted the parties' Consent Motion. The parties are authorized to send the approved notice of the settlement to the following class, which is certified pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 and §216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for settlement purposes as follows: All persons who worked for Dough Management, Inc. or Gronemann Pizza, Inc. at their Domino's pizza stores in Indiana and Illinois as delivery drivers at any time during the Release Period. The Release Period is defined as the period from Jan. 1, 2017 through the date of this order granting preliminary approval of the parties' settlement. The Notice will be sent pursuant to the procedure set forth in the parties' Settlement and Release Agreement. The Court also approved the latest proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement and the proposed Claim Form. The Court authorized a third-party Settlement Claims Administrator, as agreed to by the parties pursuant to the terms of the proposed Agreement, to send notices to all Delivery Drivers, containing the Court's approved Notice, Claim Form, and a postage paid return envelope addressed to the Settlement Claims Administrator pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. The Court approved the proposed schedule and procedure for the final approval of the proposed Agreement, and ordered that the final approval hearing will be held (as previously established) on July 9, 2020, at 11:00 a.m. (ET), in the South Bend Courthouse. Prior to the hearing, the parties will file and brief a motion for final approval of the settlement, as required by the Agreement, as well as provide the Court with a proposed agreed order and judgment. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 3, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/zBoDBl from Leagle.com. Corey Rechtoris, Individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Mark A. Potashnick -- markp@wp-attorneys.com -- Weinhaus & Potashnick, pro hac vice & David Matthew Haynie -- info@foresterhaynie.com -- Forester Haynie PLLC. Dough Management Inc, doing business as "Domino's Pizza" & James Gronemann, Individually, Defendants, represented by Joel W. Rice -- jrice@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP. DUKE UNIVERSITY: Student Files Suit Seeking Tuition Fee Refund -------------------------------------------------------------- An anonymous Duke University student has filed a class-action lawsuit seeking to represent his fellow Duke students to obtain repayment of tuition, room and board and other expenses in light of the outbreak of COVID-19, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman. The latest lawsuit follows similar actions from Hagens Berman against Boston University, Brown University, George Washington University and Vanderbilt, in which students and parents sued their universities. The class-action lawsuit against Duke has been brought by a fulltime Duke student and Minnesota resident, referred to in the complaint anonymously as John Doe. The case was filed May 8, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina and accuses the university of breach of contract, unjust enrichment and conversion. If you are paying for college tuition, and/or room and board at a college or university closed due to COVID-19, find out more about the lawsuit and your rights. The law firm is investigating all higher education institutions in the U.S. According to attorneys at the firm, Duke University students, like millions of college students across the country, have been forced to endure closed residence halls, cancelled events, online learning in place of in-class courses, and lack of access to labs, cafeterias and often their own belongings as dormitories shutdown in a rush response to the novel coronavirus pandemic. "Duke prides itself on its 'exceptional academics,' and 'community of support,' and there's a reason hopeful students choose Duke over higher education via remote learning," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and attorney for students in the class action. "While many schools nationwide offer and highlight remote learning capabilities as a primary component of their efforts to deliver educational value (see, e.g., Western Governors University, Southern New Hampshire University, University of Phoenix-Arizona), Defendant is not such a school," the suit states. "Furthermore, touting its campus, Duke notes that its 'campus of 8,600+ acres gives students space to roam -- both physically and intellectually. But it isn't just the setting that makes Duke unlike any other university. It's the feeling -- the kinetic energy of connections forged, creativity sparked, and ideas born.'" "Students at Duke suffered an abrupt and unprecedented upheaval after their 2020 spring break, evicted from the dorms and switching entirely to remote learning," Berman added. "No more library access, hands-on lab experiences, gym access or in-person access to professors, all of which our client and many other Duke students paid for and expected to receive." The suit states that students, parents and guardians who paid Duke's tuition and fees for the spring 2020 semester, for which Duke charges $27,940 for undergraduate tuition, deserve payback for their disrupted studies, living situations and other losses. Attorneys say plaintiff paid Duke for opportunities and services that he will not receive, including on-campus education, facilities, services and activities. "In matriculating at Duke University, Plaintiff, like other students, chose to enroll for in-person classes to obtain a hands-on educational experience, avail himself of top academic instruction, and directly interact with faculty and classmates to increase his knowledge and understanding of the subject material," the complaint states. Other Affected Universities Hagens Berman is investigating the rights of those who are currently paying for room and board, and/or tuition at colleges and universities that have been forced to close due to the outbreak of COVID-19. This may include parents, guardians or college students who are paying for their own costs of college. Despite orders from colleges and universities sending home students and closing campuses, these institutions of higher learning continue to charge for tuition and room and board. Collectively, these institutions are continuing to receive millions from students despite their inability to continue school as normal, or occupy campus buildings and dorms. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- 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. [GN] DXC TECHNOLOGY: California Securities Class Suits Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- DXC Technology Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2020, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend class suits in California that alleged false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's prospects and expected performance. On August 20, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, against the Company, directors of the Company, and a former officer of the Company, among other defendants. On September 16, 2019, a substantially similar purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, directors of the Company, and a former officer of the Company, among other defendants. On November 8, 2019, a third purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, directors of the Company, and a former officer of the Company, among other defendants. The third lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff and re-filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara on November 26, 2019, and thereafter was consolidated with the earlier-filed action in the same court on December 10, 2019. The California lawsuits assert claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and are premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's prospects and expected performance. Plaintiff in the federal action filed an amended complaint on January 8, 2020. The putative class of plaintiffs in these cases includes all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock pursuant to the offering documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the April 2017 transaction that formed DXC. The Company has filed a motion to stay the consolidated state court case in favor of the federal action and a motion to dismiss the federal action. DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides information technology services and solutions primarily in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). DXC Technology Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Tysons, Virginia. DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Draetta Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, GERARD DRAETTA, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DYCOM INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 9:20-cv-80888-KAM (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Credit Collection Manager from May 12, 2014 through and including April 3, 2020 with various rate of pay every year. According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked a minimum of 3 hours of overtime per week throughout his employment. But, Plaintiff was not compensated for any of his overtime work performed. The complaint asserts that Defendant intentionally failed to pay Plaintiff's overtime pay and avoided and recklessly failed to investigate proper payroll practices. Dycom Industries, Inc. provides specialty contracting services to the telecommunications and infrastructure industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nolan K. Klein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A. 5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Tel: (954) 745-0588 Email: klein@nklegal.com EMORY UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Seeking Tuition Fee Refund ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emory University is the latest university sued in a student class-action lawsuit seeking to represent all Emory students enrolled at the university for the spring 2020 semester to obtain repayment of tuition, room and board and other expenses in light of the outbreak of COVID-19, as well as parents and guardians left paying those same costs, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman. If you are paying for college tuition, and/or room and board at a college or university closed due to COVID-19, find out more about the lawsuit and your rights. The law firm is investigating all higher education institutions in the U.S. The class action lawsuit is brought by a fulltime Emory student and Massachusetts resident and was filed May 8, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The lawsuit accuses Emory University of breach of contract, unjust enrichment and money had and received. The student alleges that due to Emory's closure, those enrolled at the university for the spring 2020 semester did not receive the full value of the services paid and did not receive the benefits of in-person instruction they paid for. The law firm representing the Emory student and proposed class against the university, Hagens Berman, has also recently brought similar suits against the University of Southern California, Boston University, Brown University, George Washington University and Vanderbilt University, in which students and parents sued their universities. "We believe that Emory's community -- the students that regularly fill its campus, and the parents and guardians who afford their enrollment -- deserve payback for the tens of thousands of dollars they paid for tuition and other expenses following Emory's campus closure and lack of accessible resources to its student body," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and attorney for students in the class action. Emory Students Denied Refunds The suit's named plaintiff states she, like other students, chose Emory due to the very resources and experiences that have been inaccessible amid the outbreak of COVID-19 and subsequent campus closure. "In matriculating at Emory University, Plaintiff, like other students, enrolled at Defendant for in-person classes to obtain a hands-on educational experience, avail herself of top academic instruction, and directly interact with faculty and classmates to increase her knowledge," the suit states. "On top of this, Plaintiff enrolled at Defendant to obtain not only the many benefits of Emory University as a whole but also the small-school, small class size environment promoted by Defendant." The class action says the suit's plaintiff has missed out on access to professors, functional lectures and a variety of student activities. Emory has also denied access to dining halls, campus transportation, group study spaces, libraries and athletic facilities to those enrolled for the spring 2020 semester. The lawsuit says while Defendant has offered some refunds, it has done so only partially: "While Plaintiff vacated campus at Defendant's direction on March 17, 2020, Defendant limits its refunds to a prorated period starting March 23, 2020. And Plaintiff's balance of dining dollars were refunded at a 40% basis," according to the complaint. "We believe Emory students deserve more than what the university is offering them," Berman added. The suit states that during the spring 2020 semester, Emory costs students $26,535 in tuition, not including room and board, and other expenses, "significantly higher than online only programs." Emory's spring 2020 cost for room averages at $4,319, and $3,167 for board per semester. Other Affected Universities Hagens Berman is investigating the rights of those who are currently paying for room and board, and/or tuition at colleges and universities across the nation that have been forced to close due to the outbreak of COVID-19. This may include parents, guardians or college students who are paying for their own costs of college. Despite orders from colleges and universities sending home students and closing campuses, these institutions of higher learning continue to charge for tuition and room and board. Collectively, these institutions are continuing to receive millions from students despite their inability to continue school as normal, or occupy campus buildings and dorms. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- 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. [GN] ETERNITY BEACHWEAR: Faces Whelan Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- William "Bill" Whelan, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. ETERNITY BEACHWEAR & MARKET LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, ALISA UNIVERSE LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, d/b/a NITRO DRAGONS, and ITAMAR MAKMAL, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-22320-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff regularly worked an average of six days per week for the Defendants, averaging 48 hours per week, according to the complaint. However, the Defendants failed to pay time and one-half wages for all of the hours the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week for the Defendants, Despite the Defendants having knowledge of the overtime hours worked each week by the Plaintiff, however variously titled, for the benefit of the Defendants between June 2017 and the present, the Defendants nonetheless willfully failed to pay time and one-half wages for all overtime hours worked as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a non-exempt employee. The Defendants have owned and operated a convenience store and hotel gift shop in the lower level of the "Hotel Majestic," as well as a gelato shop on the ground floor of the "Starlite Motel," both located in Miami Beach Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. 80 SW 8th Street, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (305) 901-1379 Email: employlaw@keithstern.com EVERI HOLDINGS: Awaits Approval of Donahue Settlement ----------------------------------------------------- Everi Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a settlement has been reached in the class action suit entitled, Geraldine Donahue, et al. v. Everi FinTech, et. al. Geraldine Donahue, et. al. v. Everi FinTech, et. al. ("Donahue"), is a putative class action matter filed on December 12, 2018, in Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Division, Chancery Division. The original defendant was dismissed and the Company was substituted as the defendant on April 22, 2019. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleges that Everi FinTech and the Company (a) have violated certain provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by their failure, as agent to the original defendant, to properly truncate patron credit card numbers when printing cash access receipts as required under FACTA, and (b) have been unjustly enriched through the charging of service fees for transactions conducted at the original defendant's facilities. Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The parties have reached an agreement in principle for settlement of this matter, which will include the settlement and resolution of all the FACTA-related matters pending against the Company and Everi FinTech. The settlement requires court approval, which the parties are in the process of working to obtain. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Everi Holdings Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2004, is a holding company. The Company operates through subsidiaries, including Everi Games Holding Inc. (Everi Games Holding) and Everi Payments Inc. (Everi Payments or Payments). The Company operates through two segments: Games and FinTech. The Company provides video and mechanical reel gaming content and technology solutions, integrated gaming payments solutions, and compliance and efficiency software. The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. EVERI HOLDINGS: Jessop Suit Nixed Pending Donahue Settlement Okay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Everi Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the suit entitled, Mat Jessop, et. al. v. Penn National Gaming, Inc., has been dismissed, in anticipation of court approval of the settlement in Geraldine Donahue, et. al. v. Everi FinTech, et. al. Mat Jessop, et. al. v. Penn National Gaming, Inc., was a putative class action matter filed on October 15, 2018, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. Everi FinTech was added as a defendant on December 21, 2018. Penn National Gaming, Inc. ("Penn National") was dismissed by the Court with prejudice on October 28, 2019, leaving only claims against Everi FinTech. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleged that Everi FinTech had been unjustly enriched through the charging of service fees for transactions conducted at Penn National facilities. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief against both parties, and an award of statutory damages, attorney's fees, and costs. This matter has been dismissed in anticipation of court approval of the settlement in Geraldine Donahue, et. al. v. Everi FinTech, et. al. Everi Holdings Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2004, is a holding company. The Company operates through subsidiaries, including Everi Games Holding Inc. (Everi Games Holding) and Everi Payments Inc. (Everi Payments or Payments). The Company operates through two segments: Games and FinTech. The Company provides video and mechanical reel gaming content and technology solutions, integrated gaming payments solutions, and compliance and efficiency software. The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. EVERI HOLDINGS: Rehman Suit Nixed Pending Donahue Settlement Okay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Everi Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class action suit entitled, Oneeb Rehman, et. al. v. Everi FinTech and Everi Holdings, has been dismissed in anticipation of court approval of the settlement in Geraldine Donahue, et. al. v. Everi FinTech, et. al. Oneeb Rehman, et. al. v. Everi FinTech and Everi Holdings, was a putative class action matter pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Ft. Lauderdale Division filed on October 16, 2018. The original defendant was dismissed and the Company was substituted as the defendant on April 22, 2019. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleged that Everi FinTech and the Company (a) had violated certain provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by their failure, as agent to the original defendant, to properly truncate patron credit card numbers when printing cash access receipts as required under FACTA, and (b) had been unjustly enriched through the charging of service fees for transactions conducted at the original defendant's facilities. Plaintiff sought an award of statutory damages, attorney's fees, and costs. This matter has been dismissed in anticipation of court approval of the settlement in Geraldine Donahue, et. al. v. Everi FinTech, et. al.. Everi Holdings Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2004, is a holding company. The Company operates through subsidiaries, including Everi Games Holding Inc. (Everi Games Holding) and Everi Payments Inc. (Everi Payments or Payments). The Company operates through two segments: Games and FinTech. The Company provides video and mechanical reel gaming content and technology solutions, integrated gaming payments solutions, and compliance and efficiency software. The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. FAIR ISAAC: Credit Union Alleges Monopoly in Credit Scores Market ----------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF BOSTON CREDIT UNION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03315 (N.D. Ill., June 4, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of federal antitrust laws and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and others who purchased Fair Isaac's FICO credit scores in the business-to-business (B2B) market, alleges that the Defendant is engaged in an anticompetitive scheme through national credit reporting agencies, also known as credit bureaus or consumer reporting agencies, which include Equifax Inc., Experian PLC, and Trans Union LLC. The Defendant included several anticompetitive provisions in its distribution agreements with the three national credit reporting agencies in order to maintain and expand its monopoly in the market for credit scores. Foremost, Fair Isaac restricts the credit reporting agencies' ability to develop or distribute competing credit scores. Fair Isaac also uses its royalty prices for FICO Scores to inhibit the credit reporting agencies from bundling a competing score with the FICO Score when selling to downstream customers. In addition, because Fair Isaac has insisted that all three credit reporting agencies pay it the same royalty price for FICO Scores, the individual agencies cannot negotiate for a lower royalty and pass along that benefit to their customers. As a result of the Defendant's exclusionary and anticompetitive acts, the Plaintiff and Class members have been injured in their business or property. City of Boston Credit Union is a credit union with its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. Fair Isaac Corporation is a data analytics company and seller of credit scoring system, with its principal place of business at 181 Metro Drive, Suite 700, San Jose, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marvin A. Miller, Esq. Lori A. Fanning, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 332-3400 E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com lfanning@millerlawllc.com - and – Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Karin E. Garvey, Esq. Robin A. van der Meulen, Esq. Matthew J. Perez, Esq. Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com kgarvey@labaton.com rvandermeulen@labaton.com mperez@labaton.com jcrevier@labaton.com - and – Guillaume Buell, Esq. THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP 1 Lincoln Street, 13th Floor Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 720-1333 E-mail: gbuell@tenlaw.com FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Ober Sues Over "Oppressive" Collection Letter ----------------------------------------------------------------- AIDA OBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES, INC. and LVNV FUNDING LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02569 (E.D. Pa., June 1, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff has a debt obligation that was allegedly incurred to Comenity Bank, and was purchased by Defendant LVNV for collection. According to the complaint, Defendant LVNV contracted with Defendant FRS to collect the alleged debt of Plaintiff by sending a collection letter on or about March 23, 2020. However, the collection letter was threatening and harassing by implying legal action if the full balance is not paid which is a violation of the 15 U.S. Code Section 1692d. Financial Recovery Services, Inc. and LVNV Funding LLC are debt collectors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Antranig Garibian, Esq. GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 326-9179 Email: ag@garibianlaw.com FIREMAN'S FUND: Water Sports Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses -------------------------------------------------------------- WATER SPORTS KAUAI, INC., DBA SAND PEOPLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION, and ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS US INSURANCE CO., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03750 (N.D. Cal., June 5, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair or deceptive business practices. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated business entities that purchased insurance policy from the Defendants, alleges that the Defendants denied its insurance claim for business interruption coverage despite the fact that it suffered and continues to suffer substantial lost business income and other financial losses following the closure of its stores in Hawaii as mandated by the government to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendants also decided to deny and denied the Plaintiff's claims without any inspection or review of its physical locations or documents concerning its business activities in 2020. The Plaintiff argues that the policy is an all-risk property damage policy because its terms indicate that it covers all risks which can cause harm to physical property except for risks that are expressly and specifically excluded. The policy also provides civil authority coverage, pursuant to which Defendants agreed that they will pay for the actual loss of business income sustained and necessary extra expense caused by action of civil authority that prohibits access to the described premises. Water Sports Kauai, Inc., d/b/a Sand People, is a corporation that sells gifts, artwork, décor, jewelry, glassware, coastal furnishing, apparel, soaps, lotions, candles, and books in Hawaii. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company is an insurance provider with a principal place of business in Petaluma or Novato, California. National Surety Corporation is a subsidiary of Fireman's Fund Insurance Company with a principal place of business in Petaluma or Novato, California. Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Co. is global business insurance company with a principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Nelson, Esq. Fabrice N. Vincent, Esq. Jacob H. Polin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 - and – Judith Ann Pavey, Esq. STARN O'TOOLE MARCUS & FISHER, A LAW CORPORATION Pacific Guardian Center, Makai Tower 733 Bishop Street, Suite 1900 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 537-6100 Facsimile: (808) 537-5434 E-mail: jpavey@starnlaw.com - and – Alexandra L. Foote, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALEXANDRA L. FOOTE, P.C. 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (786) 408-8083 Facsimile: (415) 956-0561 GACO WESTERN: Court Grants Bid to Deny Feamster Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROBERT SCOTT FEAMSTER, Plaintiff, v. GACO WESTERN, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01327-HSG (N.D.Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Defendants' motion to deny class certification. Plaintiff Feamster, proceeding pro se, filed the putative class action on Feb. 28, 2018, alleging violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and seven common law claims, including breach of express warranty, negligence, strict product liability, and fraudulent misrepresentation. Feamster alleges that he purchased Defendant Gaco Western's spray foam ("SPF") product to provide insulation to his home. After the Plaintiff's general contractor applied the product, the Foam had begun to shrink and had not bonded in the Feamster's home. The Defendant's representatives investigated the situation, and on May 12 or 13, 2016, they indicated that the cause of the failed foam was a defect in the product - a formulation error that was present in the entire batch of foam. Due to the Foam defect, the Plaintiff alleges that he and other putative class members incurred property damage. The Plaintiff identifies a putative class consisting of all individuals who have Gaco Western foam installed in their California residence, business, or other structure, where such foam is of the same formulation and/or from the same batch as the Gaco Western foam installed in the Plaintiff's home. Pending before the Court is the Defendant's motion to deny class certification. Defendant brought a motion to deny class certification before the Plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class. The Court relates that Rule 23 does not preclude a defendant from bringing a 'preemptive' motion to deny certification. Instead, a defendant may move to deny class certification before a plaintiff files a motion to certify a class, especially in the instant case where the Plaintiff failed to file its motion for class certification by Aug. 2, 2019, as ordered by the Court. Accordingly, the Judge addresses the merits of the motion. Judge Gilliam finds that it appears that only a limited number of customers besides the Plaintiff could possibly have had the Foam installed on their property. This fails to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the class is sufficiently numerous. Importantly, even if the Plaintiff could establish numerosity by a preponderance of the evidence, the Judge also denies class certification because the Plaintiff cannot establish that he will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. A pro se plaintiff may represent his own interests but may not represent a class without representation. Finally, the Defendant asks the Court to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. However, the Ninth Circuit has held that continued jurisdiction under CAFA does not depend on certification. Accordingly, the Judge will deny the Defendant's request to dismiss the entire action. Because the Plaintiff cannot establish numerosity or adequacy of representation, and either failure provides sufficient basis to deny class certification, Judge Gilliam granted the Defendants' motion. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 6, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/uf9BFL from Leagle.com. Scott Feamster, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Sheri L. Kelly -- slk@sherikellylaw.com -- Law Office of Sheri L. Kelly. Gaco Western, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Nicolas Peter Martin -- nick.martin@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON ELSER LLP. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Judge Dismisses Investor Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Tom McParland, writing for Law.com, reports that a Manhattan federal judge has dismissed an investor class action that targeted General Electric Co. for allegedly concealing a major defect with its newest line of power plant turbines and taking a "mammoth" $22 billion write-off, which sparked civil and criminal investigations of the multinational conglomerate. [GN] GOJO INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Burgett Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ JONATHAN BURGETT, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOJO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01218 (N.D. Ohio, June 3, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged failure to pay overtime compensation in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a maintenance employee at Defendant's Wooster facility between April 2019 and March 27, 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated maintenance, warehouse and manufacturing employees were classified by Defendant as non-exempt and paid them an hourly wage. The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for all time worked and overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, and failed to keep records of all the hours worked by them. Gojo Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer of hand sanitizers, hand soaps, hand cleaner, surface sanitizers and disinfectants, dispensers, body washes, and shampoos. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Tel: 216-696-5000 Fax: 216-696-7005 Emails: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com Anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com GRAND CANYON EDUCATION: Retirement System Files Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- THE CITY OF HIALEAH EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GRAND CANYON EDUCATION, INC., BRIAN E. MUELLER, and DANIEL E. BACHUS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00639-UNA (D. Del., May 12, 2020) is a federal securities class action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Grand Canyon's publicly traded common stock between January 5, 2018 and January 27, 2020, inclusive. The claims asserted are alleged against Grand Canyon and certain of the Company's senior executives and arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Class Period begins with the Company's January 5, 2018, announcement that it had applied to regional accreditation body the Higher Learning Commission ("HLC") for recognition of GCU as a non-profit institution. Throughout the Class Period, Grand Canyon told investors that GCU would be "independent" from Grand Canyon, that the relationship between the two entities would "no longer be as owner and operator, but as a third party contract party" and that GCU was "not a related party" to Grand Canyon. Following the spin-off, Grand Canyon consistently reported growth in net income and adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA"), and touted the success of its transition into the role of a third-party services provider. Then, after the close of market on November 6, 2019, the Company announced that it had received a letter from the U.S. Department of Education ("DOE") denying its application for designation of GCU as a non-profit. In response to this disclosure, the price of Grand Canyon stock declined approximately 4% to close at $88.08 per share on November 7, 2019. On January 28, 2020, Citron published a second report expanding on the DOE's findings based on hundreds of pages of supporting documentation from Grand Canyon, which Citron obtained through a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request. Citron concluded that Grand Canyon was the "educational Enron," using a "captive non-reporting subsidiary" to "dump expenses and liabilities, while receiving a disproportionate amount of revenue at inflated margins in order to artificially inflate the stock price." Following this disclosure, Grand Canyon shares declined approximately 8% to close at $84.07 per share on January 28, 2020. Plaintiff is a benefit pension plan based in Hialeah, Florida, that provides pension services and benefits to employees, retirees, and beneficiaries of the City of Hialeah. Grand Canyon is an education services company incorporated in the State of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 364-3600 Email: greg.varallo@blbglaw.com - and - Hannah Ross, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 Email: hannah@blbglaw.com avi@blbglaw.com - and - Robert D. Klausner, Esq. Stuart A. Kaufman, Esq. 7080 Northwest 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 Facsimile: (954) 916-1232 Email: bob@robertdklausner.com stu@robertdklausner.com GRIDSUM HOLDING: Gordon Class Action Still Stayed ------------------------------------------------- Gridsum Holding Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit entitled, Gordon v. Gridsum Holding Inc., et al., remains stayed. On July 2, 2018, a a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against the company and certain of its current and former directors and executive officers, among other defendants, variously alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act against them. The lawsuit, captioned, Gordon v. Gridsum Holding Inc., et al., Index No. 18-653342, is brought on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who "purchased or otherwise acquired" American Depositary Shares (ADSs) in the company's initial public offering on September 23, 2016, and are based on substantially the same allegations as the consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 22, 2019, an amended complaint was filed. On April 10, 2019, the court granted the company's motion to stay this action pending the determination of the federal action, and this action remains stayed pending the resolution of the federal action. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Gridsum Holding Inc. provides data analysis software for enterprises and government agencies in China. The company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Beijing, China. GRIDSUM HOLDING: Securities Litigation Underway in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ Gridsum Holding Inc. and its officers and directors continue to defend against a securities class action lawsuit and their response to the third amended complaint was slated to be filed this week, the Company said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. On April 25, 2018 and June 25, 2018, purported securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company, Guosheng Qi, its chief executive officer and chairman, and Michael Peng Zhang, its then co-chief financial officer, among other defendants. These lawsuits, which are captioned Xu v. Gridsum Holding Inc., et al., Case No. 18-CV-3655, and Li v. Gridsum Holding Inc., et al., Case No. 18-CV-5749, alleged, among other things, that "false and/or misleading statements" were made "and/or" the company failed to disclose its lack of effective controls over financial reporting, in connection with its announcement on April 23, 2018 that its financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2016 should no longer be relied upon. On September 17, 2018, the court appointed a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and ordered the lawsuits consolidated. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on November 30, 2018 that variously alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the company and its current and former officers and directors, among other defendants. On March 1, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended class action complaint, or the SAC, that alleges a putative class period between September 22, 2016 to January 7, 2019. The company and a defendant who is a former director filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On March 30, 2020, the court granted the motion with respect to certain claims, dismissing the claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act in their entirety, and the Section 10(b) claim of the Exchange Act with respect to the director. The court in the same order also denied the lead plaintiffs' motion for alternative service on the remaining individual defendants who were named in the SAC, but have not yet been served. On May 7, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended complaint, or TAC. The defendants intended to file their response to the TAC on or before June 8, 2020. Gridsum Holding Inc. provides data analysis software for enterprises and government agencies in China. The company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Beijing, China. GRUBHUB: Faces Class Action in Denver ------------------------------------- Lori Jane Gliha, writing for KDVR, reports that the popular food delivery service Grubhub is "intentionally misleading consumers during a pandemic to maximize profits" at the expense of many small business owners, according to claims made in a federal lawsuit filed on May 11 in Denver. "I just think that everyone needs to play fair, and Grubhub just isn't doing that," said Ross Ziev, the attorney who filed the class-action suit. Ziev accused Grubhub of using misleading, online messaging to steer business away from local restaurants that do not pay to partner with the delivery service. Ziev said Grubhub is telling consumers that some local restaurants are not accepting online orders when, in fact, they are accepting orders through alternative ordering platforms. "They (Grubhub) will do everything that they can to steer their customers back to where they can make money. And unfortunately, that's on the backs of a lot of these local restaurants that are trying to survive," Ziev said. "It's absolutely devastating, and it's appalling that this company does these practices," said Erik Riggs, who owns Freshcraft, the 16th Street Mall craft beer bar and kitchen named as the plaintiff in the suit. Ziev said if someone were to Google "Freshcraft delivery," a link to order food through Grubhub would present itself online. However, when a consumer clicks the link, this message appears: This restaurant is not taking online orders. Try a similar restaurant nearby. The site advertises other restaurant choices, like McDonald's and Pepper Asian Bistro, as possible alternatives for the consumer. Ziev said this is problematic because Freshcraft is open for business Tuesday through Sunday, and it is taking orders, just not through Grubhub. "These messages are posted intentionally, fraudulently and with conscious disregard for the truth of whether the restaurant is actually closed, whether it is open for takeout, or whether it is supplying delivery orders with a Grubhub competitor," the suit alleges. Grubhub told the FOX31 Problem Solvers it does not comment on pending litigation but that its mission is to "connect hungry diners with great, local restaurants." "We're committed to helping restaurants, drivers and diners through this challenging time and are investing tens of millions of dollars into programs that directly drive more business to our restaurant partners," a spokesperson said. Riggs said customers can order from his business by calling or visiting the restaurant's website directly and clicking the order now button. "It is a tough time for us more than any," said Riggs of local restaurants. "Your McDonald's, your Starbucks, your Walmarts of the world, they will be just fine. It's people like me that own businesses that work hard to keep these businesses afloat that are working even harder right now." Riggs said he chose not to partner with Grubhub, so he would have control over how food from his restaurant is delivered and to avoid the fees associated with a partnership. "There are restaurants, like me, all over the country that are struggling very, very hard right now, and they need all the help they can get. This is just an unnecessary hurdle for us," he said. [GN] HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Dentist Files Business Interruption Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Andrea V. Watson, writing for Patch, reports that a Smyrna dentist has filed a class-action lawsuit against an insurance company. The suit was filed on May 8 in U.S. District Court in Atlanta. The insurers have denied the dental practice and other business owners' claims for lost income because of the coronavirus pandemic, according to the suit. It is being pursued by Dr. Roy H. Johnson and his practice, Windy Hill Dentistry, reports the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The suit is against The Hartford Financial Services Group and eight of its insurance subsidiaries. Former Georgia governor and Marietta attorney Roy Barnes' law firm is representing the dental practice. Barnes said he disagrees with Hartford's position. "The insurance company is saying that a business interruption has to be accompanied by a physical loss -- like from a fire," Barnes told the AJC on May 9. "But there has been a physical loss here." A spokesman for Hartford told the outlet that the company won't comment on the lawsuit. Businesses across Georgia were ordered to temporarily close in March as the number of new coronavirus cases grew. Gov. Brian Kemp ordered bars, nightclubs and nonessential businesses to suspend operations. A statewide shelter-in-place was implemented in April. Georgia began reopening businesses and restaurants in late April. In a news conference, Kemp emphasized that the reopening decision was made after much deliberation. He said if he hadn't done so, there would still be people who didn't agree with him. The governor said he gave people opportunities "who were on the verge of losing everything." [GN] HENDREN PLASTICS: Settles DARP Class Action ------------------------------------------- Sara E. Teller, writing for Legal Reader, reports that District Judge Timothy Brooks has submitted a class action ruling ordering Hendren Plastics and the Drug and Alcohol Recovery Program (DARP) of Decatur, Arkansas, to pay 172 former program participants more than $1.1 million in back wages. According to the case, those suffering from addictions enrolled at the DARP Foundation for recovery help. Many were court-ordered to attend in lieu of incarceration even though they hadn't committed crimes. Instead of getting adequate care, however, they were required to work full time without pay at Hendren Plastics, a factory owned by Jim Hendren, the Arkansas Senate president pro tempore. At the plastics factory, participants were employed on an assemble line and tasked with melting plastic for products sold at popular retailers. According to a court order, Brooks said, "Hendren and DARP used the program for financial gain" and "both companies are required to follow the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act and pay participants at least minimum wage for their work." The ruling stated further, "They were businesses that manipulated the labor market and skirted compliance with the labor laws for their own private ends." Brooks added, "People struggling with drug addiction are still entitled to wages . . . Businesses that profit from the labor of non-incarcerated drug addicts must still comply with the (Arkansas Minimum Wage Act's) strict requirements." Workers reported molten plastic would commonly burn their face, arms and legs, and yet, they were required to continue working and received little help. "They just gave me some Neosporin and told me I'd be all right," said Dylan Willis, a former participant. "I wasn't in it for the money. I just wanted for them to be exposed," said Mark Fochtman, one of the class action plaintiffs who was also ordered to work at the factory. He added, "They just need to treat people more like humans and less like a business. Recovery is not a business. You're doomed to fail if you try to turn recovery into a business, and that's what happened with this. I just hope they see what comes around goes around. They kind of got what's coming to them." Attorney Tim Steadman, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, explained, "This is a common sense conclusion that people who are not in prison, they're protected by wage and hour statutes." "Its residents directly competed with private citizens in the Arkansas labor market for employment at Hendren," Brooks wrote. "Hendren's use of DARP workers displaced private-sector workers Hendren would have ordinarily paid a higher rate of pay." Hendren Plastics canceled its contract with DARP following the initiation of the lawsuit. Jim Hendren said at the time, "We paid for every dime of labor we received. I was not privy to the agreement between the program and participants." He insisted the plastics company paid the agency $9.25 per hour for each worker. "We believe in opportunities for people to get their lives turned around," he said at the time of the filing. "It's an opportunity to help folks who have made some poor decisions." [GN] HEWLETT PACKARD: 4th Amended Complaint in Forsyth Due July 9 ------------------------------------------------------------ Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the Plaintiffs in Forsyth, et al. vs. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, have until July 9, 2020, to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. This purported class and collective action was filed on August 18, 2016 and an amended complaint was filed on December 19, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the California Business and Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them with younger workers. Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide collective action under the ADEA comprised of all individuals aged 40 and older who had their employment terminated by an HP entity pursuant to a work force reduction ("WFR") plan on or after December 9, 2014 for individuals terminated in deferral states and on or after April 8, 2015 in non-deferral states. Plaintiffs also seek to certify a Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012. On September 20, 2017, the court granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration and administratively closed the case pending resolution of the arbitration proceedings. On November 30, 2017, three named plaintiffs filed a single arbitration demand. Thirteen additional plaintiffs later joined the arbitration. On December 22, 2017, defendants filed a motion to (1) stay the case pending arbitrations and (2) enjoin the demanded arbitration and require each plaintiff to file a separate arbitration demand. On February 6, 2018, the court granted the motion to stay and denied the motion to enjoin. The claims of these sixteen arbitration named plaintiffs have been resolved. Additional opt-in plaintiffs were added to the litigation and these claims also were resolved as part of the arbitration process. The stay of the Forsyth class action has been lifted and a Third Amended Complaint was filed on January 7, 2020. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on February 6, 2020. On May 18, 2020, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. The court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a Fourth Amended Complaint is July 9, 2020. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT, Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments. The company serves small and medium-sized businesses and large enterprises. It has strategic alliance with ABB Ltd. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HEWLETT PACKARD: Demurrer in Ross and Rogus Suit Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that a trial court overseeing the case, Ross and Rogus v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, has denied HPE's demurrer as to the claims of the putative class and granted the demurrer as to the claims of the individual plaintiffs. On November 8, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara alleging that HPE pays its California-based female employees "systemically lower compensation" than HPE pays male employees performing substantially similar work. The complaint alleges various California state law claims, including California's Equal Pay Act, Fair Employment and Housing Act, and Unfair Competition Law, and seeks certification of a California-only class of female employees employed in certain "Covered Positions." The complaint seeks damages, statutory and civil penalties, attorneys' fees and costs. On April 2, 2019, HPE filed a demurrer to all causes of action and an alternative motion to strike portions of the complaint. On July 2, 2019, the court denied HPE's demurrer as to the claims of the putative class and granted HPE's demurrer as to the claims of the individual plaintiffs. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT, Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments. The company serves small and medium-sized businesses and large enterprises. It has strategic alliance with ABB Ltd. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HEWLETT PACKARD: Jackson Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------- Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the suit entitled, Jackson, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, has been dismissed. This putative nationwide class action was filed on July 24, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. Plaintiffs purport to bring the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated African-Americans and individuals over the age of forty. Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of racial and age discrimination in lay-offs and promotions. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 29, 2017. Plaintiffs seek damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and declaratory and injunctive relief. On January 12, 2018, defendants moved to transfer the matter to the federal district court in the Northern District of Georgia. Defendants also moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds and to strike certain aspects of the proposed class definition. On July 11, 2018, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss this action for improper venue, and also partially dismissed and struck certain claims without prejudice to re-filing in the appropriate venue. On July 23, 2018, plaintiffs re-filed their lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On August 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of the Northern District of California action with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 15, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay their lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia, which was granted by the court. On February 7, 2020, Defendants resolved the claims of the individual plaintiffs and the matters were dismissed. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT, Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments. The company serves small and medium-sized businesses and large enterprises. It has strategic alliance with ABB Ltd. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HEWLETT PACKARD: Wall Class Action Closed ----------------------------------------- Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that a trial court has signed an Amendment to Final Approval Order and Judgment, directing that the class action suit entitled, Wall v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and HP Inc. be closed. This certified California class action and Private Attorney General Act action was filed against Hewlett-Packard Company on January 17, 2012 and the fifth amended (and operative) complaint was filed against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise on June 28, 2016 in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange. The complaint alleges that the defendants paid earned incentive compensation late and failed to timely pay final wages in violation of the California Labor Code. On August 9, 2016, the court ordered the class certified without prejudice to a future motion to amend or modify the class certification order or to decertify. The scheduled January 22, 2018 trial date was vacated following the parties' notification to the court that they had reached a preliminary agreement to resolve the dispute. The parties subsequently finalized and executed a settlement agreement and, on May 9, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement. On July 2, 2018, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. On December 21, 2018, the court issued an order granting final approval. A Qualified Settlement Fund has been fully funded and distributed to class members. On March 5, 2020, the Court signed an Amendment to Final Approval Order and Judgment, directing that the matter be closed. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT, Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments. The company serves small and medium-sized businesses and large enterprises. It has strategic alliance with ABB Ltd. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HONDA: Faces Class Action Over Acura Software Defects ----------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims Hondas in model years 2016-20 Acura MDX and 2019-20 Acura RDX have dangerous software defects that cause sudden deceleration, shutdowns and shifts into neutral at highway speeds. [GN] IANTHUS CAPITAL: June 15 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. ("iAnthus" or the "Company") (OTCMKTS: ITHUF) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and indexed under 20-cv-03513, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired iAnthus securities between May 14, 2018, and April 6, 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. If you are a shareholder who purchased securities of iAnthus within the class period, you have until June 15, 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. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. iAnthus is a holding company and represents that, "[t]hrough its wholly-owned subsidiaries, the Company's principal business activity is to provide Shareholders with diversified exposure to best-in-class licensed cannabis cultivators, processors and dispensaries throughout the United States" by "acquir[ing] and operat[ing] a diversified portfolio of cannabis licenses and investments for Shareholders." Heavily leveraged, iAnthus has at all relevant times depended upon equity and debt financing to fund its aggressive expansion plans. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants issued a series of statements representing that the Company's business operations, financed through various debt and equity offerings, were expanding throughout the United States, without disclosing to Company shareholders that the Defendants were either unwilling or unable to utilize escrowed funds to make necessary interest payments under certain of iAnthus's debenture agreements. The truth about the Company's operations and finances came to light on April 6, 2020, when iAnthus announced that it had defaulted on $4.4 million in interest payments to the private equity firm Gotham Green Partners under the parties' Amended Debenture Agreement on March 31, 2020. On the news of the default, iAnthus's stock price fell $0.29 per share, or nearly 62%, to close at $0.179 per share on April 6, 2020. With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice 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. [GN] INTEGRITY INSPECTION: Spivey Seeks Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SPIVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTEGRITY INSPECTION SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-01912 (S.D. Tex., June 1, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged unlawful employment policies, practices, and procedures in violations of the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Day Rate Worker from approximately August 2019 through April 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiff consistently worked over 40 hours per week because he was assigned to daily job shifts at least 10 hours in length. But, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff at not less than 1.5 times his regular rate of pay. Moreover, Defendant failed to factor in non-discretionary job bonuses into Plaintiff's regular rate for determining overtime pay, and failed to keep accurate records of hours worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. Integrity Inspection Services, LLC operates oilfields around the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Emails: rburch@brucknerburch.com dmoulton@brucknerburch.com - and - Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Dana M. Cimera, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty St., 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 300-0375 Emails: Jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com Dcimera@fslawfirm.com IU BLOOMINGTON: Undergrad. Student Seeks Refund of Tuition, Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- WBIW.com reports that IU Bloomington undergraduate student Justin Spiegle is suing the university over COVID-19 related fees and expenses. Spiegel, from Illinois, is studying informatics at IU's Bloomington campus and is asking for some of his tuition money back, as well as reimbursement for certain fees. Like most colleges and universities around the country, IU moved to online instruction to address concerns about the potential for the virus to spread quickly through classrooms and campuses. Spiegel has hired lawyer Roy Willey, of South Carolina, who says the class-action suit is all about fairness. Willey says colleges and universities can't charge a student for services and access they don't receive. The class action complaint was filed on May 6 in Monroe County Circuit Court by Cox Law Offices in Indianapolis and Charleston, South Carolina-based Anastopoulo Law Firm. It is outlined in the complaint the university responded appropriately by moving courses online in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It also argues that the plaintiff and those similarly affected should be reimbursed on a pro-rated basis for tuition and fees for services the university allegedly is not providing. IU spokesperson Chuck Carney provided the following statement regarding the law suit: "In the midst of a global pandemic that has wreaked havoc on our entire way of life, Indiana University has acted responsibly to keep our students safe and progressing in their education. We are deeply disappointed that this lawsuit fails to recognize the extraordinary efforts of our faculty, staff, and students under these conditions while it seeks to take advantage in this time of state and national emergency." Purdue University is facing similar legal action. A class-action complaint filed in April claims Purdue "unjustly enriched" itself during the coronavirus epidemic and owes students money back for goods not delivered, not to mention a diminished online experience. In Michigan, lawsuits have been filed against the University of Michigan, Michigan State University and Wayne State University. [GN] J.M. SMUCKER: Faces Class Action in California ---------------------------------------------- Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that thousands of consumers get less of "the best part of waking-up" than they bargain for, according to a proposed class action filed against Folgers coffee's corporate parent, The J.M. Smucker Co., and 50 Doe defendants in the Central District of California. The May 8 complaint, brought by would-be class representatives Shelly Ashton and Jay Schoener, was the second proposed class action filed in the district alleging Folgers knowingly misleads consumers by overstating the number of cups of coffee a canister makes when following the one-tablespoon-per-cup directions. [GN] JAB INSPECTION: Underpays Office Managers, Dogie Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- CHELSEA DOGIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAB INSPECTION SERVICES, LP, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00187 (S.D. Tex., June 3, 2020) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Dogie was employed by the Defendant as office manager. JAB Inspection Services LP is an oil & energy company based out of United States. The Company provides Inspectors to top US Energy Companies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Taylor A. Jones, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com tjones@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com JOHNSON & WALES: Washington Sues Over Failure to Provide Refunds ---------------------------------------------------------------- Destiny Washington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOHNSON & WALES UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00246-JJM-LDA (D.R.I., June 2, 2020), seeks refunds of the amount the Plaintiff and other members of the Classes are owed on a pro-rata basis as a result of the Defendant's decision to close campus, constructively evict students, and transition all classes to an online/remote format as a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease. While closing campus and transitioning to online classes was the right thing for the Defendant to do, this decision deprived the Plaintiff and the other members of the Classes from recognizing the benefits of in person instruction, access to campus facilities, student activities, and other benefits and services in exchange for which they had already paid fees and tuition, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendant has either refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees and other costs for services that the Defendant is no longer providing, or has provided inadequate and/or arbitrary reimbursement that does not fully compensate the Plaintiff and members of the Classes for their loss, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was enrolled as a full-time student in the Defendant's undergraduate program for the Spring 2020 term. Johnson & Wales University is an institution of higher learning located in Providence, Rhode Island; Charlotte, North Carolina; North Miami, Florida; and Denver, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Caron, Esq. CARON LAW OFFICE 478A Broadway Providence, RI 02909 Phone: (401) 621-8600 Email: rjcaron@robertjcaronlaw.com - and - Eric M. Poulin, Esq. Roy T. Willey IV, Esq. ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 614-8888 Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com roy@akimlawfirm.com - and - John M. Bradham, Esq. Peter B. Katzman, Esq. MOREA SCHWARTZ BRADHAM FRIEDMAN & BROWN, LLP 444 Madison Ave., 4th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 695-8050 Email: jbradham@msbllp.com pkatzman@msbllp.com JPMORGAN CHASE: ImpAcct LLC Seeks Payment of PPP Loan Agent Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- IMPACCT, LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA CORP., BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., WELLS FARGO & CO., WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., BOK FINANCIAL CORP., BANK OF OKLAHOMA N.A., KEYCORP, KEYBANK N.A., ZIONS BANCORPORATION, N.A., VECTRA BANK COLORADO, MIDWEST REGIONAL BANCORP, INC., AND MIDWEST REGIONAL BANK, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01344-NRN (D. Col., May 12, 2020) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of itself and those similarly situated against Defendants to stop their unlawful conduct and to obtain monies owed as a result of Defendants' conduct. On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, the CARES Act (P.L. 116-136). The CARES Act was passed by the House of Representatives the following day and signed into law by President Trump on March 27, 2020. This legislation included $377 billion in federally-funded loans to small businesses and a $500 billion governmental lending program, administered by the United States Department of Treasury and its Small Business Administration ("SBA"), a United States government agency that provides support to entrepreneurs and small businesses. As part of the CARES Act, the Federal Government created a $349 billion loan program, referred to as the "Paycheck Protection Program" ("PPP"). The PPP provides small businesses with loans to be originated from February 15, 2020, through June 30, 2020. The PPP was created to provide American small businesses with eight weeks of cash-flow assistance, with a certain percentage forgivable if utilized to retain employees and fund payrolls. Within this context, Defendants served as the intermediary between small businesses and federal funds. Plaintiff served as the Agent for certain small businesses applying for PPP loans to be lent by the Defendants and backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. According to the complaint, Defendants received approval from the SBA and funded loans for numerous businesses, yet failed to pay the required compensation to Plaintiff that facilitated the loan process between Lenders and applicants as required by the SBA Regulations. Defendants have either failed and refused to pay, or are willing to pay only a partial percentage of the monies owed to Plaintiff. Defendants did not comply with the SBA Regulations in distributing PPP funds. Instead, Defendants either retained all of the Agent Fees or informed Agents that they would be paid only 50% of the mandated fees. As a result of Defendants' unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered financial harm by being deprived of the statutorily mandated compensation for the professional services it provided in connection with assisting its clients in applying for and obtaining PPP loans. JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a New York-based diversified financial services company providing banking, insurance, investments, mortgage banking, and consumer finance to individuals, businesses, and institutions in all 50 states and internationally. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. is the principal banking subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. Bank of America Corp. is a Delaware corporation and the parent company of Bank of America N.A. BAC is an American multinational investment bank and financial services company and headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Bank of America, NA is a federally chartered bank and a subsidiary of Bank of America Corp. Wells Fargo & Co. is an American multinational financial services company headquartered in San Francisco, California. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. is the national bank and subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Co. BOK Financial Corp. is an Oklahoma corporation and bank holding company headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Bank of Oklahoma N.A. is the subsidiary of BOK Financial Corp. headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. BOK offers competitive banking services, credit solutions, and financial planning. KeyCorp is an Ohio Corporation and the parent company of KeyBank N.A. KeyCorp is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. KeyBank, N.A. is the primary subsidiary of KeyCorp. headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. Key provides full-service retail banking branches, as well as ATMs, and online and mobile banking capabilities. Zions Bancorporation, N.A. is a Utah corporation and the holding company of Vectra Bank Colorado. Zions is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. Vectra Bank Colorado is a subsidiary of Zions and offers personal and business banking services with headquarters in Denver, Colorado. Midwest Regional Bancorp, Inc. is a Missouri corporation and parent company of Midwest Regional Bank. Midwest Regional Bank is a state-chartered full-service bank providing products and services to the retail and commercial markets with headquarters in Festus, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER 600 17th Street, Ste. 2800 South Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 Email: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Kip B. Shuman, Esq. SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 Email: kip@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Brett D. Stecker, Esq. SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER 326 W. Lancaster Avenue Ardmore, PA 19003 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 Email: brett@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Mark J. Geragos, Esq. Ben J. Meiselas, Esq. Matthew M. Hoesly, Esq. GERAGOS & GERAGOS, P.C. Historic Engine Co. No. 28 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411 Telephone: (213) 625-3900 Email: mark@geragos.com ben@geragos.com mhoesly@geragos.com - and - Brian Gudmundson, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com - and - Michael E. Adler, Esq. GRAYLAW GROUP, INC. 26500 Agoura Road, #102-127 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 532-2833 Email: meadler@graylawinc.com - and - Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq. Nitoj P. Singh, Esq. DHILLON LAW GROUP INC. 177 Post Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 433-1700 Email: harmeet@dhillonlaw.com nsingn@dhillionlaw.com KONICA MINOLTA: Mismanaged 401(k) Plan, Luense Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ RAY ALLEN LUENSE, PAMELA PEARSON, DANIEL F. SETTNEK and NEIL ROSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC.; BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC.; KONICA MINOLTA 401(K) PLAN COMMITTEE; SANDRA SOHL; SUSAN MCCARTHY; and JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06827 (D.N.J., June 4, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breaches of the fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence and failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly-situated participants and beneficiaries of the Konica Minolta 401(k) Plan, allege that the Defendants, as fiduciaries of the Plan, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants during the Class Period, June 4, 2014 to the present, by failing to review objectively and adequately the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of virtually identical or similar investment options with lower costs and/or better performance histories. The Plan is dominated by expensive actively managed funds, which reflects a flawed fiduciary process. The Plan has paid higher fees in order to compensate the fund managers and their associates for the work associated with stock picking. Out of 26 investment options, the Plan presently includes only three lower-cost passively managed index funds. The Plan's imprudent investment options during the Class Period include: (1) Principal LifeTime Hybrid target date funds; (2) Fidelity Growth Company Fund; (3) Prudential Large Cap Value Fund; (4) Prudential Mid Cap Growth Fund; (5) Prudential International Growth / Artisan Partners Fund; (6) Prudential Small Cap Growth / TimesSquare Fund; (7) JPMorgan Small Cap Value Fund; (8) Dodge & Cox International Stock Fund; (9) PGIM QMA Small-Cap Value Fund; (10) PGIM QMA Mid-Cap Value Fund, (11) Prudential Day One IncomeFlex Target Balanced Fund, (12) Prudential Dryden S&P 500 Index Fund, and (13) Prudential Guaranteed Interest Contract Account. According to the lawsuit, the Plan's selection of actively managed funds were not good choices for Plan because despite their high expenses they rarely, if ever, performed any better than far less expensive passively managed index funds. The Plan has retained numerous actively-managed funds as Plan investment options despite the fact that these funds charged grossly excessive fees compared with comparable or superior alternatives and despite ample evidence available to a reasonable fiduciary that these funds had become imprudent due to their high costs. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. is a provider of printing and imaging services, with principal executive offices located at 100 Williams Drive, Ramsey, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Mark H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 3 Terry Drive, Suite 205 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: (267) 685-0676 E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com medelson@edelson-law.com - and - Todd S. Collins, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3600 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: tcollins@bm.net LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING: Austin Sues Over Illegal Processing Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Austin, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC and Loancare, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01296 (D. Md., May 22, 2020), seeks relief for violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act and the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act including for breach of contract and for unjust enrichment. LoanCare is a mortgage servicer specializing in high-risk, high-interest residential loans. Austin owns a house in Abingdon, Maryland subject to a mortgage serviced by LoanCare acting as the sub-servicer for loans serviced by Lakeview Loan Servicing LLC. Alvarez claims that LoanCare charges certain fees for mortgage payments made by phone or internet. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Tel.: (202) 973-0900 Fax: (202) 973-0950 Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com kaizpuru@tzlegal.com - and - James L. Kaufman, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Tel.: (202) 463-2101 Fax: (202) 463-2103 Email: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com LG ELECTRONICS: 9th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Frost Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, A. FROST; JOSE RA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC.; LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-16188 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the the district court's order granting LG Electronics' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("SAC") alleges that beginning on Jan. 1, 2005, the Defendants entered into a global conspiracy not to poach each other's employees in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the equivalent antitrust laws of California and New Jersey. The district court dismissed the SAC, finding that the Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege the existence of a conspiracy. Relatedly, the district court granted LG Electronics' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, reasoning that because the sole basis of personal jurisdiction alleged by the Plaintiffs was the conspiracy, dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction was necessarily required. The Ninth Circuit has reviewed both decisions de novo. The Ninth Circuit finds that the Plaintiffs' SAC fails to plausibly allege a conspiracy. First, the Plaintiffs do not allege parallel conduct in conjunction with plus factors tending to show agreement. Instead, they rely on various statements made by the Defendants' employees and by a recruiter affiliated with Samsung as direct evidence of agreement. But each of these statements requires inferences in order to support the existence of a conspiracy and are, therefore, not direct evidence. Considered collectively, the statements and all the plausible inferences that can be drawn from them do not establish "who, did what, to whom (or with whom), where, and when?" Additionally, the Court notes that because the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege agreement, they have also failed to plausibly allege that LG Electronics is subject to personal jurisdiction in the United States. For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's March 3, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/EauewW from Leagle.com. LINEBARGER GOGGAN: Morgan Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA MORGAN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR & SAMPSON, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00204-DCB (D. Ariz., May 13, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff is the regular and sole user of telephone number (520) XXX-XXXX which is assigned to a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service through ViaTalk allowing her to make and receive telephone calls through a broadband internet connection. According to the complaint, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on April 8, 2020 by using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial pre-recorded voice message to Plaintiff's telephone number on her cellular telephone in an attempt to reach for a third party, a certain Susan Long, whom Plaintiff does not know. Plaintiff did not provide prior express consent to Defendant to place such calls to her telephone number. As a result of Defendant's unlawful calls and artificial or prerecorded messages, Plaintiff claims that she has suffered an invasion of privacy, an intrusion into her life, and a private nuisance. Additionally, since Plaintiff's telephone number was assigned to a service for which she is charged for calls, her monthly limit of 2,000 minutes was depleted. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP is a national law firm with a practice focused on debt collection. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 401 Congress Ave., Suite 1540 Austin, TX 78701 Tel: (512)803-1578 Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com LITIES CORP: Velasquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alicia Velasquez, Adrian Hernandez Flores, Marino Pinzon Luna, Gonzalo Munoz Coconi, and Domingo Rojas Amaro, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Lities Corp. D/B/A Munch Time Diner, Karikan Donut Corp. D/B/A Munch Time Diner, Edison Rivera, Rafaela Estrada; Roberto "Doe" (Last Name Unknown), Vasilos Lambos, and Achilles Polygerinos, Case No. 1:20-cv-04208 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2020), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising from the Defendants' various unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including the Plaintiffs, the minimum wages, the overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek and the spread of hours premium for all days in which the "spread of hours" exceeds 10 hours, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were all employed by the Defendants for their restaurant. Lities is a domestic business corporation organization and existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yuezhu Liu, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC. 136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Phone: (718) 353-8522 Fax: (718) 353-6288 Email: yliu@hanglaw.com LOWE'S HOME: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Robles ERISA/COBRA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MILTON ROBLES and DAYRA RIVERA, individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-2713-T-02AAS (M.D. Fla.), Judge William F. Jung of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. On Oct. 31, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against the Defendant for violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 ("COBRA"). They later amended their complaint. In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs contend that Defendant violated ERISA by failing to provide them with a sufficient COBRA notice, causing them to lose insurance coverage and incur significant medical bills. The Defendant moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint. It offers two arguments for dismissing the Amended Complaint. First, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs lack standing by alleging a purely information injury and an injury not fairly traceable to its conduct. It further argues that the Plaintiffs fail to state a plausible claim because the COBRA notice complies with the requirements of ERISA, COBRA, and relevant regulations. Judge Jung finds that much like the plaintiff in Delaughter v. ESA Mgmt., LLC, the Plaintiffs allege deficiencies in the COBRA notice prevented them from being able to access COBRA coverage. The Plaintiffs allege that the notice itself never actually explains how to enroll in COBRA, nor does it bother including a physical election form and that the COBRA noticed lacked information like the explanation that a qualified beneficiary's decision whether to elect continuation coverage will affect the future rights of qualified beneficiaries to portability of group health coverage, guaranteed access to individual health coverage, and special enrollment under part 7 of title I of the Act. These are more than conclusory allegations and are sufficient to allege causation for standing and Rule 12(b)(6) purposes. Since the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability (uncontested by the parties), there is standing to proceed to the merits of the individual claims. As to the Defendant's second argument, Judge Jung holds that the Defendant's argument is a denial of the Plaintiffs' allegation that the notice was deficient enough to prevent the Plaintiffs from making an informed decision about COBRA election -- in short, a challenge addressing the merits of the Plaintiffs' case. Whether the COBRA notice here was deficient is a question that is premature for disposition, the Court says. Accordingly, for the reasons he stated, Judge Jung denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. No class discovery or consideration of the class action issues will proceed until resolution of the individual claims on summary judgment (or waiver of same by the Defendant), the Court directed. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 3, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/NqD7gw from Leagle.com. Milton Robles, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Dayra Rivera, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Luis A. Cabassa -- lcabassa@wfclaw.com -- Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, PA & Brandon J. Hill -- bhill@wfclaw.com -- Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, PA. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bruce M. Steen -- bsteen@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods, LLP, pro hac vice, Cameron G. Kynes -- ckynes@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods, LLP & Elena D. Marcuss -- emarcuss@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP, pro hac vice. LUMOS PHARMA: Appeal in Nguyen Class Action Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Lumos Pharma Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the appeal in the "Nguyen" class action remains pending. On March 18, 2020, the Company, formerly known as NewLink Genetics Corporation, merged Cyclone Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the company, with what was then known as Lumos Pharma, Inc., and has since been renamed "Lumos Pharma Sub, Inc." ("Private Lumos"), and changed the name "NewLink Genetics Corporation" to "Lumos Pharma, Inc." (the "Merger"). On or about May 12, 2016, Trevor Abramson filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Abramson v. NewLink Genetics Corp., et al., Case 1:16-cv-3545. Subsequently, the Court for the Southern District of NY appointed Michael and Kelly Nguyen as lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of Kahn, Swick & Foti, LLC as lead counsel in the Securities Action. On October 31, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims under the federal securities laws against NewLink, NewLink's former Chief Executive Officer Charles J. Link, Jr., and NewLink's former Chief Medical Officer and President Nicholas Vahanian, (collectively, the "Defendants"). The amended complaint alleges the Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements that caused losses to NewLink's investors. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 14, 2017. On March 29, 2018, the Court for the Southern District of NY dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, without prejudice, and gave the lead plaintiffs until May 4, 2018 to file any amended complaint attempting to remedy the defects in their claims. On May 4, 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint asserting claims under the federal securities laws against the Defendants. Like the first amended complaint, the second amended complaint alleges that the Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements or omissions relating to the Phase 2 and 3 trials and efficacy of the product candidate algenpantucel-L that caused losses to NewLink's investors. The lead plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged damages in the second amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they sought to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired NewLink's stock during the putative class period of September 17, 2013 through May 9, 2016, inclusive, at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on July 31, 2018. On February 13, 2019, the Court for the Southern District of NY dismissed the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim, with prejudice, and closed the case. On March 14, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The briefing on lead plaintiffs' appeal was completed in early July 2019 and oral argument before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was held on October 21, 2019. The Company intends to continue defending the Securities Action vigorously. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Lumos Pharma Inc. develops biopharmaceutical products. The Company operates as an stage biopharmaceutical development company developing a treatment for CTD patients and their families. Lumos Pharma offers therapies to patients afflicted with unmet medical needs in severe, rare, and genetic diseases. The company is based in Austin, Texas. MAPCO EXPRESS: Underpays Female Store Managers, Hil et al Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- PHEANDREATE HIL, LAQUISHA BEASLEY, and ANTELENA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAPCO EXPRESS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00472 (M.D. Tenn., June 4, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged gender discrimination in employee pay practices in violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as Store Managers -- Hil from approximately April 2015 to July 2017, Beasley from approximately Mid-2015 until she left in late 2017, and Williams from approximately December 2014 until December 2018. Plaintiffs claim that they were paid less than their male counterparts who perform the same work. Allegedly, Defendant executed a top down wage policy which consistently, systematically and willfully failed to compensate female Store Managers at a level commensurate with male employees who perform substantially equal work and/or hold equivalent levels, job titles, and positions. Mapco Express, Inc. operates a chain of gas and convenience stores. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Philips Plaza 414 Union St., Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Tel: (615) 244-2202 Fax: (615) 252-3798 Emails: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com - and - Marc S. Hepworth, Esq. Charles Gershbaum, Esq. David A. Roth, Esq. Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq. HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC 192 Lexington Ave., Suite 802 New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 545-1199 Fax: (212) 532-3801 Emails: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com droth@hgrlawyers.com rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com MAYBERRY INC: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Jackson Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, HENRY JACKSON, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAYBERRY, INC. d/b/a FIFTH QUARTER & PRESS ROOM EATERY, and STEVE NEMITZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03184 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff began working for Defendants in 2005 as an hourly and non-exempt broiler cook at Defendants' restaurant. According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked an average of 50-56 hours per week during his employment with Defendant. But, Defendant compensated Plaintiff at a flat rate of 10 dollars per hour regardless of the hours worked in excess of 40, thereby failing to compensate Plaintiff of overtime at one and one-half times of his regular rate pursuant to the FLSA. Steve Nemitz is the President, owner and operator of Fifth Quarter, and has the authority to hire and fire, and determine company payroll decisions. Fifth Quarter & Press Room Eatery is a sports bar and restaurant serving traditional American comfort food in Cook County, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS- JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 805 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 871-0050 Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com METLIFE SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Campbell Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METLIFE SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-01105 (M.D. Fla., May 13, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant to work as an LTD Claims Specialist Trainee on or about January 14, 2019 until October 29, 2019 at Defendant's Tampa, Florida location. According to the complaint, although Defendant did not approve any overtime hours and only 40 hours were recorded in accordance with the time keeping guidelines, Plaintiff routinely worked 45 to 50 hours per week and 60 hours weekly when an additional work was assigned to her beginning then and through October 2019. The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for worked performed in excess of 40 hours in a work week. Metlife Services and Solutions, LLC provides insurance, annuities, and employee benefit programs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott L. Terry, Esq. Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC 16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Tel: (727)254-5255 Fax: (727)483-7942 Emails: scott@fgbolaw.com daniela@fgbolaw.com e-filing@fgbolaw.com MICHIGAN: Otworth Balks at Quarantine Protocols ----------------------------------------------- Clarence Otworth, in his individual capacity, and on behalf of all citizens of the State of Michigan similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Governor Gretchen Whitmer, in her official capacity, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00405-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich., May 11, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff for deprivation of rights secured by the U.S. Constitution against Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. The complaint arises after Governor Whitmer issued the March 24, 2020 Executive Order, as a result of the March 24 Proclamation wherein she determined the COVID-19 pandemic to be a disaster, wherein she ordered that given the powers of section 7 of the Michigan Emergency Management Act (MEMA), Constitution, to order Plaintiff, and all citizens similarly situated, to have their freedom of movement to leave their homes restricted and further restricting the activities they might engage within the entire State of Michigan. Plaintiff's interests, as well as the interests of every other similarly situated citizen of the state, interests are in opposition to Whitmer's in that Plaintiff, as well as every other similarly situated citizen of the state, has a right to insist Whitmer not to issue executive orders regarding matters which the legislature exclusively granted the Michigan Department of Public Health supreme authority. Further, an actual controversy exists between the parties in regard to the authority of Whitmer to issue and enforce emergency orders under the MEMA for more than 30 days as a result of one occurrence of a disaster being the COVID-19 pandemic which began March 24, 2020. Plaintiff, and all citizens similarly situated, are being irreparably harmed each and every day they continue to be restricted to their home, and limited in their activities, except to do those things Whitmer has unilaterally authorized them they could do.[BN] MUELLER WATER: Bid to Substitute Ms. Hyland in Peterson Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANDREA PETERSON and KEVIN KELLEY, individually and on behalf of all others situated, Plaintiffs, v. MUELLER WATER PRODUCTS, INC., GREGORY E. HYLAND, J. SCOTT HALL, EVAN L. HART and MARIETTA EDMUNDS ZAKAS, Defendants, No. 19-cv-3260 (LJL) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to substitute Brenda Hyland in her capacity as executor of the estate for Gregory E. Hyland. Lead Plaintiffs Peterson and Kelley commenced the class action to allege violations of the federal securities laws against Mueller and four of its current and former officers, including Mr. Hyland who was President and CEO of Mueller between January 2006 and Jan. 22, 2017. The Complaint was filed on April 11, 2019. The next day, on April 12, 2019, Mr. Hyland passed away. In May 2019, the defense counsel filed notices of appearance on behalf of Mueller and three individual Defendants but did not make an appearance on behalf of Mr. Hyland. Six months after Mr. Hyland's death, on Oct. 3, 2019, the defense counsel filed a suggestion of his death with the Court, constituting service by ECF. On Dec. 30, 2019, the Fulton County Probate Court informed the Plaintiffs' counsel that Brenda Hyland would serve as executor of Hyland's estate. The defense counsel does not currently represent Mr. Hyland's estate or its executor. On Jan. 6, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to substitute Brenda Hyland in her capacity as executor of the estate for Hyland. The Plaintiffs represent that since learning the identify of Ms. Hyland, the Plaintiffs have tried "several times" to serve Ms. Hyland at her residence with the motion but have been unsuccessful. The parties agree that Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1) gives parties 90 days to move for substitution upon the service of the suggestion of death. They even agree that the application of the Rule to the case imposed a Jan. 2, 2020 deadline for the Plaintiff to make the motion. The parties disagree, however, on whether the Court should entertain the Plaintiffs' four-day late motion. The Plaintiffs claim that the short delay was excusable neglect and does not prevent them from now substituting Hyland's executor. The Defendants, for their part, claim that the Plaintiffs' motion is untimely, that the Plaintiffs were required to have made a motion for an extension of time under Rule 6(b) before filing out-of-time, and that no excusable neglect exists either for failure to timely make a motion under Rule 6(b) or under Rule 25(a). Judge Liman denied the Plaintiffs' motion for failure to satisfy two threshold requirements. First, the Plaintiffs have failed to serve Ms. Hyland as executor for Mr. Hyland. Rule 25(a)(3) requires that the moving party serve the motion to substitute, together with a notice of hearing, on the party to be substituted. Personal service on a substitute party is not a meaningless gesture. It is required to establish personal jurisdiction over that individual; it also gives the Court an opportunity to hear from the individual before the consequential decision to substitute is made. Absent personal service, the affected party lacks notice and cannot object to the substitution. The lack of notice and opportunity to participate raises serious concerns about process and fairness and provides independent grounds for denial of the motion. As a consequence of not receiving this notice, Ms. Hyland has been unable to appear in the Court or respond to the motion. Second, without concluding on the dubious assertion that the Plaintiffs' failure to identify Ms. Hyland or move to substitute constitutes excusable neglect, the proper course for the Plaintiffs was to move for an extension of time under Rule 6(b) to effectuate service. The Plaintiffs could have made such a motion upon learning of Mr. Hyland's death in October 2019. They could have made it at any time before the time for making a motion under Rule 25(a)(3) expired. They failed to do so. Without passing on what result the Court would reach if such a proper motion were made, the current motion is defective and must be denied for that reason alone. Hence, the instant motion is denied without prejudice, the Court rules. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 3, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/Su7GT8 from Leagle.com. Andrea Peterson, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, Sara Esther Fuks -- sfuks@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Jonathan Richard Horne -- jhorne@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Laurence Matthew Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- Laurence Rosen, ESQ. Glen Chapman, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy -- lesleyportnoy@gmail.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Kevin Kelly, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Richard Horne, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Laurence Matthew Rosen, Laurence Rosen, ESQ. & Sara Esther Fuks, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Mueller Water Products, Inc., J. Scott Hall, Evan L. Hart & Marietta Edmunds Zakas, Defendants, represented by Scott D. Musoff -- scott.musoff@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Jay B. Kasner -- jay.kasner@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. MUFG AMERICAS: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agent Fees, Fahmia Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fahmia, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MUFG AMERICAS HOLDING CO.; MUFG UNION BANK, N.A.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04145 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff seeking compensation from Defendants, who refuse to comply with the CARES Act that requires them to pay out of the compensation it received for processing Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") loans, for services Plaintiff and a large number of other agents rendered on behalf of recipients of Small Business Administration emergency loans. On March 27, 2020, Congress passed the SBA's PPP which initially authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses to cover payroll and other expenses (PPP I). After the initial funds quickly dried up, Congress added $310 billion additional dollars to the program (PPP II). The PPP was designed to be fast and straightforward, allowing business to apply through SBA-approved lenders and await approval. Once approved, lenders would be compensated in the form of a generous origination fee paid by the federal government, with the requirement that the lender would be responsible for paying the fee owed to the loan applicant's agent. According to the complaint, Defendants apparently decided that they do not need to complete the final step of the loan process and based on information and belief have refused to pay the agents who assisted PPP loan recipients with their applications. This practice seemed to be a deliberate scheme from the beginning as even though they were required to pay agents that assisted in the application process, Defendants did not set up a structure or ask any questions to determine whether borrowers utilized an agent in completing applications. As a result of Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiff and a large number of others like it have been deprived of payment for their critical work in supporting their clients' PPP loan applications. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial in order to vindicate their rights and those of agents everywhere who are similarly situated, and to force Defendants to account for their blatant violation of the PPP and to pay agents their portion of the compensation. Plaintiff Fahmia, Inc. is a Certified Public Accounting firm based in Torrance, California. MUFG Americas Holding Co. is an American financial and bank holding company headquartered in New York, New York. MUFG Union Bank, N.A. is a national banking association chartered under the law of the United States and headquartered in New York, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elaine S. Kusel, Esq. Michele M. Vercoski, Esq. Richard D. McCune, Esq. Tuan Q. Nguyen, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 Email: esk@mccunewright.com mmv@mccunewright.com rdm@mccunewright.com tqn@mccunewright.com NAT'L AUSTRALIA BANK: Court Approves $49.5MM Class Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Reuters reports that the federal court approved the settlement of a class action against National Australia Bank Ltd and MLC ltd in relation to consumer credit insurance products. The settlement involves a payment of $49.5 million. [GN] NEVADA: Faces Class Action Over Coronavirus Shutdowns ----------------------------------------------------- David Ferrara, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports that a group of businesses owners, workers and one coronavirus patient have filed a class-action lawsuit in response to government shutdowns across Nevada. A federal complaint filed the same day that Gov. Steve Sisolak announced that he would allow the reopening of certain businesses, including restaurants and barbershops, accused county and state officials of abusing their power and asks a judge to lift the orders closing nonessential businesses. The lawsuit, filed by attorneys from Las Vegas and Reno, includes the owners of a pair of businesses -- an events company and a hair salon -- that laid off employees; an out-of-work barber; a doctor who said he was prohibited from prescribing drugs to treat malaria to outpatients testing positive for COVID-19; and a man who tested positive for the virus but was prevented from receiving such treatment because of an order from the governor. As of May 9, restaurants, barbershops and hair salons and most retail businesses were allowed to reopen with limitations. Bars, gaming establishments, gyms and entertainments venues, such as movie theaters, were to remain closed under the state's Phase One reopening plan. The 51-page lawsuit names Sisolak, Attorney General Aaron Ford and a long list of other government officials, saying that business owners and workers have been "financially crippled" because of the statewide shutdown of nonessential businesses. Officials with the governor's office and attorney general's office have declined to comment on the pending litigation. "As well-intentioned as these Orders and Emergency Directives are with respect to the general public's health, safety and welfare, they have come at a steep price with respect to the complete and utter restraint on Nevadans' civil rights and liberties," the lawsuit stated. The list of plaintiffs includes Orion Star Events Inc., an entertainment business, Capelli Milano LLC, a hair salon, and Bruce Fong, president of the Nevada Osteopathic Medical Association. "As a result of defendants' wanton and unlawful Orders and Emergency Directives, many of these plaintiffs' 'Non-Essential Businesses' might never financially recover and may end up closing their doors forever," the federal civil rights complaint filed by attorneys Joey Gilbert and Sigal Chattah stated. "Further, defendants' grossly negligent restriction of drugs approved by the FDA for use in the treatment of COVID-19 is both unlawful and unconscionable, and puts Nevadans at risk of irreversible illness and even possible death." [GN] NEW YORK: Property Owners Challenge Moratorium on Evictions ----------------------------------------------------------- ENT INT'L REALTY CORP., H.P.S.O.N.Y., INC., N.Y.A.H., INC., R.C.F.H.P., INC. On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, PLAINTIFFS, -against- ANDREW CUOMO, in his personal and official capacity as Governor of the State of New York, BILL De BLASIO in his personal and official capacity as Mayor of New York City, and THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, Case No. 1:20-cv-04277-PKC (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated i.e., property owners throughout the State and the City of New York who have been economically impacted by the various ongoing Executive Orders which have caused rent collections to decline to near inoperable levels with no relief in sight. Representative Plaintiffs brought this action under the Constitution of the United States of America as applied to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment, for civil rights violations suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of the actions of Andrew Cuomo, Bill de Blasio, New York State, and the New York City Department of Finance. The case at bar arises as a result of Governor Cuomo's issuance of Executive Order 202.8 on March 20, 2020 in response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, which started the moratorium on evictions across the State. This Order was later extended by Executive Order 202.28 issued in late May. The Order states in part: "There shall be no initiation of a proceeding or enforcement of either an eviction of any residential or commercial tenant, for nonpayment of rent or a foreclosure of any residential or commercial mortgage, for nonpayment of such mortgage, owned or rented by someone that is eligible for unemployment insurance or benefits under state or federal law or otherwise facing financial hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic for a period of sixty days beginning on June 20, 2020." According to the complaint, the Governor's response to the Pandemic has been exemplary given the sudden and dire ramifications faced by the State and its Citizens. However, he totally forgot about and left out thousands of property owners, whom are the backbone of New York's economy, without any sort of property tax relief in sight. The Order, while protecting tenants, falls short in that it penalizes property owners whose quarterly taxes remain due even though collected rents have reached historically low levels across all rental categories in the State and City of New York. Plaintiffs and other property owners will be irreparably harmed if they are forced to remit tax payments as currently scheduled. The harm will not be reversible through secondary legal processes and therefore requires a permanent injunction preventing the collection of property taxes, and late fees, costs or related expenses until such time that the affected property owners, like Plaintiffs have been afforded the opportunity to rebuild their capital through the collection of rents.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Migir Ilganayev 139 Fulton Street, Suite 801 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (646) 396-8050 E-mail: ilganayevlaw@gmail.com NEWREZ LLC: Bayer Sues over Misleading Collection Letter -------------------------------------------------------- BENZION BAYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWREZ LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-03723 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff has a debt obligation that was allegedly incurred to Florida Capital Bank, N.A. d/b/a Florida Capital Bank Mortgage some time prior to December 10, 2019. According to the complaint, Defendants contracted with a subsequent owner of the alleged Florida Capital Bank to collect the alleged debt. Consequently, Plaintiff received a collection letter from Defendants on or about December 10, 2019 regarding the alleged debt. However, Defendants' collection letter failed to disclose material information about the true legal nature of the alleged debt that threatens the consumer's rights and attempts to coerce payment from the consumer. Plaintiff claims that he has sustained an informational injury. Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, and pre- and post-judgment interest. Newrez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201)282-6500 Fax: (201)282-6501 Email: info@steinsakslegal.com NORTH DALLAS HONEY: Pierce Suit on Mislabeled Product Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Brantley Starr of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, MARILYN PIERCE, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. NORTH DALLAS HONEY COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-00410-X (N.D. Tex.). North Dallas Honey allegedly markets its premium honey as "100% Pure Raw and Unfiltered Honey." Plaintiffs Pierce and Anish Dave claim the honey contains syrup (and thus is not 100% honey) and is heated to a level that destroys enzymes that make honey raw. Their complaint contains class allegations. North Dallas Honey sells honey under the name "Nature Nate's." Nature Nate's labels its flagship product as "100% Pure Raw and Unfiltered Honey." Pierce and Dave purchased and tested some of the honey. They filed a putative class action with two factual assertions that are the basis of seven causes of action. The first factual basis (the Heating Claim) is that Nature Nate's heats the premium honey beyond what Pierce and Dave claim is an industry-accepted permissible threshold, which renders the honey not raw. Nature Nate's admits that it heats the honey for the purpose of repackaging it from the large drums it receives to the smaller bottles it sells. The description from its website indicates "we simply warm the honey so that it's easier to deal with and pour into bottles. High heat is a no no. It kills all the good stuff." The complaint alleges that heating raw honey to over 105 degrees denatures valuable enzymes, and that Nature Nate's heats its honey to as much as 120 degrees. Pierce and Dave allege in the complaint that Codex Alimentarius is an international reference standard for resolving disputes over food safety and consumer protection and has set the maximum 5-hydroxymethylfurfural level for raw honey at 40 mg/kg. They claim the test results are that Nature Nate's honey scored an impressively bad 69, 80, 103, and 232. Thus, Pierce and Dave claim Nature Nate's heated the honey over 105 degrees, rendering it no longer raw while charging a premium for raw honey. The second factual basis is that the tested samples showed that syrups had been added to the honey. Pierce and Dave allege that Nature Nate's states on its website that "we only bottle the best. That's why we test. And test. And test. No antibiotics, pesticides or herbicides or added corn or rice syrup gets past us." But Pierce and Dave admit that, at this point, they cannot say whether Nature Nate's adds syrups to its honey because one of its suppliers could have done the deed. Overall, the complaint has these allegedly misleading allegations as the basis for the following counts: negligence, a Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty -- Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, and a declaratory judgment. Nature Nate's moved to dismiss the complaint. The motion argues that the claims have pleadings defects and the Court should abate the case for 60 days because Pierce and Dave never sent the statutory 60-day pre-suit notice for deceptive trade practice claims. Nature Nate's makes the following argument. First, it argues that Pierce and Dave failed to meet the heightened standard for pleading fraud for the fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and the deceptive trade practices claim. Second, Nature Nate's contends the declaratory judgment claim is duplicative of other claims. Third, Nature Nate's contends that Pierce and Dave failed to give the statutory 60-day notice before suing, and that the Court must abate the case. Nature Nate's contends the complaint fails to allege Nature Nate's knowingly or recklessly made a false representation. Pierce and Dave contend that Nature Nate's concealed, suppressed, and omitted material facts regarding heating its honey that contained syrup while distributing, marketing, and selling to consumers. Judge Star agrees with Nature Nate's. The allegations regarding HMF threshold standards yield no indication that Nature Nate's knew of these standards or agreed to abide by them. The Syrup Claim fares worse. Pierce and Dave allege that at this point, they cannot say whether Nature Nate adds syrups to its honey and that may in fact have been done by one or more of Nature Nate's suppliers. This does not meet the pleading standard for fraud. But in situations such as this, courts tend to give plaintiffs an opportunity to replead to see if they can cure their defect. The Judge will do so in the case. He will require the statutory notice and abate the case for 60 days. On the pleading defects, the Judge finds no duty to disclose in the way Pierce and Dave have pled their fraudulent concealment claim. Courts have imposed such duties (that expose a defendant to punitive damages) in such cases as real estate transactions, commercial contracts, or securities. Implying a duty in the case, where Pierce and Dave identified none, would subvert carefully crafted products liability and consumer protection law. The Judge declines such a broad invitation. Because this pleading defect is insurmountable, he grants the motion to dismiss as to the fraudulent concealment claim and dismissed the claim with prejudice. Pierce and Dave's deceptive trade practice claim includes allegations regarding misrepresentations and omissions. As addressed, the fraudulent concealment claim suffers from the fatal defect of Pierce and Dave not demonstrating an affirmative, common-law duty to disclose in a product labeling case such as this. The defect applies with equal force to the omission allegations of the deceptive trade practice claim. Regarding the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, the only allegations of intent were conclusory and require repleading. By extension, the defect applies to the deceptive trade practice claim as well. Finally, Pierce and Dave admit they gave no pre-suit notice, but they claim the lawsuit adequately functions as that notice now. The Fifth Circuit and Texas Supreme Court have required abating the action until this statutory requirement is met. The Judge will do so in the case. He instructs Pierce and Dave to send Nature Nate's the required notice of suit within three days. He is abating the case during the statutory 60-day period. If Pierce and Dave have timely served their notice, they may file an amended complaint on the 60th day after serving notice. That filing will reinstate the case to the Court's active docket. For these reasons, Judge Starr ordered Pierce and Dave to send Nature Nate's the statutory notice of suit without delay. The Judge abated the case during the statutory 60-day period. The Judge also granted Nature Nate's' motion to dismiss. The Judge dismissed with prejudice the fraudulent concealment claim, dismissed the fraudulent misrepresentation and deceptive trade practice claims, and allowed Pierce and Dave file an amended complaint on the 60th day after serving the deceptive trade practice notice. That filing will reinstate the case to the Court's active docket. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 3, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/DF8m4e from Leagle.com. Marilyn Pierce, On Behalf of Herself and All other similarly situated & Anish Dave, Plaintiffs, represented by Kenneth W. Biermacher -- kbiermacher@krcl.com -- Kane Russell Coleman & Logan, Kent A. Heitzinger -- Heitzinger.law@gmail.com -- The Law Offices of Kent A Heitzinger, pro hac vice & Paul Terrence Buehler, The Law Office of Terrence Buehler, pro hac vice. North Dallas Honey Company, a Domestic Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michelle Youn Ku -- mku@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP & Robert Wolinsky -- robert.wolinsky@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro hac vice. ORGANIGRAM: N.S. Court of Appeal Tosses Part of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Trevor Nichols, writing for Huddle, reports that the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has dismissed part of a class-action lawsuit against cannabis producer Organigram. The decision limits the scope of a lawsuit against the company over pesticides found in some of its products. It means the group suing Organigram won't be able to include personal injury claims as part of its case but can still take the company to court over refunds for the tainted cannabis it sold. The lawsuit stems from two major product recalls Organigram issued in 2016 and 2017 after trace amounts of the pesticides bifenazate, malathion, and myclobutanil were found in its products. Health Canada says all three chemicals are safe for agricultural use in appropriate amounts but hasn't authorized the use of any of them on cannabis. Once the pesticides were discovered, Organigram voluntarily recalled 74 batches of its product. Not long after, Halifax resident Dawn Rae Downton filed the lawsuit on behalf of consumers who bought the tainted cannabis. Raymond Wagner is one of the lawyers representing Downton and the rest of the class. He said the lawsuit was initially just a "consumer claim" trying to get refunds for people who bought tainted cannabis from Organigram. But the lawsuit was later expanded to include personal injuries after Wagner's firm started getting "complaints from our class members that they suffered from a series of symptoms while consuming this particular product." Last year, a trial judge agreed to let both the consumer and personal injury parts of the lawsuit move forward. Organigram appealed that decision and on April 30 this year the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal overturned it, saying there wasn't enough evidence to support the personal injury parts of the case. Nausea, Headaches After Consuming Tainted Product In court, members of the group suing Organigram said they suffered from symptoms like nausea, gastrointestinal issues, breathing difficulty, and headaches after smoking the recalled cannabis. Some of the pesticides found in Organigram's cannabis are known to produce hydrogen cyanide when combusted (which happens when you smoke). Wagner and his team argued that the hydrogen cyanide Organigram's tainted cannabis produced had caused the symptoms Downton and others had experienced. However, the judges noted that all cannabis produces its own hydrogen cyanide when smoked, and that "the trace levels of myclobutanil that were present would have produced a negligible amount of additional hydrogen cyanide upon combustion, in comparison to the levels already produced by marijuana alone." They also said the symptoms Downton and others described were similar to the predicted side effects of consuming cannabis in general. Ultimately, the court dismissed the group's personal injury claims because it said there was no way to prove Organigram's products had caused any of the symptoms people had experienced. Wagner believes the group deserves personal injury compensation from Organigram but that there are technical issues standing in the way. "There are no studies to say what the consequence is of myclobutanil and bifenazate on a human being in these concentrations when combusted," he said. "And nobody's ever going to do one because who's going to subject somebody to something [like] that…just so we can find out whether it does cause harm?" Without that study, he said, it's difficult to prove to a court any links between the chemicals and the symptoms members of the lawsuit experienced. Lawsuit Won't Affect Business 'In Any Material Way' Organigram did not agree to an interview to talk about the court's decision. But in a press release, the company said it will "continue to defend what remains of the class action" and has already voluntarily reimbursed "many of its customers." "While the ultimate outcome of any court process is difficult to ascertain, Organigram management does not anticipate that what remains of the class action (including the resolution thereof) will affect its business or operations in any material way," the release reads. Wagner and his team knew arguing for the personal injury portion was a bit of a "stretch" and that they would be "expanding the law" if they were successful with it. He said the core of the lawsuit was always the consumer claim, and that he is confident it will be successful moving forward. He said any attempt to downplay what remains of the class action is spin from Organigram. "I would not call this a gargantuan victory, that's all PR," he said. [GN] PARADISE SHOPS: Bailey Sues Over Deductions, Seeks Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Kemoni Bailey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Paradise Shops, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02610, (S.D. Ohio, May 22, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Bailey was employed as a manager, primarily performing customer service and merchandising responsibilities at a Paradise Shop located at John Glenn Columbus International Airport. He claims that Paradise Shop took an automatic meal deduction of 0.5 hours despite that he worked during his break. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43207 Phone: (614) 949-1181 Fax: (614) 386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com PATHWAY HEALTH: Underpays Consultants, Abel Claims -------------------------------------------------- DANIELLE ABEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the proposed Minnesota Rule 23 Class, Plaintiffs v. PATHWAY HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-01307 (D. Minn., June 4, 2020) is a collective and class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged unlawful pay practice in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a consultant from approximately April 27, 2018 to March 2, 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and all others similarly situated consultants were classified by Defendant as non-exempt employees and were paid only for the hours they are allowed to complete a project scheduled according to a project sheet, rather than all of the hours they worked. The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to pay their consultants for all their time worked, including the overtime wages for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, and failed to maintain accurate records of the hours Plaintiff and other consultants worked. Pathway Health Services, Inc. provides consulting services to long term health care, senior housing, assisted living, home care, and hospice. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 256-3200 Fax: (612) 215-6870 Email: srey@nka.com PATRIOT AUTO: Mitchell Balks at Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANGELIKA MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. PATRIOT AUTO GROUP LLC D/B/A PATRIOT BUICK GMC HYUNDAI, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case 4:20-cv-00252-CVE-FHM (N.D. Okla., June 4, 2020) is a putative class action brought by the Plaintiff after Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number beginning or about January 14, 2020. The Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., selling Plaintiff a vehicle. Defendant's unsolicited text messages caused Plaintiff actual harm, including invasion of her privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Defendant's text messages also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to her daily life. Patriot Auto Group LLC d/b/a Patriot Buick GMC Hyundai is an automotive dealership company whose principal office is located in Bartlesville, Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Aaron M. Ahlzadeh, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9471 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com aaron@edelsberglaw.com - and - Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 14 NE First Ave. 10th Floor Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (786) 351-8709 E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com PET SUPERMARKET: Snyder's Opinion in Eldridge Suit Partly Excluded ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, TROY ELDRIDGE, Plaintiff, v. PET SUPERMARKET, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-22531-Civ-WILLIAMS/TORRES (S.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Daubert motion related to Mr. Snyder; and (ii) denied the Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendant's motion to strike. The Plaintiff filed the putative class action alleging that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Action ("TCPA"). The TCPA allows an individual to bring claims for unwanted calls made with an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS"). An ATDS system within the meaning of the TCPA is equipment which has the capacity (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers. On March 15, 2019, the Plaintiff served Mr. Snyder's declaration, including his expert testimony and several attachments. The parties then deposed Mr. Snyder on May 20, 2019. The Defendant now seeks to exclude Mr. Snyder because he fails many of the admissibility standards under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert. The Defendant claims, for example, that Mr. Snyder is unhelpful to the trier of fact in determining the ascertainability of the putative class. It also accuses Mr. Snyder of failing to perform any analysis of the proposed class and neglecting to develop any hypothesis to determine if phone numbers and subscriber information can even be cross-referenced. Moreover, the Defendant argues that Mr. Snyder is unreliable because he fails to support his conclusions with any reliable facts. Instead, it suggests that Mr. Snyder relies on flawed definitions as to what constitutes an ATDS under the TCPA despite having no relevant knowledge or training of the underlying telephone systems. And even if Mr. Snyder used a proper methodology, the Defendant maintains that Mr. Snyder's opinions cannot stand because it is replete with impermissible legal conclusion. For these reasons, the Defendant requests that Mr. Snyder and his expert report be excluded. The first issue is whether Mr. Snyder is qualified to render an expert opinion in the case. Because Mr. Snyder meets that threshold and possesses general knowledge of the facts in the case, he is qualified under Daubert despite lacking specialized training and experience with Defendant's telephone systems. To the extent the Defendant seeks to undermine Mr. Snyder's knowledge of the telephone systems that are at issue in the case, the Defendant may do so via impeachment. Therefore, Judge Torres denied the Defendant's motion to exclude Mr. Snyder as unqualified. The next issue is whether Mr. Snyder's opinions are reliable. There is also evidence that the Defendant's telephone systems are similar in operational functions, adding additional assurances that Mr. Snyder's opinions are reliable. Because Mr. Snyder reviewed at least one of the Defendant's telephone systems and there is other evidence in the record that adds credibility to Mr. Snyder's opinions, the decision to forego a physical inspection is inconsequential. The third factor to consider is whether Mr. Snyder will be helpful to the trier of fact. The Judge finds that because Mr. Snyder's opinion in the case is more analogous to Morgan, merely tracks the language of the TCPA, and leaves it to the jury to determine whether the telephone systems constitute an ATDS, Mr. Snyder has not crossed the threshold of presenting an impermissible legal conclusion. Therefore, to the extent, he denied the Defendant's Daubert motion. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Torres granted in part and denied in part the pending motions related to Mr. Snyder. The Judge denied the Defendant's Daubert motion to exclude Mr. Snyder as unqualified, unreliable, and unhelpful. The Judge granted the Defendant's motion to exclude Mr. Snyder's opinion on whether the proposed class is ascertainable. The Judge denied the Defendant's motion to exclude Mr. Snyder's supplemental expert report, including the Defendant's motion for fees and costs. The Judge denied the Plaintiff's motion to strike the Defendant's motion to strike. A full-text copy of the Court's March 6, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y84zc8vf from Leagle.com. Troy Eldridge, Plaintiff, represented by David Philip Milian -- dmilian@careyrodriguez.com -- Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya LLP, Juan Jose Rodriguez -- jrodriguez.@careyrodriguez.com -- Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya, LLP & Ruben Conitzer -- rconitzer@careyrodriguez.com -- Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya LLP. Pet Supermarket, Inc., Defendant, represented by Irene Oria, FISHERBROYLES, LLP & Barry Goheen, FisherBroyles LLP, pro hac vice. PETRO INC: Underpays Manual Workers, Cohen Claims ------------------------------------------------- Andrew Cohen, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -v- Petro, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02409 (E.D.N.Y., May 31, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated current and former employees who worked for the Defendant and who elect to opt into this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking to recover unpaid wages from Defendant for working more than 40 hours in a week and not being paid an overtime rate of at least one and a half times the regular rate for each and all such hours over 40 in a week. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a manual worker engaged in motor vehicle operation, packing, loading, unloading and using tools and equipment as a customer service personnel throughout his workday from on or about January 18, 2019 to on or about May 1, 2020. Petro, Inc. is a New York-based foreign for-profit corporation that provides equipment and energy to building and homeowners in several states, including in New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 Facsimile: (718) 355-9668 Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com PHILADELPHIA, PA: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in T.R. Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs D.R., L.R., Manqing Lin, Madeline Perez and R.H. filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled T.R., et al. v. School District of Philadelphia, Case No. 2-15-cv-04782, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the federal class action lawsuit alleges that thousands of similarly situated families were denied the opportunity to fully participate in the special education process on behalf of their children because of limited English language skills. As one of the plaintiffs' representatives, attorney Michael Churchill with the Public Interest Law Center described Ms. Galarza's experience: "She has never seen the document, has no way of comprehending what the full scope of the meeting is. And she breaks out in tears at this information that is being given to her for the very first time." The issue is not an isolated or new one. According to the complaint, the School District of Philadelphia routinely refuses to provide parents with translated documents in a timely manner or provide sufficient translation, effectively preventing them from making informed decisions about their children's education. Another of the plaintiffs' representatives, Maura McInerney of the Education Law Center, claims the problem has persisted for many years. "After years of trying to address this issue with the District, we felt that the matter needed to be addressed by the courts." The appellate case is captioned as T.R., et al. v. School District of Philadelphia, Case No. 20-2084, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees T.R., a minor, individually, by and through her parent, Barbara Galarza, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by: Victoria L. Andrews, Esq. Lucas B. Michelen, Esq. Chanda A. Miller, Esq. Paul H. Saint-Antoine, Esq. Carol F. Trevey, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH One Logan Square, Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Email: victoria.andrews@faegredrinker.com lucas.michelen@faegredrinker.com chanda.miller@faegredrinker.com paul.saint-antoine@faegredrinker.com carol.trevey@faegredrinker.com - and - Michael Churchill, Esq. PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER OF PHILADELPHIA 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Two Penn Center, Suite 802 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 627-7100 Email: mchurchill@pubintlaw.org - and - Maura I. McInerney, Esq. EDUCATION LAW CENTER 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 346-6906 Email: mmcinerney@elc-pa.org - and - Daniel Urevick-Ackelsberg, Esq. PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER OF PHILADELPHIA 1709 Benjamin Franklin Parkway Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 546-1316 Email: dackelsberg@pubintlaw.org Plaintiff-Appellant MADELINE PEREZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, R.H., a minor, individually, by and through his parent, Manqing Lin, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and MANQING LIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Victoria L. Andrews, Esq. Paul H. Saint-Antoine, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH One Logan Square, Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Email: victoria.andrews@faegredrinker.com paul.saint-antoine@faegredrinker.com - and - Margaret M. Wakelin, Esq. EDUCATION LAW CENTER 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 800-0349 Defendant-Appellee SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA is represented by: Danielle M. Goebel, Esq. SALMANSON GOLDSHAW 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Two Penn Center, Suite 1230 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 575-7000 - and - Katherine V. Hartman, Esq. Marjorie M. Obod, Esq. DILWORTH PAXSON 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 575-7000 Email: khartman@dilworthlaw.com mobod@dilworthlaw.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Butler, Robinson Sue Over Abrupt Termination ---------------------------------------------------------------- DELANIE BUTLER and JOHN ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated class and collective action members, Plaintiffs, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; PRA GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; DOES I through X, inclusive; ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00861 (D. Nev., May 12, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs for the failure of the Defendants to pay wages, unpaid overtime, unlawful practices and damages pursuant to the Nevada law and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN Act). According to the complaint, Defendants effectively terminated the entire Las Vegas Regional Office of approximately 200 employees via email notification -- concomitant with a hearty congratulations to executives within PRA Group that had been promoted. After the entire LVRO staff was terminated via email, Defendants later sent a letter to LVRO employees that attempted to blame the firing on the COVID-19 crisis and attempted to comply with the WARN Act. Defendants attempted to use the COVID-19 crisis as pre-text for the failure to comply with the WARN Act. Robinson was employed with Defendants beginning on or around September 25, 2017 as a Talent Development Specialist while Butler was employed with Defendants beginning on or about November 27, 2017 as a litigation account representative. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is a nationwide account collection company with a regional office in Henderson, Nevada. PRA Group, Inc. or PRA, is a company acquiring and collecting nonperforming loans doing business in Clark County, Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark H. Hutchings, Esq. HUTCHINGS LAW GROUP, LLC 552 E. Charleston Blvd. Las Vegas, NV 89104 Telephone: (702) 660-7700 Email: MHutchings@HutchingsLawGroup.com PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Stoltz Balks at Acquisition by Alexion --------------------------------------------------------------- Johan Stoltz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., HOLLINGS C. RENTON, JEFFREY BIRD, LAURA BREGE, DENNIS FENTON, SCOTT GARLAND, JOHN H. JOHNSON, TED LOVE, DAVID C. STUMP, H. WARD WOLFF, Case No. 3:20-cv-03680 (N.D. Cal., June 3, 2020), arises from a proposed acquisition of the Company by Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other public stockholders of Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc., against Portola and the Company's Board of Directors, for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and breaches of fiduciary duty as a result of the Defendants' efforts to sell the Company to Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Parent"), and Odyssey Merger Sub, Inc., as a result of an unfair process for an unfair price, and to enjoin an upcoming tender offer on a proposed all cash transaction valued at approximately $1.41 billion. The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a May 5, 2020 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, a subsidiary of Alexion will commence a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Portola's common stock at a price of $18 per share in cash. As a result of the Proposed Transaction, Portola stockholders will be frozen out of any interest in the surviving entity. Thereafter, on May 27, 2020, Portola filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 with the SEC in support of the Proposed Transaction. In violation of the Exchange Act and their fiduciary duties, the Defendants caused to be filed the materially deficient Recommendation Statement on May 27, 2020, with the SEC in an effort to solicit stockholders to tender their Portola shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Plaintiff alleges. He contends that the Recommendation Statement is materially deficient, deprives Portola's stockholders of the information they need to make an intelligent, informed and rational decision of whether to tender their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction. The Recommendation Statement omits and/or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (a) the sales process and in particular certain conflicts of interest for management; (b) the financial projections for Portola, provided by Portola to the Company's financial advisor Centerview Partners LLC; (c) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses, if any, that purport to support the fairness opinion of Centerview to the Company Absent judicial intervention, the Proposed Transaction will be consummated, resulting in irreparable injury to the Plaintiff and the Class, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been a Portola stockholder. Portola is a biopharmaceutical company that develops and commercializes novel therapeutics in the areas of thrombosis and other hematologic disorders and inflammation in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. Ryan P. Cardona, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com rcardona@brodskysmith.com PREMIUM MILLWORK: Montoya Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Horacio David Veliz Montoya, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PREMIUM MILLWORK, INC. (D/B/A PREMIUM MILLWORK) and JULIO CUENCA, Case No. 1:20-cv-02475 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2020), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime 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. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. Plaintiff Veliz was employed as a helper and a carpenter at the woodworking shop. The Defendants own, operate, or control a woodworking shop, located in Brooklyn, New York under the name "Premium Millwork."[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 PRIME COMMS: Underpays Retail Sales Consultants, Hurtado Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- DANTE HURTADO, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIME COMMS RETAIL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00627 (W.D. Tex., May 26, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from May 2018 until May 2020 as a retail sales consultant. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and all others similarly situated hourly-paid workers regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their employment with Defendant. However, Defendant failed to include the commissions that were paid to them in their regular rates when calculating their overtime pay, thereby failing to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated a sufficient overtime premium for all hours worked over 40 each week. Prime Comms Retail, LLC is an authorized retailer for AT&T. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com PROJECTOTRES LLC: Lemus Seeks OT Pay for Electricians ----------------------------------------------------- AUGUSTO EDUARDO LOAIZA LEMUS and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROJECTOTRES, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and JORGE CHALL PEREZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-22308-FAM (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2020) asserts that Defendants have willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt electrician from on or about December 4, 2018 through on or about May 28, 2019 and received a raise during the second to fifth bi-weekly period of his employment. According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked approximately 56 hours per week during the period of on or about December 4, 2018 through on or about May 28, 2019. But, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff overtime wages for approximately 16 overtime hours per week at a rate of half the regular rate of Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that Defendants did not change its pay practice and continued to fail to pay Plaintiff overtime wages even when Plaintiff was re-employed from on or about July 8, 2019 through on or about August 17, 2019. Jorge Chall Perez had an operational control over the Defendant corporation and is directly involved in decision affecting employee compensation and hours worked by employees, including Plaintiff. Projectotres, LLC provides construction services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel T. Feld, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A. 2847 Hollywood Blvd. Hollywood, FL 33020 Tel: (954) 361-8383 Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com - and - Isaac Mamane, Esq. 10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 650 Miami, FL 33161 Tel: (305) 773-6661 Email: mamane@gmail.com QUEENS ADULT CARE: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Joseph J. Lynett, Esq. -- Joseph.Lynett@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, report that despite significant legal obstacles, on May 4, 2020, a group of plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging the Queens Adult Care Center (QACC) violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Title III) and its precursor, Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), by failing to provide a level of care to safeguard their health and safety at its assisted living facility during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs seek to certify a class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3) of all current or future residents of QACC during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic who have disabilities that require assistance with activities of daily living. The proposed class action lawsuit, Schoengood, et al. v. Hofgur LLC d/b/a Queens Adult Care Center and Gefen Senior Group, No. 1:20-cv-02022 (E.D. N.Y.), is the first of its kind seeking to hold a place of public accommodation liable under Title III or Section 504 for not taking adequate measures, in the plaintiffs' estimation, to prevent or mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Plaintiffs' Claims, Relief Sought Title III prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability "in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12182(a). Title III applies to virtually any business that sells its goods and services directly to consumers. Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability, providing that "[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any [federal] Executive agency . . .." 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794. The plaintiffs base their claims on two more specific obligations under Title III and Section 504. The first requires a public accommodation to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to afford goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities. The second prohibits the use of criteria or other eligibility standards that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of a disability. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and broad injunctive relief, as well as the appointment of a Special Master at the defendants' cost to oversee the facility and to make recommendations on preventing the spread of COVID-19 at the facility. They also seek reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, which are generally mandated by these statutes to a prevailing plaintiff. While damages are not available under Title III, compensatory damages are available under Section 504. The plaintiffs have not expressly claimed relief in the form of awards for compensatory damages. Potential Problems with Claims The plaintiffs appear to face an uphill battle with their novel claims. They contend Title III requires QACC to adopt policies or have better policies during the COVID-19 pandemic to safeguard the health and safety of its disabled residents. However, Title III has not been held to require public accommodations to adopt any policies, let alone the litany of policies the plaintiffs cite in their complaint, including testing, social distancing, isolation measures, and other policies recommended or required by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and other federal and state regulations governing long-term care facilities, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities. Section 504 regulations require covered entities and programs to have anti-discrimination policies, grievance procedures, and other procedural requirements in place. See, e.g., 45 C.F.R Sec. 84 (HHS Section 504 regulations). However, the applicable regulations do not expressly impose the kinds of policies and procedures the plaintiffs contend Section 504 requires. Further, to the extent that the complaint alleges QACC has policies concerning COVID-19, it does not allege a policy resulted in the denial of the services QACC offers based on an individual's disability status. Likewise, the plaintiffs' contention that QACC used eligibility criteria that violates Title III and Section 504 would appear to fare no better. The complaint does not appear to allege what eligibility criteria QACC applied to the residents other than the eligibility criteria required by applicable New York law. The complaint also does not appear to allege that any eligibility criteria screened out or tended to screen out persons with disabilities from using the services QACC offers, which is a requirement to establishing a Title III violation based on the use of unlawful eligibility criteria. The complaint appears to allege precisely the opposite. QACC provides its services mainly to disabled residents and, therefore, the plaintiffs contend that Title III and Section 504 require the facility to provide certain services the plaintiffs allege QACC does not currently provide. However, by its plain terms, Title III's prohibition against discrimination on account of disability "in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation" regulates access to the goods and services of a public accommodation, but not the type of goods or services offered by the public accommodation. See McNeil v. Time Ins. Co., 205 F.3d 179, 188 (5th Cir. 2000); Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104, 1115-16 (9th Cir. 1999); Doe v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 179 F.3d 557, 560 (7th Cir. 1999); Lenox v. Healthwise of Kentucky, Ltd., 149 F.3d 453, 457 (6th Cir. 1998); Ford v. Schering-Plough Corp., 145 F.3d 601, 613 (3d Cir. 1998); Funches v. Barra, No. 14-cv-7382, 2016 WL 2939165, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2016). An owner denies the full and equal enjoyment of offered goods or services if they deny or inhibit access to those goods and services. However, "[t]he goods and services that the business offers exist a priori and independently from any discrimination. Stated differently, the goods and services referred to in the statute are simply those that the business normally offers." Thus, the plaintiffs' contention that Title III or Section 504 requires QACC to provide different and additional services than it allegedly currently provides would not appear to be an issue that Title III or Section 504 was meant to regulate. Potential Problems with Class Certification Regarding the plaintiffs proceeding as a putative class, Rule 23(b)(2) classes are well-known to civil rights lawyers and apply where the party opposing the class certification has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is unique in its requirements, as compared to other bases for class certification under Rule 23. A plaintiff seeking to certify a 23(b)(2) class must establish, in addition to the Rule 23(a) prerequisites (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy), that a single injunction can be issued that applies to the whole class and complies with Rule 65(d) -- namely, the injunction "state its terms specifically; and describe in reasonable detail . . . the act or acts restrained or required." See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 360 (2011) ("Rule 23(b)(2) applies only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class. It does not authorize class certification when each individual class member would be entitled to a different injunction or declaratory judgment against the defendant."). The wide-ranging and evolving recommendations and guidance offered by the CDC and other state and local governmental agencies, makes crafting a single injunction applicable to hundreds of residents with varying medical impairments and care needs problematic. Given the individual nature of care residents typically need and their varying disabilities the complaint alleges they have, individual questions also appear more likely to predominate over common questions. This makes the plaintiffs' claims unsuitable for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) and failing to provide a superior method over proceeding and adjudicating on their individual claims. Moreover, under the Rules Enabling Act, the plaintiffs' decision to proceed as a class action cannot diminish the defendants' substantive right to prove their defenses under Title III and Section 504 with respect to any member of the class. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2072(b). Certain defenses, such as undue burden or fundamental alteration of the nature of services offered, tend to be fact-specific and may raise individual issues sufficient for a court to deny class certification. This is not to suggest that the plaintiffs can establish all Rule 23(a) prerequisites. Numerosity would appear problematic for the plaintiffs because joinder of absent putative class members would not be impracticable. They are all residents at the facility, readily identifiable, and the court likely has personal jurisdiction over each of them. Aggrieved residents presumably have incentives to bring an individual action like the one filed by the plaintiffs given the potential individual stakes and the availability of an award of attorneys' fees and costs if they prevail. Merely identifying a common contention is insufficient for a plaintiff to establish commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) after Dukes. The U.S. Supreme Court explained in Dukes: [The] common contention . . . must be of such a nature that it is capable of class-wide resolution -- which means that the determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke. "What matters to class certification . . . is not the raising of common questions -- even in droves -- but rather the capacity of the classwide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation." In order for a "contention" to constitute a "common question," it must yield the same answer with respect to each member of the proposed class. Even if the plaintiffs pled valid claims under Title III or Section 504, the answer to the common question of whether QACC committed discrimination under these statutes may be that it depends on the resident, given a host of individual factors, including the resident's care needs, disability, and level of assistance with daily activities. The resolution of such individual issues has a higher probability of yielding different answers for each of the putative class members, thereby defeating commonality. [GN] RHODE ISLAND: Settles Class Action Over Food Stamp Program ---------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Rhode Island has settled a class-action lawsuit over its controversial food stamp benefits system. The American Civil Liberties Union on May 11 said the agreement requires the state to provide more information when seeking reimbursement for suspected overpayment of benefits. The civil rights group filed the suit in December on behalf of Woonsocket resident Carmen Correa. The ACLU argued the state demanded Correa repay nearly $2,000 in benefits but didn't provide her enough information to determine whether the overpayment was correct. The state Department of Human Services, which administers the benefits, said the settlement "constitutes a compromise" but shouldn't be "construed as an admission of any sort." [GN] RJC REMODELING: Misclassifies & Underpays Laborers, Steagall Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, TERRY STEAGALL, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. RJC REMODELING, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, and DOUG ARNOLD, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03300 (N.D. Ill., June 4, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiff is a former laborer employee of Defendants who performed a variety of remodeling and construction services for Defendants' customers. According to the complaint, Plaintiff consistently worked over 40 hours per week, but only received a straight time hourly rates of pay for all hours worked without overtime compensation. The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class overtime at one and one-half of their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, and improperly classified them as a 1099 Independent Contractor. Doug Arnold is the owner and President of Defendant RJC. RJC Remodeling, LLC provides quick apartment remodeling services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401 Chicago, IL 60604 Tel: (312) 853-1450 Fax: (312) 853-1459 Website: https://www.billhornlaw.com ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Freedland et al. Balk at Platform Outages ------------------------------------------------------------ JARED FREEDLAND, DAVID KOSTENKO, and ROMEO TORO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03218 (N.D. Cal., May 11, 2020) alleges that Defendants breached their contractual duty to Plaintiffs and other Class members by failing to provide access to their accounts, equites, and money, though Defendants nonetheless received consideration from Plaintiffs and other Class members in the form of order flow data, interest, account fees, and fees during the outages of March 2, 3, and 9, 2020. According to the complaint, the Defendants' breach deprived Plaintiffs and other Class members of the ability to manage their investments during the outages alleged above, which occurred a period of extremely high market volatility. The Defendants furnished consideration to Plaintiffs and other Class members in the form of access to Defendants' online trading platform, enabling them to trade securities and options listed on U.S. securities exchanges. In exchange, Defendants received consideration from Plaintiffs and other Class members including but not limited to order flow data, which Defendants sold to market makers to generate revenue, interest generated on cash balances in accounts, interest on margin extensions, and fees. As a proximate result of Defendants' breach, Plaintiffs and other Class members have been damaged, and did not receive the full benefit of their bargain. Robinhood Markets, Inc. is a U.S.-based financial services company headquartered in Menlo Park, California. The company offers a mobile app and website that offers people the ability to invest in stocks, ETFs, and options through Robinhood Financial and crypto trading through Robinhood Crypto. Robinhood Financial LLC operates as an institutional brokerage company based in Menlo Park, California. Robinhood Securities, LLC is a broker-dealer registered with the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission and incorporated in the state of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 10728 Lindbrook Dr. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 ROSEHILL RESOURCES: Trahan Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Trahan, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v. ROSEHILL RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-01928 (S.D. Tex., June 2, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Day Rate Workers regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. But the Defendant did not pay them overtime. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant classified these workers as independent contractors and paid them a flat amount for each day worked (a "day rate") without overtime compensation. The Plaintiff and the Day Rate Workers never received a guaranteed salary. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Safety Specialist. Rosehill "is an independent oil and natural gas company focused on growing production and reserves in the core of the Delaware Basin, through drilling and bolt-on acquisitions."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Taylor A. Jones, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com tjones@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com SANDERSON FARMS: Bid to Dismiss Calif. Consumer Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the company is seeking dismissal of the First Amended Complaint in the consumer class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On October 11, 2019, three named plaintiffs -- Daniel Lentz, Pam La Fosse, and Marybeth Norman -- filed, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, a nationwide class action against the Company on behalf of a putative class of all individuals and businesses throughout the United States who purchased one or more of the Company's chicken products in the prior four years. The lawsuit alleges that the named plaintiffs and other class members purchased the Company's chicken products based on misleading representations in the Company's advertising. Specifically, the plaintiffs in this case allege that the Company's advertising (including, but not limited to, on its website, television commercials, radio advertisements, social media, print magazines, billboards, and trucks) misleads consumers into believing that (i) the Company's chickens were not given antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals, (ii) the chickens were raised in a "natural" environment, (iii) there is no evidence that the use of antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals in poultry contributes to the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and (iv) the Company's chicken products do not contain antibiotic or pharmaceutical residues. Plaintiffs allege that (i) the Company "routinely" feeds antibiotics and pharmaceuticals to its chickens, (ii) the Company raises its chickens indoors in "unnatural" indoor conditions amounting to "intensive confinement" and without natural light (iii) there is "extensive" reliable evidence that the use of antibiotics in poultry contributes to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and (iv) the Company's chickens have been found to contain antibiotic and pharmaceutical residue. The original Complaint asserted five causes of action under California and North Carolina law. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief directing the Company to correct its practices and to comply with consumer protection laws nationwide. The plaintiffs also sought monetary, compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, as well as attorneys' and experts' fees, costs, and expenses. On December 20, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On February 10, 2020, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in part, denied it in part, and granted the plaintiffs leave to amend the Complaint. On March 23, 2020, two of the three original plaintiffs (Pam La Fosse and Marybeth Norman) filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in which they were joined by five additional named plaintiffs. The core allegations and theories set forth in the First Amended Complaint are the same as in the original complaint. The First Amended Complaint asserts one cause of action under federal law and sixteen causes of action under the laws of various states. The plaintiffs again seek injunctive relief directing the Company to correct its practices and to comply with consumer protection laws nationwide, as well as monetary, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and attorneys' and experts' fees, costs and expenses. On May 6, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. No discovery has taken place to date. Sanderson said, "We intend to defend these cases vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations." Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company, produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel, Mississippi. SANDERSON FARMS: Broiler Chicken Litigation Ongoing --------------------------------------------------- Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend the class action lawsuit entitled, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with 13 other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in multiple putative class action lawsuits filed by direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens, thereby violating federal and certain states' antitrust laws, and also allege certain related state-law claims. The complaints also allege that the defendants fraudulently concealed the alleged anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy. The complaints seek damages, including treble damages for the antitrust claims, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees. As detailed below, the Court has consolidated all of the direct purchaser complaints into one case, and the indirect purchaser complaints into two cases, one on behalf of commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs and one on behalf of end-user consumer plaintiffs. The cases are part of a coordinated proceeding captioned In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. On October 28, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed consolidated, amended complaints, and on November 23, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed second amended complaints. On December 16, 2016, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs separated into two cases. On that date, the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On January 27, 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints in all of the cases, and on November 20, 2017, the motions to dismiss were denied. On February 7, 2018, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint, adding three additional poultry producers as defendants. On February 12, 2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, in which they also added three additional poultry producers as defendants, along with Agri Stats. On February 20, 2018, the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint. On November 13, 2018, the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their fifth amended complaint, adding three additional poultry producers as defendants. On November 28, 2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint. On January 15, 2019, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint, and the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their sixth amended complaint. Both the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs added two new poultry producers as defendants, as well as Agri Stats. On April 29, 2019, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. Between December 8, 2017 and April 11, 2020, additional purported direct-purchaser entities individually brought thirty-six separate suits against 19 poultry producers, including Sanderson Farms and Agri Stats, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, and the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. These suits allege substantially similar claims to the direct purchaser class complaint described above; certain of the suits additionally allege related state-law and common law claims, and related claims under federal and Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) statutes. Those suits filed in the Northern District of Illinois are now pending in front of the same judge as the putative class action lawsuits. On June 26, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to transfer the case filed in the District of Kansas to the Northern District of Illinois, and that motion was granted on September 13, 2018. On June 7, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion to transfer the case filed in the Western District of Arkansas to the Northern District of Illinois, and that motion was granted on June 11, 2019. On July 24, 2019, one of the defendants filed a motion to transfer the case filed in the District of Puerto Rico to the Northern District of Illinois, and that motion was granted on July 25, 2019. On July 22, 2019, the Company moved to dismiss in part those direct-purchaser complaints that allege claims under federal and Georgia RICO statutes against it. The motion was fully briefed on September 20, 2019, and the Court heard argument on the motion on December 18, 2019. On March 3, 2020, the Court denied the Company's motion. On October 18, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the case filed by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on its behalf and on behalf of its citizens. The motion was fully briefed on January 21, 2020. The parties are currently engaged in discovery, subject to the COVID-19-related delays. It is possible additional individual actions may be filed. The Company is aware that certain plaintiffs' counsel in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation received from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, a subpoena that included a request to produce all discovery in the case to a grand jury. On June 27, 2019, the Court in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation permitted the United States Department of Justice to intervene in the case, as well as ordered certain discovery stayed until September 27, 2019. Before the discovery stay expired on September 27, 2019, the United States Department of Justice asked the Court in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation to extend the discovery stay for an additional six months. On September 25, 2019, the Court granted the additional stay of not less than three months. On October 16, 2019, after further consideration, the Court extended the stay until June 27, 2020. On December 18, 2019, the Court after further consideration ordered that the stay be lifted on March 31, 2020. The Company received a grand jury subpoena in connection with the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division investigation on September 9, 2019. The Company is complying with the subpoena and providing documents and information as requested by the Department of Justice in connection with its investigation. Since March 16, 2020, given the current COVID-19 public health emergency, the Northern District of Illinois has issued three orders extending all deadlines in civil cases by 21 days, 28 days and 28 days, respectively, and a fourth order that will take effect on May 29, 2020, which does not extend any deadlines. These orders apply to the litigation. The Northern District of Illinois will vacate, amend or extend the Fourth Amended General Order on or before July 13, 2020. Sanderson said, "We intend to continue to defend the lawsuits vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions. If the plaintiffs were to prevail or the Department of Justice were to pursue charges, the Company could be liable for damages or other sanctions, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations." Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company, produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel, Mississippi. SANDERSON FARMS: Class Suit in North Carolina Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------ Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina remains stayed. On January 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On March 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in a second putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The Court ordered the suits consolidated into one proceeding, and on July 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants unlawfully conspired by sharing data on compensation paid to broiler farmers, with the purpose and effect of suppressing the farmers' compensation below competitive levels. The consolidated amended complaint also alleges that the defendants unlawfully conspired to not solicit or hire the broiler farmers who were providing services to other defendants. The consolidated amended complaint seeks treble damages, costs and attorneys' fees. On September 8, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, on October 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their response, and on November 22, 2017, the defendants filed a reply. On January 19, 2018, the Court granted the Sanderson Farms defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On February 21, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a substantially similar lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against Sanderson Farms and our subsidiaries and another poultry producer. The plaintiffs subsequently moved to consolidate this action with the Eastern District of Oklahoma action in the Eastern District of Oklahoma for pre-trial proceedings, with the defendants in support thereof. That motion was denied. On July 13, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit in the Eastern District of North Carolina, and briefing was completed on September 4, 2018. On January 15, 2019, the Court granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss and stayed the action in the Eastern District of North Carolina pending resolution of the action in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On January 6, 2020, the Court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma denied defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 27, 2020, plaintiffs in the Oklahoma case moved for leave to amend their complaint. The Court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma granted the plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 21, 2020. The Oklahoma case is ongoing. Sanderson said, "We intend to defend the Eastern District of North Carolina case vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this action. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations." Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company, produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel, Mississippi. SANDERSON FARMS: Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Due July 17 ------------------------------------------------------------ Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that plaintiffs' oppositions to defendants' motions to dismiss are due July 17, 2020. On August 30, 2019, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its Foods and Processing Divisions, as well as seventeen other poultry producers and their affiliates; Agri Stats, Inc.; and Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company, Inc. ("WMS"), were named in a putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Three other nearly identical putative class action complaints, each seeking to represent the same putative class, also were filed. The complaints, brought on behalf of non-supervisory production and maintenance employees at broiler chicken processing plants, alleged that the defendants unlawfully conspired by agreeing to fix and depress the compensation paid to them, including hourly wages and compensation benefits, from January 1, 2009 to the present. The plaintiffs claim that broiler producers shared competitively sensitive wage and benefits compensation information in three ways: (1) attending in-person meetings in Destin, Florida; (2) receiving Agri Stats reports, as well as surveys taken and published by WMS; and (3) directly exchanging wage and benefits information with plant managers at other defendant broiler producers. Plaintiffs allege that this conduct violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. On November 12, 2019, the Court ordered that the four putative class action complaints would be consolidated for all pretrial purposes. The Court ordered plaintiffs to file their consolidated complaint on or before November 14, 2019. Defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint were filed on November 22, 2019. Briefing was scheduled to be completed on or before February 28, 2020; however, after the defendants filed their motions to dismiss, on November 26, 2019, plaintiffs notified defendants that they intended to file an amended consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on December 20, 2019. Plaintiffs name as defendants Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its Foods and Processing Divisions, as well as ten other broiler chicken producers and their affiliates; three turkey producers and their affiliates; Agri Stats, Inc.; and WMS. Plaintiffs bring their amended consolidated complaint on behalf of employees at broiler chicken and turkey processing plants and allege that the defendants unlawfully conspired by agreeing to fix and depress the compensation paid to them. On January 9, 2020 and January 27, 2020, the court approved the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of two of the three nearly identical putative class action lawsuits. On March 12, 2020, the Court approved the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the third nearly identical putative class action lawsuit. On March 2, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. The Company also filed an individual motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims against the Company. Plaintiffs' oppositions were originally due on April 24, 2020 and defendants' replies were due on May 21, 2020. However, on March 20, 2020, the District of Maryland issued Second Amended Standing Order 2020-02, extending all filing deadlines set to fall between March 16, 2020 and April 24, 2020 by 42 days. On April 10, 2020, the District of Maryland issued Standing Order 2020-07, extending all filing deadlines set to fall between March 16, 2020 and June 5, 2020 by 84 days. Under the current Standing Order, plaintiffs' oppositions to defendants' motions to dismiss are due July 17, 2020. Defendants' replies are due August 13, 2020. No discovery has taken place to date. Sanderson said, "We intend to defend this case vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations." Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company, produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel, Mississippi. SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Denies Caterers' COVID-19 Coverage Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE PARK SAVOY CATERERS LLC t/a THE PARK SAVOY and IN THE PARK CHATEAU CATERERS LLC on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SELECTIVE INSURANCE GROUP, INC. and SELECTIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-06869-MCA-LDW (D.N.J., June 4, 2020), is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs to seek a declaratory judgment affirming that the COVID-19 pandemic and the corresponding response by civil authorities to stop the spread of the outbreak triggers coverage, has caused physical property loss and damage to the insured property, provides coverage for future civil authority orders that result in future suspensions or curtailments of business operations, and finds that Defendants are liable for the losses suffered by policyholders. Defendants, and most insurance companies who have issued all-risk commercial property insurance policies with business interruption coverage, are denying the obligation to pay for business income losses and other covered expenses incurred by policyholders for the physical loss and damage to the insured property from measures put in place by the civil authorities to stop the spread of COVID-19 among the population. In addition, this action brings a claim against Defendants for their breach of their contractual obligation under common all-risk commercial property insurance policies to indemnify Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for business losses and extra expenses, and related losses resulting from actions taken by civil authorities to stop the human to human and surface to human spread of the COVID-19 outbreak. Plaintiffs are New Jersey-based catering services provider. Selective Insurance Group, Inc. is a New Jersey-based insurance company that owns a number of subsidiaries, including Selective Casualty Insurance Company, that provide business property insurance throughout the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, New Jersey 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. SEEGER WEISS 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 - and - Paul J. Geller, Esq. Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 SENTINEL INSURANCE: Glow Medispa Seeks Payment for COVID Losses --------------------------------------------------------------- GLOW MEDISPA, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00712 (W.D. Wash., May 12, 2020) is a class action to ensure that Plaintiff and other similarly-situated policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are entitled and for which they paid pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. According to the complaint, Plaintiff's medical spa business has been interrupted, curtailed, and suspended due to COVID-19 and a state-ordered mandated closure. Plaintiff intended to rely on its business insurance to maintain income in case of an insured loss but the Defendant has denied and will deny all similar claims for coverage. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment declaring that Plaintiff's and class members losses and expenses resulting from the interruption of their business are covered by the Policy. The Policy is a contract under which Plaintiff and the class paid premiums to Sentinel in exchange for Sentinel's promise to pay Plaintiff and the class for all claims covered by the Policy. The complaint further states that denying coverage for the claim is a breach of the insurance contract. Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited is an insurance carrier incorporated and domiciled in Connecticut, with its principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy Williams-Derry, Esq. Lynn L. Sarko, Esq. Ian S. Birk, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Irene M. Hecht, Esq. Maureen Falecki, Esq. Nathan Nanfelt, Esq. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 Email: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com ibirk@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com ihecht@kellerrohrback.com mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com - and - Alison Chase, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Facsimile: (805) 456-1497 Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com SERGEANT'S PET: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Penikila Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, RAMONA PENIKILA, Plaintiff, v. SERGEANT'S PET CARE PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-05508-VC (N.D. Cal.). Judge Chhabria finds that Penikila has standing to bring her claims. Penikila alleges that the Defendant's flea medicine irritated her dog's skin and caused serious fur loss. That is plainly a redressable injury traceable to the Defendant's conduct. Adjudication of the class claims may present complex choice-of-law questions, but those questions are beyond the scope of the standing inquiry. The motion to dismiss the claims by the out-of-state members of the proposed class for lack of personal jurisdiction on the basis of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, is denied, the Court rules. Before certification, the unnamed class members (and their claims) are not before the Court in any real sense. The Defendant may file a separate motion to strike the nationwide class allegations. Incidentally, in a recent case management conference, the counsel for the Defendant asserted that the Court lacks specific jurisdiction to adjudicate Penikila's own claims, even though Penikila bought the flea medicine from a California Petco and used it on her dog in California. That is clearly wrong, Judge Chhabria holds. Accordingly, the Defendants may not file a renewed motion to dismiss on that basis. Judge Chhabria finds that Penikila has appropriately pleaded that she justifiably relied on the statement that the flea medicine was safe for use around pets. Penikila says that the statement caused her to believe that the medicine was safe to use on her dog, and she also says that she would not have bought and used the medicine had she known it was unsafe. The motion to dismiss Penikila's claim for unjust enrichment is denied, the Court rules. The Court also denied the motion to dismiss Penikila's claim for breach of express warranty is denied. First, a purchaser who relies on a label's misrepresentations may sue the manufacturer for breach of express warranty without regard to privity. Second, the claim that the product is "safe for use around pets" in the context of flea medicine is specific enough to constitute an express warranty. Judge Chhabria denied the motion to dismiss the claim for a breach of implied warranty without prejudice to raising it again at the summary judgment stage. If the issue is briefed again, the parties are directed to consider the applicability of the pesticide exception (in addition to the potential exception for third-party beneficiaries) to the facts of the case. If the Defendant chooses to file a motion to strike the nationwide class allegations, the motion must be filed without delay. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 3, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/cZXK3V from Leagle.com. Ramona Penikila, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Scott Bursor -- scott@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Blair E. Reed, Bursor and Fisher, P.A., Brittany Skye Scott, Bursor Fisher, P.A., Joel Dashiell Smith -- jsmith@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. & L. Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Sergeant's Pet Care Products, LLC, doing business as Sentry, Defendant, represented by Alex Paul Harris -- aharris@gibsondunn.com -- pro hac vice, Charles W. Steese -- csteese@armstrongteasdale.com -- & Daniel Eugene Sakaguchi -- dsakaguchi@vlmglaw.com -- Varela, Lee, Metz & Guarino, PC. SK ENERGY: Faces Richardson Anticompetitive Suit Over Gas Prices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marie E. Richardson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SK ENERGY AMERICAS, INC.; SK TRADING INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD.; VITOL INC.; DAVID NIEMANN; and BRAD LUCAS, Case No. 3:20-cv-03678 (N.D. Cal., June 3, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Cartwright Act and the Unfair Competition Law with regard to the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct relating to gasoline prices. In February 2015, there was an explosion at a large gasoline refinery complex located in Torrance, California. A key part of the refinery complex was badly damaged and needed extensive repairs. This accident caused an unexpected shortage in the supply of refined gasoline in California, because that refinery supplied about ten percent of all the gasoline in the state. This supply disruption, which caused spikes in gasoline prices, created an opportunity for major gasoline trading firms, including the Defendants, to conspire to fix prices, the Plaintiff contends. Indeed, the Plaintiff says, following the explosion, SK and Vitol, which had already begun to act in concert, quickly negotiated large contracts to supply much-needed gasoline and gasoline blending components for delivery in California. The largest of these contracts exceeded 10 million gallons. Rather than competing on the merits SK and Vitol participated in a scheme to drive up and manipulate the spot market price for gasoline so that they could realize windfall profits on these large contracts to deliver gasoline and gasoline blending components, the Plaintiff alleges. Beginning in 2014 and continuing into late 2016, the lead traders for both SK and Vitol, who were friends and former colleagues, reached agreements--with each other and with third parties--as part of a scheme to manipulate, raise, fix, and tamper with the spot market price of gasoline in California, according to the complaint. SK and Vitol also entered into agreements with each other to share the profits and to disguise or hide the nature of the scheme. The Defendants may not have created the supply disruption that impacted California starting in February 2015, but they exacerbated the effects of that disruption to enrich themselves illegally at great cost to purchasers of gasoline in California. This conduct has not gone unnoticed by government officials. On May 4, 2020, the California Attorney General filed a complaint in San Francisco Superior Court for violations of the Cartwright Act and the UCL. As a result of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the Plaintiff and members of the Class have been injured in their business and property during the Class Period by paying supra-competitive prices for gasoline in California, says the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks relief under state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The Plaintiff purchased fuel at retail in California during the Class Period. SKEA is a California corporation with its head office located in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Elizabeth Graham, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. One Market Street, Esq. Spear Street Tower, 36th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 293-8210 Facsimile: (415) 789-4367 Email: egraham@gelaw.com - and - Robert Eisler, Esq. Deborah Elman, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: (646) 722-8500 Fax: (646) 722-8501 Email: reisler@gelaw.com delman@gelaw.com SMJ CONSTRUCTION: Yang Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Xiaojian Yang, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SMJ CONSTRUCTION INC TNC CONSTUCTION INC SMJ CONSTRUCTION TECH LLC d/b/a SMJ Construction; STEVE KANG, TIAN NAM CHE, LIAN JUN CHU, MIN JUNG PARK, "JOHN" JIANG and "JOHN" CAI, Case No. 1:20-cv-04214 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and New York Labor Law, arising from the Defendants' various unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices. 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 Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a Construction Worker at various construction sites in New York and New Jersey. SMJ Construction Inc., doing business as SMJ Construction, is a foreign business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-1324 SOLIANT HEALTH: Casement Appeals E.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff James Casement filed an appeal from a court ruling in his lawsuit styled James Casement v. Soliant Health, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01262-DAD-JLT, in the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of California, Fresno. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff John Casement filed the lawsuit in the Superior Court on August 7, 2019 before it was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on September 9, 2019. The Complaint sets forth 11 causes of action: (1) Failure to Provide Reporting Time Pay, (2) Failure to Pay for All Hours Worked, (3) Failure to Pay Overtime, (4) Failure to Pay Minimum Wage, (5) Failure to Authorize and/or Permit Meal Breaks, (6) Failure to Authorize and/or Permit Rest Breaks, (7) Failure to Furnish Accurate Wage Statement, (8) Waiting Time Penalties, (9) Breach of Contract, (10) Negligent Misrepresentation, and (11) Unfair Business Practices. The appellate case is captioned as James Casement v. Soliant Health, Inc., Case No. 20-16037, 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 25, 2020; -- Transcript is due on July 27, 2020; -- Appellant James Casement's opening brief is due on September 3, 2020; -- Appellee Soliant Health, Inc.'s answering brief is due on October 5, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JAMES CASEMENT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, is represented by: Nazo L. Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 761-5484 - and - Ashkan Shakouri, Esq. SHAKOURI LAW FIRM 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 261-2824 Email: ash@shakourilawfirm.com Defendant-Appellee SOLIANT HEALTH, INC. is represented by: Sarah Helene Scheinhorn, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Email: Sarah.Scheinhorn@jacksonlewis.com STATEWIDE HARVESTING: Appeals Ruling in Ramirez Suit to 11th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Statewide Harvesting & Hauling, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Jose Ramirez, et al. v. Statewide Harvesting & Hauling, Case No. 8:17-cv-01753-MSS-AEP, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is a collective action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Jose Ramirez, et al. v. Statewide Harvesting & Hauling, Case No. 20-11995, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JOSE RAMIREZ and JOEL SANTANA, all those similarly situated, is represented by: R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq. MORGADO, PA 1 Alhambra Plaza Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (855) 899-9121 Email: rer@sorondorosenberg.com Defendant-Appellant STATEWIDE HARVESTING & HAULING, LLC, is represented by: David John Stefany, Esq. Matthew David Stefany, Esq. ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, PA 324 S Hyde Park Ave., Ste. 225 Tampa, FL 33606-4110 Telephone: (813) 251-1210 Email: dstefany@anblaw.com mstefany@anblaw.com SUPERCUTS INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Delamarter FACTA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Christopher Delamarter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, V. Supercuts, Inc., Defendant, Civil No. 19-3158(DSD/TNL) (D. Minn.), Judge David S. Doty of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The putative class action under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") arises from Supercuts' printing of eight digits of Plaintiff Delamarter's credit card on a receipt. In October 2018, Delamarter made a purchase at a Supercuts location in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Delamarter received a paper receipt for his purchase, which included the first four and last four digits of his credit card number. Delamarter alleges that the amount of information on his receipt violated FACTA and has increased the risk that he could be subject to identity theft and credit card fraud. He does not allege that he has experienced any negative repercussions, however. He also alleges, on information and belief, that Supercuts was routinely providing similar receipts to other customers. Most of the complaint is devoted to explaining why Congress enacted FACTA and establishing that its provisions are widely known, discussed, and understood within the retail industry. Delamarter also details the basis for his allegation that Supercuts had actual knowledge of FACTA's prohibitions. He alleges, on information and belief, that Supercuts had agreements with various credit card issuers, such as Visa, MasterCard, and American Express, that advised Supercuts about its obligation to truncate credit card account numbers. Delamarter further alleges, also on information and belief, that Supercuts' credit card issuers, point-of-sale providers, and trade associations otherwise periodically advised Supercuts of its obligations under FACTA. He also specifically alleges that two Supercuts executives, Andrew Lacko and Shawn Moren, were aware of FACTA's provisions based on their previous roles at other companies that were sued for FACTA violations like those alleged in the case. On Nov. 19, 2019, Delamarter filed the action in Hennepin County District Court individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging that Supercuts willfully violated FACTA by printing the first four and last four digits of his credit card number on his receipt. He seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs, and attorney's fees. Supercuts timely removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and now moves to dismiss. Supercuts argues that Delamarter does not allege a FACTA violation because printing the first four digits of a card number does not increase the risk of identity theft or fraud, which is the harm FACTA was designed to prevent. Delamarter responds that the dispositive issue is not whether the receipt exposed him to additional risk (even though he alleges it did), but rather whether the act of printing more than the last five digits of the card number violated the statute's plain language. To resolve the issue, Judge Doty must turn to the statute itself. The Judge finds that if the Congress had intended to limit only the disclosure of personally identifiable account information, it could have easily done so. It did not, and the Court is bound to apply the statute's plain language as written. When it does so, it is undeniable that Delamarter has adequately alleged that Supercuts violated FACTA by printing the first four and last four digits of his card number, which is plainly "more than the last 5 digits of the card number." The Plaintiff has therefore pleaded a cognizable legal claim under FACTA. Supercuts next argues that the complaint should be dismissed because Delamarter has not adequately alleged a willful violation of FACTA. Liability under FACTA turns on whether the violation is willful when, as in the case, no actual damages have been alleged. The Judge finds that Delamarter has adequately pleaded willfulness by alleging widespread industry knowledge about FACTA's truncation requirement; that Supercuts received continual reminders of that requirement by its credit card issuers, point-of-sale providers, and trade associations; and that certain Supercuts executives had first-hand knowledge of the requirement. The fact that Delamarter bases some of the allegations on information and belief does not undermine his claim at this stage of the litigation. The allegations are specific enough and with enough indicia of reliability to lead to the plausible inference that Supercuts knew about the truncation requirement before the alleged violation and therefore at least recklessly violated the statute. Accordingly, Judge Doty denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 3, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/LU9vTj from Leagle.com. Christopher Delamarter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan L. Bleichner, Chestnut Cambronne PA, Christopher P. Renz, Chestnut Cambronne PA, Gary F. Lynch, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, pro hac vice, Karl L. Cambronne, Chestnut Cambronne PA, Kelly Iverson -- contact@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, pro hac vice & Theodore Augustus Consta Hargrove, II -- thargrove@rpwb.com -- Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman LLC, pro hac vice. Supercuts, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher Munro Young -- Christopher.Young@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice, Julie A. Gryce -- Julie.Gryce@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice & Ruth Dapper -- Ruth.Dapper@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LLP. SUR TRANSPORTE: Underpays Drivers, Sotelo Claims ------------------------------------------------ AARON SOTELO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUR TRANSPORTE, INC., JIMMY HERNANDEZ and LAUREANO P. ARDILLA, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00517-SMV-GBW (D.N.M., May 29, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a driver from August 2019 through April 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the Class Members typically worked in excess of 40 hours per week, often worked 50 hours per week and sometimes more. But, Defendant failed and refused to compensate them at a rate not less than one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for the hours they worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Jimmy Hernandez and Laureano P. Ardilla made the decision to pay Defendants' non-exempt drivers an hourly wage and not to pay them overtime as required by the FLSA. Sur Transporte, Inc. is a freight hauling company throughout the U.S. with headquarters in Hobbs, New Mexico. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Welmaker, Esq. Daniel A. Verrett, Esq. MORELAND VERRETT, P.C. The Commissioners House at Heritage Square 2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L Austin, TX 78746 Tel: (512) 782-0567 Fax: (512) 782-0605 Emails: doug@morelandlaw.com Daniel@morelandlaw.com SYSCO CORP: Walker Sues Over Health Insurance Loss -------------------------------------------------- DANNY WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYSCO CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2;20-cv-02374-MSN-cgc (W.D. Tenn., May 26, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged failure to provide a timely Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) notice in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant on July 30, 2018, and was covered under Defendant's Health Plan during his employment with Defendant. He was abruptly terminated on November 22, 2018. The COBRA amendments to ERISA included certain provisions relating to continuation of health coverage upon termination of employment requiring the administrator to provide notice of their continuation of coverage rights under COBRA within 44 days. Plaintiff claims that the COBRA notice sent by Defendant after his termination was confusing and incomplete because it omits the payment address and failed to sufficiently explain to enroll in COBRA. As a result, Plaintiff suffered economically by the loss of his health insurance coverage. Sysco Corporation distributes food and related products primarily to the foodservice industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. George G. Triantis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Tel: 813-223-5505 Fax: 813-257-0572 Emails: MEdelman@forthepeople.com GTriantis@forthepeople.com TIKTOK INC: Sued Over Collection of Minors' Biometric Info ---------------------------------------------------------- R.S. and J.S., through their guardian, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TikTok Inc., a corporation, and ByteDance, Inc., a corporation, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-03212 (N.D. Cal., May 11, 2020) is a class action brought by Plaintiffs R.S. and J.S., both minor children, by and through their guardian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, as Defendants collect, store and use the user's facial geometry when the user accesses the face stickers, filters and tracker lens of the TikTok App. When a user creates a video through the App, TikTok offers several face filters and stickers that allow a user to impose graphic features onto the user's face or graphically alter the user's facial features. Defendants collect this information before the user even elects to save or share the video. Defendants do not disclose for what purposes this data is being collected for, who has access, or how long this data will be retained. According to the complaint, this collection of user's facial geometry violates the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), which requires informed consent prior to the collection of biographic information. Defendants' failure to publicly disclose their written policy regarding the retention of this biometric information also separately violates BIPA. This action seeks an order (i) enjoining Defendants' from further unauthorized collection, storage, and use of Plaintiffs' biometric information; (ii) declaring that Defendants' conduct violates the BIPA; (iii) awarding statutory damages to Plaintiffs and Class Members; and (iv) requiring Defendants to clearly and conspicuously disclose its written policy that sets forth its retention and use of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' biometric information. TikTok Inc. is a video-sharing social networking service owned by ByteDance, a Chinese company founded in 2012 by Zhang Yiming. It is used to create short dance, lip-sync, comedy and talent videos.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1600 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 Facsimile: (415) 445-4020 Email: lweaver@bfalaw.com - and - Amy E. Keller, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 Email: akeller@dicellolevitt.com TOPPERS INTERNATIONAL: Underpays Exotic Dancers, Bryant Says ------------------------------------------------------------ QYNNISHA BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOPPERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; DARNELL LEWIS GARDNER; and SANDRA GARDNER, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00061-CDL (M.D. Ga., June 3, 020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Bryant was employed by the Defendants as exotic dancer. Toppers International, Inc. is a corporation formed in Georgia and operates as a strip club featuring female exotic dancers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Mew IV, Esq. BUCKLEY BEAL, LLP 600 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 3900 Atlanta, GA 30308 Tel: (404) 781-1100 E-mail: TMew@BuckleyBeal.com - and - Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com TRINITY PROPERTIES: Huey Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Huey, individually ad on behalf of all others simlalry situated v. TRINITY PROPERTIES, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00685-SWW (E.D. Ark., June 2, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff a proper minimum wage and lawful overtime compensation for hours in excess of 40 hours per week. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week on a regular, typical basis while working for the Defendant. The Defendant regularly failed to pay the Plaintiff for overtime hours worked. The Defendant does not reimburse employees for their actual expenses. As a result of the automobile and other job-related expenses incurred by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, the employees were deprived of minimum wages and/or overtime premiums guaranteed to them by the FLSA and AMWA. The Plaintiff worked as maintenance personnel for the Defendant. The Defendant is an Arkansas company headquartered in Fort Smith that operates apartment complexes throughout Arkansas and the surrounding states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com TWO RIVERS: Court Denies Bid to Stay Paulson Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JOHN PAULSON, Plaintiff, v. TWO RIVERS WATER AND FARMING COMPANY, JOHN R. McKOWEN, WAYNE HARDING, and TIMOTHY BEALL, Defendants, Civil Action No. 19-cv-02639-PAB-NYW (D. Colo.), Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied Defendant McKowen's Motion to Stay Proceedings. John Paulson initiated the civil action on behalf of himself and a putative class of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of GrowCo, Inc., a Colorado corporation, from January 2015 until March 2017. Paulson alleges that he is an investor from California who purchased securities in GrowCo, a wholly owned subsidiary of Two Rivers, between January 2015 and March 2017. According to the Plaintiff, GrowCo's securities offerings documents contained material omissions, such as Defendant McKowen's "fraudulent sales of securities," which led to investors like Mr. Paulson purchasing GrowCo securities in reliance upon misleading information. In 2019, GrowCo filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado. The Plaintiff alleges that it rendered his investments in GrowCo "effectively worthless." Currently, GrowCo's Chapter 11 bankruptcy case is proceeding with a hearing on GrowCo's disclosure statement (a condition precedent to plan confirmation). Originally, the hearing was scheduled for Jan. 29, 2020, with a deadline to submit proofs of claim by Feb. 3, 2020. Since the filing of the Motion to Stay, the Bankruptcy Court ordered an Amended Disclosure Statement to be filed by Feb. 12, 2020, which a hearing is scheduled on for March 10, 2020, with a last day to oppose the disclosure statement of March 4, 2020. Believing the Defendants' conduct violated the Colorado Securities Act, as well as other common law principles, the Plaintiff filed suit in the District Court for the City and County of Denver. Mr. Paulson asserts five Colorado Securities Act claims against Defendants for: (1) sale of securities in violation of the Colorado Securities Act ("Claim 1"); (2) providing substantial assistance in the sale of securities by means of untrue statements or omissions in violation of the Colorado Securities Act (pleaded in the alternative) ("Claim 2"); (3) control person liability in the sale of securities by means of untrue statements or omissions in violation of the Colorado Securities Act (also pleaded in the alternative) ("Claim 3"); (4) negligence ("Claim 4"); and (5) negligent misrepresentations and omissions ("Claim 5"), as well as two individual claims against Defendant McKowen for: (6) fraud ("Claim 6") and (7) sale of securities through fraud ("Claim 7"). On Sept. 16, 2019, the Defendants removed the matter to the District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1334(b), 1452, because the civil action related to GrowCo's bankruptcy action. In the Bankruptcy court, GrowCo then filed an adversary proceeding against the Plaintiff and sought a temporary restraining order. In the adversary proceeding, GrowCo argued that the automatic stay under Section 362 extended to the action. Bankruptcy Judge Joseph G. Rosania denied the motion for temporary restraining order, finding that there was no basis to extend the automatic stay or preclude Mr. Paulson from pursuing the action. On Dec. 12, 2019, Magistrate Judge Wang conducted a Scheduling Conference, at which the Court set June 30, 2020 as the discovery deadline and the Motion for Class Certification under Rule 23 deadline, Feb. 15, 2021 as the dispositive motion deadline, and April 14, 2021 as the Final Pretrial Conference. On Jan. 23, 2020, Defendant McKowen filed the instant Motion to Stay, requesting that the court stay the civil action for 180 days while the Bankruptcy court considers whether to approve GrowCo's Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan. Mr. Paulson opposes the Motion to Stay and contends that GrowCo's Chapter 11 bankruptcy case in no way impacts the relief sought in the civil action against Defendant McKowen or the other named Defendants. Mr. McKowen has since filed his Reply, and the Court entertained oral argument on the Motion to Stay on Feb. 25, 2020. Defendant McKowen argues that two main reasons warrant a stay of the civil action for 180 days. First, McKowen contends Mr. Paulson's requested relief necessarily implicates GrowCo's bankruptcy estate and is therefore subject to the automatic stay of discovery in the Bankruptcy court. Second, a weighing of the String Cheese factors warrants a stay. Magistrate Judge Wang respectfully disagrees and does not find a stay warranted under the circumstances. First, the Judge disagrees that Mr. Paulson does not have an interest in proceeding with the matter expeditiously, or that his pursuit of this civil action and involvement in GrowCo's bankruptcy proceeding evinces some sort of dilatory motive. To be sure, class actions, such as the purported class claims asserted in the instant case, may be time consuming, and the Court has concerns with the apparent lack of formal discovery to date. But this, in addition to Mr. Paulson's participation in GrowCo's bankruptcy proceeding, does not countervail any interest Mr. Paulson has in proceeding expeditiously. Ultimately, granting a 180-day stay of this matter pending the confirmation of GrowCo's Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan could substantially delay the ultimate resolution of the matter, with injurious consequences. Thus, this factor weighs against a stay of discovery. Second, Judge Wang is not convinced that allowing discovery to proceed would unduly burden Mr. McKowen. Parties are always burdened in some respect by discovery. While Mr. McKowen may be correct that the conclusion of the GrowCo bankruptcy proceeding could impact his defense strategy, many of his arguments relate to burdens on GrowCo, a non-party to this matter. And Judge Wang is not convinced that the automatic stay associated with GrowCo's bankruptcy proceeding necessarily means Mr. McKowen would be unduly burden without a stay in the civil action. Thus, this factor weighs against a stay. Third, Judge Wang finds that a stay of the civil matter for 180 days is not convenient for the Court, nor does it preserve any judicial resources. Mr. McKowen's lone argument is that GrowCo's Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan may impact the Court's Rule 23 class certification determination. But it is mere speculation at this point, and Mr. McKowen fails to demonstrate why it necessitates a stay now, especially when the deadline to file a Rule 23 motion is June 30, 2020. Thus, this factor weighs against a stay. Fourth and fifth, the interests of non-parties and the public interest are neutral at best. Mr. McKowen largely regurgitates his arguments as to how Mr. Paulson's requested relief impacts GrowCo and its bankruptcy estate as well as the interest putative class members may have in that estate. But as discussed, Judge Wang is not convinced that it is so. Thus, Judge Wang finds these factors neutral at best if not slightly weighing against a stay. Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Wang denied Defendant McKowen's Motion to Stay. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 6, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/XpUeXs from Leagle.com. John Paulson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alan L. Rosca -- rosca@lawgsp.com -- Goldman Scarlato & Penny P.C., Christian A. Pfeiffer -- pfeiffer@lawgsp.com -- Goldman Scarlato & Penny P.C., Paul J. Scarlato -- scarlato@lawgsp.co -- Goldman Scarlato & Penny P.C. & Steve A. Miller -- Sampc01@gmail.com -- Steve A. Miller, P.C. Two Rivers Water and Farming Company, a Colorado corporation, Defendant, represented by Herbert Roy Donica , Donica Law Firm PA. John R. McKowen, an individual, Defendant, represented by James E. Fogg, Ogborn Mihm, LLP, Susan Hardie Jacks, Ogborn Mihm, LLP, Thomas Dean Neville, Ogborn Mihm, LLP & Michael T. Mihm, Ogborn Mihm, LLP. Wayne Harding, an individual, Defendant, pro se. UNITED AIRLINES: England Sues over Unpaid Days Off -------------------------------------------------- The case, KENNETH ENGLAND, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02877 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged breach of agreement and violation of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economics Security Act (CARES Act). Plaintiff worked with Defendant as a shift manager at Defendant's hub at Chicago O'Hare International Airport. According to the complaint, Defendant announced in a press release on April 15, 2020 that an approximately $5 billion worth of financial assistance from the government under the CARES Act is expected to be received by them to provide funding for employees. Additionally, Defendant and the Treasury Department entered into a Payroll Support Program Agreement on April 20, 2020, providing for an initial support payment of close to $2.5 billion and in exchange Defendant shall not terminate employees and reduce their salary and benefits between the date of the agreement and September 30, 2020. However, Defendant implemented an unpaid time off program for Domestic M&A employees requiring them to take 20 unpaid days off effective between May 16 and September 30 to align with less flying, fewer customers, and less working time for frontline employees, thereby violating the PSP Agreement. United Airlines, Inc. is a carrier by air with headquarters in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt, Esq. Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq. Michael M. Tresnowski, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312)419-1008 Fax: (312)419-1025 Emails: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com zflowerree@flsalaw.com mtresnowski@flsalaw.com UNITED STATES: Faces Cole Suit Over Illegal Offset of Tax Refunds ----------------------------------------------------------------- KORI COLE, c/o National Student Legal Defense Network 1015 15th Street NW, Suite 600, Washington DC 20005, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20220, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20220, ELISABETH DEVOS, in her official capacity as United States Secretary of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW Washington, DC 20202, and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 400 Maryland Avenue SW Washington, DC 20202, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01423, (D.D.C., May 29, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and other similarly situated borrowers to force the U.S. Department of Treasury and Department of Education to comply immediately with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the "CARES Act") directive requiring them to suspend their practice of offsetting tax refunds for defaulted student borrowers and to promptly return the amounts illegally seized. Recognizing the vulnerability and needs of such borrowers, Congress passed, and the President signed, emergency legislation known as the CARES Act that suspended student loan obligations, including the practice of collecting student loan debt by offsetting tax refunds. On March 27, 2020, the CARES Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump. In doing so, Congress and the President acknowledged that offsetting tax refunds of defaulted student loan borrowers must stop during a period of rapid response to the spread of COVID-19. As such, the law directs the Secretary of Education to suspend "all involuntary collection related to" student loans, including through "reduction[s] of tax refund[s]" by Treasury, until September 30, 2020. According to the complaint, despite ED's announcement that it would stop offsetting tax refunds and the unambiguous requirements of the CARES Act, ED and Treasury have continued to offset tax refunds. ED and Treasury illegally offset Named Plaintiff's federal tax refund to collect on a student loan and, to date, have not returned the money that is owed. They have similarly failed to return money to thousands of putative class members. These actions violate the CARES Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the statutes and regulations that authorize federal agencies to offset tax refunds. The Departments' offset of federal tax refunds, and their failure to return these funds, is causing material and immediate harm to Ms. Cole and other members of the proposed class, as well as thwarting the purpose of the CARES Act to provide fast, direct relief to student loan borrowers during the current national emergency, the lawsuit asserts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Zibel, Esq. Eric Rothschild, Esq. Alice W. Yao, Esq. National Student Legal Defense Network 1015 15th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 734-7495 Email: dan@defendstudents.org eric@defendstudents.org alice@defendstudents.org - and - Jeffrey B. Dubner, Esq. Sean A. Lev, Esq. Democracy Forward Foundation 1333 H Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 448-9090 Email: jdubner@democracyforward.org slev@democracyforward.org UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Breached Duties to 401(k) Plan, Boley Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MARY K. BOLEY, KANDIE SUTTER, and PHYLLIS JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC.; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC.; THE PLAN COMMITTEE OF UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02644 (E.D. Penn., June 5, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence and failure to monitor fiduciaries pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly-situated participants and beneficiaries of the Universal Health Services, Inc.'s Retirement Savings Plan, allege that the Defendants breached the duties they owed to them, to the Plan, and to the other participants of the Plan by failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or materially similar investment options with lower costs and/or better performance histories. Moreover, Universal and the Board Defendants failed to monitor and evaluate the performance of the Committee Defendants which led to their failure to remove Committee members whose performance was inadequate in that they continued to maintain imprudent, excessively costly, and poorly performing investments within the Plan, and caused the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees, all to the detriment of the Plan and Plan participants' retirement savings. Universal Health Services, Inc. is a provider of hospital and healthcare services located at 367 S. Gulph Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com - and – Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com UP FINTECH: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Law360 reports that a Chinese fintech company wants to end a proposed securities class action it faces in New York federal court, arguing it properly fulfilled all of its financial reporting responsibilities in the lead-up to its 2019 initial public offering. UP Fintech Holding Ltd., along with two its underwriters, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., asked U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman on May 8 to dismiss the shareholder lawsuit. [GN] USA DEBUSK: Press Sues Over Unlawful Employment Practices --------------------------------------------------------- The case, AARON PRESS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USA DEBUSK, LLC, a limited liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV20323 (Cal. Sup. Ct., May 29, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt employee. The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to pay overtime and minimum wages on time; and failed to provide meal periods, rest periods, and complete and accurate wage statements. Moreover, Plaintiff sent notice to Defendant and the Labor Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) on or about March 20, 2020 detailing Defendant's alleged violations. But, there was no response from the LWDA after more than 65 days, and thus Plaintiff now acts as a private attorney general to collect penalties for Defendant's Labor Code violations. USA DeBusk LLC provides mechanical and industrial cleaning services specializing in the downstream energy market. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danny Yadidsion, Esq. LABOR LAW PC 100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Tel: (310) 494-6082 Fax: (877) 775-2267 Email: Danny@LaborLawPC.com VERSO CORP: Nears Settlement of Life Insurance Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that paper maker Verso Corp. is negotiating a settlement to end a proposed class action challenging its 2016 termination of the death benefits provided to about 70 union retirees of a now-shuttered paper mill in Wickliffe, Ky. The proposed settlement -- which the plaintiffs say is "waiting for Verso's signature" -- would provide $2,750 in life insurance for living class members and a $3,000 lump sum payment to the beneficiary of each deceased class member. The plaintiffs announced the terms of the proposed settlement in a May 8 status report. [GN] VOCUS: Judge Refuses to Make Common Fund Order in Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Zhang, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that a judge has refused to make the controversial common fund order in the approved $35 million Vocus class action. Justice Mark Moshinsky rejected the application for a common fund order, which results in a reduced payout to the funders that supported the case, citing that the High Court BMW v Brewster decision did not rule out the ability to make a CFO, but that the High Court expressed a preference for funding equalisation orders. Vocus Group was given the go-ahead on May 4 by the Federal Court of Australia to proceed with the $35 million class action settlement it flagged late last year. Vocus was served with a class action proceeding in the Federal Court in April last year, well over a year after Slater and Gordon said it would bring an action against the telco on behalf of shareholders. It was funded by two main litigation funders: Investor Claim Partner and Woodsford Litigation Funding. Vocus Group was instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills, represented by Michael Garner and Kane Loxley. After the decision, Lawyers Weekly understands funders have expressed disappointment on the decision to deny a CFO but welcomed the judge's approval of the settlement amount. Ultimately Justice Moshinsky came to the observation that although there was nothing in the High Court's decision to stop the making of a common fund order, a funding equalisation order was preferable in the case of Vocus. Initially, the funding commission was proposed at around $6.1 million amounting to 17.4 per cent of the settlement fund. [GN] WAG LABS: $375K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Darsey FLSA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has entered Judgment in the case, GARY D. DARSEY, individually, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WAG LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 17-7014 FMO (JPRx) (C.D. Cal.). Pursuant to the Court's Order on Final Approval of Class Action Settlement filed contemporaneously with the filing of the Judgment, Judge Olguin ordered that Darsey will be paid a service payment of $5,000 and the Class counsel will be paid $375,000 in attorney's fees, and $5,420.40 in costs, all in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Order. The Claims Administrator, Rust, will be paid for its fees and expenses in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency will be paid $37,500 pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. All class members who did not validly and timely request exclusion from the settlement have released their claims, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, against any of the released parties. Except as to any class members who have validly and timely requested exclusion, the action is dismissed with prejudice, with all parties to bear their own fees and costs except as set forth in the Judgment and in the prior orders of the Court. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 3, 2020 Judgment is available at https://is.gd/f9liF2 from Leagle.com. Gary D. Darsey, an individual, on behalf of himself and of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Giacomo Gallai -- gg@hua-gallai.com -- Hua Gallai and Gonzalez LLP, Steven C. Gonzalez -- Steve@hua-gallai.com -- Hua Gallai and Gonzalez LLP & Nicholas Thomas Hua -- Nick@hua-gallai.com -- Hua Gallai and Gonzalez LLP. Wag Labs, Inc., a Delaware corpporation, Joshua Viner, an individual, Bryan Bengston, an individual & Does, Defendants, represented by Aaron H. Cole -- aaron.cole@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart PC. WAKEFERN FOOD: Vanilla Almond Milk Label "Deceptive," Cleary Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, VANYA CLEARY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. WAKEFERN FOOD CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02537 (E.D.N.Y., June 7, 2020), arises from the Defendant's negligent misrepresentation, breaches of express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability, fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of the New York General Business Law and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated purchasers of the Defendant's Wholesome Pantry Unsweetened Vanilla Almond Milk in New York, alleges that the Defendant is engaged in false and deceptive advertising and marketing of the Unsweetened Vanilla Almond Milk product by labeling that it contained flavor only from vanilla beans. The representation of the product's flavor as vanilla is misleading because it contains less vanilla than expected relative to its total flavoring and its vanilla taste is mainly provided by non-vanilla flavors, not disclosed to consumers. The Plaintiff and Class members would not have purchased the product or paid as much if the true facts had been disclosed to them. Wakefern Food Corp. is a corporation based in Keasbey, New Jersey which operates retailers' cooperative group of supermarkets in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Ste. 311 Great Neck NY 11021-5101 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 - and – Michael R. Reese, Esq. Reese LLP 100 W 93rd St. Fl. 16 New York, NY 10025-7524 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Mabe Sues over Failure to Timely Pay Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- BRIGETTE MABE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00591 (N.D.N.Y., May 29, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged untimely compensation practices in violation of the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a cashier from on or about November 19, 2019 to the present date. Plaintiff claims that Defendant supposed to be paying her wages on a bi-weekly basis. However, Defendant failed to pay her wages earned from November 23, 2019 through November 29, 2013 that were expected to be paid by Defendant on December 6, 2019. Moreover, Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with accurate wage statements. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. sells grocery and retail items throughout their stores across New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Hunter G. Benharris, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty St., 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 300-0375 Website: https://www.fslawfirm.com/legal-team/ WELSPUN PIPES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Ward Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Ward, Terrance Banks, Carlos Bozeman, Arch Childers, Ida Ealy, Christopher Fitzhugh, Byron Gillespie, Darin Mcneil, Lewis Pafford, Reno Robinson, Shan Russ, Tommy Smith, David Stills, Zack Taylor, Tarrell Thompson, Tre Washington, Martell Wilbon, Scottie Wilson, and Bobby Young, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WELSPUN PIPES, INC., WELSPUN TUBULAR, LLC, and WELSPUN USA, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00704-BRW (E.D. Ark., June 3, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiffs lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with the Defendants. The payroll system used by Defendants rounded hours worked by the Plaintiffs and other hourly-paid employees in favor of the Defendants. The rounding in the Defendants' time keeping system resulted in several hours of unpaid work each month for the Plaintiffs and other hourly-paid employees. The Plaintiffs were employed at the Defendant Welspun Pipes, Inc.'s manufacturing facility in Little Rock. Welspun Pipes, Inc., is a supplier of various types of pipes to the oil and gas industry, producing Longitudinal, Spiral and HFERW/HFIW pipes to create pipelines for various oil and gas companies around the world.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Ford, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com WESTERN SUGAR: Settles Class Action Over Sugar Plant Odors ---------------------------------------------------------- Jack Harvel, writing for The Fort Morgan Times, reports that the Western Sugar Cooperative has agreed to a $950,000 settlement on a class action lawsuit over odors emitted by the Fort Morgan sugar beet facility. The settlement will be split among residents who lived within a one and a half mile radius of the sugar plant in Fort Morgan. A notice has been sent to all affected residents who have the option to make a claim for compensation, to exclude themselves, to object to the settlement or to do nothing. Those who make a claim for compensation will be part of the settlement fund that will be dispersed among claimants. Those who object will still be bound by the agreement, if the settlement is approved over their objection, but can write to the attorneys to disagree with particular parts of the agreement. Doing nothing waives the right for any future litigation and excludes the resident from being compensated from the settlement fund. Excluding oneself allows the resident to pursue further legal action, but excludes them from collecting money from the settlement agreement. Exclusions and objections must be returned before June 12, 2020, and claims for compensation no later than June 27. There will be a Settlement Fairness Hearing on June 24 at 9 a.m. in the District Court House on 400 Warner Street in Fort Morgan in which the court will determine if the settlement is fair. Of the $950,000 in the settlement agreement, the attorney's expenses are not to exceed $340,000 and the named plaintiff will get no more than $2,500. The remainder will then be distributed evenly among settlement class members whose claim is approved by the class counsel. The lawsuit was filed on Oct. 4, 2017 citing "alleged emission of noxious odors from the Defendant's sugar manufacturing facility." The settlement was done out of court with all allegations of wrongdoing voided among claimants. "All sides agreed to settle the claim asserted in the lawsuit to avoid the cost and risk of litigation," the notice read. "The Defendant denies all legal claims in this case. The Named Plaintiff and her attorneys, the Class Counsel, believe that the proposed settlement is in the best interests of all Settlement Class Members." In 2018, Western Sugar was fined $2 million by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment as part of a settlement to address violations of state environmental laws, including odor emissions. Attorneys at the Denver-based Fuicelli & Lee, P.C. and Detroit law firm Liddle & Dubin, P.C., which represented the claimants, could not be reached for comment after multiple attempts. [GN] WIPRO: Former Employees File Discrimination Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- India-West reports that a group of five former employees of Wipro in the United States has filed a class action lawsuit accusing the Indian IT company of employment discrimination against individuals who are not South Asian and who are not of Indian origin. Press Trust of India reports that the lawsuit filed in a District Court in New Jersey claims that while only about 12 percent of the United States' IT industry is South Asian, at least 80 percent of the Bangalore, India-headquartered Wipro's United States workforce is South Asian -- primarily from India. "This grossly disproportionate workforce results from Wipro's intentional pattern and practice of employment discrimination against individuals who are not South Asian and who are not of Indian national origin, including discrimination in hiring, promotion, and termination decisions, and its use of employment practices that result in a disparate impact on those same groups," alleges the lawsuit, the PTI report said. All the five former employees are U.S. citizens, the report said. Three of them -- California resident Gregory MacLean; Tennessee-based James Gibbs; and Florida resident Ronald Hemenway -- are of Caucasians. Rick Valles from California is Hispanic, and the other plaintiff, Ardeshir Pezeshki, of California, is of Iranian origin, the report said. Demanding a trial by jury, the class action lawsuit seeks Wipro to adopt a valid, non-discriminatory method for hiring, promotion, termination, and other employment decisions, it said. The lawsuit alleges that Wipro operates under a general policy of discrimination in favor of South Asians and against individuals who are not South Asian and not Indian. This general policy of discrimination manifests itself in the same general fashion with respect to Wipro's hiring, staffing, promotion, and termination decisions, the lawsuit alleges, according to the report. "To fulfill its employment preference for South Asians and Indians, Wipro seeks to maximize the number of visas it receives each year from the federal government," it says. Wipro is consistently one of the top five H-1B visa recipients. Wipro submits visa petitions for more positions than actually exist in the U.S. in order to maximize its chances of securing the highest number of available H-1B visas from the lottery process, it alleges, the report added. "In this way, Wipro has been able to secure visas for far more individuals than it actually has a present need for. For example, in 2015, Wipro received 5,968 new visas, while in 2016, it received 6,831 new visas far more positions that could actually exist given that Wipro employs less than 15,000 individuals in the United States," the lawsuit says. Alleging that Wipro gives preference to South Asian and Indian applicants located in the U.S. over non-South Asian and non-Indian applicants, the lawsuit says that on information and belief, both Wipro's internal recruiters and its third-party recruiters give preference to locating and recruiting South Asian and Indian candidates, who are then given preference throughout the hiring process, the report said. [GN] WYETH INC: August 14 HRT Suit Settlement Approval Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- The following is being released in the matter of Krueger v. Wyeth, Inc. et al, by Wyeth and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc. and the law firms of Rushall & McGeever, Beasley Allen, P.C., and Gary Holt & Associates, P.A. (Counsel for the Plaintiff-Class). Counsel for the Plaintiff-Class has reached a class action Settlement in the amount of $200 million with the pharmaceutical company Wyeth and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Wyeth") regarding the prescription hormone replacement therapy medications Premarin, Prempro, and Premphase. What is this case about? The lawsuit claims that Wyeth violated California laws by misstating the benefits and/or failing to disclose the risks of Premarin, Prempro, and Premphase purchased in California between January 1995 and January 2003. Wyeth denies it did anything wrong. Who is included? An individual is included in this Settlement as a Class Member if they: * Lived in California between January 1995 and January 2003; * Bought Premarin, Prempro, and/or Premphase in California between January 1995 and January 2003; and, * Are not claiming any personal injury from the use of Prempro, Premarin, and/or Premphase. What Can a Class Member Get from the Settlement? There are two options to get money from the Settlement: Option 1: receive a one-time payment of $458.64. This amount is equivalent to the average out-of-pocket cost of Premarin, Prempro, and Premphase between January 1995 and January 2003, multiplied by 24-months and adjusted for inflation. With inflation, the average cost is $19.11 per month. Claim must be supported by a sworn statement with information about prescriptions and purchases. Option 2: receive a one-time payment of $19.11 for each and every month a Class Member purchased Premarin, Prempro and/or Premphase between 1995 and January 2003 (up to a maximum of 97 months or, $1,853.67). Claim must be supported by proof of purchases. How Can Class Members Get a Payment? Class Members must submit a valid Claim Form by mail or online at www.CaliforniaHRTClass.com by September 1, 2020 to get a payment. What Rights Do Class Members Have? If a Class Member does nothing, they will be bound by the Court's decisions and will get no money. As described above, if they want to get money from the Settlement, they must file a claim. If they want to keep their right to sue Wyeth and get no money from the Settlement, they must exclude themselves from the Class by July 14, 2020. If they stay in the Settlement, they may object to it in writing by July 14, 2020. The detailed notice describes how they can exclude themselves or object and is available on www.CaliforniaHRTClass.com. The Court will hold a hearing on August 14, 2020 to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request for Class Counsel fees of up to 25% of the Settlement Fund and reasonable expenses in an amount not to exceed $3.5 million to be paid from the Settlement Fund. Class Members or their own lawyer may appear at the hearing at their expense, but they do not have to attend. For more information: visit www.CaliforniaHRTClass.com or call 1-888-356-0158. [GN] ZUORA INC: Judge Tosses Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that on April 28, 2020, Judge Susan Illston of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against an enterprise software company and certain of its executives. Roberts v. Zuora, Inc., No. 19-cv-03422-SI, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2020), ECF No. 75. Plaintiff alleged that, prior to its initial public offering, the company misstated that its two flagship products could be integrated together and that such integration was a key part of its business strategy, when in fact the product integration was not functional. The Court held that plaintiff adequately alleged that such statements were false or misleading and made with the requisite scienter. Plaintiff alleged that the company made a series of statements marketing its platform and applications as a functioning, combined solution, when in fact they could only function as separate standalone products. Id. at 15. For example, the company's Twitter account stated "[t]hank goodness for [our products'] integration for a seamless order-to-revenue process," and its website stated that the company provides a "single platform for your order-to-revenue process" and "easily connects the various applications in your order-to-revenue ecosystem." Id. at 15–16. Moreover, plaintiff alleged that the company in SEC filings and earnings calls falsely indicated that "cross-selling" or "upselling" of its products was a key element of its growth strategy. Id. at 17. Plaintiff further alleged, relying on confidential witness statements, that the company had attempted, unsuccessfully, several internal high-priority projects to integrate its products, that the company's executives were kept informed about those projects on a regular basis, and that customers had complained about the lack of integration and some had withheld payment as a result. Id. at 6–7. The Court rejected the company's argument that the alleged misstatements were not actionable because they were merely general statements of corporate optimism or forward-looking statements protected under the PSLRA's "safe harbor" or the bespeaks caution doctrine. Rather, the Court emphasized that projections and general expressions of optimism may be actionable if they are not genuinely believed, there was no reasonable basis for the belief, or the speaker is aware of undisclosed facts seriously undermining the accuracy of the statement. Id. at 17. The Court concluded that plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the company's executives did not have a reasonable basis to believe that the products were integrated or would work "seamlessly" or "easily" with each other because, according to the confidential witness allegations, the executives were kept informed regarding unsuccessful integration projects and related issues with key customers. Id. at 17. The Court further held that plaintiff had adequately alleged facts giving rise to a strong inference that the alleged misstatements were made intentionally or with deliberate recklessness. The Court emphasized that scienter allegations relying on confidential witness statements must be described with sufficient particularity to demonstrate the reliability and personal knowledge of the confidential witnesses and, further, the confidential witness statements must themselves be indicative of scienter. Id. at 18 (citing Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 995 (9th Cir. 2009)). The Court rejected the company's arguments that the confidential witness allegations should not be credited because they were not employed for the entirety of the purported class period, they lacked personal knowledge or direct contact with company executives, and they did not indicate scienter with sufficient particularity. Id. at 18–19. Instead, the Court concluded that there was no requirement that each confidential witness be employed during the entire class period, and that this did not justify disregarding their allegations. Moreover, the confidential witnesses were alleged to have had personal knowledge as a result of their positions at the company, and were responsible for integration projects and for developing customer accounts. The Court also held that, taken together, the numerous detailed confidential witness allegations -- including details from specific high-level meetings regarding integration projects and regarding customer difficulties -- contributed to a strong inference of scienter. [GN] [*] Coronavirus-Related Lawsuits to Flood Courts ------------------------------------------------ Andrew Keshner, writing for MarketWatch, reports that at least 917 federal and state lawsuits have been filed in relation to the pandemic. Nurses and retail workers are suing their bosses for allegedly subjecting them to unsafe conditions during the coronavirus outbreak. College students are demanding tuition money and consumers want their cash back from concert ticket vendors, gyms and airlines. Businesses allege insurance companies are trying to sidestep their coverage obligations and some people say they're being deprived of stimulus checks. And that's only the beginning. Major catastrophes and downturns can unleash a torrent of lawsuits, and the coronavirus pandemic is no exception. At least 917 federal and state lawsuits have been filed in relation to the pandemic, according to a database run by Hunton Andrews Kurth, an international law firm. That tally is just starting, says Torsten Kracht, a partner running the project. "I can easily foresee litigation directly related to COVID-19 continuing to be filed for the next two, three years at least. It will be litigated for the next decade, likely." Disasters and downturns often spur litigation -- but the pandemic is different The 9/11 attacks spurred cases over issues like health coverage for first responders at Ground Zero and the real estate developer's insurance policies. A victim's compensation fund paid out more than $7 billion to survivors and families that agreed not to sue airlines. The Great Recession triggered lawsuits against major financial institutions that allegedly misled investors and regulators. It also set off a wave of bankruptcies and foreclosures. But the COVID-19 pandemic is different for the breadth and scale of legal issues, observers say. The virus has killed more Americans than the Vietnam War, raising a host of public health issues about the workplace and reopening economies. It's caused more than 30 million people to file for unemployment benefits and triggered a $2.2 trillion stimulus bill to help faltering businesses and households. What's more, the pandemic is a global event, so the reach goes far beyond one single place. In employment law alone, "what we are confronting now is really unprecedented in scale, complexity and how heavily it depends on science," said Joseph Sellers, a partner at the law firm Cohen Milstein who represents plaintiffs in civil rights and employment class actions. Legal liability is becoming a major issue. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says businesses need protection from "the biggest trial-lawyer bonanza in history." White House National Economic Council director Larry Kudlow also thinks it's a good idea to confine businesses' legal exposure. Businesses are making "an opportunistic attempt" to try weakening laws that protect workers and consumers, some consumer advocates say. Here's a breakdown of the cases already piling up in the courts: Nurses are suing about a lack of personal protective equipment Nurses are some of the "frontline" workers, so it's not surprising their cases are at the forefront of the legal battle, especially in New York, the outbreak's American epicenter. For example, the New York State Nurses Association, a union with 42,000 members, alleged one hospital, Montefiore Medical Center, wasn't providing it with sufficient protective gear -- a charge the hospital denies. The union has two other cases pending alleging nurses aren't getting the protective gear they need. Meanwhile, a nurse is anonymously suing Good Samaritan Hospital in a county north of the city. She alleges she contracted COVID-19, but her bosses refused to get her needed equipment or re-assign her. The nurse said she had no choice but to resign and is pressing for at least $1 million in damages. The nurse's attorney declined an interview and the hospital did not respond to a request for comment. Retail workers are suing their employers over workplace safety Workplace safety is an issue in the retail industry too. The estate of a Walmart WMT, -0.45% worker who died from COVID-19 said the company failed to protect workers. The dead man, Wando Evans, 51, was healthy before he fell ill, his lawyers said. Walmart officials were "heartbroken" about the incident, the company said in a statement. "While it may be impossible to determine where or how someone contracts the virus, we have taken steps across the country to protect our associates and customers." The company says safety is a serious matter and it will "respond as appropriate with the court." Employees working from home could sue over working too many hours Other employment lawsuits are focused on other workplace issues, not just safety. When one Pennsylvania school closed, a single mother alleges she tried to figure out a work-from-home and leave arrangement, and was, she claims, fired from her $125,000 job when she asked for time off. She is now suing under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. Congress passed the law in March requiring employers to offer paid leave for child-care as the outbreak worsened. Workplace safety rules and questions about leave are just some the potential flash points. At-home workers could sue over not being compensated for supplies they buy for their home office, or being asked to work too many work hours, said Adam Karr, a partner at O'Melveny & Myers, where he defends companies against worker class-action lawsuits. "Every action will stand on its own facts. What I can say is many employers are doing everything they can do to do right by their employees in these particular circumstances. . . . This is as unprecedented as anything could be." When many businesses reopen offices or re-start services, they'll have to decide if they can return with the staff they previously had, or come back with a smaller head count. If those revised staff decisions leave out groups of workers who happen to be older or happen to have the same race or gender, that could open up a legal fight. "Anything that may have a broad, sweeping impact on a particular group of people raises my interest," said Shaylyn Cochran -- scochran@cohenmilstein.com -- a partner at Cohen Milstein representing workers. Cochran hasn't yet filed a case related to the outbreak. She said she proceeds carefully and says employees do too. "In this day and age, when people are uncertain, I don't think people are waking up and thinking 'let me see how I can sue my employer?'" Travelers are taking airlines to court over refunds for cancelled flights Government shutdown orders in March and April upended travel plans, nixed long-planned events and shuttered in-person college and university classes all over the country. Now, unhappy customers want their money back and some are suing to get it. Some travelers who booked tickets with United Airlines, Delta Air Lines and Southwest Airlines -- filed class-action cases alleging they couldn't get cash refunds and were offered vouchers and credits instead -- even when the carriers' terms of service required a refund under the circumstances. Delta Air Lines, United Airlines and Southwest Airlines all say they are giving refunds. A United spokeswoman told MarketWatch the company couldn't comment on a pending case, but noted that United is letting customers change their travel plans without a fee. Eligible customers on domestic and international flights can ask for a refund "if their flights have been severely adjusted or service to their destination suspended either due to government mandates or United schedule reductions related to COVID-19," the company said. A Delta spokesman said the airline will give "full refunds to eligible passengers" and has processed more than two million refunds since March, totaling over $1 billion. The customers filing the class-action lawsuit have been refunded, a spokesman noted. A Southwest spokesman said the company "will defend our policies accordingly as our focus is always on taking care of our customers, especially during these unprecedented times." Refunds are one option for customers, he said. Sports and music fans are suing ticket vendors In one case, a Wisconsin man used StubHub for tickets to a hockey game. Between the man's $120 purchase and his scheduled game, the NHL, like all major sports leagues, suspended its season. The class-action case alleges the man can't get his money back because StubHub wrongly changed the terms of its refund policy. A company spokesman declined to comment on pending litigation. The default option for a cancelled event is a StubHub coupon at 120% of the purchase price. Refunds are "available in jurisdictions that require it," he said. Meanwhile, another lawsuit claims New York Sports Club members are getting stiffed out of their money while its gyms are temporarily closed. Town Sports International, which owns the fitness chain, has denied the allegations in court papers. Consumer cases might hinge on what's said in the fine print, which many customers usually skip. Consumer cases may turn on the fine print in a company's terms of service, said Jeff Sovern, who teaches consumer protection law at St. John's University School of Law. Some businesses may have put language in their contract to guard against refunds during a pandemic, and customers -- who rarely read the terms and conditions anyway -- may not have noticed it, he said. Even without a contract, Sovern said businesses might also invoke a legal argument saying it was impossible to make good on their contractual obligations under the circumstances. A student says she's getting 'overpriced bubble-gum and duct-tape substitutes' In mid-March, college campuses ended in-person classes and turned to online learning. Though many offered pro-rated refunds on room and board, new lawsuits are focused on getting back tuition payments too. The cases are popping up all over. For example, one Brown University student sued his school late in April and a University of Southern California student did the same on May 5. A Brown University student says he's paying for a 'comprehensive academic experience' and getting 'something far less.' In the Brown case, the student -- with one lab course in his studies -- said he's paying for a "comprehensive academic experience" and getting "something far less: a limited online experience presented by Google or Zoom, void of face-to-face faculty and peer interaction." In the USC case, the student alleges she and students like her are paying for "overpriced bubble-gum and duct-tape substitutes" for in-person schooling. "We are disappointed by the lawsuit, but believe the evidence will show that USC took extraordinary steps to ensure continuity of the educational experience for its students," the university said in a statement. "During this time of global crisis, no aspect of our daily lives are what anyone expected. However, what has not changed is the core value of a Brown education," a university spokesman said. "A business that denies a refund might lose a customer for the rest of the customer's life. Not to mention the customer's family, friends, and in these days of social media, perhaps a lot of other folks too." A similar dynamic could be at play for schools, he added. "Colleges, for example, want graduates to contribute and so might want to give a refund on the theory that denying the refund would be penny wise and pound foolish." Insurance policies for business shutdowns are being put to the test When businesses launch, one common purchase is a business interruption insurance policy. With so many businesses temporarily closed under state shutdown orders, the wording on those policies is being put to the test. The policies are written to cover "direct physical loss or damage," explained Jared Greisman, a partner representing insurance companies at Goldberg Segalla. The policy would kick in, for example, if there was a fire or a burst water pipe halting operations. In the wake of the coronavirus outbreak, businesses are filing claims "in a volume that has never been seen before," he said. "Generally, you have the absence of direct physical loss or damage. Because the virus is a temporary or ephemeral event, carriers are denying them," Greisman said. He's aware of at least 100 lawsuits challenging the coverage decisions. After the SARS outbreak nearly 20 years ago, insurance companies started excluding fallout and losses from viruses, Greisman said. "Coverage without that exclusion is not common, and it's something that's purchased specifically as a different type of product. It's not common that a business will secure that type of coverage," he said. The CARES Act has spawned lawsuits against banks The stimulus bill set aside $349 billion in potentially forgivable loans for small businesses under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Lawmakers poured another $320 billion into PPP when the initial sum was depleted. The program has its critics, who question how the money is being divvied up and who gets it. The funds come from the federal government, but businesses apply through banks. In several different lawsuits, small businesses allege that Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo unfairly layered on their own internal rules and put favored clients at the front of the line for money that was intended to be first come, first served. The case against Bank of America BAC, +4.96% complained that the bank added different rules for applicants related to their borrowing relationships with the bank and other financial institutions. Apart from setting basic criteria, the loan program never barred lenders from setting their own internal priorities, the bank's lawyers said in court papers. The decision "to prioritize lending to clients who do not have lending relationships with other banks is simply an effort to direct its resources quickly and efficiently," Bank of America's attorneys argued. A Chase spokeswoman declined to comment on the case, but said "Chase served clients as they came to us, and no business or client segment was prioritized over another." Over 60% of loans secured through Chase went to applicants with under 25 workers, she noted. Wells Fargo didn't respond to a request for comment. A wave of bankruptcy cases is expected Experts expect the pandemic to create a surge of bankruptcy cases from cash-strapped consumers and companies who are over their heads in debt. The anticipated increase hasn't happened yet -- in fact, the number of new cases decreased in April, compared to the previous month. But that's probably because many businesses and household are still sorting out what their finances will look like, observers say. J.Crew filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection to restructure its debt; other major retailers could follow suit before the end of the year. The upscale Nieman Marcus has filed its own Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. Businesses and church pastors are suing states over social-distancing rules State-level closures on non-essential business are part of the response to a public health emergency, but they come with grave economic costs. More than 20% of small businesses say they are around two months away from closing down permanently, according to a survey from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. A lawsuit says the children of undocumented immigrants -- who are citizens by their birth in the country -- are entitled to stimulus checks. In Pennsylvania, a company that makes musical bells is challenging the way state officials are administering their rules on which businesses can stay open. A separate group of Keystone State businesses -- including a golf course, a laundromat and a timber company -- took their fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court on May 8 denied the bid to pause Pennsylvania's rules. In California, pastors are suing the state. They say the stay-at-home rules prevent in-person church services and infringe on First Amendment rights to assembly and free exercise of religion. They unsuccessfully pressed for a temporary restraining order to halt the rules. Central District of California Judge Jesus Bernal refused to impose the order in April and the decision is on appeal. A lawsuit says children of undocumented immigrants should get stimulus checks The IRS will not issue stimulus checks for undocumented immigrants, but a lawsuit filed on May 11 says the children of undocumented immigrants -- who are citizens by their birth in the country -- are entitled to the money. The $2.2 trillion stimulus bill will pay $1,200 to eligible citizens and green card holders, as well as $500 per child. "The refusal to distribute this benefit to U.S. citizen children undermines the CARES Act's goal of providing assistance to Americans in need," said the lawsuit filed in Maryland federal district court. At least two different lawsuits allege American citizens who are married to non-citizens are being wrongly deprived of stimulus checks. In one lawsuit, the six plaintiffs said they choose who they love and marry, but the government rules "disparages Plaintiffs' choices and diminishes their personhood." The Treasury Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN] [*] Higher Education Institutions Target of COVID-Related Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hayes, Esq. -- michael.hayes@huschblackwell.com -- and Martin Loring, Esq. -- martin.loring@huschblackwell.com -- of Husch Blackwell LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that COVID-19 has caused devastating losses -- tangible and intangible -- at U.S. colleges and universities. Those losses appear destined for aggravation by a tidal wave of class action litigation on the horizon. By mid-April, nearly all institutions of higher education in the United States had closed their campuses and moved students to distance learning platforms. Some did so proactively, but the vast majority would have been forced to shutter on-ground operations when state and local orders across the country coalesced around the concepts of quarantines, social distancing and mandated closures of non-essential businesses. Given what we know about the infectiousness and virulence of COVID-19, these were eminently responsible and prudent decisions that accomplished two important objectives: they protected students and institutional personnel from the public health risks associated with COVID-19; and the implementation of distance learning offered the majority of students access to instruction needed to stay on track toward an academic credential. Nonetheless, these decisions to shut down campuses have now become the subject of a number of class actions that have been filed. During April 2020 alone, several dozen lawsuits were filed against U.S. colleges and universities. More are being filed every day. Although the causes of action vary from case to case, broadly speaking, the lawsuits are premised on theories of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. These lawsuits are trending as higher ed legal developments often do -- launching at large, coastal flagship institutions and moving inland across the nation, ultimately impacting a large cohort of institutions large and small, public and private, secular and faith-based. To mitigate the risk of litigation in this area or to mount a strong defense, there are several actions that can be taken proactively. Develop a risk assessment While most of the lawsuits filed to date share common themes and legal theories, the individual complaints -- and the fact sets presented therein -- do offer a window into how the litigation might develop. When assessing potential COVID-19-related litigation risk, each institution will need to map onto their current and past practices how these early lawsuits present and frame their claims. The resulting assessments should provide some degree of clarity about how to consider and adapt current operations across multiple areas, including student housing, marketing, food services and academic instruction, among others. It can also form the building blocks of litigation strategy development should that become necessary. Among the many substantive issues to consider are the following: Force majeure Impossibility of performance Educational malpractice doctrine Article III standing Jurisdictional defenses Failure to identify a specific contractual promise Failure to allege an actionable breach Communications audit The student-institution relationship is rarely, if ever, memorialized in a comprehensive, formal contract; therefore, plaintiffs seeking to substantiate contract-related claims will scrutinize the array of institutional communications issued through the close of the Spring 2020 term. Force majeure-related defenses often turn on whether the performing party has undertaken reasonable efforts to overcome or mitigate the effects of nonperformance. For this and myriad other reasons, it is important to measure what, exactly, has been promised to students against institutional efforts to make good on those promises. A thorough audit of an institution's communications is critical, an exercise that should include both communications that marketed or promoted the institution prior to the pandemic and communications that aimed to remediate the effects of the pandemic. Communications necessarily vary from institution to institution; however, metrics underlying the assessment are often the same: Were the communications forthright, timely and clearly articulated? Were they consistent with the institution's established policies and procedures? Were they widely broadcast and available for the intended audience? Review student agreements In some cases, students have entered into a written agreement with their college or university with regard to enrollment, housing, meals or other services. A thorough review of any such agreements will be important to assess risk, determine whether modification of any standard agreements is necessary, and develop a risk mitigation plan. Class actions and class certification Clearly, the highest exposure to COVID-19-related litigation risk for colleges and universities is in the class action arena, and institutions should consider the implications of class certification early in their risk assessments. Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and most comparable state court rules set forth requirements for plaintiff classes and provide ample grounds from which to build a defense. The "student experience," which has figured prominently in the early lawsuits, is usually highly individualized, even on the same campus; therefore, meeting Rule 23's predominance and typicality requirements -- that is, where common questions of law or fact predominate over individual issues, and the claims of the class representative are typical of the entire class -- will be a challenge for many plaintiff classes seeking certification. For lawsuits that survive motions to dismiss, we anticipate class certification to be hotly contested. To mount effective defenses on this issue, institutions need to evaluate the communications mentioned above with an eye toward class certification strategy. Assess risk mitigation strategy Some schools have been proactive in refunding all or some fees associated with ancillary services (although tuition refunds have been extremely rare). These refunds, however, have not shielded institutions from class action litigation. Several named defendants in early lawsuits implemented some form of refund. Indicators from early suits suggest the risk of being sued is high and potentially universal throughout the U.S. higher education sector. Institutions contemplating a refund program should bear this in mind, balancing student need, institutional culture, fiscal realities and the very real risk of future litigation. Absent protective legislation, for most schools, refund programs are likely a prologue rather than a final act. They need to be crafted carefully, blending seamlessly into litigation strategy -- because, unfortunately, we anticipate most institutions will be forced to reckon with the financial and reputational risks of class action lawsuits. [GN] [*] Kelley Drye Attorneys Discuss Pandemic-Related Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Margolies, Esq., Jaclyn Metzinger, Esq., and James Saylor, Esq., of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that companies continue to reel from business disruptions caused by the spread of coronavirus, and in many cases have struggled to navigate the swiftly changing landscape in which they are required to operate (or not operate). At the end of the first full month of the crisis, as infections appear to plateau in epicenters like New York City, class actions seeking to remedy consumers' losses during the pandemic are spreading rapidly. As of April 30, 2020, more than 150 class actions have been filed directly relating to or stemming from the pandemic. Tens of millions of individuals have filed for unemployment, and the plaintiffs' bar is eager to "help." No amount of social distancing, and no impending treatment or vaccine, can insulate companies from the threat of class litigation. While the specific factual circumstances underlying these claims are novel, the types of claims being asserted are not. The plaintiffs' bar is largely defaulting to their usual causes of action (i.e., consumer fraud statutes, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment) and, not surprisingly, are focusing their efforts in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions with broad statutory protection for consumers like California, New York and Florida. Companies should stay on top of the following pandemic-related class action trends and, wherever possible, get ahead of or try to prevent the additional strain of a class action during these already difficult times. Pandemic-Related Refunds Millions of people throughout the United States hope to receive refunds for events and services that have been (or will likely be) cancelled or postponed as a result of coronavirus-related bans on large gatherings, stay-at-home orders and travel restrictions. The strength of these cases will ultimately turn upon the specific cancellation, force majeure and limitation of liability clauses in the relevant contracts, with courts turning to common law doctrines of impossibility and impracticability where the contracts do not address these specific issues. Companies worried they might face future cancellations and similar claims should examine their contracts carefully and determine whether they can fulfill their obligations. Rapid and widespread event cancellations have understandably tested companies' abilities to fulfill their obligations. Tens of thousands of events were cancelled in April. For many companies that act as intermediate platforms for transactions -- such as tickets to events and rental of vacation properties -- handling refunds on such a scale is not manageable. This is often exacerbated by the fact that the most of the money consumers paid is forwarded to venues, festival promoters and other clients, who often control potential rescheduling. These circumstances have led to a series of class action lawsuits (most filed in California and New York) alleging breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and similar claims. The first wave of these lawsuits were primarily against ticket resellers. More than one class action has been filed against Stubhub, the popular ticket exchange and resale website. Stubhub was forced to amend its cash-back refund policy because it was unable to recoup money paid for cancelled events from ticket sellers on such a massive scale. Other ticket resellers have faced public and governmental pressure to offer refunds to consumers as quickly as possible, even where events may potentially be rescheduled (and thus, under many agreements, consumers would not be entitled to a refund). In response to such pressure, Live Nation, the company that owns Ticketmaster, announced a new refund policy on April 17, 2020 whereby it would allow consumers to obtain refunds for postponed events within 30 days once a rescheduled date is set. Unfortunately, that same day, Ticketmaster was hit with a proposed class action in California alleging deceptive practices and that the company's existing policies already required refunds for rescheduled events. And resellers are not the only targets—baseball fans filed a nationwide class action against Major League Baseball (MLB) and every MLB team (as well as ticket resellers), alleging violations of consumer protection statutes, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment arising out of a refusal to provide refunds for games that have been postponed or will likely be postponed. Other pandemic-related cancellations have also led to class action filings. As campuses and student housing shuttered nationwide, students and their parents have filed lawsuits seeking a return of tuition and boarding costs. Subscription fitness, sport, and health companies have also found themselves faced with lawsuits as state and local governments mandated that their facilities be closed down. Similar lawsuits have been filed against owners of ski areas and theme parks by season ticket holders who are unable to reap the benefits of their memberships. Getting there can be difficult too. While air travel has not been suspended entirely, cancellations and postponements, and general advisories against "non-essential" travel, have stretched airlines' cancellation policies. There has been a surge of litigation against nearly every major airline concerning refund policies during the pandemic. The stress placed on airlines has led the United States Department of Transportation to issue an enforcement notice, which demanded that the airlines offer a "prompt refund" when they cancel a flight or make a significant schedule change and the passenger isn't willing to accept it. All other companies who offer monthly memberships but have been unable to offer the services for those memberships are also at risk for liability if customers were charged during pandemic-mandated closures. All affected companies (and companies that expect to be affected) not only must navigate how to deal with existing liability, but how to reopen their business and charge their customers who return. Companies are walking a fine line between compliance with their refund and rescheduling policies, supporting their customers and maintaining a good public image, and remaining financially solvent. Examination of potential ways to maintain cash-flow, through government incentives, customer credits against future transactions, and other means, is an important first step. Negligence in Addressing the Threat of Coronavirus Class actions have also been filed alleging negligence and inaction to respond to and prevent harm arising from the coronavirus pandemic. Thus far, these actions have largely been focused on cruise lines, alleging that the ships maintained business as usual despite increasing knowledge of the danger posed to passengers and crew. Allegations include failure to provide employees or customers with protective equipment, failure to enforce social distancing measures, failing to follow other safety precautions, and failing to notify customers of potential infection. It is easy to imagine additional lawsuits against other companies that continued operations as the coronavirus spread (or were forced to continue throughout the shutdown). It is also expected that similar allegations will arise as the economy reopens and people resume their normal activities. Companies must design and implement a careful plan to minimize risk when they resume operations -- by not opening too soon, providing adequate protective equipment and training to staff, and effectively warning customers of ongoing risks despite the business reopening. False Advertising of Health Benefits With consumers anxiously seeking products that can help them protect themselves during this public health crisis, it is important that companies are mindful of claims that may potentially overstate the effectiveness of a given product in treating or preventing the virus. A number of companies have already seen warning letters from federal agencies or class action lawsuits concerning the alleged lack of evidence that hand sanitizers can effectively prevent the spread of disease, including coronavirus. These lawsuits, asserting claims for consumer warranty and unfair competition, will likely spread from hand sanitizers to other products. It is unclear how courts will evaluate the objective "reasonable consumer" under present circumstances. Thus, companies should closely examine their existing advertising claims (both express and implied) to ensure they are not misleading in light of the "new normal." Price Gouging Another area where class actions have been slow to file, but are expected to increase, is price gouging. The pandemic has caused sharp spikes in demand for disinfecting products (like wipes and hand sanitizer), basic necessities (like toilet paper) and essential food staples (like beans, eggs, and flour). Empty shelves -- both in brick and mortar stores as well as online shops -- have increased consumer' willingness to pay a premium for these types of products and the plaintiffs' bar has noticed. While there is no federal law with strict guidelines for price gouging, more than half of the states have laws the prohibit charging excessive prices on certain products after a triggering event, such as a declaration of a state of emergency. If companies choose to raise prices during an emergency period, they must be able to justify the increase by showing an increase in the price of their supplies and/or changes in market trends. A few class actions alleging price gouging have already been filed. For example, an action was filed in California against Amazon alleging that sellers on Amazon unlawfully increased prices of critical high-demand items during the COVID-19 pandemic, including face masks, disinfectants, pain relievers, cold remedies, and food staples like flour. Companies should closely monitor prices they charge both during the crisis, and after the crisis resolves, and ensure that any increases to their prices comply with applicable law. And while third party sellers like Amazon may be able to pass liability through to the ultimate seller in certain circumstances, it may be wise to actively monitor the pricing activities of their sellers and try to curb price gouging activity before getting hit with litigation. Privacy To alleviate the pains of social distancing, companies, schools, and families have turned to video conference apps to stay connected. As usual, with increased popularity comes increased scrutiny and, unfortunately, increased litigation. Popular videoconferencing apps Zoom and Houseparty have already been hit with several class actions challenging their privacy practices. Not surprisingly, these actions have been filed in California, where the California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA") went into effect earlier this year. The actions claim that the companies sell consumers' personal identifying information to companies like Facebook, who combine that information with other data to create a unique advertising profile. While the CCPA only provides for a private right of action under limited circumstances, such as an actual data breach, these actions demonstrate consumers' ability -- or at least attempt -- to use other provisions of the CCPA as underlying statutory violations to support other California consumer protection claims, such as California's Unfair Competition Law. Technology companies whose platforms have seen a surge in popularity during the pandemic should closely monitor potential vulnerabilities. Abnormally high use may require reexamination of privacy protections that may no longer be adequate in this new virtual economy. Securities Class Actions Shareholder class actions have also been filed against a number of companies for both affirmative representations and omissions relating to the pandemic. These include actions against cruise lines that allegedly downplayed the risk of coronavirus to investors, pharmaceutical companies that allegedly overstated their ability to develop a treatment or vaccine, and technology companies that allegedly withheld privacy concerns that have come to light with increased use. These early cases illustrate why publicly traded companies must exercise great care when discussing their products and business both to the public and to their investors. It remains to be seen how defenses deflecting blame for decreases in stock prices to the pandemic (similar to those asserted in the wake of the mortgage crisis) will play out. Conclusion "With court closures and delays throughout the country, the evolution of class action litigation relating to the coronavirus may take some time to come into focus. We expect the above described categories of cases to proliferate, and expand in scope as different issues arise from the reopening of the economy. We will continue to monitor these cases and provide regular updates as to the types of claims being asserted and any decisions that come out," Kelley Drye & Warren states. [GN] [*] Slater & Gordon Gets Huge Response to Potential Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emily McPherson, writing for 9News, reports that angry customers who claim they been shortchanged over cancelled travel plans due to COVID-19 are lining up in the thousands to take on travel agents, airlines and tour companies in court. Law firm Slater and Gordon said they had received a huge response to their announcement of a potential class action looking at whether travel companies were breaching their legal obligations. More than 2500 people had registered their interest in taking part in the class action over the past week, the firm said. Melbourne couple Katrina and Alex Anderson are among those frustrated customers seeking to join the class action. The pair spent $37,000 on several holidays booked with travel company Luxury Escapes before the coronavirus pandemic. Ms Anderson said the money included $14,000 for a package trip to Japan and the Gold Coast that never went ahead in March, and then a Europe river cruise and tour worth $23,000 that was to take place in June. When she contacted Luxury Escapes to ask for a refund, Ms. Anderson said she was told this was not an option. "The whole thing has been a disaster. We booked our flights separately with Qantas and they refunded the full amount," Ms. Anderson said. Ms. Anderson said she had booked two extra days at the same Tokyo hotel she and her partner were staying with as part of the Luxury Escapes package. The same hotel offered her a full refund, whereas Luxury Escapes would not. Instead, Luxury Escapes offered to reschedule the trip, Ms Anderson said. "We were offered a date to move the Japan trip to in November. We felt pressured, we said we will take November, because we didn't want to lose all that money we had paid," Ms. Anderson said. "But then the more we are hearing about the travel ban is that it's not going to happen then either." Ms Anderson said she had also been offered a chance to reschedule the couple's Europe trip by Luxury Escapes but when she visited the website there were no dates available for the river cruise. "Luxury Escapes is holding $37,000 of our money. It's a huge amount, it's not like its $2000 or $1000. It's big money. I accept there might be some that we would lose, but to keep all your money and then give us no real options, it's not right." Luxury Escapes has been contacted for comment. In an email to Ms Anderson, Luxury Escapes said it was offering full credit on all tours which would be valid from 12 to 18 months. Gordon and Slater Practice Group Leader Andrew Paull said the firm had spoken with holidaymakers who have been left thousands of dollars out of pocket and holding vouchers that they may never be able to use. "We understand that everyone is doing it tough at present, including the major airlines and travel companies, but that doesn't give them an excuse to take advantage of their customers," Mr. Paull said. The class action will include airlines Qantas and Jetstar, who ought to be handing out refunds instead of vouchers, he said. "We believe cash refunds should be returned to customers, who almost certainly need that money right now, rather than in bank accounts gathering interest for airline shareholders," Mr. Paull said. Slater and Gordon said the issues it had uncovered included relying on blanket 'no refund' clauses in its terms and conditions, despite having been previously warned by the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) that these clauses will not always be binding. The class action comes as major travel agent company Flight Centre was forced to back down and abolish the $300 per person cancellation fees it was charging for refunds. Flight Centre's backflip came after thousands of its customers also threatened legal action and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) issued the travel agents with a sternly-worded warning. The ACCC said it had received more than 6000 complaints from travel company customers about refund policies and cancellation fees. "We are continuing to discuss issues in relation to refunds and cancellations with the travel sector, and encourage travel providers to treat consumers fairly in these exceptional circumstances," ACCC Chair Rod Sims said. Whether a customer was entitled to a refund or a credit voucher would generally come down to the terms and conditions signed by a customer, however sometimes these were not always clear, Mr Sims said. The ACCC said it expected customers to be given a refund or at least a credit voucher with a lengthy enough expiration date to use it. [GN] [*] U.S. Class Actions Create Risk of "Copycat" Claims in Canada ---------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Williams, Esq. -- pwilliams@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that in April we wrote about some of the proposed class actions in the United States in the wake of COVID-19. As we noted then, class actions in the United States create a risk of "copycat" claims in Canada -- and there is always a risk of similar claims in both jurisdictions. Far more proposed class actions related to COVID-19 have been filed in the United States since our last update. Many relate to consumer protection issues and consumer contracts -- for example: 1. several class actions complaints have been filed against businesses -- including gyms and amusement parks -- that allegedly continued to charge monthly fees to consumers while their facilities are closed in response to COVID-19; 2. a class action complaint has been filed in relation to cancelled events where tickets were allegedly not refunded; and 3. class action complaints have been filed against several universities for allegedly not refunding certain amounts after campuses were closed or services were suspended; Proposed class actions have also been filed by businesses and others against governments and related entities based on their responses to COVID-19. For example: 1. employees of the US government have filed a class action complaint seeking hazard pay for working in close proximity to individuals or objects infected with COVID-19; 2. a business in Pennsylvania has filed a class action complaint alleging that orders closing non-essential businesses are unconstitutional; and 3. a class action complaint has been filed against the People's Republic of China and related entities alleging a negligent response to the virus. These examples demonstrate the ongoing risks class actions to businesses (and governments) as they respond to COVID-19. In particular, they suggest that consumer protection claims may follow when businesses do not offer refunds for services they cannot provide due to COVID-19. Similar class actions may be filed in Canada. [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 ***