/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200617.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 17, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 121 Headlines 3A COMPOSITES: Must Face Alucobond Cladding Class Action ADVANCED CLINICAL: Kneuss Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ALLEGHENY MARKETING: Kenneth A. Thomas MD Sues Over Junk Faxes ALLIED STAFF: Bullard Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime AMC ENTERTAINMENT: New York Securities Class Suit Ongoing AMOUDIA INC: Hernandez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ARCIMOTO INC: Settlement of Calif. Securities Suit Wins Final Okay ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: Morris Seeks Payment for Trip Cancellation AUTOMATED HEALTH: Hunter BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois AVEANNA HEALTHCARE: Underpays Employees, Villanueva Claims BIG LOTS: Wage & Hour Class Suit in California Ongoing BLACK LABEL: Narvaez Seeks to Recover Proper OT Pay for Janitors BOYCE HYDRO: Faces Colburn Suit Over Failure of Edenville Dam BRIGHAM YOUNG: Birdsall Seeks Refund of School Fees CARE IV INC: Moser Sues Over Unpaid OT for Healthcare Workers CARNIVAL CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 27 Deadline CARNIVAL CORP: Fails to Warn Passengers About COVID-19, Wong Says CARNIVAL CORP: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 27 Deadline CASPER SLEEP: Holzer & Holzer Announces Securities Class Action CEFCO: Female Store Managers Get Lower Pay, Miles Claims CHELTEN BENEFITS: University Food Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads CHICO'S FAS: Altman Suit v. White House Black Market Still Stayed CHICO'S FAS: Fisher Class Suit Resolved CHILDRENS PLACE: July 31 Final Fairness Hearing on Rael Accord CHILLY WATER: Castaneda Sues Over Pregnancy Discrimination CHINA ZENIX: Bid to Dismiss New Jersey Class Suit Pending CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Golden Flames Seeks Pay for COVID-19 Losses CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Neuro-Communication Seeks COVID-19 Payment COLLABERA INC: Salguero Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under PAGA COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Rose Calls Collection Letter "Deceptive" COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: To Appeal District Court Decision CONCERTO HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Overtime, Menth Claims CONN'S INC: Uddin Securities Class Suit in Texas Ongoing CURALLUX LLC: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Cruz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York DIVERSITY AT WORK: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Sutton Says DOMO INC: EXKAE Ltd. Appointed Lead Plaintiff in Patton Suit DOMO INC: June 30 Hearing on Bid to Stay Volonte Class Suit ECOLAB INC: Jackson Questions Use of Toxic Chemicals in OxyCide ELITE ENGINEERING: Spells Seeks Overtime Wages for Technicians ELLSWORTH CORP: Underpays Staff, Brown Suit Alleges ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Court Vacates Scheduling Order in Nichols Suit ENERGY TRANSFER: Post-Trial Hearing Held in Regency Merger Lawsuit ENERGY TRANSFER: Still Faces ACERS Securities Class Action ERIE INSURANCE: La Campgna Files Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ERIE INSURANCE: Refuses Coverage of COVID-19 Losses, Daly Says ESSA BANCORP: Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Certify Class Status EVENTBRITE INC: Facing Suit Over Ticket Refund Polices EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shen Securities Action FAIR ISAAC: Holmes County Bank Sues Over Credit Reporting Monopoly FCA US: Garcia TCPA Suit Moved From E.D. Michigan to S.D. Florida FLEETCOR TECH: $50MM Georgia Case Settlement Wins Final Court Okay FMFS OF VS: Sinclair Seeks Damages for Violations of FLSA & NYLL FULTON FINANCIAL: Bank Employee Files Wage-and-Hour Suit GENIE ENERGY: Facing Davis Class Suit Over TCPA Violations GENIE ENERGY: IDT Energy Still Defends TCPA Class Suit in Illinois GORMAN GROUP: Spiciarich Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA GRAND CANYON: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 13 Deadline GRAND CANYON: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of July 13 Deadline GRANGE INSURANCE: Faces Sweetwater Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania GREAT PERFORMANCES/ARTISTS: Appeals Decision in Robinson Suit GREEN DOT: Still Faces Hellman Class Suit v. Streit, et al. GREEN DOT: Still Faces Koffsmon Class Suit in California GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss IPO Class Suits Pending GREENSKY INC: NY Supreme Court Drops Consolidated Securities Suit GRUBHUB INC: Still Faces Stockholder Class Action in Illinois GRUPO TELEVISA: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification GSE SYSTEMS: Dropped as Defendant From Joyce Class Action HC2 HOLDINGS: Revised Settlement Accord Filed in DBMG Class Action HD SUPPLY: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 21 HEALTHCARE INFO: HatchMed Seeks Payment for Cancelled Tradeshow HIGH FIVE: Misclassifies Dancers as Contractors, Ellis Suit Says HUDSON MARKET: Avila Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages IDT CORP: Arbitration in Samara Suit Still Ongoing IDT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in JDS1 LLC Class Action IDT CORP: Stipulation of Dismissal Entered in Sanchez Suit IDT CORP: Units Continue to Defend Rosales Class Suit INVESTORS BANK: Faces Wilson Suit in Eastern District of New York J. GIVOO CONSULTANTS: Fails to Pay Overtime, Gilbertson Claims JOE'S BARBEQUE: Ratliff Seeks Proper Wages for Cooks KLX ENERGY: Merger Documents Lack Info, Sabatini Claims LA FONDA BORICUA: Underpays Staff, Miculax and Panzeis Claim LEE'S SUMMIT: Underpays Female Employees, Spatz et al Claim LEPAGE BAKERIES: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Bissonnette FLSA Suit LEXINGTON, KY: Faces Price Suit Asserting Prisoner Civil Rights LIGHTNING SOURCE: Underpays Employees, Garcia Claims LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend Gathmann-Landini Suit LYMI INC: Caceres Sues Over Failure to Properly Pay Wages MAJOR LEAGUE: Appeals Class Action Certification in Supreme Court MARKEL SERVICE: Faces Samaniego Suit Over Gender Discrimination MARVIN ENGINEERING: Faces Seward FCRA Suit in C.D. California MDL 2221: LaJolla Auto Appeals Antitrust Suit Ruling to 2nd Cir. MERRIMACK COLLEGE: Lynn Suit Demands Refunds of Tuition and Fees MICHPAT & FAM: Valdez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages MIDLAND CREDIT: Weiss Sues in E.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation NEBRASKA: ACLU Suit Denied Class Action-Status NU LIFE: Faces Brown TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts PARK PLACE BAR: Underpays Kitchen Staff, Castillo et al. Say PENNSYLVANIA: Robinson Appeals Ruling in Reid Suit to 3rd Circuit PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY: Auburn Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses PRIMOS LIVE: Sanchez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Fourth Cir. Appeal Filed in Seth Suit RED ROBIN: Settlement Reached in Vigueras & Vasquez Suits ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Withouski Suit Removed to N.D. California ROD AROY: Fails to Properly Pay Wages & Tips, Juarez Claims ROSS STORES: Denies Access to Restrooms, Marshall Suit Alleges SAPUTO CHEESE: Faces Vasquez Employment Class Suit in California SAUL CHEVROLET: Wheeler Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls SCWORX CORP: Facing Suits Over COVID-19 Rapid Test Kits SEASIN'S LLC: Moragomez Seeks Proper Wages for Bartenders SECURE COMMUNICATION: Torres Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California SECURITY ENFORCEMENT: Fails to Provide Meal Periods, Simmons Says SLUMBERLAND INC: Klutho TCPA Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri STARBUCKS COFFEE: Torres Sues Over Noncompliant COBRA Notice STATION MONT-TREMBLANT: Faces Class Action Over Tonik Passes STERLING INVESTMENT: Coleman ERISA Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas STEVENS TRANSPORT: Misclassifies CSRs, Murphy et al Claim STITCH FIX: Bid to Dismiss Calif. Securities Class Suit Pending SYMANTEC CORP: Class Certified in SEB Investment's Suit TAPESTRY INC: Goldman Alleges Phantom Discounts TECHPRECISION CORP: MOU Reached in Former Employees' Suit TEXAS FORCE: Wilson Sues to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA TIKTOK INC: Faces M.E. BIPA Suit Over Biometric Data Collection TOWNE NURSING: Faces Henry-Cameron Suit in New York Supreme Ct. TRUMP CORP: Patel Appeals Ruling in Doe Suit to Second Circuit TT MARKETING: Miller Sues in W.D. Texas Over Violation of FDCPA TURKISH CORNER: Underpays Employees, Garcia Claims UNITED NATURAL: 8th Cir. Denies New England Plaintiff's Appeal UNITED STATES: Pratt et al. Balk at Unlawful Student Loan Process VICTORY HOSPITALITY: Chantez et al Seek Minimum & Overtime Wages WELLPATH LLC: Jackson Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Nurses WHISKEY ROW: Fails to Properly Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Church Says WILLSCOT CORP: Facing Mobile Mini Merger-Related Suits WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Suits Over EarthLink Merger Remain Stayed WISE TRAVEL: Nieman Alleges Illegal Telemarketing Conduct XPO LOGISTICS: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Robinson Says ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Retains PPP Agent Fees, Fahmia Inc. Says ZUMA NYC: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Luna Claims ZYNGA INC: Faces Oeste Suit Over Customer Data Breach ********* 3A COMPOSITES: Must Face Alucobond Cladding Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Naomi Neilson, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that claimants in a cladding class action have had another significant victory in the Federal Court, which will enable building owners to continue in its fight for compensation. Alucobond class action claimants, which include the bodies of corporate and residential apartment buildings plus local councils, have had a significant victory following the Federal Court of Australia's decision to reject a submission by a German manufacturer. 3A Composites attempted to halt the class action and limit the number of people who are entitled to participate. The decision to reject the submissions enables all affected owners and owners corporation nationwide to continue their claims for compensation. The Alucobond cladding class action, which commenced in February 2019, is funded by Omni Bridgeway Limited and the claimants are represented by William Roberts Lawyers. Omni Bridgeway is also funding a class action against the manufacturer of Vitrabond PE core cladding products, Fairview Architectural Pty Ltd. "This is a major win for claimants and means they can continue to pursue compensation from the manufacturers. We are delighted with the Federal Court's decision," said Gavin Beardsell, investment manager at Omni Bridgeway Limited. This follows a decision by a judge who ruled that the claimants could expand their claims under Australian Consumer Law. They were given leave to add claims for misleading and false representations against the manufacturers of Alucobond and Vitrabond. The expanded claims add to existing claims that the combustible panels failed to meet an acceptable standard. It adds to pressure the IMF Bentham-backed claimants are putting on the respondents to settle the case that does not kick off until late next year. [GN] ADVANCED CLINICAL: Kneuss Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- LAURIE KNEUSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANCED CLINICAL EMPLOYMENT STAFFING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00773-JHE (N.D. Ala., June 2, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid Nurse from June 2018 to the present assigned at O'Connor Hospital in San Jose. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated Nurses regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. But, because they were classified by Defendant as non-exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA, Defendant paid them an hourly wage. The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to include all forms of compensation, such as nondiscretionary bonus, in the regular rate when calculating overtime pay of Plaintiff and similarly situated employees. Advanced Clinical Employment Staffing, LLC is a staffing agency that places Nurses and other healthcare workers with hospitals and other healthcare facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon C. Goldfarb, Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Tel: (205) 314-0188 Fax: (205) 254-1500 Email: jcg@wigginschilds.com - and - Courtney Lowery, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Emails: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com ALLEGHENY MARKETING: Kenneth A. Thomas MD Sues Over Junk Faxes -------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH A. THOMAS MD, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLEGHENY MARKETING GROUP, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00840-LPL (W.D. Pa., June 5, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff received an unsolicited fax on July 11, 2017 at 11:32 a.m. from Defendant in an attempt to solicit a research study involving surgeons regarding surgical lighting and ceiling mounted equipment booms. Although the fax indicated that Defendant will provide a $30 Amazon.com eGift card to surgeon who will qualify and participate the study, but it failed to contain any language that identified a fax number and telephone number for fax recipients to transmit their opt-out requests. Moreover, Plaintiff did not provide prior express consent to receive solicitation faxes from Defendant. Allegheny Marketing Group, Inc. is a global market research firm. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew M. Carroll, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW M. CARROLL 1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (609) 400-1302 Email: andrewcarrollesq@gmail.com - and – Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Tel: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufman.com ALLIED STAFF: Bullard Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------- COURTLAND BULLARD, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALLIED STAFF AUGMENTATUION PARTNERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00257 (M.D. Fla., June 8, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-rate Construction Coordinator from approximately August 2013 through November 2017. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. However, Defendant paid them the same hourly rate for all hours worked, instead of paying them overtime at one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a single week. Allied Staff Augmentation Partners, Inc. provides solution for companies seeking skilled contract labor. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Tel: (407) 420-1414 Fax: (407) 867-4791 Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Taylor A. Jones, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-352-1100 Fax: 713-352-3300 Email: tjones@mybackwages.com AMC ENTERTAINMENT: New York Securities Class Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit in New York related to the company's alleged material misstatements and omissions in the registration statement for the secondary public offering and in certain other public disclosures. On January 12, 2018 and January 19, 2018, two putative federal securities class actions, captioned Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Trust Fund v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00299-AJN (the "Hawaii Action"), and Nichols v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00510-AJN (the "Nichols Action," and together with the Hawaii Action, the "Actions"), respectively, were filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Actions, which name certain of the Company's officers and directors and, in the case of the Hawaii Action, the underwriters of the Company's February 8, 2017 secondary public offering, as defendants, assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") with respect to alleged material misstatements and omissions in the registration statement for the secondary public offering and in certain other public disclosures. On May 30, 2018, the court consolidated the Actions. On January 22, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. On September 23, 2019, the court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, involved in the theatrical exhibition business. The company owns, operates, or has interests in theatres. The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Leawood, Kansas. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. is a subsidiary of Dalian Wanda Group Co., Ltd. AMOUDIA INC: Hernandez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------- JUAN ANTONIO HHERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMOUDIA INC (dba Chilito's Mexican Restaurant) and GABRIEL HUERTA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-04450 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from on or about May 2019 until May 10, 2020 as a waiter and bartender. According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked on or about 60 hours per week with no break as required by Defendant. But he was only paid $160 per week during his entire employment with Defendants. The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to provide an accurate wage statements and a written annual pay notices and the rates of pay; and failed to pay proper overtime wages or spread of hours compensation. Gabriel Huerta owns, operates, and controls Defendant Chilito's. Amoudia Inc. operates a Mexican restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 203-2417 Website: www.FightForUrRights.com ARCIMOTO INC: Settlement of Calif. Securities Suit Wins Final Okay ------------------------------------------------------------------ Arcimoto, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the San Francisco County Superior Court has signed an order granting final approval of a class action settlement. On March 11, 2018, the Company was served with a lawsuit entitled John R Switzer vs W.R. Hambrecht & Co. LLC et al., Case Number: CGC-18-564904, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court in the State of California. In this action, the Company was named as a defendant along with five individuals who were directors and/or executive officers at the time of the completion of the Company's Regulation A offering on September 21, 2017. The action was styled as a putative class action, alleged on behalf of all those who purchased the Company's common stock in its Regulation A offering. The plaintiff alleged violations of Section 12(a)(2) and Section 15 of the Securities Act, and is seeking damages in an unspecified amount to be proven at trial. In addition, on March 28, 2018, the Company was served with another lawsuit entitled Jay Mendelson v. Arcimoto, Inc. et al., Case Number CGC-18-565324, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court in the State of California. In that action, which was styled as a putative class action, the Company was also named as a defendant along with the same individuals who were directors and/or executive officers at the time of the completion of our Regulation A offering on September 21, 2017. The allegations and claims made in the Mendelson action were substantially similar to those of the Switzer action and the plaintiff was also seeking damages in an unspecified amount to be proven at trial. The two actions were consolidated into a single lawsuit on May 28, 2018. The Company believes that the consolidated lawsuit was without merit and vigorously defended itself against these claims in court. On July 30, 2018, counsel for the Company filed a demurrer to the consolidated complaint, seeking its dismissal. By Order dated September 19, 2018, the San Francisco Court sustained in part and denied in part the demurrer. On September 28, 2018, plaintiffs in that case filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint. The Company denied the substantive claims and allegations made in that amended pleading and continued to assert a vigorous defense. On January 25, 2019, the parties reached a settlement agreement in the consolidated cases, subject to court approval. The parties to the lawsuit have filed a motion with the court seeking approval of the settlement agreement. On June 5, 2020, the Court signed the Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. By its terms, the settlement agreement resolves this litigation in its entirety. Arcimoto, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells three-wheeled electric vehicles. The company was formerly known as WTP Inc and changed its name to Arcimoto, Inc. in December 2011. Arcimoto, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Eugene, Oregon. ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: Morris Seeks Payment for Trip Cancellation ------------------------------------------------------------------ HOWARD MORRIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI GROUP, S.p.A., GENERALI U.S. BRANCH, and GENERALI GLOBAL ASSISTANCE, INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04430 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons who purchased insurance from Defendants, but whose trips were canceled in or after December 2019 due to COVID-19 travel restrictions. Plaintiff and the Class purchased travel insurance from Defendants to cover risks that might have arisen only during their trips. Due to COVID-19, however, because Plaintiff and the Class were precluded from departing on their trips, Defendants never actually bore the post-departure risks that Post-Departure Coverage was intended to guard against. After learning of their trip cancellation, Plaintiff and other Class members contacted Defendants for refunds of unearned insurance premiums paid for trips that did not occur. In response, Defendants have refused to provide any refunds, and are instead unjustly retaining the entire premium paid and offering vouchers that require rebooking by December 31, 2020. Given that the pandemic continues to wreak havoc on the travel industry and global economy, this token gesture is unlikely to provide any meaningful value to Plaintiff and the Class. Defendants' blanket refusal to return the unused and unearned premium to purchasers of Defendants' Travel Insurance Plans is unfair, unjust and unlawful. Each member of the proposed Class has been similarly injured by Defendants' misconduct, and is entitled to restitution of the portion of the gross premium that Defendants accepted in exchange for insuring against Post-Departure risks for which they never provided any coverage in return. Assicurazioni Generali Group, S.p.A. is an Italian corporation with its principal place of business located in Trieste, Italy. Generali is one of the largest insurance providers in the world, with 71,000 employees serving more than 61 million customers across the globe. Generali Global Assistance is a travel insurance and assistance provider, formerly doing business as CSA Travel Protection, with a principal place of business in Bethesda, Maryland, and has an additional office in San Diego, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Kovel, Esq. KIRBY McINERNEY LLP 250 Park Avenue, Suite 820 New York, NY 10177 Telephone: (212) 371-6600 E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com - and - Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 205 North Monroe Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (215) 864-2800 E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com - and - Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Brian P. O'Connell, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com boconnell@caffertyclobe.com - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Ave. Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (888)-711-9975 E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com AUTOMATED HEALTH: Hunter BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as EVELYN HUNTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AUTOMATED HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Case No. 2019-CH-02784 (Filed March 1, 2019), was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 27, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-03134 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Automated Health provides health care services for low-income families and communities.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jenny R. Goltz, Esq. Corey T. Hickman, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 474-7900 Facsimile: (312) 474-7898 E-mail: jgoltz@cozen.com chickman@cozen.com AVEANNA HEALTHCARE: Underpays Employees, Villanueva Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, SHEILA VILLANUEVA, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AVEANNA HEALTHCARE AS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-VOE-2020-4469 (Cal. Sup. Ct., June 2, 2020) challenges Defendants' alleged systemic illegal employment practices in violations of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee since about 2013. The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to provide proper and accurate itemized wage statements, and to identify the total hours worked and correct rates of pay when computing and paying overtime and double time wages. Also, the wage statements failed to identify the applicable rates of pay and number of hours worked when wages are paid. Moreover, Plaintiff sent written notice to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) regarding Defendants' Labor Code violations. But, the LWDA did not respond. Aveanna Healthcare AS, LLC provides home healthcare services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Max W. Gavron, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 488-6555 Fax: (213) 488-6554 Emails: https://www.lawyer.com/larry-w-lee.html https://www.lawyer.com/max-gavron.html - and – William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP 501 San Benito St., Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Tel: (831) 531-4214 Fax: (831) 634-0333 Email: bill@polarislawgroup.com BIG LOTS: Wage & Hour Class Suit in California Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ Big Lots, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2020, that the company continues to defend numerous purported wage and hour class actions in California. The company is currently defending numerous purported wage and hour class actions in California. The cases were brought by various current and/or former California associates alleging various violations of California wage and hour laws. During the first quarter of 2019, upon consideration of these matters, including outcomes of cases against other retailers, the company determined a loss from these matters was probable and we increased our accrual for litigation by recording a $7.3 million charge as the company's best estimate for these matters in aggregate. Big Lots said, "We intend to continue to defend ourselves vigorously against the allegations levied in these lawsuits." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Big Lots, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a community retailer in the United States. Big Lots, Inc. was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. BLACK LABEL: Narvaez Seeks to Recover Proper OT Pay for Janitors ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marina Narvaez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiff, BLACK LABEL SALON 25 CORP. (DBA Black Label Salon) and Seung Lee and Connie Lee (Individually) Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04465 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint relating to unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours wages, unlawful deductions, failure to maintain records, and the taking of unlawful deductions for Plaintiff and similarly situated co-workers who have been employed by Defendants as cleaning and janitors pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. Defendants are aware that FLSA required them to pay employees performing non-exempt duties, including Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Defendants' unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated and consistent. Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants who was ostensibly employed as a janitor. Black Label Salon 25 Corp. is a beauty salon company based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 BOYCE HYDRO: Faces Colburn Suit Over Failure of Edenville Dam ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN COLBURN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BOYCE HYDRO POWER, LLC, EDENVILLE HYDRO PROPERTY, LLC, BOYCE MICHIGAN, LLC, BOYCE HYDRO LLC, WD BOYCE TRUST 2350, WD BOYCE TRUST 3649, WD BOYCE TRUST 3650 LEE W. MUELLER, STEPHEN B. HULTBERG, and MICHELE G. MUELLER, Case No. 1:20-cv-11350-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., May 27, 2020), seeks to recover for damages the Plaintiff's suffered as a direct result of the Defendants' failures to remedy the issues in the Edenville Dam. On May 19, 2020, the Edenville Dam failed. As a result, over 10,000 people were evacuated before catastrophic flooding decimated the surrounding areas. After the waters broke through the Edenville Dam, they eventually crested the Sanford Dam, which, despite not failing itself, failed to prevent the flow of the flood. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants agreed to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's request to construct two auxiliary spillways in 2014 and 2015, but the Defendants failed to follow through on their promise. In 2018, FERC informed Defendants that the Edenville Dam posed a significant risk to the surrounding areas. Specifically, FERC noted that "the project spillways are not adequate to pass the probably maximum flood, thereby creating a grave danger to the public." The Plaintiff rents his home, which is located at 756 S. Poseyville Road in Midland, Michigan. The Plaintiff's home sits along two large ponds, which abut the Tittabawassee River. The Plaintiff was forced to evacuate his home as a result of the flooding. Edenville dam was privately owned and operated by Boyce Hydro Power, a company based in Edenville, which also owned three other hydroelectric facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (888) 711-9975 E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com mds@sstriallawyers.com BRIGHAM YOUNG: Birdsall Seeks Refund of School Fees --------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN BIRDSALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY-IDAHO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00270-CWD (D. Idaho, June 8, 2020) alleges that the Defendant refuses to refund tuition fees to the Plaintiff and the Class. On March 13, 2020, the Defendant, through a campus announcement, said that because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, its campus would be closed and courses would transition to online and remote learning. On March 18, the Defendant announced that Spring Term courses would also only be available online or remotely. As a result of the closure of the Defendant's facilities, it has not delivered the educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that the Plaintiff and the putative class contracted and paid for. The online learning options being offered to the Defendant's students are subpar in practically every aspect, from the lack of facilities, materials, and access to faculty. Students have been deprived of the opportunity for collaborative learning and in-person dialogue, feedback, and critique. The remote learning options are in no way the equivalent of the in-person education that Plaintiff and the putative class members contracted and paid for. The Defendant has not provided the Plaintiff and the Class any refund of tuition or other mandatory fees, despite the fact that in-person classes have not been held since March 12, 2020. Brigham Young University of Idaho offers degrees in both undergraduate and graduate level curriculum. The University offers programs in accounting, physical science, engineering, agriculture, nursing, social sciences, music and arts, literature, and business management. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com bscott@bursor.com - and - Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 220 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com - and - Jason S. Thompson, Esq. THOMPSON LAW GROUP, PLLC 350 N. Ninth Street, Suite 500 Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 342-7880 Facsimile: (208) 947-2424 E-mail: jason@gtidaholaw.com CARE IV INC: Moser Sues Over Unpaid OT for Healthcare Workers ------------------------------------------------------------- AMBER MOSER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated vs. CARE IV, INC., and RALPH J. FRIEDMANN III, Case No. 4:20-cv-00731-LPR (E.D. Ark., June 10, 2020) is a collective action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendants for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the overtime provisions of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff and other home healthcare workers regularly worked hours for which they were not paid. Specifically, during certain busy months Plaintiff and other home healthcare workers were directed by Defendant to work over 40 hours per week but not to record any hours worked over 40 in a week. Defendant employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid home healthcare worker from June of 2019 to January of 2020. Specifically, Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a physical therapy assistant, and her duties included directing patients in their physical therapy care. Care IV, Inc. is a home healthcare company based in Little Rock, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: April Rheaume, 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 E-mail: april@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com CARNIVAL CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 27 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Carnival Corporation ("Carnival" or the "Company") (:CCL) between January 28, 2020 and May 1, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Carnival securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Carnival Shareholder Class Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) the Company's medics reported increasing events of COVID-19 illness on the Company's ships; (2) Carnival had violated port of call regulations by concealing the amount and severity of COVID-19 infections onboard its ships; (3) in responding to the outbreak of COVID-19, Carnival failed to follow the Company's health and safety protocols developed in the wake of other communicable disease outbreaks; (4) by continuing to operate, Carnival ships were responsible for continuing to spread COVID-19 at various ports throughout the world; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On April 16, 2020, when the Company still had at sea two (2) of its cruise ships, Bloomberg Businessweek published an article titled "Carnival Executives Knew They Had a Virus Problem, But Kept the Party Going." In that article, it was revealed that Carnival may have failed to adequately protect passengers from COVID-19 on a series of cruise voyages, and indeed continued to operate new cruise departures despite its knowledge that the threat posed by COVID-19 had materialized on its ships and was likely to proliferate further. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.53 per share from a prior close of $12.38 per share to close at $11.85 per share on April 16, 2020. Then, on May 1, 2020, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled "Cruise Ships Set Sail Knowing the Deadly Risk to Passengers and Crew." That article detailed how cruise ships, particularly Carnival ships, facilitated the spread of COVID-19, and provided new facts on early warning signs Carnival and its affiliated cruise lines possessed and the Company's disclosure failures. Further, the article also noted that The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure had requested documents from Carnival related "to Covid-19 or other infectious disease outbreaks aboard cruise ships" and that testimony from a separate investigation in Australia revealed that Carnival and its affiliated cruise lines may have misled shore officials by concealing those exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms before docking. On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.97 per share from a prior close of $15.90 per share to close at $13.93 per share on May 1, 2020. If you purchased Carnival securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/carnivalcorporation-ccl-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-274/apply/ contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 27, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] CARNIVAL CORP: Fails to Warn Passengers About COVID-19, Wong Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- EVA YUK WAH MA WONG, individually and as personal representative of the ESTATE OF RONALD WONG; BENJAMIN WONG, individually; and the ESTATE OF RONALD WONG v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC, a Bermuda Corporation; and PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD., a Bermuda Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-04727 (C.D. Cal., May 27, 2020), seeks injunction suspending operation of the Defendants' cruise lines until such time as they are able to operate in a manner that values the safety, health, and well-being of passengers and crew, as well as individuals on shore, and requiring the Defendants to notify the Plaintiffs of any instance of any passenger on a prior cruise suffering from any communicable disease. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants negligently, wrongfully, unlawfully, and/or with a willful and/or conscious disregard for the safety of the passengers, invited and boarded them onto the deathly cruise ship armed with COVID-19, without providing any notice, warning, or precautionary medical apparatuses, such as masks, and without imposing any safety precautions, such as social distancing, and/or imposing quarantine on prior exposed passengers. Carnival Corporation is a British-American cruise operator, currently the world's largest travel leisure company, with a combined fleet of over 100 vessels across 10 cruise line brands.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nanci E. Nishimura, Esq. Alison e. Cordova, Esq. Andrew l. Kirtley, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: nnishimura@cpmlegal.com acordova@cpmlegal.com akirtley@cpmlegal.com - and - Kelly W. Weil, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 3088 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 392-2008 Facsimile: (310) 392-0111 E-mail: kweil@cpmlegal.com - and - P. Terry Anderlini, Esq. Caroline A. Rietz, Esq. ANDERLINI & McSWEENEY LLP 66 Bovet Road, Suite 285 San Mateo, CA 94402 Telephone: (650) 242-4884 Facsimile: (650) 212-0001 E-mail: tanderlini@amlawoffice.com creitz@amlawoffice.com CARNIVAL CORP: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 27 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming July 27, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Carnival Corporation ("Carnival" or the "Company") (NYSE: CCL) securities between January 28, 2020 and May 1, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors suffering losses on their Carnival investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. On April 16, 2020, when the Company still had at sea two of its cruise ships, Bloomberg Businessweek published an article titled "Carnival Executives Knew They Had a Virus Problem, But Kept the Party Going." The article stated that Carnival may have failed to effectively protect its passengers from COVID-19 on a series of cruise voyages, and indeed continued to operate new cruise departures despite its knowledge that the threat posed by COVID-19 had materialized on its ships and was likely to proliferate further. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.53 per share, or over 4%, to close at $11.85 per share on April 16, 2020. Then, on May 1, 2020, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled "Cruise Ships Set Sail Knowing the Deadly Risk to Passengers and Crew." The article detailed how cruise ships, particularly Carnival ships, facilitated the spread of COVID-19, and provided new facts on early warning signs Carnival and its affiliated cruise lines possessed and the Company's disclosure failures. Further, the article also noted that The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure had requested documents from Carnival related "to Covid-19 or other infectious disease outbreaks aboard cruise ships" and that testimony from a different investigation in Australia exposed that Carnival and its affiliated cruise lines may have misled shore officials by concealing those exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms before docking. On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.97 per share, or over 12%, to close at $13.93 per share, thereby injuring investors. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company's medics were reporting increasing events of COVID-19 illness on the Company's ships; (2) that Carnival was violating port of call regulations by concealing the amount and severity of COVID-19 infections on board its ships; (3) that in responding to the outbreak of COVID-19, Carnival failed to follow the Company's own health and safety protocols developed in the wake of other communicable disease outbreaks; (4) by continuing to operate, Carnival ships were responsible for continuing to spread COVID-19 at various ports throughout the world; and (5) that as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Carnival securities, you may move the Court no later than July 27, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] CASPER SLEEP: Holzer & Holzer Announces Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Holzer & Holzer LLC on June 9 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Casper Sleep Inc. ("Casper" or the "Company") (NYSE: CSPR) securities in connection with the Company's IPO on February 7, 2020.  The lawsuit alleges that Casper failed to disclose that its profitability was declining due to numerous underlying issues within the Company's operations that would keep the Company from maintaining its growth rate and becoming profitable. On April 21, 2020, Casper announced that it was decreasing the size of its workforce, winding down its European operations, and its CFO/COO was resigning. If you purchased shares of Casper securities and suffered significant losses on that investment, you are encouraged to contact Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Luke R. Kennedy at lkennedy@holzerlaw.com, or by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 to discuss your legal rights. Holzer & Holzer, LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey D. Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. [GN] CEFCO: Female Store Managers Get Lower Pay, Miles Claims -------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER MILES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CEFCO, and FIKES WHOLESALE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00143-DC (W.D. Tex., June 5, 2020) alleges that Defendants compensate female employees less than their male counterparts for the same work, in violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Store Manager from approximately June 2017 to October 27, 2017. Allegedly, Defendants execute a top down wage policy, which consistently, systematically, and willfully pay female salaried Store Managers less than their male colleagues that work in the same position and perform the same work. Fikes Wholesale, Inc. is a multi-branded petroleum products marketer. Cefco is owned by Fikes Wholesale, Inc. and operates approximately 252 retail gasoline and convenience stores with stores in Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Curt Hesse, Esq. Melissa Moore, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana St., Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713) 222-6775 Fax: (713) 222-6739 Website: https://www.mooreandassociates.net/ - 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 Website: http://www.hgrlawyers.com CHELTEN BENEFITS: University Food Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- University Food Center, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHELTEN BENEFITS GROUP, Case No. 2:20-cv-11501-MAG-EAS (E.D. Mich., June 9, 2020), is brought against the Defendant, who sent unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the Plaintiff and others in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff at least one unsolicited advertisement by facsimile. The facsimile advertised the commercial availability or quality of the Defendant's services and insurance products. Unsolicited facsimiles cause injury and damage to the recipients. A "junk" fax wastes the recipient's valuable time, and typically uses the recipient's fax machine, paper, and ink toner, for the advertiser's own purposes. The Plaintiff seeks relief under the TCPA; specifically, (a) statutory damages for each violation of the TCPA, including increased statutory damages if the Court determines the Defendant's violations were knowing or willful, and (b) an injunction to halt the Defendant's unlawful fax advertising program. The Plaintiff is a neighborhood grocery store. The Defendant sells insurance and employee benefits plans and its Web site is found at http://cheltenbenefitsgroup.com/.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Robert M. Hatch, Esq. Molly E. Stemper, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-658-5500 Fax: 312-658-5555 Email: service@classlawyers.com CHICO'S FAS: Altman Suit v. White House Black Market Still Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2020, that the class action suit entitled, Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., is still stayed pending the petition for rehearing in the case, Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc. In July 2015, White House Black Market, Inc. ("WHBM") was named as a defendant in Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., a putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ("District Court"). The complaint alleges that WHBM, in violation of federal law, willfully published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number on customers' point-of-sale receipts. The plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for each alleged willful violation of the law, as well as attorneys' fees, costs and punitive damages. WHBM denies the material allegations of the complaint and believes the case is without merit. On February 12, 2018, the District Court issued an order certifying the class. On April 9, 2018, the District Court, sua sponte, issued an order granting WHBM's earlier 2016 request to appeal, to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ("Eleventh Circuit"), the District Court's ruling that the plaintiff has standing to maintain the lawsuit. On April 19, 2018, WHBM filed a petition for review in the Eleventh Circuit. In the meantime, the District Court stayed all further proceedings in the case pending the outcome of the appeal in the Eleventh Circuit. On July 12, 2018, the plaintiff and WHBM notified the Eleventh Circuit that the plaintiff and WHBM had reached a class settlement on all claims and therefore voluntarily dismissed WHBM's appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. On August 2, 2018, the District Court reopened the case for purposes of reviewing/approving the proposed settlement. On October 22, 2018, the plaintiff filed the settlement papers with the District Court, along with a motion to stay the District Court's consideration of the settlement pending the Eleventh Circuit's final disposition of Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., in which the Eleventh Circuit held, in an opinion issued October 3, 2018 and supplemented on April 22, 2019, that the display of the first six and last four digits of a credit or debit card number on a customer's receipt given at the point of sale establishes a "concrete injury" sufficient to confer Article III standing, enabling the customer to maintain a lawsuit. The District Court granted the motion to stay on November 15, 2018. A petition for rehearing on the October 2018 opinion was filed in the Muransky case on October 24, 2018. In October 2019, the Eleventh Circuit granted rehearing and, on February 25, 2020, heard oral argument in the en banc appeal. The Muransky opinion, if not altered on the petition for rehearing, would bind the District Court in the Altman case and likely establish that the plaintiff has standing to maintain her lawsuit against WHBM. In such event, the stay will be lifted and the proposed settlement will be reviewed by the District Court. If the Eleventh Circuit holds that there is not standing in the Muransky case, the parties have agreed to submit the proposed settlement to the Superior Court for Cobb County, Georgia for approval. The proposed settlement would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Chico's FAS said, "However, no assurance can be given that the proposed settlement will be approved. If the proposed settlement is rejected and the case were to proceed as a class action and WHBM were to be unsuccessful in its defense on the merits, then the ultimate resolution of the case could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations." Chico's FAS, Inc. operates as an omnichannel specialty retailer of women's private branded casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates, and complementary accessories. It operates under the Chico's, White House Black Market (WHBM), and Soma brand names. The company also sells its products through catalogs and its Websites. Chico's FAS, Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Fort Myers, Florida. CHICO'S FAS: Fisher Class Suit Resolved --------------------------------------- Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2020, that the "Fisher" putative class action suit has been resolved. "The resolution is not material to our annual consolidated financial statements," the Company said. In May 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in Fisher v. Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleges that the Company advertised fictitious prices and corresponding phantom discounts on its made-for-outlet products in its Chico's outlets in violation of California's Unfair Competition Laws, California's False Advertising Laws and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff seeks disgorgement of the Company's profits and alleged unjust enrichment resulting from such advertising practices, injunctive relief, a corrective advertising campaign, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The Company was served on May 10, 2019. On October 22, 2019, the parties attended a mediation. Thereafter, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case from federal court on March 5, 2020, and re-filed the complaint in San Diego County Superior Court. Subsequently, the case was resolved and the complaint was scheduled to be dismissed by June 16, 2020. Chico's FAS, Inc. operates as an omnichannel specialty retailer of women's private branded casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates, and complementary accessories. It operates under the Chico's, White House Black Market (WHBM), and Soma brand names. The company also sells its products through catalogs and its Websites. Chico's FAS, Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Fort Myers, Florida. CHILDRENS PLACE: July 31 Final Fairness Hearing on Rael Accord --------------------------------------------------------------- The Childrens Place, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2020, that the final fairness hearing in Rael v. The Children's Place, Inc., is scheduled for July 31, 2020. The Company is a defendant in Rael v. The Children's Place, Inc., a purported class action, pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. In the initial complaint filed in February 2016, the plaintiff alleged that the Company falsely advertised discount prices in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in April 2016, adding allegations of violations of other state consumer protection laws. In August 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, adding an additional plaintiff and removing the other state law claims. The plaintiffs' second amended complaint seeks to represent a class of California purchasers and seeks, among other items, injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company engaged in mediation proceedings with the plaintiffs in December 2016 and April 2017. The parties reached an agreement in principle in April 2017, and signed a definitive settlement agreement in November 2017, to settle the matter on a class basis with all individuals in the U.S. who made a qualifying purchase at The Children's Place from February 11, 2012 through the date of preliminary approval by the court of the settlement. The settlement is subject to court approval and provides for merchandise vouchers for class members who submit valid claims, as well as payment of legal fees and expenses and claims administration expenses. The court stayed the matter, pending an appellate court ruling in another lawsuit to which the Company is not a party, from April 2, 2018 through June 17, 2019. On January 28, 2020, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement is also subject to the court's final approval and the final fairness hearing is scheduled for July 31, 2020. The settlement, if finally approved by the court, will result in the dismissal of all claims through the date of the court’s preliminary approval of the settlement. The Childrens Place said, "However, if the settlement is ultimately rejected by the court, the parties will likely return to litigation, and in such event, no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter. In connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded a reserve for $5.0 million in its consolidated financial statements in the first quarter of 2017." The Childrens Place, Inc. is an American specialty retailer of children’s apparel and accessories. The company also markets apparel under the Children's Place, Place, Baby Place, and Gymboree brand names. The company is based in Secaucus, New Jersey. CHILLY WATER: Castaneda Sues Over Pregnancy Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------- VELIA CASTANEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHILLY WATER, LLC d/b/a THE BRICKHOUSE SPORTS CAFE, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00820-LCB (N.D. Ala., June 10, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from July 2017 until August 28, 2019, as a Server and was quickly promoted as Bartender within two weeks of being hired. According to the complaint, Plaintiff was earning approximately $22.00 per hours in combined wages and tips for working approximately 35 hours per week before she learned that she was pregnant in or around late February 2019. Furthermore, Plaintiff was being demoted to a Host position due to her pregnancy in which she will only be earning $9.00 per hour and scheduled to work 8-15 hours per week. Consequently, Plaintiff was forced to take a job elsewhere on August 28, 2019 because she was unable to afford the drastic reduction in her wages. Plaintiff and others similarly situated seek overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a work week at a rate of not less than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all the hours worked during those times they were all clocked out and required to stay an extra 1 hour to 1.5 hours each week. Chilly Water, LLC d/b/a The Brickhouse Sports Cafe is a sports bar serving meal and beverages. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Teri Ryder Mastando, Esq. Eric J. Artrip, Esq. MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC 301 Washington St. NW, Suite 302 Huntsville, AL 35801 Tel: (256) 532-2222 Fax: (256) 513-7489 Emails: teri@mastandoartrip.com artrip@mastandoartrip.com CHINA ZENIX: Bid to Dismiss New Jersey Class Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------- China Zenix Auto International Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company's motion to dismiss the class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, is pending. On October 31, 2018, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the company and certain of its officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws with respect to the delisting of the company's shares on the New York Stock Exchange. The complaint was later amended by the plaintiffs. On or about June 24, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety on the grounds that it fails to state a claim and the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants. The motion to dismiss is still pending before the Court. China Zenix said, "We are unable to predict with any reasonable degree of certainty when the Court will rule on the motion to dismiss. The case remains at a preliminary stage. Other than the aforementioned action, we are currently not a party to, and are not aware of any threat of, any legal, arbitral or administrative proceedings, which, in the opinion of our management, is likely to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. We may from time to time become a party to various legal, arbitral or administrative proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business." China Zenix Auto International Limited designs, manufactures, and sells commercial vehicle wheels to aftermarket and original equipment manufacturers in the People's Republic of China and internationally. China Zenix Auto International Limited was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Zhangzhou, the People's Republic of China. China Zenix Auto International Limited is a subsidiary of Newrace Limited. CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Golden Flames Seeks Pay for COVID-19 Losses ----------------------------------------------------------------- GOLDEN FLAMES BANQUET & BALLROOM, INC., a corporation, Plaintiff v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00312-CG-N (S.D. Ala., June 9, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for its alleged breach of contract. Plaintiff owns and operates a banquet and special-events facility in Mobile, Alabama, and bears a commercial property insurance policy number EPP0525621 with a policy period of February 22, 2019 to February 22, 2022 that was issued by Defendant. According to the complaint, Plaintiff has suffered a substantial loss of business income due to the shutdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and submitted a claim for the loss to Defendant under the business-income provision of Plaintiff's insurance policy. However, Defendant denied Plaintiff's claim in a letter dated May 21, 2020. The Cincinnati Insurance Company offers property and casualty insurance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard H. Taylor, Esq. W. Lloyd Copeland, Esq. Steven A. Martino, Esq. TAYLOR MARTINO, P.C. P.O. Box 894 Mobile, AL 36601 Tel: (251) 433-3131 Fax: (251) 433-4207 Emails: richard@taylormartino.com lloyd@taylormartino.com stevenmartino@taylormartino.com - and – John W. "Don" Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095 Tel: (662) 834-9168 Fax: (662) 834-2628 Email: donbarrettpa@gmail.com CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Neuro-Communication Seeks COVID-19 Payment ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEURO-COMMUNICATION SERVICES, INC. d/b/a HEARING INNOVATIONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY; THE CINCINNATI CASUALTY COMPANY; AND THE CINCINNATI INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-01275-BYP (N.D. Ohio, June 10, 2020) alleges that Defendants have systematically refused to pay all its insureds including Plaintiff under its Business Income, Extra Expense, Extended Business Income, and Civil Authority coverages for losses suffered related to COVID-19. Plaintiff pays an annual premium of $2,279 to Defendants, who issued to Plaintiff a Policy No. ECP 055 17 19 / EBA 055 17 19, for the annual period beginning September 14, 2019. Plaintiff performed all its obligations under the Policy, including the payment of premiums. In the Building and Personal Property Coverage Form, Defendants agreed to pay "for direct 'loss' to Covered Property at the 'premises' caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss." A Covered Cause of Loss is defined as "direct 'loss'" except those that are expressly and specifically excluded or limited. Losses due to COVID-19 and the Ohio Civil Authority Orders are a Covered Cause of Loss under Defendants' policies with the Building and Personal Property Coverage Form because they constitute direct "loss" and are not otherwise excluded. Having suffered a necessary suspension of operations implicating coverage, on or about March 23, 2020, Plaintiff submitted a claim to Defendants under its policy. Without any true investigation, Defendants denied Plaintiff's claim. Hearing Innovations provides comprehensive hearing and balance care for patients of all ages. The Cincinnati Insurance Company is a property and casualty insurance company based in Ohio. The Cincinnati Casualty Company is a property and casualty insurance company based in Ohio. The Cincinnati Indemnity Company is a property and casualty insurance company based in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Y. Michael Twersky, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-4656 E-mail: scarson@bm.net mitwersky@bm.net - and - Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Patrick M. Wallace, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON LAW LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27605 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com pat@whitfieldbryson.com COLLABERA INC: Salguero Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under PAGA ---------------------------------------------------------------- FERNANDO SALGUERO, as an aggrieved employee and private attorney general v. COLLABERA INC., a New Jersey Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV19946 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 26, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated against the Defendants seeking civil penalties under Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in an ongoing and systematic scheme of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees. This scheme involved regularly requiring him and aggrieved employees to work off the clock without compensation, thereby, failing to pay them for all hours worked, including minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff to work as a field technician from October 1, 2018, to April 29, 2019. The Defendants are a staffing solutions company with offices and worksites throughout the state of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather Davis, Esq. Amir Nayebdadash, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP 136 Main Street, Suite A El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 290-3095 Facsimile: (866) 264-7880 E-mail: heather@protectionlawgroup.com amir@protectionlawgroup.com COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Rose Calls Collection Letter "Deceptive" ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOAN ROSE, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-61086-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 2, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff received a collection letter on or about June 3, 2019 from Defendant in an attempt to collect an alleged debt of Plaintiff originally owed from Phoenix Emergency Medicine of Broward, LLC. However, the collection letter was deceptive and misleading by incorrectly stating that partial payment may revive the statute of limitations, which can only be revived by a written, signed agreement under Florida law. Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc. is a company that collects debts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Murphy, Esq. ROBERT W. MURPHY 1212 S.E. 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Tel: (954) 763-8660 Fax: (954) 763-8607 Email: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: To Appeal District Court Decision ------------------------------------------------------ Verint Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the company's affiliate, Comverse Technology, Inc., is seeking to appeal a court decision appeal accepting plaintiffs' application to amend a motion to certify a class action and set deadlines, to the Israeli Supreme Court. In March 2009, one of the company's former employees, Ms. Orit Deutsch, commenced legal actions in Israel against the company's primary Israeli subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited ("VSL") (Case Number 4186/09) and against the company's affiliate Comverse Technology, Inc. (CTI) (Case Number 1335/09). Also in March 2009, a former employee of Comverse Limited (CTI's primary Israeli subsidiary at the time), Ms. Roni Katriel, commenced similar legal actions in Israel against Comverse Limited (Case Number 3444/09). In these actions, the plaintiffs generally sought to certify class action suits against the defendants on behalf of current and former employees of VSL and Comverse Limited who had been granted stock options in Verint and/or CTI and who were allegedly damaged as a result of a suspension on option exercises during an extended filing delay period that is discussed in our and CTI's historical public filings. On June 7, 2012, the Tel Aviv District Court, where the cases had been filed or transferred, allowed the plaintiffs to consolidate and amend their complaints against the three defendants: VSL, CTI, and Comverse Limited. On October 31, 2012, CTI distributed of all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Comverse, Inc., its principal operating subsidiary and parent company of Comverse Limited, to CTI's shareholders (the "Comverse Share Distribution"). In the period leading up to the Comverse Share Distribution, CTI either sold or transferred substantially all of its business operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests in Verint and in its then-subsidiary, Comverse, Inc.) to Comverse, Inc. or to unaffiliated third parties. As the result of these transactions, Comverse, Inc. became an independent company and ceased to be affiliated with CTI, and CTI ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interests in Verint. Prior to the completion of the Comverse Share Distribution, the plaintiffs sought to compel CTI to set aside up to $150.0 million in assets to secure any future judgment, but the District Court did not rule on this motion. In February 2017, Mavenir Inc. became successor-in-interest to Comverse, Inc. On February 4, 2013, Verint acquired the remaining CTI shell company in a merger transaction (the "CTI Merger"). As a result of the CTI Merger, Verint assumed certain rights and liabilities of CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the foregoing legal actions. However, under the terms of a Distribution Agreement entered into in connection with the Comverse Share Distribution, the company, as successor to CTI, are entitled to indemnification from Comverse, Inc. (now Mavenir) for any losses the company may suffer in its capacity as successor to CTI related to the foregoing legal actions. Following an unsuccessful mediation process, on August 28, 2016, the District Court (i) denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a class action with respect to all claims relating to Verint stock options and (ii) approved the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a class action with respect to claims of current or former employees of Comverse Limited (now part of Mavenir) or of VSL who held unexercised CTI stock options at the time CTI suspended option exercises. The court also ruled that the merits of the case would be evaluated under New York law. As a result of this ruling (which excluded claims related to Verint stock options from the case), one of the original plaintiffs in the case, Ms. Deutsch, was replaced by a new representative plaintiff, Mr. David Vaaknin. CTI appealed portions of the District Court's ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court. On August 8, 2017, the Israeli Supreme Court partially allowed CTI's appeal and ordered the case to be returned to the District Court to determine whether a cause of action exists under New York law based on the parties' expert opinions. Following two unsuccessful rounds of mediation in mid to late 2018 and in mid-2019, the proceedings resumed. On April 16, 2020, the District Court accepted plaintiffs' application to amend the motion to certify a class action and set deadlines for filing amended pleadings by the parties. CTI has submitted a motion to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Verint Systems Inc. provides actionable intelligence solutions worldwide. Verint Systems Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Melville, New York. CONCERTO HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Overtime, Menth Claims -------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY MENTH, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONCERTO HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-11514-SJM-EAS (E.D. Mich., June 10, 2020) is a collective action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons employed by Defendant, arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant employed Plaintiff and other non-managerial employees to perform utilization review functions to attempt to reduce the costs of medical care. Defendant used various job titles to refer to Utilization Review Employees, including Utilization Review Nurse, Authorization Nurse, Utilization Management Nurse, Utilization Management Review Nurse, UM Nurse, and similar job titles. Regardless of the title, the Utilization Review Employees each performed a similar function. Defendant misclassified its Utilization Review Employees as exempt employees and paid Utilization Review Employees a salary. Defendant's Utilization Review Employees regularly worked over 40 hours per week, without overtime payments. Concerto Healthcare, Inc. is a Michigan-based healthcare services provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Rod M. Johnston, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com rjohnston@sommerspc.com - and - Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq. THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC 3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (281) 572-0727 Facsimile: (281) 572-0728 E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com - and - Jack Siegel, Esq. Stacy Thomsen, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 4925 Greenville, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 790-4454 CONN'S INC: Uddin Securities Class Suit in Texas Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- Conn's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative securities class action entitled, Uddin v. Conn's, Inc., et al., No. 4:20-1705. On May 15, 2020, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against the company and two of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, captioned Uddin v. Conn's, Inc., et al., No. 4:20-1705. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business and operations. Plaintiff alleges violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks to certify a class of all persons and entities that purchased or acquired Conn's securities between September 3, 2019 and December 9, 2019. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought. Conn's said, "We intend to vigorously defend our interests in the Uddin Action. It is not possible at this time to predict the timing or outcome of this litigation, and we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss from these claims." Conn's, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a holding company with no independent assets or operations other than its investments in its subsidiaries. Conn's is a leading specialty retailer that offers a broad selection of quality, branded durable consumer goods and related services in addition to proprietary credit solutions for its core credit-constrained consumers. The company is based in Woodland, Texas. CURALLUX LLC: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CURALLUX, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-04396 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site, http://www.capillus.com/,and, therefore, denial of its goods and services offered, thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the complaint. Because the Defendant's Web site is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using her computer. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant is a hair restoration company that owns and operates the Web site, offering features that should allow all consumers to access the goods and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Cruz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified Consultants, Inc. The case is styled as Ruben Cruz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., doing business as: Diversified Consultants International, Case No. 1:20-cv-02553 (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Diversified Consultants, Inc., provides claims collection services. The Company offers pre-collection, claims adjustment, bad debt management, third party transfer, and client access services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Phone: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com DIVERSITY AT WORK: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Sutton Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Sutton, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Diversity at Work Group, Inc. d/b/a United Courier; Lynn Meyers; Jim Meyers; Scott Laminack; Doe Corporation 1-10; John Doe 1-10; Case No. 3:20-cv-00224-WHR (S.D. Ohio, June 9, 2020), accuses the Defendants of failing to compensate the Plaintiff with minimum wages and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Constitution and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants classify their Delivery Drivers as "independent contractors." However, the economic reality of the situation is that the Delivery Drivers are "employees" of United Courier under federal and state wage and hour laws. The Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the FLSA, Section 34a, the OMFWSA, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act by failing to adequately reimburse Delivery Drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay Delivery Drivers the legally mandated minimum wages and overtime for all hours worked. In addition, during weeks that the Delivery Drivers worked more than 40 hours, Delivery Drivers were not paid at time and a half their regular hourly rate, as calculated week to week based on the piece-rate payments they received. The Plaintiff worked for United Courier from May 2017 to August 2019. United Courier offers courier and delivery services in a number of states, including Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Phone: (614) 604-8759 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 Email: abiller@billerkimble.com - and - Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Nathan Spencer, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Phone: (513) 715-8711 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 Email: akimble@billerkimble.com nspencer@billerkimble.com DOMO INC: EXKAE Ltd. Appointed Lead Plaintiff in Patton Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Domo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the court has granted EXKAE Ltd.'s motion for appointment as lead plaintiff in the securities class action suit entitled, Patton v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No. 2:19-cv-00781-DAK-EJF. In October 2019, a securities class action complaint captioned Patton v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No. 2:19-cv-00781-DAK-EJF, was filed by a stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors alleging violations of securities laws and seeking unspecified damages. On April 7, 2020, the court granted EXKAE Ltd.'s motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. On May 22, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with the Company's June 2018 initial public offering and during a purported class period from June 28, 2019 through September 5, 2019. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the case vigorously. Domo, Inc. operates a cloud-based platform in the United States. Its platform digitally connects chief executive officer to the frontline employee with the people, data, and systems in an organization, giving them access to real-time data and insights, and allowing them to manage business from smartphones. The Company was formerly known as Domo Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to Domo, Inc. in December 2011. Domo, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in American Fork, Utah. DOMO INC: June 30 Hearing on Bid to Stay Volonte Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Domo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the hearing on the defendants' motion to stay the securities class action suit entitled, Volonte v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No. 19-04-01778, is set for June 30, 2020 In November 2019, a securities class action complaint captioned Volonte v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No. 19-04-01778, was filed by a stockholder of the Company in the Fourth Judicial District Court for the County of Utah in the State of Utah against the Company, certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company's June 2018 initial public offering alleging violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company's initial public offering and seeking unspecified damages. In January 2020, the defendants filed a motion to stay the Volonte action in favor of the Patton action. The motion has been fully briefed and is set for hearing on June 30, 2020. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the case vigorously. Domo, Inc. operates a cloud-based platform in the United States. Its platform digitally connects chief executive officer to the frontline employee with the people, data, and systems in an organization, giving them access to real-time data and insights, and allowing them to manage business from smartphones. The Company was formerly known as Domo Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to Domo, Inc. in December 2011. Domo, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in American Fork, Utah. ECOLAB INC: Jackson Questions Use of Toxic Chemicals in OxyCide --------------------------------------------------------------- CASSANDRA JACKSON v. ECOLAB INC. and DOES 1-100 inclusive, Case No. 0:20-cv-01264-SRN-ECW (D. Minn., May 27, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated seeking redress from Ecolab's use of dangerous chemicals and compounds in their OxyCide (TM) Daily Disinfectant Cleaner and OxyCide (TM) Dilution Management System. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, ordering the Defendants to stop producing Oxycide and/or to properly and adequately warn of the toxic chemicals in OxyCide Cleaning Products. The Plaintiff also seeks compensatory and actual damages for the harm suffered due to the foreseeable exposure to OxyCide Cleaning Products. The Plaintiff further seeks that the warning be directed to hospitals, healthcare professionals, employees, and/or the general public at risk of exposure to the OxyCide Cleaning Products. The Plaintiff contends that the OxyCide Cleaning Products have not been recalled, and continue to threaten the health and safety of hospital employees who are exposed to the toxic product. Ecolab Inc. manufactures products for healthcare and industrial applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 E-mail: mmv@mccunewright.com rdm@mccunewright.com tqn@mccunewright.com ELITE ENGINEERING: Spells Seeks Overtime Wages for Technicians -------------------------------------------------------------- Lonnie Spells, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees v. ELITE ENGINEERING, INC., JOHN URSO and GINA URSO, Case No. 1:20-cv-03378 (N.D. Ill., June 8, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's overtime wage laws to recover unpaid overtime pay and other damages owed to the Plaintiff and similarly situated technicians. To perform their business, the Defendants employ cable television installation technicians. The Defendants have typically scheduled the Technicians to work more than 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have misclassified the Technicians as "independent contractors." Based on that misclassification of the Technicians, the Technicians have not been paid overtime wages, he adds. Plaintiff Lonnie Spells was employed by the Defendants as a Technician from March 2017 through December 2019. The Defendants own and operate a cable television installation and repair business maintaining its principal place of business in Schaumburg, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Phone: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 984-810 Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com - and - Meredith Black-Mathews, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (214) 346-5909 Email: mmathews@foresterhaynie.com ELLSWORTH CORP: Underpays Staff, Brown Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------- JULIAN BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELLSWORTH CORPORATION; and KITPACKERS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00864 (E.D. Wis., June 8, 2020) 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 Brown was employed by the Defendants as hourly paid, non-exempt employee. Ellsworth Corporation distributes specialty chemicals. The Company offers adhesives, sealants, lubricants, coatings, encapsulants, tapes, soldering products, surface preparations, specialty chemicals, maintenance and repair products and dispensing equipment. Ellsworth serves customers in the State of Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Court Vacates Scheduling Order in Nichols Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Encompass Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the trial court recently vacated its original scheduling order in the case styled, Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp. The Company said, "We were named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 28, 2003 by several individual stockholders in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp. In July 2019, we entered into settlement agreements with all but one plaintiff and paid those settling plaintiffs an aggregate amount of cash less than US$0.1 million. The remaining plaintiff alleges that we, some of our former officers, and our former investment bank engaged in a scheme to overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial position. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. "This case was stayed in the circuit court on August 8, 2005. However, the complaint has been amended from time to time, including to request certification as a class action. Additionally, one of the former officers named as a defendant has repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal district court. We filed our latest motion to remand the case back to state court on January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the federal court remanded the case back to state court. On December 10, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds the plaintiffs lacked standing because their claims were derivative in nature, and the claims were time-barred by the statute of limitations. On May 26, 2016, the trial court granted our motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court's dismissal on March 23, 2018. On April 6, 2018, we filed an application for rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court. On March 22, 2019, the Alabama Supreme Court denied our application for rehearing and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court recently vacated its original scheduling order, so we do not currently know when this trial will begin. "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case against the sole remaining plaintiff. Based on the stage of litigation, review of the current facts and circumstances as we understand them, the nature of the underlying claim, the results of the proceedings to date, and the nature and scope of the defense we continue to mount, we do not believe an adverse judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it is also not possible to estimate an amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or settlement of this case." Encompass Health Corporation provides facility-based and home-based post-acute healthcare services in the United States. The company operates through two segments, Inpatient Rehabilitation, and Home Health and Hospice. The company was formerly known as HealthSouth Corporation and changed its name to Encompass Health Corporation in January 2018. Encompass Health Corporation was founded in 1983 and is based in Birmingham, Alabama. ENERGY TRANSFER: Post-Trial Hearing Held in Regency Merger Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Energy Transfer LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a post-trial hearing was held on May 6, 2020, in the Regency Merger Litigation. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman ("Dieckman"), a purported Regency unitholder, filed a class action complaint related to the Regency-ETO merger (the "Regency Merger") in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Regency Merger Litigation"), on behalf of Regency's common unitholders against Regency GP LP, Regency GP LLC, ET, ETO, ETP GP, and the members of Regency's board of directors. The Regency Merger Litigation alleges that the Regency Merger breached the Regency partnership agreement. On March 29, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. Plaintiff appealed, and the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Chancery. Plaintiff then filed an Amended Verified Class Action Complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss. The Court of Chancery granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss, dismissing the claims against all defendants other than Regency GP, LP and Regency GP LLC (the "Regency Defendants"). The Court of Chancery later granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion for class certification. Trial was held on December 10-16, 2019, and a post-trial hearing was held on May 6, 2020. The Regency Defendants cannot predict the outcome of the Regency Merger Litigation or any lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of this filing; nor can the Regency Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the Regency Merger Litigation. The Regency Defendants believe the Regency Merger Litigation is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it. Energy Transfer LP provides energy-related services in the United States and China. The company owns and operates approximately 9,400 miles of natural gas transportation pipelines and three natural gas storage facilities in Texas; and approximately 12,200 miles of interstate natural gas pipelines. The company is based in Dallas, Texas. ENERGY TRANSFER: Still Faces ACERS Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Energy Transfer LP (ET) continues to defend itself against a federal securities class action suit filed by Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System ("ACERS"), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. A purported unitholder of ET, Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System ("ACERS"), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a federal securities class action suit against ET and three of ET's directors Kelcy L. Warren, John W. McReynolds, and Thomas E. Long. The case is styled, Allegheny County Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. Energy Transfer LP, Case No. 2:20-00200-GAM (E.D. Pa.). The complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related primarily to matters involving the construction of pipelines in Pennsylvania. The Company said, "The defendants cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or any lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of this filing; nor can the defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve these lawsuits. However, the defendants believe that the claims are without merit and intend to vigorously contest them." Energy Transfer LP provides energy-related services in the United States and China. The company owns and operates approximately 9,400 miles of natural gas transportation pipelines and three natural gas storage facilities in Texas; and approximately 12,200 miles of interstate natural gas pipelines. The company is based in Dallas, Texas. ERIE INSURANCE: La Campgna Files Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Erie Insurance Group. The case is styled as La Campgna Inc., doing business as La Campagna Ristorante, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. ERIE INSURANCE GROUP, Case No. 2:20-cv-02689 (E.D. Pa., June 8, 2020). The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues. Erie Insurance is a publicly held insurance company, offering auto, home, commercial and life insurance through a network of independent insurance agents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Golomb, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 985-9177 Fax: (215) 985-4169 Email: rgolomb@golombhonik.com ERIE INSURANCE: Refuses Coverage of COVID-19 Losses, Daly Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT DALY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. ERIE INSURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01406 (D. Colo., May 27, 2020), alleges that EPC has refused to provide Income Protection, Extra Expense, and Civil Authority coverage due to executive orders and/or COVID-19 resulting in the required suspension of business operations. The Plaintiff was forced to suspend or reduce his business at DC Pizza due to orders published by civil authorities in the District of Columbia that required all persons to stay at his or her place of residence except as necessary to perform "essential activities." The Plaintiff purchased insurance coverage from EPC, including Business Income, Income Protection, Extra Expense, and Civil Authority coverage. Robert Daly owns and operates MS-DC, Inc., doing business as DC Pizza, a pizzeria restaurant located at 1103 19th Street NW, in Washington, D.C. EPC is a commercial insurance carrier.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Yoder, Esq. Michael W. Slocumb, Esq. SLOCUMB LAW FIRM, LLC 1225 Eye Street NW, Suite 550A Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 737-4141 Facsimile: (202) 930-0941 E-mail: myoder@slocumblaw.com mike@slocumblaw.com ESSA BANCORP: Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Certify Class Status ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs' motion to certify a class in a lawsuit against ESSA Bank & Trust remains pending, according to ESSA Bancorp, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. The Court was scheduled to hold a class certification hearing on May 15, 2020. ESSA Bank & Trust (the Bank) was named as a defendant in an action commenced on December 8, 2016 by one plaintiff who will also seek to pursue this action as a class action on behalf of the entire class of people similarly situated. The plaintiff alleges that a bank previously acquired by ESSA Bancorp received unearned fees and kickbacks in the process of making loans, in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. In an order dated January 29, 2018, the district court granted the Bank's motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiff appealed the court's ruling. In an opinion and order dated April 26, 2019, the appellate court reversed the district court's order dismissing the plaintiff's case against the Bank and remanded the case back to the district court in order to continue the litigation. The litigation is now proceeding before the district court. On December 9, 2019, the Court permitted an amendment to the complaint to add two new plaintiffs to the case asserting similar claims. Plaintiffs have moved to certify a class, Defendants have opposed that motion, and the Court was scheduled to hold a class certification hearing on May 15, 2020. ESSA Bancorp said, "The Bank will continue to vigorously defend against such allegations. To the extent that pending or threatened litigation could result in exposure to the Bank, the amount of such exposure is not currently estimable." ESSA Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for ESSA Bank & Trust that provides a range of financial services to individuals, families, and businesses in Pennsylvania. ESSA Bancorp, Inc. was founded in 1916 and is based in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. EVENTBRITE INC: Facing Suit Over Ticket Refund Polices ------------------------------------------------------ Eventbrite, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on June 9, 2020, that the company has been named as a defendant in a putative consumer class action suit related to the company's ticket refund policies and procedures. On June 4, 2020, a putative consumer class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint challenges aspects of the Company's ticket refund policies and procedures as applied to events beginning in the first quarter of 2020 after the coronavirus outbreak. The Company disputes the merits of these claims and intends to vigorously defend against them. Eventbrite, Inc., incorporated on October 20, 2009, provides a global platform for live experiences. The Company's platform allows anyone to create, share, find and attend events. It enable events ranging from fundraisers, seminars, wellness activities and music festivals to classes and cultural celebrations all over the world. The company is based in San Francisco, California. EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shen Securities Action ------------------------------------------------ Exela Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company has not been served with the putative class action complaint initiated by Bo Shen. On March 23, 2020. Plaintiff, Bo Shen, filed a putative class action against the Company, Ronald Cogburn, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and James Reynolds, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer. Plaintiff claims to be a current holder of 4,000 shares of Company stock, purchased on October 4, 2019 at $1.34/share. Plaintiff asserts two claims covering the purported class period of March 16, 2018 to March 16, 2020: (1) a violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act against all defendants; and (2) a violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Mr. Cogburn and Mr. Reynolds. The allegations stem from the Company's press release, dated March 16, 2020 (announcing the postponement of the earnings call and delay in filing of this Annual Report), and press release and related SEC filings, dated March 17, 2020 (announcing its intent to restate its financial statements for 2017, 2018 and interim periods through September 30, 2019). As of the date of this Annual Report, the Company has not been served with the complaint. Exela said, "At this early stage in the litigation, it is not practicable to render an opinion about whether an unfavorable outcome is probable or remote with respect to this matter; however, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will vigorously defend them." Exela Technologies, Inc. is a business process automation leader leveraging a global footprint and proprietary technology to help turn the complex into the simple through user friendly software platforms and solutions that enable our customers’ digital transformation. The company is based in Irving, Texas. FAIR ISAAC: Holmes County Bank Sues Over Credit Reporting Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------------ HOLMES COUNTY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff v. FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1;20-cv-00395 (N.D. Ill., June 9, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged unlawful monopolization, conspiracy to monopolize, and contract in restraint of trade in violations of the Sherman Act Section 1, state antitrust, and state unfair and trade practices laws. Plaintiff has provided financial services to its customers since 1932 and has directly purchased B2B credit scores from Defendant and credit bureaus. The complaint asserts these claims: -- Defendant has restricted the credit reporting agencies' ability to develop or sell other credit scores compatible with customers' existing systems; -- Defendant has engaged in a pricing scheme to unlawfully leverage its monopoly power and foreclose competition from VantageScore in the credit score market; and -- Defendant has imposed contract provisions that allow it to extract monopoly prices. Moreover, Defendant has waged aggressive public relations and advertising campaign against VantageScore, its competitor, by spreading false statements, conveying false impressions, and misleading lenders and consumers about the qualities of VantageScore, and claiming that VantageScore is an unreliable measure of creditworthiness. Plaintiff contends that Defendant concealed its unlawful scheme which damaged Plaintiff and all members of the Class. Fair Isaac Corporation sells credit scores in the B2B market through its FICO Scores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marvin A. Miller, Esq. Lori A. Fanning, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 115 South LaSalle St., Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 332-3400 Emails: mmiller@millerlawllc.com lfanning@millerlawllc.com - and – Gregory A. 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 Tel: (212) 907-0700 Emails: gasciolla@labaton.com kgarvey@labaton.com rvandermeulen@labaton.com mperez@labaton.com jcrevier@labaton.com - and – Charles F. Barrett, Esq. NEAL & HARWELL, PLC 1201 Demonbreun St., Suite 1000 Nashville, TN 37203 Tel: (615) 244-1713 Email: cbarrett@nealharwell.com - and – Don Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 404 Court Square P.O. Box 927 Lexington, MS 39095 Tel: (662) 834-2488 Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com donbarrettpa@gmail.com - and – Richard R. Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1011 Oxford, MS 38655 Tel: (662) 380-5018 Email: rrb@rrblawfirm.net FCA US: Garcia TCPA Suit Moved From E.D. Michigan to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as RICK-VINCENT GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:19-cv-12750 (Filed Sept. 20, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on May 27, 2020. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-22191-JEM to the proceeding. The lawsuit demands $5 million in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez. The case is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, arising from the Defendant's willful violations. To gain an advantage over its competitors and increase its revenue, the Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing, with no regard for consumers' privacy rights, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. FCA US is a North American automaker based in Auburn Hills, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 20900 NE 30th Ave. 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com FLEETCOR TECH: $50MM Georgia Case Settlement Wins Final Court Okay ------------------------------------------------------------------ The court has granted final approval of the US$50 million settlement for the class action initiated in Georgia, according to FLEETCOR Technologies, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. On June 14, 2017, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock between February 5, 2016 and May 2, 2017. On October 13, 2017, the shareholder filed an amended complaint asserting claims on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 4, 2016 and May 3, 2017. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements regarding fee charges and the reasons for its earnings and growth in certain press releases and other public statements in violation of the federal securities laws. On July 17, 2019, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. On October 3, 2019, the parties executed a term sheet to settle the case for a payment of US$50 million for the benefit of the class. The full settlement amount is covered by the Company's insurance policies. On November 7, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and the settlement is without any admission of the allegations in the complaint. Final approval of the settlement was granted by the court on April 14, 2020. FleetCor Technologies, Inc. provides commercial payment solutions in North America, Latin America, Europe, and Australasia. The company offers fuel payment solutions to businesses and government entities that operate vehicle fleets, as well as to oil and leasing companies, and fuel marketers. FleetCor Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Peachtree Corners, Georgia. FMFS OF VS: Sinclair Seeks Damages for Violations of FLSA & NYLL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Usha Sinclair, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FMFS OF VS, LLC, d/b/a BUFFALO WILD WINGS, Case No. 707076/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., June 9, 2020), is brought for damages and other legal and equitable relief against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New York State Labor Law, the New York Code of Rules and Regulations, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant never paid any uniform maintenance pay or reimbursement. The Plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement for being required to wear the Defendant's uniform. In addition, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff for all hours worked. There were weeks in which the Plaintiff would work in excess of 40 hours. During the weeks where the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours, managers of the Defendant, using their administrative privileges, would log into the Defendant's timekeeping system and move the hours worked over 40 to a different pay period. The Defendant did this in order to avoid paying her overtime wages, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant for two separate periods between 2017 and 2019. The Defendant owns and operates a Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Gaylord, Esq. BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP 357 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, NY 11725 Phone: (516) 742-4949 Email: mark@bglawny.com FULTON FINANCIAL: Bank Employee Files Wage-and-Hour Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Fulton Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that Fulton Bank, N.A. is facing a putative class action lawsuit filed by D. Kress. On October 15, 2019, a former Fulton Bank teller supervisor, D. Kress filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and other similarly situated non-exempt, hourly employees in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, D. Kress v. Fulton Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:19-cv-18985. Fulton Bank accepted service of process on January 20, 2020. The lawsuit alleges that Fulton Bank did not record or otherwise account for the amount of time which non-exempt employees who are paid based on their time worked, spent conducting branch opening security procedures. The allegation is that, as a result, Fulton Bank did not properly compensate those employees for their regular and overtime wages. The lawsuit alleges that by doing so, Fulton violated: (i) the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and seeks back overtime wages for a period of three years, liquidated damages and attorney fees and costs; (ii) the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law and seeks back overtime wages for a period of six years, treble damages and attorney fees and costs; and (iii) the New Jersey Wage Payment Law and seeks back wages for a period of six years, treble damages and attorney fees and costs. The lawsuit also asserts New Jersey common law claims seeking compensatory damages and interest. GENIE ENERGY: Facing Davis Class Suit Over TCPA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Genie Energy Ltd. (GRE) and its retail energy provider, Residents Energy, Inc. ("Residents Energy"), are facing a putative class action suit filed by Danelle Davis related to the alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. On February 18, 2020, named Plaintiff Danelle Davis filed a putative class action complaint against Residents Energy and GRE in United States District of New Jersey alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C Section 227 et seq. IDT energy denies allegations in the complaint which it to be meritless and plans to vigorously defend this action. Based upon the Company's preliminary assessment of this matter, a loss is not considered probable, nor is the amount of loss if any, estimable as of March 31, 2020. Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company. The company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Genie Energy Services; and Genie Oil and Gas, Inc. Genie Energy Ltd. was incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey. GENIE ENERGY: IDT Energy Still Defends TCPA Class Suit in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------------ Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that based upon the Company's preliminary assessment of the class action suit in Illinois against IDT Energy related to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a loss is not considered probable, nor is the amount of loss, if any, estimable as of March 31, 2020. On October 5, 2018, named plaintiffs Scott Mackey and Daniel Hernandez filed a putative class action complaint against IDT Energy in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq. The named plaintiffs filed the suit on behalf of: (1) a putative Cell Phone class consisting of all persons in the U.S. to whom IDT Energy and/or a third party acting on IDT Energy's behalf allegedly made one or more telemarketing calls promoting IDT Energy's goods or services to their cellular telephone number through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice within the four year period preceding the filing of the complaint and (2) a putative Do-Not-Call class consisting of all persons in the U.S. who allegedly received more than one call from IDT Energy and/or some party acting on IDT Energy's behalf promoting IDT Energy's goods or services in a 12-month period on their cellular phone or residential telephone line and whose number appears on the National Do-Not-Call registry within the four year period preceding the filing of the complaint. On October 31, 2019, the court granted IDT Energy's motion to bifurcate individuals and class claims to expedite discovery and dispositive motion related to the named plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdictions. On January 9, 2020, the court granted IDT Energy's motion for summary judgment to dismiss one of the named plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction. Genie Energy said, "IDT Energy denies the allegations in the complaint, which it believes to be meritless and plans to vigorously defend this action. Based upon the Company's preliminary assessment of this matter, a loss is not considered probable, nor is the amount of loss, if any, estimable as of March 31, 2020." Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company. The company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Genie Energy Services; and Genie Oil and Gas, Inc. Genie Energy Ltd. was incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey. GORMAN GROUP: Spiciarich Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Spiciarich, Joel O'Neil, and Ian Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE GORMAN GROUP, LLC; GORMAN BROS., INC.; ALBERT MARK GORMAN, individually; and PAUL ANTHONY GORMAN, individually; Case No. 1:20-cv-00646-FJS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., June 9, 2020), seeks to recover overtime compensation, agreed upon wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Despite being non-exempt employees, the Defendants have failed to properly pay the Plaintiffs overtime compensation at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay when they work over 40 hours per workweek, according to the complaint. Specifically, the Defendants failed to add together all compensable time, including time worked traveling between jobsites, for the purposes of overtime compensation. The Plaintiffs have been employed by the Defendants as Hourly Workers. The Gorman Group provides asphalt road engineering to municipalities throughout the Northeast.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Hunter G. Benharris, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 300-0375 GRAND CANYON: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 13 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming July 13, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of Grand Canyon Education, Inc. ("Grand Canyon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LOPE) investors who purchased common stock between January 5, 2018 and January 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Grand Canyon investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/grand-canyon-education-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On January 28, 2020, Citron Research published a report alleging, among other things, that Grand Canyon was improperly using a "captive, non-reporting subsidiary to hide its liabilities," thereby "artificially inflat[ing] the [company's] stock price." On this news, the Company's share price fell $7.43, or over 8%, to close at $84.07 per share on January 28, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that GCU was not a proper non-profit organization as it remained under the control of Grand Canyon, (2) that Grand Canyon was not a third-party service provider to GCU but rather continued to effectively operate the entity, (3) that Grand Canyon employees served as executives of GCU, and (4) that GCU functioned as an off-balance-sheet entity to which Grand Canyon was able to funnel expenses and costs in exchange for a disproportionate amount of revenue, thereby inflating Grand Canyon's financial results. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Grand Canyon common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 13, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] GRAND CANYON: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of July 13 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action litigation on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Grand Canyon Education, Inc. ("Grand Canyon" or the "Company") (LOPE) between January 5, 2018 and January 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Grand Canyon during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than July 13, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. Grand Canyon investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358. Background on the Grand Canyon Securities Class Litigation Grand Canyon, headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, is an education services company. The action alleges that Grand Canyon made misrepresentations and omissions concerning the spin-off of the Company's education assets into Grand Canyon University ("GCU"). Defendants allegedly inflated the Company's financial results by treating GCU as an off-balance sheet entity into which Grand Canyon stuffed with its own expenses and costs to increase Grand Canyon's reported profits. The Company repeatedly misled investors by characterizing GCU as a proper "non-profit" and "independent" institution and misrepresenting Grand Canyon's role as a third-party provider of education services to GCU. On September 9, 2019, Citron Research published a report examining Grand Canyon's financials and finding that the Company "is stuffing GCU with expenses to inflate its own profitability and as a result bankrupting GCU." On this news, the price of Grand Canyon stock fell $4.85 per share, or 4.2%, from its closing price of $114.47 on September 9, 2019 to close at $109.62 the next day. On November 6, 2019, after market close, Grand Canyon disclosed that it had received a letter from the U.S. Department of Education ("DOE") denying the Company's application to designate GCU as a non-profit entity. DOE's denial was based on its findings that GCU was Grand Canyon's "captive client" and GCU "is not the entity actually operating [GCU]." On this news, the price of Grand Canyon stock declined $3.80 per share, or 4.13%, from its closing price of $91.88 on November 6, 2019, to close at $88.08 on November 7, 2019. On January 28, 2020, Citron Research released a second report containing additional details about the DOE's findings and referenced hundreds of pages of documentation GCE had submitted to DOE that Citron obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. The report called Grand Canyon the "educational Enron," and concluded that Grand Canyon used a "captive non-reporting subsidiary" in order to "dump expenses and liabilities, while receiving a disproportionate amount of revenue at inflated margins in order to artificially inflate the stock price." On this news, the price of Grand Canyon stock fell $7.43 per share, or 8.12%, from its closing price of $91.50 on January 27, 2020, to close at $84.07 on January 28, 2020, on extremely heavy trading volume. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America." For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's representation of investors, please visit https://www.lieffcabraser.com/. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] GRANGE INSURANCE: Faces Sweetwater Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grange Insurance Company. The case is styled as Sweetwater Grill, LLC, through its management affiliate 424 WALNUT LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GRANGE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00853-NR (W.D. Pa., June 8, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as "Insurance for Insurance Contract." Grange Mutual Casualty Company, commonly known as Grange Insurance, is an American insurance company based in Columbus, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com GREAT PERFORMANCES/ARTISTS: Appeals Decision in Robinson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs Great Performances/Artists as Waitresses, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from the Decision and Order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, issued on April 27, 2020, in the matter styled BARRY ROBINSON and VINCENT SETTECASI Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GREAT PERFORMANCES/ARTISTS AS WAITRESSES, INC., LIZ BETH NEUMARK, DEAN MARTINUS, LINDA ABBEY, and other related entities, Defendants; and GREAT PERFORMANCES/ARTISTS AS WAITRESSES, INC., LIZ BETH NEUMARK, DEAN MARTINUS, LINDA ABBEY, and other related entities, Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs v. KENSINGTON EVENTS, INC. and TOP SHELF STAFFING, LLC, Third Party Defendants, Case No. 152469/2018. As alleged in the complaint, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff Great Performances/Artists as Waitresses, Inc., located in New York, has catered events in and around New York City and its surrounding areas. Additionally, as set forth in the complaint, Defendant Lizbeth Neumark is the Chief Executive Officer of Great Performances, Defendant Dean Martinus is the President of Great Performances, and Defendant Linda A bbey is the Vice-President of Great Performances. Further, according to the complaint, Plaintiff Barry Robinson (Robinson) worked for the Defendants in various food and service capacities from 2013 at defendants' catered events, including a Bloomberg LLP event in July 2013 and an event at Ellis Island in May 2015. The complaint also alleges that Plaintiff Vincent Settecasi worked for the Defendants in various food and service capacities from approximately 2012 through 2013 at the Defendants' catered events, including an event at Jazz Lincoln Center in November 2012 and the July 2013 Bloomberg LLP event. As set forth in the third-party complaint, Kensington provided staff to Great Performances. In the complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that Robinson was recruited to perform work for the Defendants through a staffing agency. They further allege that during the Defendants' catered events, Robinson's work was directed by the Defendants' employees, including Great Performances' employees Kyle Schanzer and Jenny Baughman. For example, at the July 2013 Bloomberg Event, Robinson and other employees recruited by third party staffing agencies were instructed to sign in and out with employees of Great Performances and were advised "you are working for GP." The main allegation in the complaint is that the Defendants charge a fee to their clients that is not passed along to plaintiffs. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that defendants assess a mandatory charge for catered events. The Plaintiffs further allege that this mandatory charge is not a charge for food, beverages, lodging, or other specified materials, but that the Defendants provided customers with other documents, such as contracts, bills, and invoices that convey a Mandatory Charge. The complaint alleges: "Defendants utilize the same standard forms for numerous catered events that contained a mandatory service charge on it--without disclaiming that the Mandatory Charge was not a gratuity and would not be distributed to the staff. Reasonable patrons would have understood the Mandatory Charge to be in the nature of a gratuity." The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated 12 NYCRR Part 146 and the New York Labor Law by collecting and retaining mandatory service charges without properly advising its customers that the service charge was not a gratuity paid to its service staff. The appellate case is captioned as Barry Robinson and Vincent Settecasi, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Great Performances/Artists as Waitresses, Inc., Liz Beth Neumark, Dean Martinus, Linda Abbey, and other related entities, Case No. 2020-02572, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division: First Judicial Department. Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs GREAT PERFORMANCES/ARTISTS AS WAITRESSES, INC., LIZ BETH NEUMARK, DEAN MARTINUS, LINDA ABBEY, and other related entities, are represented by: Lois M. Traub, Esq. Jonathan M. Sabin, Esq. KANE KESSLER, P.C. 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 519-5120 Email: ltraub@kanekessler.com jsabin@kanekessler.com Plaintiffs BARRY ROBINSON and VINCENT SETTECASI, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Lauren R. Reznick, Esq. BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 208 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 280-3008 Email: lr@belllg.com - and - Suzanne B. Leeds, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C 1 Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 Email: sleeds@leedsbrownlaw.com mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com Third Party Defendants Kensington Events, Inc. and Top Shelf Staffing LLC are represented by: Eric M. Milner, Esq. SIMON & MILNER 99 W Hawthorne Avenue, Suite 308 Valley Stream, NY 11580 Telephone: (516) 561-6622 Email: emilner@simonandmilner.com - and - James K. Haney, Esq. WONG FLEMING 300 East 42nd Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (609) 951-9520 Email: jhaney@wongfleming.com GREEN DOT: Still Faces Hellman Class Suit v. Streit, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------- Green Dot Corporation continues to defend itself in a shareholder derivative suit and securities class action styled, Hellman v. Streit, et al, No. 20-cv-01572-SVW-PVC, in California, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. On February 18, 2020, the lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The suit avers purported breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims, as well as claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on the basis of the same wrongdoing alleged in the class action entitled Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The suit does not define the purported class allegedly damaged. Green Dot said, "These cases have been related. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in these matters." Green Dot Corporation is a provider of reloadable prepaid debit cards and cash reload processing services in the United States. It is also a leader in mobile technology and mobile banking with its GoBank mobile checking account. The company is based in Pasadena, California. GREEN DOT: Still Faces Koffsmon Class Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------- The class action styled, Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et al., is still ongoing in California, according to Green Dot Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. The Company said, "On December 18, 2019, an alleged class action entitled Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, against us and two of our officers. The suit asserts purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements regarding our business strategy. Plaintiff alleges that defendants made statements that were misleading because they allegedly failed to disclose details regarding our customer acquisition strategy and its impact on our financial performance. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our securities between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019, and seeks compensatory damages, fees and costs." Green Dot Corporation is a provider of reloadable prepaid debit cards and cash reload processing services in the United States. It is also a leader in mobile technology and mobile banking with its GoBank mobile checking account. The company is based in Pasadena, California. GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss IPO Class Suits Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Greenlane Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that motions to dismiss the securities class action suits related to the company's initial public offering (IPO) remain pending. On August 2, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company, officers and directors of the Company, and the underwriters for related to the Company's initial public offering. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's registration statement related to its initial public offering included untrue statements of material fact and, or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements in the registration statement not misleading, in violation of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Since August 2, four additional purported class action lawsuits have been filed making substantially similar allegations. At this time, the class has not been certified and the Company cannot estimate the amount of damages (if any) being sought by the plaintiffs. Three of the complaints alleging violations of securities laws as described above were filed against the Company in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit for Palm Beach County, Florida. These cases have been consolidated under the caption In re Greenlane Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 50-2019-CA-010026). The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 9, 2019 and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 7, 2020. Two of the complaints alleging violations of securities laws as described above were filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. These cases have been consolidated under the caption In re Greenlane Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 19-CV-81259). The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 6, 2020 and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on March 20, 2020. Greenlane Holdings, Inc. distributes consumption accessories and vaporization products to wholesale and retail customers in the United States and Canada. The company offers vaporizers and parts, cleaning products, grinders and storage containers, pipes, rolling papers, and customized lines of specialty packaging. It also operates e-commerce Websites, such as VaporNation.com and VapeWorld.com. The company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. GREENSKY INC: NY Supreme Court Drops Consolidated Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of the State of New York has dismissed the consolidated case styled, In Re GreenSky, Inc. Securities Litigation, in its entirety and without leave to amend, according to GreenSky, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. The Company, together with certain of its officers and directors and one of its former directors (the "Individual Defendants") and certain underwriters of the Company's IPO, were named in six putative class actions filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, all of which actions have been consolidated (In Re GreenSky, Inc. Securities Litigation (Consolidated Action), Index No. 655626/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (the "State Case")), and in two putative class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, both of which actions also have been consolidated (In Re GreenSky, Inc. Securities Litigation (Consolidated Action), Case No. 1:2018-cv-11071-PAE (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Federal Case" and, together with the State Case, the "Consolidated Cases")). The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Cases generally assert on behalf of certain purchasers in the Company's IPO claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The Company and Individual Defendants (together with the other defendants) filed motions to dismiss in each of the Consolidated Cases. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion to dismiss the Federal Case, and discovery in the Federal Case is ongoing. On April 22, 2020, the Supreme Court of the State of New York dismissed the State Case in its entirety and without leave to amend. The Company does not know whether the plaintiffs in the State Case will appeal such dismissal. GreenSky, Inc., a technology company, provides point-of-sale financing and payment solutions to merchants, consumers, and banks. It offers a proprietary technology infrastructure that support the full transaction lifecycle, including credit application, underwriting, real-time allocation to bank partners, document distribution, funding, settlement, and servicing functions. The company was incorporated in 2017 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. GRUBHUB INC: Still Faces Stockholder Class Action in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- Grubhub Inc. continues to face a class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. On November 20, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint against the Company, Chief Executive Officer Matthew Maloney, and President and Chief Financial Officer Adam DeWitt in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 19 Civ. 7665. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on its allegation that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's growth, competitive landscape, and strategy. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief. Pursuant to a court scheduling order, the plaintiffs will have until May 29, 2020, to file an amended complaint, and the matter is expected to be fully briefed by November 2020. Grubhub said, "The defendants believe that the lawsuit is without merit and that a material loss is not probable. However, given the early stage of the proceedings, a reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time." Grubhub Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries is a leading online and mobile platform for restaurant pick-up and delivery orders, which the Company refers to as takeout. The Company connects more than 300,000 restaurants with hungry diners in thousands of cities across the United States and is focused on transforming the takeout experience. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois. GRUPO TELEVISA: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- Grupo Televisa, S.A.B. ("Televisa" or the "Company";NYSE:TV; BMV:TLEVISA CPO) on June 9 disclosed that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has denied class certification to a putative class of Televisa stockholders in the case captioned In re Grupo Televisa Securities Litigation, 1:18-cv-01979-LLS (S.D.N.Y.), by reason of an inadequate lead plaintiff. About Televisa Televisa is a leading media company in the Spanish-speaking world, an important cable operator in Mexico and an operator of a leading direct-to-home satellite pay television system in Mexico. Televisa distributes the content it produces through several broadcast channels in Mexico and in over 70 countries through 25 pay-tv brands, television networks, cable operators and over-the-top or "OTT" services. In the United States, Televisa's audiovisual content is distributed through Univision Communications Inc. ("Univision") the leading media company serving the Hispanic market. Univision broadcasts Televisa's audiovisual content through multiple platforms in exchange for a royalty payment. In addition, Televisa has equity and warrants which upon their exercise would represent approximately 36% on a fully-diluted, as-converted basis of the equity capital in Univision Holdings, Inc., the controlling company of Univision. Televisa's cable business offers integrated services, including video, high-speed data and voice services to residential and commercial customers as well as managed services to domestic and international carriers. Televisa owns a majority interest in Sky, a leading direct-to-home satellite pay television system and broadband provider in Mexico, operating also in the Dominican Republic and Central America. Televisa also has interests in magazine publishing and distribution, professional sports and live entertainment, feature- film production and distribution, and gaming. [GN] GSE SYSTEMS: Dropped as Defendant From Joyce Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- GSE Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a court has granted the company's motion to dismiss it from the putative class action suit entitled, Joyce v. Absolute Consulting Inc., and the deadline has now passed for the plaintiff to amend the complaint to allege additional facts supporting reinsertion of the Company as a defendant, therefore only Absolute remains as a defendant. On March 29, 2019, a former employee of Absolute Consulting, Inc., filed a putative class action against Absolute and the Company, Joyce v. Absolute Consulting Inc., case number 1:19 cv 00868 RDB, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit alleges that plaintiff was not properly compensated for overtime hours that he worked. In addition, he alleges that there is a class of employees who were not properly compensated for overtime hours worked. Absolute and the Company waived service and, on May 28, 2019, Absolute filed an answer to the complaint and the Company filed a motion to dismiss asserting that the Company was not the plaintiff's employer and, therefore, not a proper party to the litigation. The court has granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Company from the case, and the deadline has now passed for the plaintiff to amend the complaint to allege additional facts supporting reinsertion of the Company as a defendant. Therefore, only Absolute remains as a defendant. No scheduling order has been issued. Absolute intends to vigorously defend this litigation with the Company's assistance and support. GSE Systems said, "The Company is unable to conclude that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome in this matter is remote or probable, but Absolute continues to deny the allegations and defend the case. The Company has asserted an indemnification claim related to this litigation against the sellers of Absolute." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. GSE Systems, Inc. provides simulation, training, and engineering solutions to the power and process industries in the United States, Asia, Europe, and internationally. It operates through two segments, Performance Improvement Solutions and Nuclear Industry Training and Consulting. GSE Systems, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Sykesville, Maryland. HC2 HOLDINGS: Revised Settlement Accord Filed in DBMG Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ HC2 Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that parties in the DBMG class action have filed with the Court a revised settlement agreement for all claims relating to the January 14, 2020 Amended Complaint. On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint challenging the tender offer by which HC2 acquired approximately 721,000 of the issued and outstanding common shares of DBMG was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil Action No. 10323 (the "Complaint"). On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v. Schuff International, Inc. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 10359. On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (now designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation) and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel. The currently operative complaint is the Complaint filed by Mark Jacobs. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with the tender offer, the individual members of the DBMG Board of Directors and HC2, the now-controlling stockholder of DBMG, breached their fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class. The Complaint also purports to challenge a potential short-form merger based upon plaintiff's expectation that the Company would cash out the remaining public stockholders of DBMG following the completion of the tender offer. The Complaint seeks rescission of the tender offer and/or compensatory damages, as well as attorney's fees and other relief. The defendants filed answers to the Complaint on July 30, 2015. On November 15, 2019, the parties filed definitive documentation in support of a proposed settlement of the action. On January 14, 2020, plaintiff filed an amended complaint restating and elaborating on the claims raised in the Complaint. The Amended Complaint seeks compensatory and rescissory damages, as well as attorney's fees and other relief. On February 13, 2020, the Court held a settlement hearing to consider the proposed settlement and certain objections filed by two current DBMG stockholders. The Court expressed concerns about certain terms of the proposed settlement and the parties requested additional time to evaluate potential modifications to the proposed settlement. On May 8, 2020, the parties filed with the Court a revised settlement agreement for all claims relating to the Amended Complaint (the "Revised Settlement Framework"). The Revised Settlement Framework provides for a settlement payment of US$35.95 per share to a fund for the benefit of the former DBMG stockholders who tendered their shares in the 2014 tender offer other than stockholders who were defendants in the action or their immediate family members, officers of DBMG, or directors or officers of HC2 (the "Tendered Stockholders"). The proposed settlement payment to the Tendered Stockholders applies to approximately 568,550 shares and totals approximately US$20.4 million. The Revised Settlement Framework provides that the amount received by the Tendered Stockholders will be reduced by the per share amount of any fee award to lead plaintiff's counsel. HC2's D&O insurers have agreed to contribute approximately US$12.4 million of this approximately US$20.4 million settlement payment, and DBMG has agreed to fund the remaining approximately US$8.1 million either through cash on hand or borrowing from a third-party lender. The Revised Settlement Framework also provides that HC2 will fund two types of payments to the current owners of the 289,902 shares of DBMG common stock not owned by HC2 or its affiliates (the "public DBMG stockholders"). The first payment of US$2.51 per share, or US$0.7 million total, is intended to offset the indirect burden that the public DBMG stockholders arguably bear (by virtue of their approximately 7.52% ownership of DBMG) from DBMG's funding of the approximately US$8.1 million portion of the settlement payment to the Tendered Stockholders. The second payment of US$1.00 per share, or US$289,902 total, represents consideration for a full release of claims from the public DBMG stockholders related to the action and the implementation of the Revised Settlement Framework. In sum, the Revised Settlement Framework provides that HC2 would fund payments of US$3.51 per share, or US$1.0 million total, to the public DBMG stockholders. If approved, the Revised Settlement Framework would result in a global settlement of the action and the certification of a non-opt-out plaintiff class consisting of any and all record and beneficial owners of outstanding shares of DBMG common stock who held such stock at any time during May 12, 2014 through and including the close of business on May 8, 2020, and including, among others, their successors. The Revised Settlement Framework also provides for a release of claims by the plaintiff class in favor of a broad group of released defendant parties relating to, among other things, the action, the 2014 tender offer, all claims relating to HC2's decision not to close a short-form merger shortly after the 2014 tender offer, and the implementation and funding of the Revised Settlement Framework. HC2 Holdings said, "Although the parties are seeking approval of Revised Settlement Framework, there can be no assurance that the Delaware Courts will approve the revised or any other settlement proposed by the parties. If a settlement cannot be reached, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend this matter." HC2 Holdings, Inc. provides construction, marine services, energy, telecommunications, insurance, life sciences, broadcasting, and other services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and internationally. The company was formerly known as PTGi Holding Inc. and changed its name to HC2 Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. HC2 Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New York, New York. HD SUPPLY: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 21 ------------------------------------------------------------ HD Supply, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 3, 2020, that a Georgia court overseeing a consolidated class action suit will hold a final settlement approval hearing on July 21, 2020. On July 10, 2017 and August 8, 2017, stockholders filed putative class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging that HD Supply and certain senior members of its management (collectively, the "securities litigation defendants") made certain false or misleading public statements in violation of the federal securities laws between November 9, 2016 and June 5, 2017, inclusive (the "original securities complaints"). Subsequently, the two securities cases were consolidated, and, on November 16, 2017, the lead plaintiffs appointed by the Court filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") against the securities litigation defendants on behalf of all persons other than the securities litigation defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between November 9, 2016 and June 5, 2017, inclusive. The Amended Complaint alleges that the securities litigation defendants made certain false or misleading public statements, primarily relating to the Company's progress in addressing certain supply chain disruption issues encountered in the Company's Facilities Maintenance business unit. The Amended Complaint asserts claims against the securities litigation defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and seeks class certification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as unspecified monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and other costs. On September 19, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the securities litigation defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 30, 2020, the parties executed a written stipulation and agreement to settle the litigation for a payment of $50 million, subject to court approval. On February 21, 2020, the Court approved the settlement on a preliminary basis and scheduled a final approval hearing for July 21, 2020. The full settlement amount is covered under the Company's insurance policies. HD Supply said, "The Company and individual defendants continue to dispute the allegations in the complaints, and the settlement is without any admission of the allegations in the complaints." HD Supply, Inc. operates as an industrial distribution company in North America. The company operates in two segments, Facilities Maintenance and Construction & Industrial. The company was formerly known as The Home Depot Supply, Inc. and changed its name to HD Supply, Inc. in December 2006. HD Supply, Inc. is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. HD Supply, Inc. is a subsidiary of HD Supply Holdings, Inc. HEALTHCARE INFO: HatchMed Seeks Payment for Cancelled Tradeshow --------------------------------------------------------------- HATCHMED CORP., on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHCARE INFORMATION AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS SOCIETY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-003377 (N.D. Ill., June 8, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel. According to the complaint, Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant to be an exhibitor and provided funds to Defendant for floor space at the annual tradeshow that was scheduled to take place on March 9 through March 13 in Orlando, Florida. However, the tradeshow was cancelled which was announced via press release by Defendant's "Strategic Communications" Director Karen D. Groppe on March 5, 2020 and Defendant refused to return the funds paid for the exhibit space. HatchMed Corp. is a small business that sells medical devices, beds, and stretchers. Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, Inc. claims to be a "global advisor and thought leader supporting the transformation of the health ecosystem through information and technology" and operates an industry-wide annual tradeshow focusing on the medical space. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas T. Peters, Esq. Nicole L. Little, Esq. FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY LLP 120 South LaSalle St., Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 577-7000 Emails: ntpete@fitcheven.com nlittle@fitcheven.com - and – Peyton J. Healey, Esq. Courtney E. Jackson, Esq. HEDRICK KRING, PLLC 1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 4650 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (214) 880-9600 Fax: (214) 481-1844 Emails: Peyton@HedrickKring.com Courtney@HedrickKring.com HIGH FIVE: Misclassifies Dancers as Contractors, Ellis Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KENDAL ELLIS and HANNAH ROMAN, On Behalf of Themselves and All Other Similarly Situated Individuals v. HIGH FIVE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. D/B/A THE TROPHY CLUB, Case No. 6:20-cv-02028-TMC (D.S.C., May 27, 2020), alleges that the Defendant misclassified the Plaintiffs and all other members of the class and collective as "independent contractors." As a result, the Defendant unlawfully deducted and assigned wages, tips, and gratuities belonging to the Plaintiffs and other exotic dancers, and failed to pay them minimum wage compensation. The class and collective is composed of female employees, who, during May 2017 through the date of judgment in this case, worked as exotic dancers for the Defendant at its Trophy Club Gentlemen's Club in Greenville, South Carolina. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant willfully and intentionally violated their and all other exotic dancers' wage payment and wage/gratuity retention rights in direct violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and the South Carolina Payment of Wage Statutes.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel J. Briggs, Esq. THE BRIGGS LAW FIRM, P.C. 819 E. North Street Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 242-4995 Facsimile: (864) 242-5500 E-mail: sjbriggs@greenvillelaw.net - 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 HUDSON MARKET: Avila Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anselmo Tehuitzil Avila, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HUDSON MARKET 57, INC. (D/B/A HUDSON MARKET), HUDSON MARKET 303, LLC (D/B/A HUDSON MARKET), TERRANCE PARK, CHAN K. PARK, FRED DOE, and STEVEN DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-04338 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 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. The Plaintiff was employed as a salad maker at the buffet line at the Hudson Market. The Defendants own, operate, or control two food markets, one is located in the Hell's Kitchen neighborhood of the Upper West Side, the second is located in the Chelsea Market area of Manhattan's lower west side, both operate under the name "Hudson Market."[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 IDT CORP: Arbitration in Samara Suit Still Ongoing -------------------------------------------------- IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the arbitration proceedings in the class action suit initiated by Scarleth Samara remains ongoing. On April 12, 2019, Scarleth Samara filed a putative class action against IDT Telecom in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana alleging certain violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. Plaintiff alleges that in October of 2017, IDT Telecom sent unauthorized marketing messages to her cellphone. IDT Telecom filed a motion to compel arbitration. On or about August 19, 2019, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the pending court action and the parties intend to proceed with arbitration. IDT said, "At this stage, the Company is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any. The Company intends to vigorously defend the claim." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and payment industries in the United States and internationally. The company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey. IDT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in JDS1 LLC Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the class action suit initiated by JDS1, LLC. On July 5, 2017, plaintiff JDS1, LLC, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders of Straight Path, and derivatively on behalf of Straight Path Communications Inc. (Straight Path) as nominal defendant, filed a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, The Patrick Henry Trust (a trust formed by Howard S. Jonas that held record and beneficial ownership of certain shares of Straight Path he formerly held), Howard S. Jonas, and each of Straight Path's directors. The complaint alleges that the Company aided and abetted Straight Path Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Davidi Jonas, and Howard S. Jonas in his capacity as controlling stockholder of Straight Path, in breaching their fiduciary duties to Straight Path in connection with the settlement of claims between Straight Path and the Company related to potential indemnification claims concerning Straight Path's obligations under the Consent Decree it entered into with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), as well as the sale of Straight Path's subsidiary Straight Path IP Group, Inc. to the Company in connection with that settlement. That action was consolidated with a similar action that was initiated by The Arbitrage Fund. The Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, (i) a declaration that the action may be maintained as a class action or in the alternative, that demand on the Straight Path Board is excused; (ii) that the term sheet is invalid; (iii) awarding damages for the unfair price stockholders received in the merger between Straight Path and Verizon Communications Inc. for their shares of Straight Path's Class B common stock; and (iv) ordering Howard S. Jonas, Davidi Jonas, and the Company to disgorge any profits for the benefit of the class Plaintiffs. On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On September 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Following closing of the transaction, the Delaware Chancery Court denied the motion to dismiss. On February 22, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss. The parties are engaged in discovery. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. At this stage, the Company is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any. IDT said, "The Company incurred legal fees of $1.2 million and $0.1 million in the three months ended April 30, 2020 and 2019, respectively, and $2.5 million and $0.6 million in the nine months ended April 30, 2020 and 2019, respectively, related to this action. Also, in the three and nine months ended April 30, 2020, the Company recorded a gain from insurance proceeds for this matter of $1.4 million and $2.2 million, respectively. IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and payment industries in the United States and internationally. The company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey. IDT CORP: Stipulation of Dismissal Entered in Sanchez Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that IDT Telecom and Jean Carlos Sanchez have entered into a stipulation of dismissal of the putative class action lawsuit initiated by Jean Carlos Sanchez. On May 2, 2018, Jean Carlos Sanchez filed a putative class action against IDT Telecom in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that the Company sent unauthorized marketing messages to cellphones in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. On July 26, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal. The Company is evaluating the claim, and at this stage, is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and payment industries in the United States and internationally. The company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey. IDT CORP: Units Continue to Defend Rosales Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that IDT Domestic Telecom and IDT International continue to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Jose Rosales. On January 22, 2019, Jose Rosales filed a putative class action against IDT America, IDT Domestic Telecom and IDT International in California state court alleging certain violations of employment law. Plaintiff alleges that these companies failed to compensate members of the putative class in accordance with California law. The Company is evaluating the claims, and at this stage, is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any. The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims. In August 2019, the Company filed a cross complaint against Rosales alleging trade secret and other violations. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and payment industries in the United States and internationally. The company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey. INVESTORS BANK: Faces Wilson Suit in Eastern District of New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Investors Bank. The case is styled as Claudia Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Investors Bank, Case No. 1:20-cv-02551 (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property. Investors Bank is a publicly traded, full-service bank that is based in Short Hills, New Jersey, USA. The Bank operates over 150 branches across New Jersey and New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Fax: (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com J. GIVOO CONSULTANTS: Fails to Pay Overtime, Gilbertson Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, ROBERT GILBERTSON, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J. GIVOO CONSULTANTS I, INC. and J. GIVOO CONSULTANTS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06991 (D.N.J., June 8, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay their workers overtime wages. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly rate Maintenance Outage Manager from April 2018 through August 2018. Plaintiff claims that Defendant paid him the same regular hourly rate for all hours worked in a week despite regularly working more than 12-hour daily shifts and over 84 hours per week. Allegedly, Defendants have a policy of compensating their employees a "straight time for overtime", thereby failing to pay them overtime at one and one-half times of their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. J. Givoo Consultants I, Inc. and J. Givoo Consultants Corporation are staffing companies that provide workers to the energy industry, including nuclear power plants and oil and gas operations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. Shanon J. Carson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market St., Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: crodriguez@bm.net scarson@bm.net - and – Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-352-1100 Fax: 713-352-3300 Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-877-8788 Fax: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com JOE'S BARBEQUE: Ratliff Seeks Proper Wages for Cooks ---------------------------------------------------- PAMELA RATLIFF, on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. JOE'S BARBEQUE, INC., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, JOE'S BBQ AND FISH #1, INC., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, JOE'S BBQ AND FISH #2, INC., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, JOE'S BBQ ELGIN, INC., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION AND EVANS WEST, JR., INDIVIDUALLY Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03400 (N.D. Ill., June 9, 2020) is an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance after Defendants failed to properly compensate Plaintiff and other members of the Plaintiff Class at the applicable overtime rate for work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Plaintiff began working for Defendants approximately more than 20 years ago as a barbeque cook and has worked on and off for Defendants during that time. Plaintiff's most recent stint included working continuously from early 2016 through April 2020. Additionally, although Plaintiff was clearly an employee earning wages for Defendants, Defendants failed to adhere to any Internal Revenue Service or Department of Labor regulations related to employment taxes and classifications. Defendants failed to issue Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, any end-of-year tax documents and thereby decreased the amount taxes paid by Defendants to the United States Treasury and depriving Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class of contributions to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Joe's Barbeque, Inc. is an Illinois corporation that owns and operates multiple restaurants operating as "Joe's Bar-B-Q."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 KLX ENERGY: Merger Documents Lack Info, Sabatini Claims ------------------------------------------------------- ERIC SABATINI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. KLX ENERGY SERVICES HOLDINGS, INC., JOHN T. COLLINS, AMIN J. KHOURY, THOMAS P. MCCAFFREY, RICHARD G. HAMERMESH, BENJAMIN A. HARDESTY, STEPHEN M. WARD JR., THEODORE L. WEISE, JOHN T. WHATES, QUINTANA ENERGY SERVICES INC., KRYPTON INTERMEDIATE, LLC, and KRYPTON MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00778-UNA (D. Del., June 9, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public stockholders of KLX, alleging that Defendants disseminated false and misleading Registration Statement with respect to an agreement and plan of merger with Quintana Energy Services Inc., Krypton Intermediate LLC, and Krypton Merger Sub, Inc., in violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9. On June 2, 2020, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends that KLX's stockholders vote to approve, among other things, the issuance of KLX shares in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement omits certain material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading: -- The Registration Statement omits material information regarding the Company's and Quintana Energy Services' financial projections. -- The Registration Statement omits material information regarding the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor in connection with the Proposed Transaction, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC. -- The Registration Statement fails to disclose whether Goldman has performed past services for QES or its affiliates, as well as the timing and nature of such services and the amount of compensation received by Goldman for providing such services. KLX Energy Services Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides oil field services which includes tools, technologies, and equipment facilities. Quintana Energy Services Inc. is a provider of oilfield services to onshore oil and natural gas throughout the United States. Krypton Intermediate, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Krypton, and Krypton Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Krypton.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com LA FONDA BORICUA: Underpays Staff, Miculax and Panzeis Claim ------------------------------------------------------------ HILARIO MICULAX MICULAX and LUIS PANZEIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- LA FONDA BORICUA LOUNGE, INC. (D/B/A LA FONDA BORICUA), JORGE AYALA , and JEREMIAS DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04477 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves, and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Plaintiffs were employed as cooks, a food preparer, and a dishwasher at the restaurant located New York, New York. La Fonda Boricua Lounge, Inc. is a Puerto Rican restaurant based in New York, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 LEE'S SUMMIT: Underpays Female Employees, Spatz et al Claim ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, NANCY SPATZ, DAWN CARL, GAIL GRYGAR, CHERYL PETERSON, TERI HARGRAVE, HEATHER KENNEY, JODI MALLETTE, BETH RATTY, STACY ORF and BROOKE MOREHEAD, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEE'S SUMMIT R-7 SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00448-RK (W.D. Mo., June 5, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged gender discrimination and unlawful employment practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Plaintiffs were females employed by Defendant as field technology specialists. Plaintiffs claim that they were paid by Defendant less than male field technology specialists who perform the same work that requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility. Also, male field technology specialists with lesser years of service were promoted faster than female field technology specialists with longer years of service. Moreover, female principals with their doctorate are placed lower on the salary scale than male principals without their doctorates. Lee's Summit R-7 School District is a public-school district. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George E. Kapke, Jr., Esq. KAPKE & WILLERTH L.L.C. The Chapel Ridge Law Building 3304 N.E. Ralph Powell Road Lee's Summit, MO 64064 Tel: 816-461-3800 Fax: 816-254-8014 Email: ted@kapkewillerth.com - and – Andrew Schermerhorn, Esq. THE KLAMANN LAW FIRM 4435 Main Street, Suite 150 Kansas City, MO 64111 Tel: (816) 421-2626 Fax: (816) 421-8686 Email: ajs@klamannlaw.com LEPAGE BAKERIES: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Bissonnette FLSA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Neal Bissonnette and Tyler Wojnarowski filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum of Decision entered on May 14, 2020, in the lawsuit styled Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, Case No. 19-cv-965, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit arises from the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as distributors. Lepage Bakeries Park St., LLC, manufactures fresh or frozen bread and bread-type rolls, cakes, pies, and other perishable bakery products. The appellate case is captioned as Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, Case No. 20-1681, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Neal Bissonnette, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Tyler Wojnarowski, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Zachary L. Rubin, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: zrubin@llrlaw.com Defendants-Appellees LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, C.K. Sales Co., LLC, and Flowers Foods, Inc. are represented by: Benjamin R. Holland, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 201 South College Street Charlotte, NC 28244 Telephone: (704) 342-2588 E-mail: ben.holland@ogletree.com LEXINGTON, KY: Faces Price Suit Asserting Prisoner Civil Rights --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Francisco J. Quintana. The case is styled as Jacklyn J. Price, Sherea Darnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Francisco J. Quintana, in his Official Capacity as Warden of the FMC-Lexington, Case No. 5:20-cv-00246-JMH (E.D. Ky., June 8, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Francisco J. Quintana was a Correctional Institution Administrator at the Bureau of Prisons/Federal Prison System in Lexington, Kentucky. The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN] LIGHTNING SOURCE: Underpays Employees, Garcia Claims ---------------------------------------------------- The case , ERIC GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIGHTNING SOURCE LLC, INGRAM DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT INC., INGRAM CONTENT GROUO LLC, and DOES 1 through 25, Defendants, Case No. 20CECG01641 (Cal. Sup. Ct., June 10, 2020) challenges Defendants' systemic illegal employment practices in violations of the California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage Orders, and the California Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt employee from approximately May 7, 2018 until approximately February 18, 2020. The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to: -- pay minimum and overtime wages; -- provide meal and rest periods; -- provide accurate itemized wage statements -- reimburse business expenses; and -- timely pay wages due during employment and upon separation of employment. Moreover, Defendants allegedly created an artificially lower cost of doing business in order to undercut their competitors and establish and/or gain a greater foothold in the marketplace by avoiding to properly pay Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class wages and monies. Lightning Source LLC, Ingram Distribution Management Inc, and Ingram Content Group LLC print and distribute print-on-demand books. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. Zachary Gershman, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 777 S. Alameda St., 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Tel: (213) 358-7046 Emails: jon@lebelaw.com zachary@lebelaw.com - and – Michael D. Singer, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 595-3001 Fax: (619) 595-3000 Email: msinger@ckslaw.com LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend Gathmann-Landini Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 3, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA inc. On October 9, 2015, certain current and former hourly employees of the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of New York entitled Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA inc. On December 2, 2015, the case was moved to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various New York labor codes by failing to pay all earned wages, including overtime compensation. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. lululemon athletica inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, distributes, and retails athletic apparel and accessories for women, men, and female youth. It operates through two segments, Company-Operated Stores and Direct to Consumer. lululemon athletica inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in Vancouver, Canada. LYMI INC: Caceres Sues Over Failure to Properly Pay Wages --------------------------------------------------------- The case, CLAUDIA CACERES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LYMI, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV21342 (Cal. Sup. Ct., June 5, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged consistent policy or practice of failing to pay wages in violation of the California Labor Code Section 2698, the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. According to the complaint, Plaintiff sent a written notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) on or about March 16, 2020 concerning Defendants' violations of various provisions of the California Labor Code. However, the LWDA did not respond or provide notice of its intention to investigate Defendant's alleged violations. The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to: -- pay Plaintiff and other similarly aggrieved employees or former employees wages for all time worked, including overtime wages; -- include all forms of remuneration in determining the regular rate of pay; and -- provide itemized wage statements showing accurate overtime rate of pay. Lymi, Inc. designs and manufactures clothes for women. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. James A. De Sario, Esq. Melissa M. Kurata, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Tel: (310) 553-3600 Fax: (310) 553-3603 Website: https://www.nourmandlawfirm.com MAJOR LEAGUE: Appeals Class Action Certification in Supreme Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Henry Schulman, writing for San Francisco Chronicle, reports that Major League Baseball and the 22 teams named as defendants in a landmark lawsuit over minor-league salaries have taken their argument to the U.S. Supreme Court in a final effort to prevent a trial. The defendants, including the Giants and A's, asked the Supreme Court on June 1 to overturn a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that allowed the suit to move forward as a class action. It would cover any minor-leaguer who has played in Arizona or Florida -- essentially all who went to spring training. In its appeal to the Supreme Court, MLB and the teams argue that the Ninth Circuit violated several laws and court precedents in certifying the class action because it includes thousands of players who worked varied hours for different teams who should not be lumped together in a single lawsuit. The Supreme Court is the league's final hope of avoiding a federal trial in a San Francisco courthouse. The top court is nearing its summer recess, which means it likely would not consider the appeal until the fall. The suit, filed in 2004 by Missouri attorney and former Giants pitching prospect Garrett Broshuis, hopes to compel teams to pay minor-league players at least the state minimum wage during the season and in spring training, when they are not paid aside from meal money. The suit also seeks back pay for as many as 10,000 current and former minor-leaguers, according to Broshuis' estimate. The suit has 45 named plaintiffs. Eight of the 30 teams were excluded as defendants because of specifics in their states' wage laws. Broshuis and his firm, Korein Tillery LLC, are basing their argument largely on state law to get around the federal antitrust exemption that protects Major League Baseball and its teams. Major League Baseball officials have declined to comment on Broshuis' lawsuit, but have stated that state hourly wage laws were not meant for professional athletes. "The putative wage-and-hour classes here are composed of thousands of minor-league baseball players who live in more than a dozen different states, played at different positions for dozens of affiliates across 30 Major League Clubs, and were compensated under different terms," the plaintiffs wrote in their appeal to the Supreme Court. Broshuis told The Chronicle on June 9 that the defendants' Supreme Court petition is meritless. "As the filing of our waiver suggests, we believe MLB's petition fails to raise any issue that would warrant the Supreme Court's attention," Broshuis said via email. "Meanwhile, minor-leaguers continue to struggle financially. We're looking forward to the day when we can get back to the trial court and finish prosecuting this case." The issue of minor-league salaries reached the public consciousness long before teams began cutting minor-league players this year amid the coronavirus shutdown and has nothing to do with the $400 weekly stipends that team are paying during the shutdown. In fact, Major League Baseball announced minor-league pay increases in March, with the Giants saying they planned to boost salaries beyond the league-wide pay scale and provide housing allowances to their Double- and Triple-A players. [GN] MARKEL SERVICE: Faces Samaniego Suit Over Gender Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Samaniego and Patricia Brown, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. MARKEL SERVICE, INCORPORATED, a corporate subsidiary of MARKEL CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-05061 (C.D. Cal., June 8, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to redress gender discrimination in employment. The lawsuit is also brought under the Equal Pay Act to restrain the alleged unlawful payment of wages to employees of one sex at rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex, who perform comparable work, and to collect back wages due to employees as a result of such unlawful payment practices. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants discriminated against them and a class of similarly situated female employees by engaging in unlawful gender discrimination in compensation. The Plaintiffs were paid less than similarly situated male construction defect examiners, who were handling construction defect claims, which had a common core of tasks to those performed by the Plaintiffs, according to the complaint. All Senior Claims Examiners and Executive Claims Examiners in Markel's construction defect claims adjusting units should be paid pursuant to the same common compensation policies and practices without regard for gender. The Plaintiffs are females, who were employed by the Defendants as Senior Claims Examiners. Markel Service, Incorporated, is a corporation or other form of legal entity that engages in insurance claims adjusting.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathan Goldberg, Esq. John S. West, Esq. ALLRED, MAROKO & GOLDBERG 6300 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Phone: (323)-653-6530 Facsimile: (323)-653-1660 Email: ngoldberg@amglaw.com jwest@amglaw.com - and - Tod F. Schleier, Esq. SCHLEIER LAW OFFICES, PC 3101 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1090 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: (602) 277-0157 Facsimile: (602) 230-9250 Email: tod@schleierlaw.com MARVIN ENGINEERING: Faces Seward FCRA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marvin Engineering Co. The case is captioned as Shedra Seward, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Marvin Engineering Co. Inc. et al., Does 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-04733-DMG-MAA (C.D. Cal., May 27, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act involving consumer credit. Marvin Engineering manufactures aerospace and defense equipment. The Company provides products, such as missile launchers, ejector racks, test equipment, and other military hardware. Marvin Engineering operates in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Crosner, Esq. Blake R. Jones, Esq. Michael R. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL PC 433 North Camden Drive, Suite 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 496-5818 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com blake@crosnerlegal.com mike@crosnerlegal.com MDL 2221: LaJolla Auto Appeals Antitrust Suit Ruling to 2nd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs LaJolla Auto Tech, Inc., and Qwik Lube LLC filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum and Order dated January 15, 2020, and Judgment dated May 14, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled In Re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 11-md-2221, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted (i) American Express' (Amex) motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration of all the Amex Class' claims, and (ii) Amex's motion to dismiss all of the Non-Amex Class' claims under Federal Rules of Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs bring claims against Amex on behalf of two putative classes: (1) a class of merchants who accept Amex cards pursuant to a Card Acceptance Agreement ("CAA") with Amex; and (2) a class of merchants who do not accept Amex cards and who have no contract with Amex. The action challenges non-discrimination provisions ("Anti-Steering Rules") contained in the CAAs. The Plaintiffs allege that the Anti-Steering Rules unreasonably restrain interbrand price competition among general purpose credit and charge card networks ("credit card networks") because they: (1) stifle competition among the networks; (2) impose supracompetitive merchant fees, with corresponding offsetting credit card user economic benefits; (3) increase the overall price of credit card transactions above competitive levels; and (4) raise consumer retail prices throughout the country, thereby reducing output. The appellate case is captioned as In Re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (NO II), Case No. 20-1766, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LaJolla Auto Tech, Inc. and Qwik Lube LLC are represented by: Michael David Hausfeld, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com Defendants-Appellees American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. and American Express Company are represented by: Peter T. Barbur, Esq. CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP Worldwide Plaza 825 8th Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 474-1000 E-mail: pbarbur@cravath.com MERRIMACK COLLEGE: Lynn Suit Demands Refunds of Tuition and Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- KACEY LYNN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MERRIMACK COLLEGE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00632-PB (D.N.H., May 27, 2020), is brought on behalf of all people, who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at Merrimack, and who, because of the Defendant's response to COVID-19 pandemic, lost the benefit of the education for which they paid, and/or the services for which their fees paid, without having their tuition and fees refunded to them. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has not delivered the educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that she and the putative class contracted and paid for. She adds the she and the putative class are, therefore, entitled to a refund of tuition and fees for in-person educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that Defendant has not provided. The Plaintiff seeks the Defendant's disgorgement of the pro-rated portion of tuition, housing, and fees, proportionate to the amount of time that remained in the Spring Semester 2020 when classes moved online and campus services ceased being provided. On March 10, 2020, Merrimack announced on its Web site that Spring Break, which was originally scheduled for March 9-13, would be extended through March 22 due to concerns over COVID-19. Merrimack announced shortly thereafter on March 13 that beginning Monday, March 23, all classes would be held online through Monday, April 13. Kacey Lynn is a citizen of New Hampshire, who resides in Franklin, New Hampshire. Ms. Lynn is the parent of an undergraduate student at Merrimack. Ms. Lynn's daughter is pursuing a dual degree in Criminology and Psychology. Merrimack is a private college with an enrollment of over 4,000 students. Merrimack offers over 100 undergraduate and graduate academic program through its schools of science and engineering, business, education and social policy, health sciences, and liberal arts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin T. King, Esq. DOUGLAS, LEONARD & GARVEY, P.C. 14 South Street, Suite 5 Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 224-1988 E-mail: benjamin@nhlawoffice.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com swestcot@bursor.com MICHPAT & FAM: Valdez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Valdez, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MICHPAT & FAM, LLC, d/b/a DAIRY QUEEN GRILL & CHILL RESTAURANT, and PATRICIA NAPPO, a/k/a PATRICIA DEMINT, individually, Case No. 2:20-cv-02570 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2020), is brought for damages and equitable relief based upon the Defendants' violations of the Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to her by the minimum and overtime wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff the overtime wages lawfully due to her under the FLSA and the NYLL, according to the complaint. Specifically, the Defendants required the Plaintiff to work, and she did work, in excess of forty hours in a week, yet the Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff at the statutorily-required overtime rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay, or one and one-half times the minimum wage, whichever is greater, for all hours in excess of forty in a week. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly manual worker and then as a "manager" from late-December 2017 until October 25, 2019. The Defendants is a Suffolk County-based Dairy Queen franchise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Minkoff, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821 New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 679-5000 Fax: (212) 679-5005 MIDLAND CREDIT: Weiss Sues in E.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is styled as Yoshia Weiss, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02555 (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc., is a licensed debt collector founded in 1953. The Company's line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal NEBRASKA: ACLU Suit Denied Class Action-Status ---------------------------------------------- Paul Hammel, writing for Omaha World Herald, reports that a federal judge has dealt a major blow to a civil rights group's attempt to force action to relieve chronic overcrowding in the Nebraska prison system. In a ruling on June 8, U.S. District Judge Brian Buescher denied class-action status to the ACLU of Nebraska in its lawsuit against the Nebraska Department of Corrections, and stated that having a federal judge order improvements in health care and reductions in the use of solitary confinement "would be contrary to the idea of federalism." "The Nebraska prison system is operated by the State of Nebraska not the federal government and certainly not by the federal courts," the judge wrote in a 124-page ruling. "Although this court stands ready to defend the civil rights (of) inmates . . . it will not exercise its authority to promote public policy preferences that should be debated, funded, and if enacted, implemented through . . . the State of Nebraska." The ACLU, in a statement, acknowledged that the ruling was a "setback," but said its efforts to seek systemic improvements in the care and treatment of Nebraska prison inmates won't stop. "Nebraska's prison system is in crisis and remains the second most overcrowded in the country. It is rife with racial disparities that can't be underemphasized in this moment. This ruling doesn't change that," said David Fathi, the director of the ACLU's National Prison Project and the lead attorney in the lawsuit. The Nebraska Attorney General's Office, which represented the Corrections Department, said in a statement on June 8 that it was pleased with the ruling, which will dramatically decrease the cost of the litigation. The ACLU filed its federal lawsuit in August 2017, after months of threats to do so. It claimed that overcrowding and understaffing in Nebraska's prison system had led to inadequate health care and mental health care, as well as overutilization of solitary confinement, which can exacerbate mental illness and behavioral problems. Among the 11 named plaintiffs in the lawsuit was an inmate who spent most of a five-year sentence in solitary confinement with only an hour outside his cell each day, worsening suicidal tendencies and mental illnesses; a deaf prisoner who said the lack of an interpreter led to a dentist installing a crown against his wishes; and other inmates who complained of painful delays in surgeries and dental care. Nebraska's prisons now hold about 2,100 more inmates than their design capacity, and have been overcrowded for more than a decade despite some recent efforts to reform sentences and build additional cells. On July 1, a state law will force Gov. Pete Ricketts to declare a prison overcrowding "emergency," which will direct the State Board of Parole to begin reviewing hundreds of parole-eligible inmates for release. But Ricketts and prison officials have maintained that the emergency won't result in the freeing of any inmates, unless they are deemed safe for release into society. Buescher, whose appointment to the federal bench was confirmed 11 months ago, said the lawsuit didn't rise to the level of becoming a class action on behalf of all 5,600 Nebraska prison inmates because the health care needs of prisoners "run the gamut" from no needs to serious medical issues. "The alleged deficiencies in the (state prisons') health-care system are likewise diverse, broad and would require individualized rather than classwide application," the judge ruled. Buescher, citing past decisions in the Eighth Circuit, also ruled that it wasn't the role of federal courts to "undertake overseeing the management of nearly all aspects of the state prison system," but the job of the executive and legislative branches of Nebraska's state government. The ACLU has gone to court in several states, alleging unconstitutional treatment and care of inmates. In California and some other states, the organization has been successful in forcing changes via litigation. The ACLU said that Nebraska's prison system has a disproportionate impact on people of color and those with mental health diagnoses. More than 1 in 4 inmates are black, even though just 5% of Nebraskans are African American, and 82% of state inmates have mental health or substance abuse disorders, or both. [GN] NU LIFE: Faces Brown TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts --------------------------------------------------------------- SHANE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NU LIFE INSTITUTE, INC., a Florida corporation, Case No. 108002500 (Fla. Cir., Miami Dade Cty., May 27, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff contends that to solicit new paying patients, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing with no regard for privacy rights of the recipients of those messages. The Plaintiff adds that the Defendant caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. The Defendant is a medical clinic specializing in anti-aging and wellness treatments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett 0. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305-975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com PARK PLACE BAR: Underpays Kitchen Staff, Castillo et al. Say ------------------------------------------------------------ NELSON OMAR GOMEZ CASTILLO; and FRANKLIN ABEL MEJIA SANTOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PARK PLACE BAR & GRILL, LLC; SERGIO DECIANTIS; CARLO DECIANTIS; PATRICK O'HALLORAN; and MATHEW TESORIARO, Defendants, Case 2:20-cv-02549-GRB-AKT (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2020) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the purported class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as kitchen staff. Park Place Bar & Grill, LLC is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 33 State Road, Suite A-1 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com PENNSYLVANIA: Robinson Appeals Ruling in Reid Suit to 3rd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Not-parties H. Miguel Robinson and Richard A. Poplawski filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Anthony Reid, et al. v. Secretary Pennsylvania Dept., et al., Case No. 1-18-cv-00176, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to declare that the Defendants' policies and practices of automatically confining all death-sentenced prisoners in indefinite solitary confinement with no opportunity for review violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The suit seeks permanent injunctive relief and promulgation of a meaningful, individualized housing placement procedure for death-sentenced prisoners that is based on validated risk assessment instruments and each prisoner's individual circumstances. Anthony Reid, Ricardo Natividad, Mark Newton Spotz, Ronald Gibson, and Jermont Cox have been in solitary confinement on Pennsylvania's death row for between sixteen and twenty-seven years, subjected to indefinite isolation, devoid of mental stimulation, with only limited and sporadic human interaction, confined for twenty-two hours a day in a small cell, illuminated by artificial light 24 hours a day, interfering with normal sleep. Prisoners are allowed to go outside to exercise in a small enclosure for no more than two hours with thrice-weekly showers, occasional trips to the library and sporadic, exclusively non-contact, visits from clergy or family members. The appellate case is captioned as Anthony Reid, et al. v. Secretary Pennsylvania Dept., et al., Case No. 20-2115, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Not Parties-Appellants H. MIGUEL ROBINSON and RICHARD A. POPLAWSKI, at Phoenix SCI, in Collegeville, Pennsylvania, appear pro se.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees ANTHONY REID, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons; RICARDO NATIVIDAD, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons; MARK NEWTON SPOTZ, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons; RONALD GIBSON, PADRP, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons; and JEREMY COX, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons are represented by: Wilson M. Brown, III, Esq. Barry Gross, Esq. Mark D. Taticchi, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH One Logan Square, Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 988-2718 E-mail: Wilson.Brown@dbr.com Barry.Gross@dbr.com Mark.Taticchi@dbr.com - and - David C. Fathi, Esq. Amy Fettig, Esq. Desiree H. Sholes, Esq. Witold J. Walczak, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 915 15th Street, N.W., 6th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 548-6603 E-mail: dfathi@aclu.org afettig@aelu.org dsholes@aclu.org vwalczak@aclupa.org - and - Jonathan H. Feinberg, Esq. Susan M. Lin, Esq. KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG 718 Arch Street, Suite 501 South Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 925-4400 E-mail: jfeinberg@krlawphila.com slin@krlawphila.com - and - Bret Grote, Esq. Jamelia N. Morgan, Esq. ABOLITIONIST LAW CENTER P.O. Box 8654 Pittsburgh, PA 15221 Telephone: (412) 654-9070 Email: bretgrote@abolitionistlawcenter.org jamelia@alcenter.org Defendants-Appellees SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SUPERINTENDENT GREENE SCI, and SUPERINTENDENT GRATERFORD SCI are represented by: Chase M. DeFalice, Esq. Joseph G. Fulginiti, Esq. Timothy A. Holmes, I, Esq. Theron R. Perez, Esq. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 1920 Technology Parkway Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 728-7763 Facsimile: (717) 728-0312 E-mail: chdefalice@pa.gov josfulgini@pa.gov - and - Maria G. Macus, Esq. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 651 Boas Street, 10th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17121 Telephone: (717) 787-4186 PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY: Auburn Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses ---------------------------------------------------------------- AUBURN RACQUET CLUB, INC.; and JACK DRIMMER d/b/a PLEASURE HILLS REAL ESTATE CO., LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02666 (E.D. Pa., June 8, 2020) alleges that the Defendant unlawfully denied the Plaintiffs' insurance claim. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs operated a racquet and fitness club business located at 1255 Racquet Club Drive, Auburn, California. The Plaintiffs purchased a contract of insurance from the Defendant, whereby the Plaintiffs agreed to make payments, in the form of premiums, to the Defendant in exchange for the Defendant's promise to indemnify the Plaintiffs for business income losses. On March 4, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, California Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency for California. On March 19, the Department of Health and Human Services for Placer County (where the Covered Property is located) issued an order ceasing all non-essential business activities. This order was renewed on April 16. The Plaintiffs' business is not included on the list of essential businesses. Also on March 19, Governor Newsom issued a statewide stay-at-home order, which required "all individuals living in the State of California to stay at home or at their place of residence." On March 20, 2020, the Plaintiffs provided written notice to the Defendant of their claim for the interruption to their business. The Plaintiffs submitted timely notice of their claim to the Defendant, but the Defendant has refused to provide the purchased coverage to its insured, and has denied the Plaintiffs' claim for benefits under the policy. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co operates as an insurance company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com kiverson@carlsonlynch.com - and - Todd Carpenter, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com PRIMOS LIVE: Sanchez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Antonia Vargas Sanchez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PRIMOS LIVE POULTRY INC. (D/B/A VIVERO LOS PRIMOS #2), PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, ABDUL DOE, and HAREH DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-04327 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 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 she 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. The Plaintiff was employed as a poultry cutter at the live poultry market. The Defendants own, operate, or control a live poultry market located in New York under the name "Vivero Los Primos #2."[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 PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Fourth Cir. Appeal Filed in Seth Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Mary Lou McDonough filed an appeal from the court's temporary restraining order entered on May 21, 2020, in the lawsuit styled Keith Seth, et al. v. Mary McDonough, Case No. 8:20-cv-01028-PX, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland at Greenbelt. Mary Lou McDonough is the Director of the Prince George's County Department of Corrections. She is sued in her official capacity. The Plaintiffs are detained pretrial at the Prince George's County Jail. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks class-wide relief requiring the Prince George's County Jail to take the necessary steps to safeguard prisoners' health and safety from the COVID-19 pandemic. A subset of the Plaintiffs also request a writ of habeas corpus for prisoners, whose age or underlying medical conditions make them particularly vulnerable to severe illness and death from COVID-19. The Plaintiffs note that there is an uncontrolled outbreak of COVID-19 at the Prince George's County Jail. They allege that the Jail's actions fueled this outbreak, and it has also failed to take appropriate action in response. The prisoners housed there-predominantly pretrial detainees-are under a constant and substantial threat of contracting the disease, and those already infected receive grossly substandard medical treatment (if they receive treatment at all), the Plaintiffs aver. According to the complaint, prisoners, who test positive for COVID-19, are confined in filthy isolation cells, where the walls are covered in feces, mucus, and blood. They are barely monitored and receive no real treatment. By maintaining these conditions, Defendant McDonough has needlessly exposed the people imprisoned in the Jail to a highly infectious and potentially fatal disease. The Plaintiffs argue this violates prisoners' Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Jail also refuses to release COVID positive prisoners-even when they have no legal basis to detain them-until the Jail deems them non-contagious. This violates prisoners' Fourteenth Amendment rights, says the complaint. The appellate case is captioned as Keith Seth, et al. v. Mary McDonough, Case No. 20-6776, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees KEITH SETH, DAVID SMITH, MARIO BURCH, JOHN DOES are represented by: Edward Henderson Williams, II, Esq. WILMERHALE LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006-0000 Telephone: (202) 663-6487 E-mail: ed.williams@wilmerhale.com Defendant-Appellant MARY LOU MCDONOUGH is represented by: Shelley Lynn Johnson, Esq. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW 1301 McCormick Drive Largo, MD 20774 Telephone: (301) 952-3932 RED ROBIN: Settlement Reached in Vigueras & Vasquez Suits --------------------------------------------------------- Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 19, 2020, that the Company is in the process of finalizing a settlement agreement resolving all claims and the costs in Manuel Vigueras v. Red Robin International, Inc. and Genny Vasquez v. Red Robin International, Inc. suits. On July 14, 2017, a current hourly employee filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the Company failed to provide required meal breaks and rest periods and failed to reimburse business expenses, among other claims. The case is styled Manuel Vigueras v. Red Robin International, Inc. and is currently pending before the United States District Court in Santa Ana, California. In a related action, on September 21, 2017, a companion case, styled Genny Vasquez v. Red Robin International, Inc. was filed and is currently pending in California Superior Court in Santa Ana, California and involves claims under the California Private Attorneys' General Act ("PAGA") that partially overlap in the claims made in the Vigueras matter. In the first quarter of 2020, the Company reached a tentative settlement agreement resolving all claims and the cost of class administration in both cases for an aggregate $8.5 million. The Company is in the process of finalizing the settlement agreement, which will then be submitted to the court for approval. Court approval is required before any settlement agreement between the parties becomes final. An additional $4.5 million was accrued to reach the $8.5 million settlement amount during the Company's first fiscal quarter of 2020. Greenwood Village, Colorado-based Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., develops, operates, and franchises full-service restaurants with 556 locations in North America. As of December 31, 2017, the Company operated 480 Company-owned restaurants located in 44 states and two Canadian provinces. The Company also had 86 franchised full-service restaurants in 15 states as of December 31, 2017. ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Withouski Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as STANLEY WITHOUSKI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.; ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC; ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 20-CIV-01730 (Filed April 28, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 27, 2020. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-03550-DMR to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's claims are based on allegations of misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the purchase or sale of covered securities.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: C. Brandon Wisoff, Esq. Eric D. Monek Anderson, Esq. FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP 235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 954-4400 Facsimile: (415) 954-4480 E-mail: bwisoff@fbm.com emonekanderson@fbm.com - and - Maeve L. O'Connor, Esq. Elliot Greenfield, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: 212 909 6000 E-mail: mloconnor@debevoise.com egreenfield@debevoise.com ROD AROY: Fails to Properly Pay Wages & Tips, Juarez Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, NICOLAS GALEANA JUAREZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROD AROY 153 INC. d/b/a LITTLE BASIL THAI RESTAURANT, PHANNITA YITHO and JOHN DOES #1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04437 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged unlawful employment policies, practices, and procedures in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately April 2019 through March 2020 as a food preparer, dishwasher, cleaner, and delivery person. According to the complaint, Plaintiff was paid on a salary basis which varied over time from $490 per week to $630 per week. Although Plaintiff worked roughly 62 hours per week throughout his employment, Defendants paid him the same rates for all hours he worked regardless of the exact number of hours he worked in a week. Plaintiff claims that he generally received tips for his delivery work, but Defendants did not keep records of the tips Plaintiff received and never provided him with any notices or information regarding the "tip credit". Moreover, Defendants failed to provide valid wage notices and weekly wage statements required by the Wage Theft Prevention Act. Phannita Yitho is an owner or part owner and principal of the company, who has the power to hire and fire employees, set wages and schedules, and maintain their records. Rod Aroy 153 Inc. d/b/a Little Basil Thai Restaurant is a restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Tel: (212) 563-9884 Email: dstein@samuelandstein.com ROSS STORES: Denies Access to Restrooms, Marshall Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Marshall, Cindy Rickel, Mitcell M., a minor, by his Next Friend Terry Marshall v. ROSS STORES, INC. dba dd's Discount, Case No. 2:20-cv-04703-PSG-PLA (C.D. Cal., May 27, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated customers to address Ross Store's pattern of arbitrary discrimination at its dd's Discount stores in Palmdale and Lancaster, California. The Plaintiffs contend that they have on many occasions been denied access to restrooms at the stores. They recognize that the stores have a policy to deny public/customer access to its restrooms. Based on online customer reviews, there are hundreds of customers who have been victims to this form of arbitrary discrimination at the stores, the Plaintiffs allege. Ross Stores, which operates under the brand name Ross Dress for Less, is an American chain of discount department stores headquartered in Dublin, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Apemwoyah Kisob Alaric-Lorenzo Esq. KISOB LAW FIRM 3680 Wilshire Blvd., Suite P 04-1147 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: 702 863 4243 Facsimile: 213 383 8080 E-mail: Alkisob@kisoblaw.US SAPUTO CHEESE: Faces Vasquez Employment Class Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saputo Cheese USA Inc. The case is captioned as Don M. Vasquez v. Saputo Cheese USA Inc., Case No. VCU282978 (Cal. Super., Tulare Cty., May 27, 2020). The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws. A case management conference will be held on Sept. 25, 2020. Saputo produces, markets, and distributes a wide array of dairy products, including cheese.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marta Manus, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C St., Ste. 200 San Diego, CA 92101-5394 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 E-mail: mmanus@ckslaw.com SAUL CHEVROLET: Wheeler Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Wheeler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAUL CHEVROLET, INC. d/b/a CARDINALEWAY MAZDA CORONA, Case No. 5:20-cv-01176 (C.D. Cal., June 9, 2020), arises from the illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading the Plaintiff's privacy. On May 15, 2020, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's online Web site, https://www.cardinalewaymazdacorona.com/, to obtain a quote on the price of a new Mazda CX-5 Touring car. At no time did the Defendant inform the Plaintiff that it would utilize the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number to place prerecorded or artificial voice calls as part of a marketing campaign, the Plaintiff asserts. While submitting his email and phone number to receive a quote, the Plaintiff was never presented any language or agreement informing or agreeing that the Defendant would be permitted to place autodialed or prerecorded or artificial voice calls to him, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the State of California. The Defendant operates numerous car dealerships and directs solicitation calls to thousands of consumers in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven S. Soliman, Esq. THE SOLIMAN FIRM 245 Fischer Avenue, Ste. D-1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 714-491-4111 Fax: 714-491-4111 Email: ssoliman@thesolimanfirm.com SCWORX CORP: Facing Suits Over COVID-19 Rapid Test Kits ------------------------------------------------------- SCWorx Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is facing two securities class action suits related to its April 13, 2020 press release with respect to the sale of COVID-19 rapid test kits. On April 29, 2020, a securities class action case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its CEO. The action is captioned Daniel Yannes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. SCWorx Corp. and Marc S. Schessel, Defendants. This lawsuit alleges that the Company and its CEO mislead investors in connection with the Company's April 13, 2020 press release with respect to the sale of COVID-19 rapid test kits. The plaintiffs in this action are seeking unspecified monetary damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these proceedings. In connection with this litigation, the Company may be obligated to indemnify its CEO and any of its officers or directors who incur any liability or expense incurred as a result of serving at our company’s request in such capacity. On May 27, 2020, a second securities class was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its CEO. The action is captioned Caitlin Leeburn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCWorx Corp. and Marc S. Schessel, Defendants. This lawsuit also alleges that the Company and its CEO mislead investors in connection with the Company's April 13, 2020 press release with respect to the sale of COVID-19 rapid test kits. The plaintiffs in this action are also seeking unspecified monetary damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these proceedings. SCWorx Corp. provides software solutions for the management of health care providers' foundational business applications. The company is based in New York, New York. SEASIN'S LLC: Moragomez Seeks Proper Wages for Bartenders --------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL MORAGOMEZ, Plaintiff(s), v. SEASIN’S LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and ANTONIO SERGIO FERNANDES, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-22390-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 10, 2020) is an action arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act to seek redress of Defendants' violations of the FLSA against this Plaintiff during the course of his employment. According to the complaint, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff at or above the required federal overtime wage rate when Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff's minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act as Defendants knew of the minimum wage requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and recklessly or intentionally failed to compensate Plaintiff in accordance with such requirements. Seasin's LLC is a restaurant located in Miami Beach, Florida that specializes in providing authentic Portuguese cuisine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. Melissa Scott Esq. Jake Blumstein, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERSJORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com SECURE COMMUNICATION: Torres Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as WANDA TORRES, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. SECURE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.; BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 30-2019-01113047-CU-OE-CXC (Filed Nov. 20, 2019), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 26, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:20-cv-00980-JVS-JDE to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims for failure to pay overtime wages and minimum wage, and failure to provide lawful meal periods and rest periods or compensation in lieu in violation of the California Labor Code. Secure Communication provides tactical computer systems and solutions. Benchmark Electronics is an EMS, ODM, and OEM company based in Tempe, Arizona in the Phoenix metropolitan area.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Paul S. Cowie, Esq. Brooke S. Purcell, Esq. Andrea L. Isaacs, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: 415 434 9100 Facsimile: 415 434 3947 E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com bpurcell@sheppardmullin.com aisaacs@sheppardmullin.com SECURITY ENFORCEMENT: Fails to Provide Meal Periods, Simmons Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEON SIMMONS, individually, and on behalf of all others aggrieved employees v. SECURITY ENFORCEMENT GROUP, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV19922 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 26, 2020), alleges that the Defendants wrongfully failed to provide the Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees with timely and duty-free meal periods in violation of the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants regularly required the Plaintiff, and the aggrieved employees to work in excess of five consecutive hours a day without providing a 30-minute, continuous and uninterrupted, duty-free meal period every for five hours of work, or without compensating the Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees for meal periods that were not provided by the end of the fifth hour of work or tenth hour of work. Throughout the time period involved in this case, the Defendants engaged in nonneutral time-rounding policies and practices that resulted in the systematic underpayment of wages to the Plaintiff, and the aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff alleges. As a result, the Plaintiff adds, the Defendants have failed to pay all minimum wages and overtime compensation owed to the Plaintiff, and the aggrieved employees. Security Enforcement offers guarding service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Farzad Rastegar, Esq. Stephen F. Biegenzahn, Esq. RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC 22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 200 Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (310) 961-9600 Facsimile: (310) 961-9094 E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com steve@rastegarlawgroup.com SLUMBERLAND INC: Klutho TCPA Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS J. KLUTHO v. SLUMBERLAND, INC., Case No. 20SL-CC01875 (E.D. Mo.), was removed from the Missouri Circuit Court, St. Louis County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on May 26, 2020. The Eastern District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00688 to the proceeding. The Petition alleges that the Defendant violated the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, and seeks to bring a class action for unsolicited communication with the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons. Slumberland retails household furniture.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Alicia M. Goedde, Esq. LATHROP GPM LLP 7701 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 500 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: 314 613 2821 Telecopier: 314 613 2801 E-mail: alicia.goedde@lathropgpm.com STARBUCKS COFFEE: Torres Sues Over Noncompliant COBRA Notice ------------------------------------------------------------ Ariel Torres, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY, Case No. 8:20-cv-01311 (M.D. Fla., June 8, 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 the Plaintiff with a COBRA notice that complies with the law. Despite having access to the Department of Labor's Model COBRA form, Starbucks chose not to use the model form--presumably to save Starbucks money because COBRA coverage is inherently expensive for employers, 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. The Defendant, the plan sponsor and plan administrator of the Starbucks Health 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 Plaintiff contends. Simply put, he says, the Defendant's COBRA notice and process violates the law. He adds that 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. Plaintiff Ariel Torres is former employee of the Defendant and was a participant in the Defendant's health plan. The Defendant is a corporation with its headquarters in Seattle, Washington, but is registered to do business in the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Main Number: 813-224-0431 Facsimile: 813-229-8712 Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com gnichols@wfclaw.com - and - Chad A. Justice, Esq. JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC 1205 N Franklin St., Suite 326 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: 813-566-0550 Facsimile: 813-566-0770 Email: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com STATION MONT-TREMBLANT: Faces Class Action Over Tonik Passes ------------------------------------------------------------ "I have known Barry Nashen for a very long time. Friends and family merely refer to him as "Schmidt," for reasons I never understood. Nonetheless, I always great him warmly as "Schmidty Boy!", Mike Cohen, writing for The Suburban, reports. By day he and his brother Jeff run Nashen Technologies, a go to source for IT solutions and consulting. "Barry is also in extraordinary physical condition, eats healthy and loves the great outdoors. Skiing is among his passions. So when the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in Station Mont-Tremblant skiiers being denied refunds for their Tonik season passes he sprung into action and became the lead plaintiff in a new class action suit. "The pass gave access to 119 days of skiing between November 22 and April 19. Because of COVID-19, the mountain closed on March 15. That deprived holders of almost a quarter of the days they had paid for. "Mathematically, I lost 23 per cent of the days, but 80 per cent of the fun was yet to come," said Barry, adding that he prefers to hit the slopes on beautiful spring days rather than the coldest ones in January. Normally Barry uses his Tonik pass about 20 days per season. This year he completed about half of that. "I wrote to customer service in early April to ask for a refund," Barry explained. "They never responded to my email. It's disrespectful!" Since his subscription had cost him $567 (including taxes), he is seeking a refund of $129, which represents 23 per cent of the days lost (27 days out of 119). He is also claiming a refund of $21 for the unused portion of the Tonik privilege package, which entitles him to 20 hot chocolates, whereas he used only seven. The resort offered "a $50 rebate applicable to the purchase of a Tonik pass for 2020-2021, which is completely insufficient and does not correspond to what the law requires in cases of force majeure," lawyer Joey Zukran of LPC Avocats, who is handling the case told La Presse. In April, another class-action lawsuit was filed in the United States by holders of the Ikon Pass, which serves as a season pass at Station Mont-Tremblant while giving access to the other resorts of Alterra, the U.S. company that bought Tremblant in 2017. Alterra's competitor, Vail Resorts, was also the subject of a class action lawsuit in the United States. But the lawsuit was dropped because the company decided to offer credits ranging from 20 to 80 per cent to holders of its various tickets and subscriptions, including Whistler Blackcomb in BC. In Canada, COVID-19 has resulted in cancellations in a host of other areas, without consumers being able to get their money back. Three class action suits have been launched against airlines. Another is against a dozen companies reselling tickets for shows that refuse to refund tickets for events that have been postponed because of the pandemic, contrary to the Consumer Protection Act. For my friend Schmidt, this is not all about the money: but the principle." [GN] STERLING INVESTMENT: Coleman ERISA Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as JASON COLEMAN and JESSICA CASEY, on behalf of the RVNB Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated v. NEIL M. BROZEN, ROBERT PETERSON, JR., VASILIA PETERSON, PAUL GENERALE, MIKE PAXTON, NICK BOURAS, and STERLING INVESTMENT PARTNERS III, L.P., Case No. 4:19-cv-00705 (Filed Sept. 29, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) on May 27, 2020. The Northern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01358-E to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ada Brown. The action is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 for losses suffered by the Plan and its participants, and other relief, caused by the Defendants when they terminated the Plan and caused the Plan to sell its shares of RVNB for less than fair market value in 2017. Sterling Investment operates as a private equity firm.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas R. Ajamie, Esq. John S. "Jack" Edwards, Jr., Esq. AJAMIE LLP Pennzoil Place, South Tower 711 Louisiana, Suite 2150 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 860-1600 Facsimile: (713) 860-1699 E-mail: tajamie@ajamie.com jedwards@ajamie.com - and - Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson St., NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com STEVENS TRANSPORT: Misclassifies CSRs, Murphy et al Claim --------------------------------------------------------- TINA MURPHY and ROSILYN JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STEVENS TRANSPORT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01483-K (N.D. Tex., June 9, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as Customer Service Representatives. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs and a group of similarly situated former and current employees of Defendant routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid for all overtime hours worked. Because Defendant unlawfully classified Plaintiffs and Potential Plaintiffs as exempt from the FLSA requirement, Defendant failed to pay them at a rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for all the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours. Stevens Transport, Inc. is a freight carrier providing logistics management, intermodal transport, refrigerated trucking, freight transport, and international transport in Texas and throughout the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. Travis Gasper, Esq. BRAZIEL DIXON, LLP 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 12000 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (214) 749-1400 Fax: (214) 749-1010 Emails: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com gasper@l-b-law.com STITCH FIX: Bid to Dismiss Calif. Securities Class Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Stitch Fix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2020, that the court in the consolidated class action suit filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, has taken the company's motion to dismiss under submission. On October 11, 2018, October 26, 2018, November 16, 2018, and December 10, 2018, four putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the company and certain of its officers. The four lawsuits each make the same allegations of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by the company and its officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's active client growth and strategy with respect to television advertising between June 2018 and October 2018. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The four lawsuits have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff has been appointed. On September 18, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated class action lawsuits filed a consolidated complaint for violation of the federal securities laws. On October 28, 2019, the company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 9, 2019, and the company and the other defendants filed their reply in support of the company's motion to dismiss on December 30, 2019. The court has taken the motion under submission. Stitch Fix said, "We believe these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Stitch Fix, Inc. operates as an online subscription and personal shopping platform. The Company offers shirts, jackets, sweaters, blazers, leggings, vests, scarfs, jeans, loafers, and boots for men and women. Stitch Fix serves customers in the United States. Stitch Fix, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. SYMANTEC CORP: Class Certified in SEB Investment's Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as SEB INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SYMANTEC CORPORATION and GREGORY S. CLARK, Case No. 3:18-cv-02902-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly-traded Symantec common stock during the period from May 11, 2017, to August 2, 2018, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby"; 2. appointing SEB Investment Management AB shall as lead plaintiff; and 3. appointing Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP as class counsel. 4. directing all parties within 21 days of the date of entry of the order, to submit jointly an agreed-upon form of notice; 5. directing the Plaintiff along with the Defendants to submit a joint proposal for dissemination of the notice, and the timeline for opting out of the action; and 6. directing the Parties to appear before Magistrate Judge Ryu for the September 14 settlement conference. The Court said, "The Defendants have failed to offer sufficient evidence to establish that the plaintiff would be subject to and preoccupied with unique defenses to the detriment of absent class members. Therefore, this order concludes that the plaintiff has satisfied the typicality requirement of Rule 23. The plaintiff estimates that there are hundreds-of-thousands of investors in the proposed class based on the over six-hundred thousand outstanding shares of Symantec common stock during the class period. This is sufficient to satisfy the numerosity requirement of Rule 13 23(a)(1)." The action stems from allegations that Symantec and its former executive officers defrauded shareholders by manipulating Symantec's financial reports to create the illusion of stronger-than-actual financial performance and outlook for fiscal years 2017 and 2018. Symantec sells cybersecurity products and services.[CC] TAPESTRY INC: Goldman Alleges Phantom Discounts ----------------------------------------------- The case, JANICE GOLDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAPESTRY, INC., and KATE SPADE LLC, Defendants, case No. 4:20-cv-00748-RWS (E.D. Mo., June 9, 2020) challenges Defendants' alleged price-comparison advertising scheme in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff was a customer who bought multiple products for personal, family or household purposes from Defendants' Kate Spade Outlet store located in Missouri. Plaintiff claims that the higher advertised regular price of Defendants' items sold, as reflected both on their attached price tags and on the accompanying receipt, were false and misleading because it failed to represent the actual, bona fide retail price and the actual fair market value. The advertised discounts and percentages off were also false and misleading. Consequently, Plaintiff suffered monetary damages because she did not receive a product worth the higher price value as what Defendants represented through their false comparative pricing scheme. The complaint asserts that Defendants continue to employ such unfair, deceptive, false, misleading, and untrue advertising practices. Tapestry, Inc., previously known as Coach, Inc. and has acquired Kate Spade & Company, is an American multinational luxury fashion holding company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert D. Blitz, Esq. Christopher O. Bauman, Esq. BLITZ, BARDGETT & DEUTSCH, L.C. 120 South Central Ave., Suite 1500 St. Louis, MO 63105 Tel: 314-863-1500 Fax: 314-863-1877 Emails: rblitz@bbdlc.com cbauman@bbdlc.com - and – Matthew Zevin, Esq. STANLEY LAW GROUP 10021 Willow Creek Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92131 Tel: 619-235-5306 Fax: 815-377-8419 Email: mzevin2aol.com - and – Scott A. Kitner, Esq. STANLEY LAW GROUP 6116 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75206 Tel: 214-443-4300 Email: skitner@stanleylawgroup.com - and – Daniel B. Sivils, Esq. 121 Summerbrooke lane Branson, MO 65616-7007 Tel: 417-827-7202 TECHPRECISION CORP: MOU Reached in Former Employees' Suit --------------------------------------------------------- TechPrecision Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2020, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, that the parties in a labor class action lawsuit have reached a $495,000 settlement of the dispute. TechPrecision is a Delaware corporation organized in February 2005 under the name Lounsberry Holdings II, Inc. The name was changed to TechPrecision Corporation on March 6, 2006. TechPrecision is the parent company of Ranor, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Wuxi Critical Mechanical Components Co., Ltd., a wholly foreign-owned enterprise. On or about February 26, 2016, nine former employees, or plantiffs, of Ranor filed a complaint in the Massachusetts Superior Court, Worcester County, against Ranor and former and current executive officers of Ranor, alleging violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act, breach of contract and conversion based on a modification made to Ranor's personal time off policy. Plaintiffs claim that Ranor's modification to its personal time off, or PTO, policy in April 2014 caused these employees to forfeit earned PTO. Plaintiffs assert their claims on behalf of a class of all current and former employees of Ranor who were affected by the modification to Ranor's PTO policy. On March 16, 2020, the parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding wherein the parties agree to a settlement of $495,000, to be paid within 60 days following Court approval of the settlement. TechPrecision Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells precision, large-scale fabricated, and machined metal components and systems in the United States and the People's Republic of China. It offers custom components for ships and submarines, aerospace equipment, nuclear power plants, and large scale medical systems. The company also provides manufacturing engineering services to assist customers. It serves customers in defense, aerospace, nuclear, energy, medical, and precision industrial markets. The company was founded in 1956 and is headquartered in Westminster, Massachusetts. TEXAS FORCE: Wilson Sues to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Brier Wilson and Johnny Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TEXAS FORCE SECURITY AGENCY RAMIRO G. RAMIREZ NINA E. ACUNA, Case No. 4:20-cv-02001 (S.D. Tex., June 8, 2020), is brought to recover the Plaintiffs' unpaid overtime wages due under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs worked over eighty hours per week for the Defendants as commissioned security officers. They were paid a $10.00 per hour but were not paid an overtime premium when they worked more than forty hours, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were formerly employed by Texas Force Security Agency as commissioned security officers. Texas Force Security Agency is a licensed private security company operating in Texas, which is owned and operated by Defendants Ramiro Ramirez and Nina Acuna.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy A. Steadman, Esq. HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1008 West Second Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 501.975.5040 Fax: 501.975.5043 Email: tim@johnholleman.net TIKTOK INC: Faces M.E. BIPA Suit Over Biometric Data Collection --------------------------------------------------------------- M.E., through her guardian, ANNA MARIE EMMERICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TIKTOK INC., and BYTEDANCE INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-03555-DMR (N.D. Cal., May 27, 2020), alleges that the Defendants specifically designed the TikTok and musical.ly apps to capture biometric information, have continued to capture and store biometric information for several years, and have made no effort to comply with any of Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act's requirements during that time. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to establish a retention schedule and destruction guidelines. The Defendants' violations were intentional or reckless, as well as negligent, the Plaintiff adds. TikTok is a social networking platform where users can make and share short videos of themselves lip-syncing, cooking, dancing, or just being silly.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. David M. Berger, Esq. Jeffrey Kosbie, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com dmb@classlawgroup.com jbk@classlawgroup.com TOWNE NURSING: Faces Henry-Cameron Suit in New York Supreme Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Towne Nursing Staff Inc., et al. The case is captioned as HYACINTH A. HENRY-CAMERON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED WHO WERE EMPLOYED BY TOWNE NURSING STAFF INC., BORO PARK OPERATING CO., LLC D/B/A BORO PARK CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE, CENTERS FOR CARE LLC v. TOWNE NURSING STAFF INC., ET AL., Case No. 153521/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., May 27, 2020). Towne Nursing provides certified health care professionals.[BN] TRUMP CORP: Patel Appeals Ruling in Doe Suit to Second Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Raj K. Patel filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated May 26, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Doe v. Trump Corporation, Case No. 18-cv-9936, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court granted in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims (Counts I and II), and their motion is denied with respect to the state law claims (Counts III through VIII). The lawsuit concerns an alleged fraudulent scheme to promote certain third party companies offering multi-level marketing and training programs. The Complaint asserts racketeering and conspiracy claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). It also asserts various state law claims. According to the complaint, the Defendants misled consumers into believing that ACN, Inc., a North-American based multi-level marketing company, offered a reasonable probability of commercial success. They accomplished this by misrepresenting (a) the risk inherent in the ACN business opportunity, (b) the profitability to consumers of the ACN business opportunity and multi-level marketing programs in general and (c) the market for ACN's products and services. Second, Trump falsely represented that the reason he supported ACN was because it offered a reasonable probability of commercial success. He never disclosed that he was being paid millions of dollars for his endorsement. Third, the Defendants falsely represented that Trump's endorsement was predicated on appropriate due diligence, inside information and personal experience with ACN. The appellate case is captioned as Doe v. Trump Corporation, Case No. 20-1706, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Appellant Raj K. Patel, of Indianapolis, Indiana, appears pro se.[BN] Defendants-Appellees Trump Corporation, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump are represented by: Joanna C. Hendon, Esq. SPEARS & IMES LLP 51 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 213-6996 E-mail: jhendon@spearsimes.com TT MARKETING: Miller Sues in W.D. Texas Over Violation of FDCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TT Marketing, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jasmine Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TT Marketing, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 5:20-cv-00690 (W.D. Tex., June 8, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. TT Marketing Inc. is an apartment debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com TURKISH CORNER: Underpays Employees, Garcia Claims -------------------------------------------------- AURELIO VILLA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TURKISH CORNER, INC. (D/B/A ISTANBULBAY RESTAURANT F/K/A ISTANBUL TURKISH CAFE AND RESTAURANT), B Z S TURKISH RESTAURANT, INC. (D/B/A ISTANBULBAY RESTAURANT F/K/A ISTANBUL TURKISH CAFE AND RESTAURANT), ZAFER BOZKURTON (A.K.A ZAFER BOZKURT), SEYRAN SAY, and BLIKI DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02563 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as dishwasher and food preparer at Istanbul Turkish Café & Restaurant from approximately October 2012 until on or about January 2, 2020. Plaintiff asserts these claims: -- Defendants failed to pay him minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked despite working in excess of 40 hours per week; -- Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked; and -- Defendants failed to pay wages on a timely basis. Zafer Bozkurton and Seyran Say are the owners, officers and/or agents of Defendant Corporations. Turkish Corner, Inc. and BZS Turkish Restaurant, Inc. (d/b/a IstanbulBay Restaurant f/k/a Istanbul Turkish Cafe and Restaurant) own, operate, or control a Turkish Restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 Website: https://www.faillacelaw.com/contact-us/ UNITED NATURAL: 8th Cir. Denies New England Plaintiff's Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- United Natural Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2020, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has denied the appeal made by a plaintiff from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin's decision granting Supervalu's summary judgment and Daubert motion. In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against Supervalu alleging that a 2003 transaction between Supervalu and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets. The Company settled with the certain plaintiffs in November 2017. The remaining plaintiff -- called the New England plaintiff -- was not a party to the settlement and pursued its individual claims and potential class action claims against Supervalu. On February 15, 2018, Supervalu filed a summary judgment and Daubert motion and the New England plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and on July 27, 2018, the District Court granted Supervalu's motions. The New England plaintiff appealed to the 8th Circuit on August 15, 2018, and a hearing was held on October 15, 2019. In the second quarter of fiscal 2020, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the appeal. United Natural Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, distributes natural, organic, and specialty foods and non-food products in the United States and Canada. The company operates through three divisions: Wholesale, Retail, and Manufacturing and Branded Products. United Natural Foods, Inc. was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island. UNITED STATES: Pratt et al. Balk at Unlawful Student Loan Process ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAMMIA PRATT, c/o Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School 122 Boylston St. Jamaica Plain, MA 02130, ALICIA DAVIS, c/o Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School 122 Boylston St. Jamaica Plain, MA 02130, BRITTANY SAULSBERRY, c/o Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School 122 Boylston St. Jamaica Plain, MA 02130, MARISOL CASTILLO, c/o Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School 122 Boylston St. Jamaica Plain, MA 02130, CHARLENE ESPADA, c/o Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School 122 Boylston St. Jamaica Plain, MA 02130, and HEATHER BIANCHI, c/o Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School 122 Boylston St. Jamaica Plain, MA 02130, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ELISABETH DeVOS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Education, Office of the Secretary 400 Maryland Ave. SW Washington, DC 20202, and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 400 Maryland Ave. SW Washington, DC 20202, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01501 (D.D.C., June 9, 2020) is a class action brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), challenging the latest effort by the United States Department of Education (ED) to deny borrowers relief under the borrower defense process. The Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge the Partial Relief Rule adopted by ED on December 10, 2019 which wrongfully denies student loan borrowers who have successfully established a claim through the borrower defense process most of the relief to which they are entitled on their federal student loans. Under the Partial Relief Rule, the vast majority of student borrowers receive only partial or no relief from their federal student loan debt, despite having successfully established a borrower defense claim. Pursuant to the Rule, ED determines relief solely by comparing the median earnings of recent graduates of the program the borrower attended—regardless of whether the borrower graduated or when the borrower attended the program—against the median earnings of recent graduates in unspecified programs classified as similar to the program the borrower attended. The Rule does not take into account factors that ED is required to consider under governing regulations, such as the cost of the program for claims based on a substantial misrepresentation. According to the complaint, the Partial Relief Rule is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law because it adopts a formula that fails to account for relevant factors and does not actually measure the harm a student suffers as a result of a school's wrongful acts, ignores regulatory requirements, and applies an incorrect statistical test to unrepresentative and flawed data.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adina H. Rosenbaum, Esq. Adam R. Pulver, Esq. PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP 1600 20th St. NW Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 588-1000 E-mail: arosenbaum@citizen.org - and - Michael N. Turi, Esq. Eileen M. Connor, Esq. Toby R. Merrill, Esq. PROJECT ON PREDATORY STUDENT LENDING, LEGAL SERVICES CENTER OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL 122 Boylston Street Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 Telephone: (617) 522-3003 E-mail: mturi@law.harvard.edu VICTORY HOSPITALITY: Chantez et al Seek Minimum & Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA GARCIA CHANTEZ and AURORA CHAVEZ JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VICTOR HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a RAMADA BY WYNDHAM HOTEL STATEN ISLAND, PRESIDENT HOSPITALITY LLC d/b/a SUPER 8 BY WYNDHAM BROOKLYN PARK SLOPE, SASHIN S. GANDHI and RINAL C. GANDHI, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02590 (E.D.N.Y.) is a class and collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs are current and former housekeepers, laundry employees, and general maintenance staff employees at Defendants' hotels located in Staten Island and Brooklyn, New York. Plaintiff Chantez started working with Defendants since in or around April 2010 to the present, while Plaintiff Jimenez was since in or around 2012 to in or around October 2018 when she suffered an accident at work. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants failed to: -- pay Plaintiffs and the Class Members minimum wages for all hours worked; -- pay overtime wages at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week; -- pay spread-of-hours premiums; and -- provide wage notices and wage statements. Sashin S. Gandhi and Rinal C. Gandhi are the owners and operators of the Corporate Defendants who set the payroll policies. Victory Hospitality Management LLC d/b/a Ramada by Wyndham Hotel Staten Island and President Hospitality LLC d/b/a Super 8 by Wyndham Brooklyn Park Slope operate hotels that serve free breakfast. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 385-9700 Fax: (212) 385-0800 Emails: pelton@peltongraham.com graham@peltongraham.com WELLPATH LLC: Jackson Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Nurses ---------------------------------------------------------- KELLY JACKSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated PLAINTIFF vs. WELLPATH, LLC DEFENDANT, Case No. 4:20-cv-00733-BRW (E.D. Ark., June 11, 2020) is a collective action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendant for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the overtime provisions of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked, including one and one-half times her regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Defendant employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid Nurse from August of 2019 to the present. Wellpath, LLC is a healthcare company based in Nashville, Tennessee and "one of the largest for-profit healthcare providers for prisoners in the U.S."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Hoyt, 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 E-mail: blake@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com WHISKEY ROW: Fails to Properly Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Church Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ORION STRONGHORSE CHURCH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHISKEY ROW NASHVILLE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00476 (M.D. Tenn., June 5, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a bartender from December 2017 to May 2020 and was paid a tipped hourly rate lower than the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Plaintiff claims that Defendant impermissibly allowed non-tipped employees to participate in a tip pooling arrangement and required its tipped employees to pay into a tip pool that directed a percentage of the tips to a third party entity, thereby failing to properly pay its servers and bartenders, including Plaintiff, overtime hourly rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The complaint asserts that Defendant has forfeited its right to utilize the tip credit in satisfying its minimum wage obligations to Plaintiff and similarly situated servers and bartenders by requiring them to share tips with other employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips. Whiskey Row Nashville, LLC operates a restaurant and nightclub. [BN] The Plaintiff is 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 WILLSCOT CORP: Facing Mobile Mini Merger-Related Suits ------------------------------------------------------ WillScot Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on June 10, 2020, that the company is a defendant in two purported class action suits related to its merger with Mobile Mini, Inc. On March 1, 2020, WillScot Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Mobile Mini, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Mobile Mini"), and Picasso Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of WillScot ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (as amended from time to time, the "Merger Agreement") pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of certain customary closing conditions, Merger Sub will be merged with and into Mobile Mini, with Mobile Mini surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of WillScot (the "Merger" or the "Proposed Transaction"). In connection with the Proposed Transaction, WillScot filed a registration statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-237746), originally filed on April 17, 2020, which includes a prospectus of WillScot and a joint proxy statement of WillScot and Mobile Mini (the "Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus"). The registration statement was declared effective by the SEC on May 5, 2020, and WillScot and Mobile Mini commenced mailing the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus on or about May 8, 2020. Following the announcement of the Merger Agreement, two purported class action complaints and two individual complaints have been filed by purported Mobile Mini stockholders challenging the Merger; of those four complaints, two were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and two were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Two of those four complaints also name WillScot and Merger Sub as defendants. The complaints are captioned as follows: Stein v. Mobile Mini, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-00523 (D. Del.); Plumley v. Mobile Mini, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-00528 (D. Del.); Stillman v. Mobile Mini, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-03359 (S.D.N.Y.); and Main Line Capital Investments, LLC v. Mobile Mini, Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-03613 (S.D.N.Y.). The company refers to these actions collectively as the "Shareholder Actions." WillScot and Mobile Mini believe that the Shareholder Actions are meritless. WillScot and Mobile Mini do not believe, with respect to the complaints in which such company is named, that supplemental disclosures are required or necessary under applicable laws. However, in order to minimize the expense of defending the Shareholder Actions, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, WillScot and Mobile Mini are supplementing the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus (the "Supplemental Disclosures"). The Supplemental Disclosures should be read in conjunction with the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, which is available on the SEC's website at http://www.sec.gov.WillScot, Mobile Mini, and the other named defendants deny that they have violated any laws or breached any duties to WillScot's stockholders or Mobile Mini's stockholders, as applicable. WillScot and Mobile Mini are providing the Supplemental Disclosures solely to eliminate the burden and expense of litigation. Nothing in the Supplemental Disclosures should be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality of any Supplemental Disclosures under applicable laws. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://bit.ly/37oEKwi. WillScot Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides various specialty rental services in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The Company is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland. WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Suits Over EarthLink Merger Remain Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- Purported shareholder class action suits related to Windstream Holdings, Inc.'s merger deal with EarthLink Holdings Corp. remain stayed, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. On February 27, 2017, Windstream Holdings completed its merger with EarthLink Holdings Corp. ("EarthLink"), pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") dated November 5, 2016, whereby EarthLink merged into Europa Merger Sub, Inc., an wholly-owned subsidiary of Windstream Services, LLC, and survived, and immediately following, merged with Europa Merger Sub, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Windstream Services, LLC, with Merger Sub surviving and changing its name to EarthLink. Windstream Holdings, its current and former directors, and certain of its executive officers are the subject of shareholder-related lawsuits arising out of the merger with EarthLink Holdings Corp. in February 2017. Two putative shareholders have filed separate purported shareholder class action complaints in federal court in Arkansas and state court in Georgia, captioned Murray v. Earthlink Holdings Corp., et. al., and Yadegarian v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., et. al., respectively. Additionally, two separate shareholder derivative actions were filed during the fourth quarter of 2018 in Arkansas federal court on behalf of Windstream Holdings, Inc., styled Cindy Graham v. Wells, et. al., and Larry Graham v. Thomas, et. al. All of the complaints contain similar assertions and claims of alleged securities law violations and breaches of fiduciary duties related to the disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus soliciting shareholder approval of the merger, which the plaintiffs allege were inadequate and misleading. Suggestions of Bankruptcy and Notices of the Automatic Stay were filed with regard to the Murray, Yadegarian and Graham cases, but the Plaintiffs challenged the applicability of the stay with regard to non-debtor defendants. Windstream filed an adversary proceeding motion with the Bankruptcy Court regarding this challenge. At a hearing on Windstream's adversary proceeding motion conducted on June 17, 2019, the Bankruptcy court agreed to lift the automatic stay temporarily to allow the federal court presiding over the Murray case to hear arguments regarding Windstream's motion to dismiss because it was procedural in nature. Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss were held August 22, 2019, but a ruling has not yet been issued by the federal court. In the Yadegarian case, Windstream agreed to lift the automatic stay for the limited purpose of allowing the state court to rule on pending Motions to Stay or Dismiss filed by Windstream. Both motions were heard on November 18, 2019, with the state court granting the Motion to Stay, pending a decision in the Murray case. While the plaintiffs in the Murray case filed a proof of claim for an undetermined monetary amount, neither the plaintiffs in the Yadegarian nor Graham cases submitted proofs of claim. Windstream said, "We believe that we have valid defenses for each of the lawsuits, and we plan to vigorously defend the pursuit of all matters. While the ultimate resolution of the matters is not currently predictable, if there is an adverse ruling in any of these matters, the ruling could constitute a material adverse outcome on the future consolidated results of our income, cash flows, or financial condition. Windstream did not file a Suggestion of Bankruptcy as a result of the filing of the Chapter 11 cases with regard to this matter as it was determined it would fall under a regulatory exception and is precluded from the automatic stay." Windstream Holdings, Inc. provides network communications and technology solutions in the United States. The company was incorporated in 2013 and is based in Little Rock, Arkansas. On February 25, 2019, Windstream Holdings, Inc. along with its 202 affiliates, filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. WISE TRAVEL: Nieman Alleges Illegal Telemarketing Conduct --------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL NIEMAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. WISE TRAVEL INC. D/B/A SNAPTRAVEL; HUSSEIN FAZAL; HENRY SHI, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-05221 (C.D. Cal., June 11, 2020) is a class action complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants in negligently contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. According to the complaint, Plaintiff received a series of unsolicited text messages from Defendants on his cellular telephone, number ending in -2427 in or about August of 2019. Defendants began to use Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the purpose of sending Plaintiff spam advertisements and/or promotional offers, via text messages, including a text message sent to and received by Plaintiff on or about August 22, 2019, from Defendants. Plaintiff was never a customer of Defendants' and never provided his cellular telephone number Defendants for any reason whatsoever. Accordingly, Defendants and their agent never received Plaintiff's prior express consent to receive unsolicited text messages. Wise Travel Inc. d/b/a SnapTravel is a company offering hotel deals over SMS, Messenger, WhatsApp, and other conversational interfaces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com XPO LOGISTICS: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Robinson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, TERRELL D. ROBINSON, Plaintiff v. XPO LOGISTICS, LLC and XPO LOGISTICS WORLDWIDE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02352-SDG (N.D. Ga., June 2, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was jointly employed by Defendants as a RMA Clerk II at their office in Union City, Georgia. According to the complaint, Defendant promised Plaintiff an additional incentive pay of $250 each weekly payroll cycle starting March 23, 2020 from $16.00 on a weekly pay schedule for physically working in Defendant's office during the COVID 19 pandemic. Plaintiff has only received $635 of his weekly incentive pay since March 23, 2020. Allegedly, Defendants deliberately avoided paying Plaintiff his full compensation earned by refusing to pay his incentive on time and to include the incentive pay as part of his regular rate in computing his overtime pay. XPO Logistics, LLC and XPO Logistics Worldwide, Inc. provide transportation and logistic solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arnold J. Lizana, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III 1175 Peachtree St. NE, 10th Floor Atlanta, GA 30361 Tel: (877) 443-0999 Email: alizana@attorneylizana.com ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Retains PPP Agent Fees, Fahmia Inc. Says -------------------------------------------------------------- FAHMIA, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZIONS BANCORPORATION, N.A., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-05104 (C.D. Cal., June 9, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violation of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act). Plaintiff is a Certified Public Accounting firm which has provided financial services to clients in the Southern California Area for over 30 years. According to the complaint, the CARES Act, which was signed into law by President Trump on March 27, 2020 in response to the economic damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis, has created a $659 billion loan program called the "Paycheck Protection Program" for businesses with fewer than 500 employees to cover payroll and other expenses. Also, The PPP has to be administered only through Small Business Administration (SBA)-approved lenders and agent fees will be paid out of lender fees. However, Defendants have a company-wide policy of refusing to pay the fees of agents, did not want to have any record of the agent information in their files, and retained all of the Agent Fees for themselves; thereby failing to comply with the SBA regulations. Zions Bancorporation, N.A. is a bank holding company that does business under several localized brands. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard D. McCune, Esq. Michele M. Vercoski, Esq. Tuan Q. Nguyen, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel: (909) 557-1250 Fax: (909) 557-1275 Emails: rdm@mccunewright.com mmv@mccunewright.com tqn@mccunewright.com ZUMA NYC: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Luna Claims ------------------------------------------------- RAFAEL LUNA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- ZUMA NYC, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 509547/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings County, June 9, 2020) is a class action against Defendant that seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, misappropriated tips, and other damages for Plaintiff and his similarly situated co-workers -- servers, bussers, food runners, barbacks, bartenders, hosts and other similarly situated non-managerial front-of-house employees who work or have worked at Zuma NYC in New York, New York. During Plaintiff's employment, Defendant applied a tip credit to Tipped Workers' wages and paid Tipped Workers a reduced minimum wage rate. Defendant, however, did not satisfy the requirements under the New York Labor Law or the Fair Labor Standards Act by which it could take a tip credit towards the hourly rates paid to Tipped Workers. The complaint also asserts that Defendant has intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA with respect to Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective as part of their regular business practice. This policy and pattern or practice includes, but is not limited to: willfully failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective, minimum wages for all hours worked up to 40 per workweek and premium overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Zuma NYC, LLC is a New York City-based restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Dana M. Cimera, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 ZYNGA INC: Faces Oeste Suit Over Customer Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- JAMES OESTE, MARISSA OESTE 729 Montravel Court Bel Air, Maryland 21015 on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ZYNGA, INC., 444 De Haro Street, Suite 132 San Francisco, California 94107 Serve on: Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation Corporate Charter Division 301 W. Preston Street, Room #801 Baltimore, MD 21202 CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service 251 Little Falls Drive Wilmington, DE 19808 Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01566-GLR (D. Md., June 9, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of those similarly situated persons, to secure redress against Defendant for the reckless and negligent violations of customer privacy rights following Zynga Data Breach on or before September 12, 2019, where approximately 173 million unique accounts have been created on the Zynga platform. According to the complaint, affected Individuals including Plaintiffs are current and former customers who entrusted Zynga with their personally identifiable information ("PII"), including names, email addresses, login IDs, passwords, password reset tokens, phone numbers, Facebook IDs, and Zynga account IDs. The affected Individuals suffered injury. As a result of Zynga's wrongful actions and inactions, affected individuals' PII was stolen. Affected Individuals who used Zynga’s services have had their PII compromised, their privacy rights violated, and have been exposed to the risk of fraud and identity theft. The complaint also alleges the failure of Defendant to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature and scope of the information compromised in the data breach. Zynga, Inc. develops some of the most popular mobile gaming applications, including Words With Friends, Words With Friends 2, Farmville, and Zynga Poker, among others with headquarters located in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cory L. Zajdel, Esq. David M. Trojanowski, Esq. Jeffrey C. Toppe, Esq. 2345 York Road, Ste. B-13 Timonium, MD 21093 Telephone: (443) 213-1977 E-mail: clz@zlawmaryland.com dmt@zlawmaryland.com jct@zlawmaryland.com ********* 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 ***