/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200619.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 19, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 123 Headlines 11343 PENROSE: Rosario Suit Seeks Minimum and OT Pay Under FLSA ALBERTSON'S: Faces Class Action Over Toilet Paper Price Hike ALTAMONTE CARE: Faces $20MM Class Action Over COVID-19 ALTRIA GROUP: B&C Calls JUUL Labs Investment "Anticompetitive" AMERICAN ADVISORS: Aug. 4 Deadline Set for Settlement Opt-Out AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE: Refuses COVID-19 Losses Coverage, MTDB Says AMERICAN HONDA: Booker Sues over Defective Fuel Pump AMERICAN RECLAMATION: Carroll Suit Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages ANTHEM INC: Fortier Sues Over Wrongful Denial of Claims ATAIN SPECIALTY: Declined Salon's Business Interruption Claims AUSTRALIA: Appeal Likely in Class Action Ruling on 2011 Cattle Ban AUSTRALIA: Cattle Producers Get Favorable Ruling in 2011 Ban Suit AUSTRALIA: Judge Okays $212MM Deal in PFAS Class Action BAYLOR UNIVERSITY: Fails to Refund Tuition Fees, Camarena Claims BIMBO BAKERIES: Misclassifies Distributors, Helms Claims BIMBO BAKERIES: Misclassifies Distributors, Roberts Claims BIRCHES LLC: Sproch Balks at Biometric Data Collection C3/CUSTOMERCONTACTCHANNELS: Black, Smith Allege Unlawful Wage Pay CANADA: '60s Scoop Settlement Claims to Receive Interim Payments CANTEEN 82 INC: Underpays Chefs, Chen Suit Alleges CAPITAL ONE: Fourth Cir. Appeal Filed in Colbert Data Breach Suit CAPPO MANAGEMENT: Underpays Employees, Perez Claims CBL & ASSOCIATES: Continues to Defend Tennessee Securities Action CENTRAL PAYMENT: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in Custom Hair Suit CLAIRE'S STORES: Blind Can't Use Store App, Lucius Claims CLEAN HARBORS: McMurtry Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to D.N.J. CLOUDERA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif. CLOUDERA INC: Hortonworks Merger-Related Suit Ongoing COLONY CAPITAL: Levi & Korsinky Files Class Action Complaint COLUMBIA COLLEGE: Buschauer Seeks Refund of School Fees COMERICA INC: Fahmia Seeks Payment of PPP Loan Agent Fees CONVERSE INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Madeira Labor Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Agreement Reached in Jadan Class Action COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bid to Nix Washington Securities Suit Pending COSTCO WHOLESALE: Canela Suit Still Stayed Pending 9th Cir. Review COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Martinez Class Action COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Rough Class Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Decision to Remand Nevarez Suit Appealed COSTCO WHOLESALE: Opioid Claims in NJ and Oklahoma Dismissed DELL TECH: Bid to Dismiss Class V Suit Underway DELTA PACKING: Barbosa Sues Over Wages, Rest & Meal Breaks DENVER, CO: Faces Class Action Over Police Use of Excessive Force DENVER, CO: TRO Issued Limiting DPD's Use of Less-Lethal Force DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Class Action Seeks Refund of Tuition, Fees DTE ENERGY: Underpays Staff, Aguilar Suit Alleges DUN & BRADSTREET: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action DUNCAN TRUCKING: Underpays Employees, Hart Claims ERIE INSURANCE: Faces Business Interruption Class Action EURO DESIGN & STONE: Underpays Construction Workers, Mariano Says FAIR ISAAC: Suit Alleges Monopoly in Credit Score Market FCA US: Faces Class Action Over Defective Tigershark Engines FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Indirect Customers' Suit Ongoing in Missouri FIRST LINE: Underpays Construction Workers, Maldonado et al. Say FIRST SOLAR: Agreement in Principle Entered in Maverick Fund Suit FLOWERS BAKING: Shepard Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to E.D. Calif. FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Funds Sue over Botched Merger Deal FROEDTERT HEALTH: Mismanaged 401(k) Plan, Bangalore Alleges FRUTAROM INDUSTRIES: Class Action in the U.S. Pending G4S SECURE: Clark and Duffy Sue Over Unlawful Wages GENERAL MOTORS LLC: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Ignition Switch MDL GOOGLE INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Over Incognito Mode GOOGLE LLC: Grand Atlas et al. Allege Digital Ad Markets Monopoly GREAT AMERICAN: Fails to Notify Close of Policy, Tavakolian Says GREAT CONSTRUCTION: Cruz Seeks Overtime Pay for Workers GREIF INC: Suit Over Noxious Odor at Wisconsin Plant Still Ongoing HEALTHEQUITY INC: Purchasers' Class Suit v. WageWorks Ongoing HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Cynes Sues over 18% Drop in Share Price HIGH TECH LANDSCAPES: Underpays Landscapers, Arias Alleges HILL'S PET: Ambassador TCPA Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to N.D. Ill. HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY: Latvala Seeks Tuition Fee Refund HP INC: Consolidated Gensin Class Suit in Israel Ongoing HP INC: Parziale Plaintiffs May Amend Complaint HP INC: Suit by Electrical Workers Pension Fund Ongoing INFINITE BLOOM: Duboise Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts INTEL CORP: Sells Defective CPUs, Blue Peak Hosting et al. Allege JMTJ: Valeriano Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Pay for Delivery Workers KANDI TECH: Time to Appeal Nixed N.Y. Securities Suit Expires KIRKLAND'S INC: Discovery Underway in Miles Class Suit KIRKLAND'S INC: Gennock Suit Over Credit Card Info Underway KODIAK CONCEPTS: Keller Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA LIBERTY MUTUAL: Caterer's in the Park Seeks Pay for COVID-19 Loss LODI MEMORIAL: Mireles Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under Labor Code LOTO-QUEBEC: Elisabetta Bertucci Files Class Action Over Poker LOTO-QUEBEC: Glitchy Poker Platform Faces Class-Action LOUISIANA: Flood Victims Obtain Favorable Class Action Ruling LOYOLA UNIVERSITY: Class Action Seeks Tuition and Fees Refunds MACY'S INC: Underpays Managers, Ptiman Suit Alleges MADERA KITCHEN: Fails to Pay Wages Under Labor Code, Garcia Says MAJESTIC DUDE: Fails to Properly Pay Chefs, House Claims MARKU CONTRACTING: Alvarez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime MARTIN RESOURCE: Linder Seeks Overtime Pay for Dispatchers MDL 2938: Anderson v. Evenflo Co. Over Booster Seats Consolidated MDL 2951: Transfer of Six Actions to Illinois or Wisconsin Sought MERLIN ENTERTAINMENTS: Case Seeks Refund for Cancelled Attractions MINNEAPOLIS, MN: ACLU of Minnesota Files Class Action MOLEKULE INC: Poznansky Balks at Deceptive Claims on Air Purifiers MONEYGRAM PAYMENT: Sends Spam Messages to Consumers, Babare Says MULAN THREE: Flores et al. Seek Unpaid Wages, OT for Laundry Staff MYLAN INC: Dakota Drug Alleges Epinephrine Monopoly NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Morales et al. Sue Over Denied Tuition Refund NEW YORK: Second Cir. Appeal v. Fiorentino Filed in Gulino Suit NIELSEN CITRUS: Mislabeled Lemon Juice Products, Freeze Claims NORDSON CORP: Mediation This Month in Ortiz Class Action NORTH SHORE: Harrison Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA and WWPCL NORTHWOOD: Law Firm Proposes COVID-19 Class-Action Lawsuit NUTANIX INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Cal. Suit Set for Aug. 12 OG COLLECTIVE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bartel Suit Claims OVATIONS FOOD: Harper et al Seek Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: Pinzon Seeks Refunds Due to COVID Closure PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Underpays Servers, Helgason et al. Allege POPULAR INC: Employee Misconduct Suits v. Bank Still Pending PORTLAND, OR: Protesters File Class Action Over Tear Gas Use POTTS LAW: Gore Appeals Ruling in Malpractice Suit to 3rd Circuit PROGENICS PHARMA: Agreement Reached to Settle Lantheus Merger Suit PSCU INC: Underpays Customer Service Assistants, Brown Says QUORUM HEALTH: Zwick Partners Case Still Pending in Tennessee Court RED ROCK AUTO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barton Suit Claims RTI SURGICAL: Continues to Defend Lowry Class Suit SB ONE BANCORP: Parshall Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statement SCHAEFFLER GROUP: July 23 Hearing Set for Proposed Class Settlement SCWORX CORP: Rosen Law Reminds of June 29 Motion Deadline SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Johnson Claims SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Judge Tosses Jackson Residents' Class Action SIENNA SENIOR: Class Action Over COVID-19 Outbreak Pending SIENNA SENIOR: To Carry Out Policy Review Amid Class Action SIGUE CORPORATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Babare Claims SITEL OPERATING: Wright Suit Alleges FCRA Violation SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Class Suits in Calif. Ongoing SOCIETY INSURANCE: Refuses to Cover COVID Losses, Cardelli Says SORL AUTO: Suits Over Ruli International Merger Ongoing SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Calvo Sues over COVID-19 Drug Announcement STATE FARM: Elegant Massage Seeks Claims for COVID-19 Losses SUN HEALTH: Faces Hoyos TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Text SUTTELL & HAMMER: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Bjornsdotter Suit THARALDSON HOSPITALITY: Turnquist Suit Removed to C.D. California TIKTOK: Class Action Over User Data Harvesting Pending in Calif. TOWNE PARK: Ramirez Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to S.D. Calif. TOYOTA MOTOR: Chalal Suit Moved From Pennsylvania to New York TRINITY PROPERTY: Calonia Balks at Collection of Biometric Data UNITED AIRLINES: Miller Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif. UNITED JACKLEAN: Stirling Sues Over Unpaid OT and Minimum Wages UNITED STATES: Detainees Class Action in Florida v. ICE Okayed UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Faces Suit Over Disclosure of Patients' Data USA JAN: Underpays IHOP Servers, Harding Claims VERB TECHNOLOGY: Hartmann Class Action in California Ongoing VILLAGE OF SUGAR: Michalek et al Sue Over Unlawful Termination VIVINT SOLAR: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Dekker Suit WALGREEN CO: Underpays Call Center Agents, Olazagasti Alleges WE COMPANY: False Financial Reports Lured Investors, Kockum Says WELLS FARGO: Faces Perry Suit Over Misleading SEC Statements WILLIS TOWERS: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Aon Merger WORK AND INCOME: Class Action Likely Over Redundancy Payments X FINANCIAL: Defending Chen Class Suit in New York X FINANCIAL: Still Defends Securities Suit in NY State Court ZOOM TELEPHONICS: Continues to Defend Schulze Suit Over Old Modems ZOOM VIDEO: Continues to Defend Suits Over Alleged Data Sharing ZOOM VIDEO: Suits Over Data Privacy & Security Measures Ongoing ZOOM: Major Security Flaws Exposed Amid Shareholder Class Action ZUMIEZ INC: Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied ZUORA INC: Facing IPO Class Suits in California ZUORA INC: Must Defend Against Consolidated Class Action ZURICH AMERICAN: Denied Insurance Coverage, Crescent Plaza Claims [*] Bill 161 to Hurt Plaintiffs Pursuing Care Home Class Actions [*] COVID-Related Lawsuits May Tie Up Canadian Courts for Years [*] Gross Law Informs of Shareholder Class Actions [*] Pace of ERISA Class Action Filings at All-Time High Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Still Face Claims at March 29 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Still Defends Exposure Claims at April 30 ********* 11343 PENROSE: Rosario Suit Seeks Minimum and OT Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- GABRIELA ROSARIO, an individual v. 11343 PENROSE INC. dba LA VIDA GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, a California Corporation; CINDY CHAVIRA, an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-04715 (C.D. Cal., May 27, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated against the Defendants for damages due to the Defendants evading mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and illegally absconding with the Plaintiff's tips. The Plaintiff began working as a dancer for the Defendants in the prior three years to the filing of this complaint. The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility located at 11343 Penrose Avenue, in Sun Valley, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Jacob J. Ventura, Esq. KRISTENSEN LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: 310-507-7924 Facsimile: 310-507-7906 E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com jesenia@kristensenlaw.com jacob@kristensenlaw.com ALBERTSON'S: Faces Class Action Over Toilet Paper Price Hike ------------------------------------------------------------ Evie Fordham, writing for FOXBusiness, reports that a San Francisco woman is suing Safeway's parent company in a California district court alleging price gouging on items including toilet paper in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic. Eleisha Redmond's suit, dated June 3, is a proposed class action against Albertson's, an Idaho-based company that operates supermarkets including Safeway, Randalls and Vons. WHAT IS PRICE GOUGING? "[O]n or about April 13, 2020, Plaintiff paid $18.99 for Angel Soft toilet paper normally priced at $10-11 at that same Safeway location," the suit reads. "Plaintiff brings this action to hold Defendant liable for its unlawful price increases during the COVID-19 pandemic." FOX Business' inquiry to Albertson's was not returned at the time of publication. Redmond's suit, dated June 3, claims Albertson's violates California law that "rightly prohibits profiteering from a public health crisis." "Defendant's price increases were not directly attributable to additional costs imposed on Defendant by the suppliers of the such goods, and Defendant increased prices on many such goods in excess of 10% even when accounting for any additional costs and the markup Defendant customarily applies to the Protected Products," the suit alleges. Worries of price gouging have abounded since shoppers began panic buying in February and March because of the coronavirus pandemic. In fact, Amazon called for federal lawmakers to pass an anti-price-gouging law in May since the e-commerce has worked to block the practice on its platform. [GN] ALTAMONTE CARE: Faces $20MM Class Action Over COVID-19 ------------------------------------------------------ The Canadian Press reports that members of the Canadian Armed Forces working inside long-term care homes could find themselves testifying about the state of those facilities in relation to lawsuits against the institutions. The unusual scenario follows the deployment of hundreds of service members in April and May to more than two-dozen nursing homes in Ontario and Quebec hit hard by COVID-19. Damning military reports later said the troops found cases of abuse and negligence in the homes, including bug infestations, aggressive feeding of residents that caused choking, bleeding infections and residents left crying for help for hours. Stephen Birman and Lucy Jackson of Toronto law firm Thomson Rogers are leading a proposed $20-million class-action lawsuit brought against the Altamonte Care Community on behalf of the Toronto home's residents and their families. The lawsuit against Altamonte and its parent company, Sienna Senior Living Inc., alleges negligence and breach of duty over a lack of proper protocols and training as well as severe understaffing and a lack of proper equipment before and during the pandemic. It is one of several court actions brought against long-term care facilities since COVID-19 first hit in earnest in March, ravaging many homes across the country. Nursing home residents and staff account for the vast majority of COVID-19 deaths in Canada. Birman and Jackson say the troops' firsthand observations could be critical in proving their clients' claims against the home, particularly as lockdowns imposed since March have made it difficult to impossible for residents' families to get into the facility. "The military is in a position to provide very helpful evidence," Birman told The Canadian Press. "They came in as a third party, as an objective observer, and they saw and identified a horrendous and shocking situation that may never have come to the forefront to the extent that it has if not for their involvement." The military report on Altamonte includes allegations most residents did not get receive their medication or proper meals and many had been left in bed for long periods without being moved or washed. There were also concerns about staff shortages and training. Similar observations were made about the other four Ontario facilities, including bug infestations, aggressive feeding of residents and residents being left crying for hours The Quebec report was less critical, but did raise concerns about staff shortages. None of the allegations in the reports or the proposed lawsuit, which was filed on June 1, have been proven in court. Birman and Jackson are now collecting information to bolster their case for getting the lawsuit certified as a class action, which involves talking to as many residents, family members, staff as well as military personnel as possible. Military spokeswoman Lt. Stephany Lura said military personnel had the same obligation to report to their commanders whatever observations they had while working in the long-term care facilities, as they would with any other mission. "Like any other Canadian, CAF members may be called upon as witnesses," she added. "This situation is no different. Our members will receive all necessary support from the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces should it be needed." While inviting service members to reach out to them, Birman and Jackson suggested service members could also be compelled to provide eyewitness accounts and other information through affidavits and other procedures. "I would think everybody who's involved in this important matter would want to hear from the military when this matter makes its way to the courts," Birman said. "We will do everything we can to gather their evidence so it forms part of the record in this case." The military had more than 1,000 service members in 15 long-term care facilities in Quebec and almost 500 in five homes in Ontario. While officials confirmed on June 7 that operations at one of those Ontario homes, Orchard Villa in Pickering, had ended, the military appeared poised to deploy into another home in the city of Vaughan, north of Toronto. "We can confirm that CAF is onsite at Woodbridge Vista to do an onsite assessment," said Gillian Sloggett, spokeswoman for Ontario Minister of Long-term Care Merrilee Fullerton. "We are grateful for CAF's continued support and we will have more news to share about next steps in the coming days." Talks around the continued provision of service members to long-term care facilities in Quebec until September are underway between Ottawa and the provincial government. [GN] ALTRIA GROUP: B&C Calls JUUL Labs Investment "Anticompetitive" -------------------------------------------------------------- B&C RETAIL, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC; and JUUL LABS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03868 (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act, California Antitrust Statutes, California Consumer Protection Statutes, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly-situated business entities in the U.S. which indirectly purchased JUUL e-cigarettes for resale, alleges that the Defendants engaged in anticompetitive agreements wherein Altria agreed to exit the e-cigarette market entirely and instead become a minority shareholder in JUUL Labs. Under the provisions of the Defendants' relationship agreements, Altria is prohibited from competing, or otherwise acquiring an interest in an entity competing, in the e-vapor business for a period of at least six years from closing of the transaction, extendable thereafter unless terminated by Altria. Such agreements illegally restrained market competition in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members were overcharged on their purchases of JUUL's closed-system e-cigarettes and sustained injury to their business and property. B&C Retail, Inc. is a retail business headquartered in Ventura, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a tobacco company headquartered at 6601 West Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia. Altria Enterprises LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of tobacco company Altria Group, Inc. and is located at 6601 West Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia. JUUL Labs, Inc. is a manufacturer of closed-system e-cigarettes with principal place of business located at 560 20th Street, San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Solomon B. Cera, Esq. Pamela A. Markert, Esq. CERA LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 1350 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-2230 Facsimile: (415) 777-5189 E-mail: scera@cerallp.com pmarkert@cerallp.com AMERICAN ADVISORS: Aug. 4 Deadline Set for Settlement Opt-Out ------------------------------------------------------------- Paronich Law, P.C. on June 8 disclosed that a Settlement has been reached with American Advisors Group ("AAG") in a class action lawsuit about whether AAG made unsolicited automated telephone calls, including to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. AAG denies wrongdoing and liability, and both sides disagree on how much, if anything, the class could have recovered after trial, or if a class action could have been maintained. The Court has not decided which side is right. You are included in the Settlement as a "Settlement Class Member" if you are a regular user or subscriber to a telephone number a call was made or attempted by AAG, either directly or by one of their vendors for the benefit of AAG that implicates the protections of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, from January 1, 2017 to May 1, 2020. The Settlement provides $3,500,000 to pay claims of eligible Settlement Class Members, Fees, Costs, and Expenses to Settlement Class Counsel, a Service Payment to Plaintiff, and costs of Settlement administration. Settlement Class Members who timely and validly file a claim may receive between $20 and $40. To receive a Settlement award, you must have a telephone number that is on the list provided by AAG of numbers it called and timely submit a valid Claim Form by August 4, 2020. A Claim Form is available at www.tcpasettlementaag.com. If you don't want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself by August 4, 2020, or you won't be able to sue AAG or others involved with the calls at issue about the legal claims in the Action ever again. If you stay in the Settlement but object to its terms, you must lodge your objection by August 4, 2020. For complete information about the Settlement and to learn more about how to exercise your various options visit www.tcpasettlementaag.com or call 1-855-786-0906. [GN] AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE: Refuses COVID-19 Losses Coverage, MTDB Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MTDB CORP. d/b/a STRIKER LANES, v. AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, D/B/A FIREMAN'S FUND/ALLIANZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-03127 (N.D. Ill., May 27, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated insureds, who suffered damages that have been denied their contractual rights under common policy forms due to the Defendant's decision not to provide coverage for losses stemming from SARS-CoV-2 virus and or COVID-19. The Plaintiff made premium payments expecting in its time of need, Fireman's Fund would make good on its contractual obligations under the policy it wrote and issued, according to the complaint. Then last month, the Plaintiff was forced to shut down its business due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, effective March 16, 2020, during the term of the policy issued by Fireman's Fund to Plaintiff, Illinois Governor Jay Robert Pritzker issued an order closing all restaurants and bars to the public in an effort to address the pandemic. According to the complaint, the Defendant refuses to pay claims under the common policy form(s) issued to Plaintiff and the putative class member. The Plaintiff and the putative class members seek declaratory judgment establishing they are entitled to receive the benefit of the insurance coverage it purchased and for indemnification of the business losses it has sustained. Fireman's is an insurance company engaged in the business of selling insurance contracts to commercial entities, such as the Plaintiff in Illinois and elsewhere.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Antonio M. Romanucci, Esq. Gina A. Deboni, Esq. David A. Neiman, Esq. ROMANUCCI & BLANDIN, LLC 321 N. Clark St., Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 458-1000 Facsimile: (312) 458-1004 E-mail: aromanucci@rblaw.net gad@rblaw.net dneiman@rblaw.net - and - Nicholas A. DiCello, Esq. Dennis R. Lansdowne, Esq. Stuart Scott, Esq. Jeremy A. Tor, Esq. SPANGENBERG, SHIBLEY & LIBER, LLP 1001 Lakeside Ave., Suite 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114 E-mail: ndicello@spanglaw.com dlansdowne@spanglaw.com jtor@spanglaw.com - and - Robert P. Rutter, Esq. RUTTER & RUSSIN, LLC One Summit Office Park, Suite 650 4700 Rockside Road Cleveland, IL 44131 Telephone: (216) 642-1425 E-mail: brutter@IllinoisInsuranceLawyer.com AMERICAN HONDA: Booker Sues over Defective Fuel Pump ---------------------------------------------------- NATHANIEL BOOKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant, Case 2:20-cv-05166 (C.D. Cal., June 10, 2020) is an action against the Defendant for selling and marketing motor vehicles with defective low-pressure fuel pumps that cause unpredictable acceleration and engine stalls, and render the motor vehicles unsafe to operate. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant knew that the low-pressure fuel pumps in its motor vehicles identified as "Affected Vehicles" below contained a defect that causes systemic fuel system failures. Yet, the Defendant refuses to repair or replace such defective systems and continues to sell—and require its customers to drive—its vehicles with the defective fuel delivery system, which could result in injuries or even deaths that could otherwise be avoided. Affected Vehicles include all Honda and Acura models that use the Denso low-pressure fuel pumps and fuel pump assemblies that begin with part number prefix 17045. The Defendant has instituted at least two safety recalls in the U.S. concerning the defective low-pressure fuel pumps, including one on January 29, 2019, when it submitted a recall report to NHTSA voluntarily recalling nearly over 430,000 Honda and Acura vehicles. However, the Defendant did not replace the faulty Denso pump as part of the 2019 recall. Instead, it updated the software on the 2019 Recalled Vehicles, which was cheaper than replacing the pump. This "fix" was plainly insufficient, as the Defendant has now acknowledged: on May 28, 2020, the Defendant submitted a Safety Recall Report to NHSTA, covering the very same pump at issue in the 2019 recall (with the 17045 prefix). Even as the Defendant recognizes the safety hazard caused by the Denso pump, it has refused to recall and fix the 2019 Recalled Vehicles. The Fuel Pump Defect endangers drivers, passengers, and other persons and property in the vicinity of an Affected Vehicle at any time that it is in motion. The Fuel Pump Defect thus renders the Affected Vehicles less safe and less valuable than consumers would reasonably expect and it makes them less safe and less valuable than the Affected Vehicles would be if the Defendant did not design and sell the Affected Vehicles with the Fuel Pump Defect. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. develops and manufactures automobiles. The Company offers passenger cars, trucks, motorcycles, ATVs, generators, marine engines, lawn and garden equipment, parts, and accessories. American Honda Motor serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com AMERICAN RECLAMATION: Carroll Suit Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW CARROLL, individually and on behalf all other aggrieved employees of the Defendants in the State of California v. AMERICAN RECLAMATION, INC. a California Corporation; JOHN R. GASPARIAN, an individual; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV20699 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 2, 2020), challenges the Defendants' systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants' systematic pattern of wage and hour and IWC Wage Order violations toward the Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees include failure to provide compliant meal and rest periods; failure to pay all minimum, regular, and overtime wages; failure to reimburse for all business expenses; failure to maintain true and accurate records; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and failure to timely pay wages due during and upon separation of employment. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee in the position of laborer from October 8, 2019, to November 27, 2019 and paid on an hourly basis. The Plaintiff worked at various locations, including the Defendants' yard located in Los Angeles, California, and trash routes in and around the Los Angeles area. American Reclamation is a solid waste collection and recycling company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arin Norijanian, Esq. James H. Demerjian, Esq. ARIN JAMES LLP 100 North Brand Blvd., Suite 620 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 476-0133 Facsimile: (818) 230-5243 E-mail: arin@arinjames.com james@arinjames.com ANTHEM INC: Fortier Sues Over Wrongful Denial of Claims ------------------------------------------------------- MARIE FORTIER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANTHEM, INC.; ANTHEM UM SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-04952 (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff to address Anthem's practice of improperly denying claims for percutaneous neuromodulation therapy devices made by members under Anthem plans. According to the complaint, Anthem Inc. acts as a fully integrated company that is in the business of insuring and/or administering group health plans within the meaning of 29 Code of Federal Regulations, most of which are employer-sponsored and governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Those ERISA-governed group health plans are hereinafter referred to as "Anthem plans." Plaintiff was at all relevant times covered under an employer-sponsored benefit plan regulated by ERISA and pursuant to which Plaintiff is entitled to health care benefits. Plaintiff's Anthem plan excludes from coverage treatment for services that are investigational. Plaintiff has a history of right knee osteoarthritis and has undergone surgeries for this problem starting with a knee replacement and reconstruction in 2014, a revision in 2015, then another in 2016. The physicians at the USC Chronic Pain Center recommended that Plaintiff undergo a seven-day trial of the FDA-approved Stimwave PNT device to address her chronic right knee pain. Plaintiff underwent the seven-day trial with the device and experienced relief that allowed her to discontinue the use of opioids during that time. A request was then made of Anthem to approve the use of the Stimwave device for Plaintiff on a permanent basis. On January 22, 2020, Anthem UM sent a letter to Plaintiff's physician denying coverage for the Stimwave device on the basis it was "investigational" pursuant to Anthem's coverage guideline, DME.00011. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff and the class members seek the payment of medical expenses, interest thereon, a clarification of rights, and attorney fees. Anthem, Inc. and Anthem UM Services, Inc. are corporations with their principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana. They administer and make benefit determinations related to ERISA group health care plans around the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Gianelli Joshua S. Davis, Esq. Adrian J. Barrio, Esq. GIANELLI & MORRIS, A Law Corporation 550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 489-1600 Facsimile: (213) 489-1611 E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com ATAIN SPECIALTY: Declined Salon's Business Interruption Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- SUNSATIONS TANNING SALON, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATAIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02510 (E.D. Pa., May 28, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of its contractual obligation. According to the complaint, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff's claim for coverage for business loss and business interruption and other claims, contending, that the Plaintiff did not suffer physical damage to its property directly and therefore it is not entitled to coverage for the losses and damages. The Defendant also claimed the policy does not cover losses due to the virus exclusion clause. The Plaintiff and Class members allege that they are entitled because the insurance policy is extended to apply to the actual loss of business income sustained and the actual, necessary and reasonable extra expenses incurred when access to the insured property is specifically prohibited by order of civil authority. The Plaintiff was forced to shut down its business as mandated by local government orders in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff suffered business losses as a result and should be entitled for claims under business interruption and civil authority coverage. Sunsations Tanning Salon, LLC is an owner and operator of a tanning salon with principal place of business located at 1605 Lehigh Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania Atain Specialty Insurance Company is an insurance carrier with principal place of business located at 220 Kaufman Financial Center, 30833 Northwestern Highway, Farmington Hills, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arnold Levin, Esq. Laurence Berman, Esq. Frederick Longer, Esq. Daniel Levin, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com flonger@lfsblaw.com dlevin@lfsblaw.com - and – Richard M. Golomb, Esq. Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 Facsimile: (215) 985-4169 E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com - and – W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Rachel N. Boyd, Esq. Paul W. Evans, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. P.O. Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 - and – Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 Facsimile: (412) 281-4229 AUSTRALIA: Appeal Likely in Class Action Ruling on 2011 Cattle Ban ------------------------------------------------------------------ Shan Goodwin, writing for Farm Weekly, reports that whether or not the Commonwealth will appeal the court ruling that paves the way for live cattle export suppliers to be compensated to the tune of hundreds of millions is still up in the air. However, legal experts say it was likely there would be an appeal. The Federal Court finding that then agriculture minister Joe Ludwig overstepped his authority in ordering the 2011 live-cattle export ban surprised many in the legal business. Rural-based Queensland lawyer Dan Creevey, who has worked on agriculture class actions, said the tort of misfeasance - misuse of public office - was extremely rare, even more so where it involved a high level of public office. "It was a fairly courageous decision and one which involves subjectivity," Mr Creevey said. "When a judge has to assess the issue of the level of whether the ban went further than it should have, it is not a black and white decision. "There is a sense of assessing what in fact was in someone's mind." Mr. Creevey explained there were four elements of the tort that had to be proven. They were being a holder of public office, exercising power incident of that office, exercising power that was invalid, and an element of bad faith. "It's the final one which is the X factor. It is always a big hurdle for a plaintiff to prove and has been a stumbling block historically," Mr. Creevey said. "The test that has been applied as to bad faith is far from clear and Australian decisions from court to court have varied as to what constitutes it." Mr. Creevey said the ruling set a precedent in that it showed courts were prepared to find misfeasance. He felt it did, however, raise concerns about whether courts overstep their role in taking a view on a decision made by a minister. "I'm not arguing either way if that is the case, but I imagine that would be something aired in an appeal," he said. The fact that then Senator Ludwig did not give evidence during the drawn-out legal process may well have influenced the ruling to his detriment, Mr Creevey said. "There is a general principle in law that says if a witness who can give evidence does not, the court is entitled to draw an adverse conclusion as to the fact that evidence would have been against their interests," he said. Hand forced? The defence's decision not to put Mr. Ludwig in the box has raised questions among the cattle industry about the wider Gillard government's role in the decision. Some have interpreted the ruling as painting a picture of a minister headed down the path of an alternative solution until the final cabinet meeting after which the announcement of a total ban was made. In a press conference after the handing down of the ruling, facilitator of the class action Tracey Hayes said: "We heard that something happened (in the cabinet meeting) and the minister's hand was forced." Meanwhile, current agriculture minister David Littleproud is expected to make an announcement on an appeal any minute now. At a rural press gathering in Victoria in early June, he described the decision made by Mr. Ludwig as abhorrent and having ramifications for the whole beef industry. He said his government was working through the implications of the judgement and would engage with the plaintiffs. Mr. Littleproud said he did not intend for the process to be protracted. "As a Federal Government we understand the hurt that has been inflicted by that decision," he said. "But it is a complex judgment -- the implications around executive government and what that would look like in the future is something we would have to make sure we appreciate while also understanding the needs of the plaintiffs." [GN] AUSTRALIA: Cattle Producers Get Favorable Ruling in 2011 Ban Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Aidan Smith, writing for Farm Weekly, reports that the decision handed down by the Federal Court in early June 2020 in favour of cattle producers hit by the Australian government's 2011 live export ban to Indonesia has put governments and ministers on notice, according to Liberal Member for O'Connor Rick Wilson. The ruling follows a class action, which started in 2014, seeking $600 million in compensation for lost income as a result of the ban, which came after an ABC Four Corners investigation based on footage from Animals Australia showed shocking mistreatment of Australian cattle in Indonesian abattoirs. Mr. Wilson said there were "huge ramifications for government" in the decision, that "buckling to activists is not OK, when it is plainly unjust as it was in this case". "The government has been put on notice that it is responsible for the decisions of bureaucracy and the government and ministers, can't hide behind bureaucracy when they are acting unjustly or incorrectly," Mr Wilson said. He said while former agriculture minister Joe Ludwig made the decision while in government, the current Federal government would bare the cost of the ruling with tax payers ultimately footing the bill. "It is not OK to cave into activists when the decision is plainly unjust and wrong," Mr Wilson said. "Businesses and livelihoods were thrown into chaos as a result of the shutdown." He said activists, such as Animals Australia -- which provided the footage of animal cruelty that led to the ban -- had been sending thousands of emails to ministers to persuade them to act against the live export trade, but it was up to ministers to look at all the facts and evidence, as well as the possible consequences of any action before rushing to judgement. The Pastoralists and Graziers Association said it was "time for governments to consult rather than react". "This ruling over the 2011 ban, described by Justice Rares as 'capricious' and 'unreasonable', clearly illustrates the continual practice of knee jerk policy decisions made by government bureaucrats in Canberra when dealing with the live export industry," said PGA president Tony Seabrook. "One only has to look at the 2018 suspension of sheep exports out of WA to show that there is a serious and continual practice of government policy being based on responses to current affairs programs such as 60 Minutes and Four Corners, which constantly show the live export industry in the most negative light possible, rather than showcasing the positives about the industry, and the tremendous job exporters do in ensuring the health and welfare of the animals on these voyages. "Our government bureaucrats are basing their decisions to suspend or ban live exports to a particular country, or during a particular season, on a small sector of the public's reaction after watching a heavily edited television program, with no consideration given to the impact it will have on producers, exporters, as well as our overseas customers. "It is high time that our elected MPs and ministers learned this lesson and put an end to this practice within their department, which has now been ruled by the Federal Court as unlawful." Hedland Export Depot manager Paul Brown said it was "a good day" as he had been part of the class action from the beginning. He said the decision of the government in 2011 affected not just the northern cattle trade but the whole industry as cattle from the north had to be sold into the southern market which "collapsed the prices" locally. "It was no fault of Australian cattle producers or the wider industry," Mr. Brown said. He said it was a bad decision because "you can't blame the behaviour of Indonesian abattoirs" -- who up to that time were operating within their laws -- "on Australian cattle producers". "This was not about live export or animal welfare," Mr. Brown said. "The minister made an unlawful decision without taking into consideration the impact that would have. "This has an impact across all ministers, federally and at the State level. "It sets a much higher bar in terms of making decisions. "This is a monumental decision and is good for everybody. "It sets a new standard." Mr. Brown said governments will no longer be able to make deals in parliament for political gain which affected industries unjustly. He said the industry had moved on and the decision would allow just compensation but the government still had 28 days to appeal and there were also hearings scheduled to work out the details of how the compensation would be administered. Kimberley Pilbara Cattlemen's Association chief executive officer Emma White said pastoralists were "happy with the result" and felt "vindicated by it". "This is significant for the industry," Ms. White said. "It highlights the importance of good decision making and not making knee jerk reactions." The KPCA was still going through the details of the decision and also the administration process. "It's not the end of it yet," Ms. White said. "Hopefully the government." [GN] AUSTRALIA: Judge Okays $212MM Deal in PFAS Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Carrie Fellner, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that a federal court judge has approved the $212 million settlement of three class action lawsuits over firefighting contamination caused by the Department of Defence. In a judgment delivered late on June 5, Justice Michael Lee also directed additional money towards a family who suffered "remarkable" abuse, including being spat on by other community members, after taking a leading role in the class action. The action was launched by residents near military bases at Williamtown, near Newcastle, Oakey in Queensland and Katherine in the Northern Territory whose properties were polluted with toxic per- and poly-fluoroalkyl chemicals [PFAS]. Justice Lee acknowledged the disillusionment of some residents who feared the compensation offered would not be adequate. However Justice Lee concluded the settlement was not only fair and reasonable, but could be "described as excellent" when compared to the total possible sum that could have been recovered at trial. Williamtown residents settled the case for 97 per cent of the maximum amount they could have won at trial, while for Oakey the figure was 103 per cent and Katherine 109 per cent. A trial would have carried a significant degree of risk as complex questions of causation and liability were debated, Justice Lee said. He noted some of the angst related to deductions from the settlement that will leave victims with $126 million of their $212 million payout. The litigation funder that bankrolled the case, Omni Bridgeway, will take $53.1 million in profits and $940,000 for out of pocket costs. Lawyers from Dentons and Shine law firms will receive $30.1 million to cover their costs. Around $2 million will be used to distribute the funds and more than $100,000 will go to the community members who took a leading role in the case. Justice Lee noted the legal fees might seem "staggering" and "extraordinarily large" to the uninitiated. However, Omni Bridgeway had taken $35 million less than what it was contractually entitled to. Chief executive Andrew Saker told the Herald this was a "proactive measure to improve the returns to group members" and the step was taken before the announcement of a parliamentary inquiry into litigation funding. "Objections represented approximately three percent of group members," he noted. An independent expert appointed by the court had found the costs incurred by Shine and Dentons lawyers to be reasonable. Justice Lee noted legal costs could have been reduced if the case had been run as one class action covering all three towns. Mr. Saker stressed this was a choice made by clients rather than Omni, and efforts were made to reduce duplication of costs. Justice Lee noted the live debate about litigation funders and said they often misused the phrase "access to justice" to justify what at its heart was "a commercial endeavour to make money". However, without the litigation funder, it was unlikely victims of PFAS contamination would have been able to battle for compensation in court, Justice Lee said. Rather they would have been left to request compensation "in circumstances where they would have been the subject of a significant inequality of arms". Williamtown resident Lindsay Clout labelled the approval "momentous" but argued that "communities should not need to take the very people charged with protecting them … to court". Justice Lee drew particular attention to the plight of Oakey man Bradley Hudson and his family, who had been the subject of "sustained verbal abuse by disgruntled community members" after taking a lead role in the case. The Hudsons had been targeted at their cafe by residents who believed drawing attention to the contamination would stigmatise the town and devalue properties. "Mr Hudson in particular has suffered great distress and vexation," Justice Lee said. "Which includes -- as remarkable as it may seem -- being spat upon or spat at while on the main street of Oakey." He ordered additional funds from the settlement be directed to Mr Hudson. An independent party will also be appointed to review the individual distribution of the funds. [GN] BAYLOR UNIVERSITY: Fails to Refund Tuition Fees, Camarena Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- NABOR CAMARENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYLOR UNIVERSITY; and BOARD OF REGENTS OF BAYLOR UNIVERSITY, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01436 (N.D. Tex., June 5, 2020) is a class action brought on brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals who have paid tuition and fees for on-campus courses at Baylor University and who have not been refunded a prorated portion thereof after Baylor abruptly closed its doors to students and shifted to substandard online instruction due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19"). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class members are students, families, and student guarantors who paid millions of dollars in tuition and fees at Baylor University and who, as a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts, (i) have not received refunds or reimbursements for the unused services for which they paid; and/or (ii) have not received any refund or reimbursement for the decreased value of the education that Defendants began providing when classes transitioned from in-person instruction to an entirely untested online and less valuable format. The Plaintiff and other Class members have lost the benefits of the education, services, extra-curricular opportunities, and other experiences that the Defendants promised them. Despite failing to fulfill their obligations, the Defendants are currently unlawfully retaining and refusing to fully or partially refund the Plaintiff's tuition and mandatory fees, despite the dramatically lower quality and less valuable education and services the Defendants provided for the second half of the Spring 2020 semester. Baylor University is located in the County of McLennan in the City of Waco in the State of Texas. The University offers degrees in undergraduate and graduate level degree curriculum. The University provides degrees in arts, science, education, engineering, computer science, business, music, nursing, and social work. Baylor serves domestic and international students. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek, Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 43 Southeast Main Street, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net - and - Glen L. Abramson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: gabramson@bm.net BIMBO BAKERIES: Misclassifies Distributors, Helms Claims -------------------------------------------------------- The case, CHAD HELMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC. and BIMBO FOODS BAKERIES DISTRIBUTION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00207-LEW (D. Maine, June 15, 2020) challenges Defendants' alleged unlawful misclassification of employees and wage deduction in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Maine's wage payment and deduction statute, and Maine's overtime statute. Plaintiff worked for Defendants from approximately June 2013 to May 2020 as a Distributor or IBP to deliver breads and baked goods on behalf of Defendants in Maine. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other IBPs generally worked approximately 45 to 50 hours per week. But, because Defendants misclassified them as non-exempt independent contractors, Defendant failed to pay them overtime premium at one and one-half times their regular rate for their hours worked over 40. Moreover, Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff and the members of the class for their work-related expenses. Instead, Defendants benefited from Plaintiff and the members of the class by requiring them to incur certain wage deductions and expenses. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. and Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC deliver and distribute breads and baked goods to grocery stores and other outlets across the U.S. under the brand names Sara Lee, nature's Harvest, and others. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin I. Grant, Esq. KAPLAN & GRANT 136 Commercial St., Suite 302 Portland, ME 04101 Tel: (207) 780-6700 Email: bgrant@kaplanandgrant.com - and – Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Matthew W. Thomson, Esq. Zachary L. Rubin, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St. Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Tel: (617) 994-5800 Fax: (617) 994-5801 Emails: hlichten@llrlaw.com mthomson@llrlaw.com zrubin@llrlaw.com BIMBO BAKERIES: Misclassifies Distributors, Roberts Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, ANDRE ROBERTS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC. and BIMBO FOODS BAKERIES DISTRIBUTION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-40065 (D. Mass., June 4, 2020) challenges Defendants' alleged unlawful misclassification of their employees in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts Wage Act. Plaintiff worked for Defendant from approximately March 2012 through 2019 as a distributor to deliver and distribute breads and baked goods within specific geographic regions in Massachusetts. Plaintiff claims that he worked approximately 60 hours per week during his tenure working for Defendants. But, Defendants do not provide any overtime premium for those hours worked over 40 each week. The complaint asserts that Defendants: -- misclassified Plaintiff and other similarly situated distributors as independent contractors rather than employees; -- unlawfully deprived them of the wage treatment and benefits accorded employees; and -- failed to reimburse them for work-related expenses they incurred. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. and Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC deliver breads and baked goods to grocery stores and other outlets across the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Matthew W. Thomson, Esq. Zachary L. Rubin, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Tel: (617) 994-5800 Fax: (617) 994-5801 Emails: hlichten@llrlaw.com mthomson@llrlaw.com zrubin@llrlaw.com BIRCHES LLC: Sproch Balks at Biometric Data Collection ------------------------------------------------------ KIMBERLY M. SPROCH individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE BIRCHES, LLC. Defendant, Case No. 2020L000615 (Ill. Cir., 18th Judicial, Dupage Cty., June 12, 2020) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant to put a stop to its unlawful collection, use, and storage of Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' sensitive biometric data in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The complaint asserts that when employees first begin their jobs at Birches, they are required to scan their fingerprint in its biometric time tracking system as a means of authentication, instead of using only key fobs or other identification cards. Birches disregarded its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the BIPA. Specifically, Birches has violated (and continues to violate) the BIPA because it did not: a) Properly inform Plaintiff and the Class members in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as required by the BIPA; b) Provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's and the Class' fingerprints, as required by the BIPA; nor c) Receive a written release from Plaintiff or the members of the Class to collect, capture, or otherwise obtain fingerprints, as required by the BIPA. The complaint seeks an order: (i) declaring that Defendant's conduct violates the BIPA; (ii) requiring Defendant to cease the unlawful activities discussed herein; and (iii) awarding liquidated damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class. The Birches, LLC is an Assisted Living Facility located in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Fish, Esq. Mara Baltabols, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355-7590 Facsimile: (630) 778-0400 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com mara@fishlawfirm.com C3/CUSTOMERCONTACTCHANNELS: Black, Smith Allege Unlawful Wage Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMBER BLACK and TABITHA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. C3/CUSTOMERCONTACTCHANNELS, INC. and C3/CUSTOMERCONTACT CHANNELS HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00528 (W.D. Tex., May 15, 2020) is a collective and class action brought by the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons employed by Defendants, arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arizona Wage Act ("AWA"). According to the complaint, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and all similarly situated persons their full compensation over the past three years, failed to pay their employees for the preliminary work completed before their shift, failed to provide their employees paid rest periods, forced employees to work during their unpaid meal periods, and systematically denied their employees overtime compensation. Both Plaintiffs were employed as a customer service representatives by Defendants from 2015 to 2017 and, again, 2018 to 2019. C3/CustomerContactChannels, Inc. is a Texas based customer-relationship management company which provides call center support for various companies across the U.S. C3/CustomerContact Channels Holdings, Inc. is a Texas based customer-relationship management company which provides call center support for various companies across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Derek Hilley, Esq. Carlos Solis, Esq. HILLEY & SOLIS LAW, PLLC 6243 IH-10 W, Suite 503 San Antonio, TX 78201 Telephone: (210) 446-5000 Facsimile: (210) 446-5000 Email: dhilley@hilley-solis.com dhilley@hilley-solis.com - and - Thomas Joseph McHugh, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. MCHUGH, PLLC 6243 IH-10 W, Suite 503 San Antonio, TX 78201 Telephone: (210) 227-4662 Facsimile: (210) 227-1501 Email: thomasjmchughlaw@gmail.com - and - Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 402 West Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-2125 Email: tkashima@sommerspc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com CANADA: '60s Scoop Settlement Claims to Receive Interim Payments ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Short, writing for Saskatoon Star Phonenix, reports that after a series of delays including those caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, approved claimants of the '60s Scoop settlement will receive interim payments in the coming weeks. On June 1, a Federal Court Justice approved interim payments of $21,000 to the 12,500 survivors whose applications have been approved, with newly approved applicants to be paid on an ongoing basis. All parties are expected to return to court at a later date to discuss the remainder of the compensation. The administrator of the fund, Collectiva, was waiting on the Ontario Superior Court to approve a similar motion. The matter was before both courts because the original class action lawsuit was filed in Ontario before expanding nationally. With that taking place June 2, Collectiva can start issuing the payments. Katherine Legrange, Director of the '60s Scoop Legacy of Canada, said she's hesitant to say whether there will be any more delays but is happy to see progress being made. "Survivors were counting on this money before the pandemic hit and the delay was just triggering for some folks and retraumatizing," she said. "This whole process has been retraumatization for some people, and pretty frustrating. "So I am incredibly grateful that the court heard us." The settlement, signed November 2017, includes up to $750 million to be dispersed to survivors, with the amount of compensation each receives dependent on the number of class members deemed eligible. Amid concerns around processing delays caused by COVID-19, on March 27 Justice Michael L. Phelan agreed with a motion made by "60s Scoop Legacy of Canada to begin payments even though not all claims had been processed. That motion would have seen payments of $25,000 distributed to approved members once over 4,767 applications had been fully rejected, but the process of denying them was put on hold as a result of the pandemic. A few days after the April 23 update from Collectiva that the payments were on hold, '60s Scoop Legacy provincial partners The Sixties Scoop Indigenous Societies of Alberta and Saskatchewan drafted a letter to the court proposing the $21,000 payment and asking for greater oversight from Collectiva and regular progress updates. Legrange said more transparency and communication could have gone a long way in alleviating their concerns. The organization has called for greater oversight of the administrator and regular updates. A PR firm that has been appointed to provide thorough updates is a step in the right direction, she said. "It'll allay some anxieties that people are feeling," she said. "Instead of feeling like they're not getting any information at all." As of March 16, 34,767 claims have been submitted, with about 36 per cent (12,551) approved. [GN] CANTEEN 82 INC: Underpays Chefs, Chen Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------- SHI MING CHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CANTEEN 82 INC. d/b/a Canteen 82; STEAM NOODLE HOUSE INC. d/b/a Steam; STEAMER DUMPLING HOUSE INC. d/b/a Steamer Restaurant; ALLEN LI; YEH P. CHING; and SONG ZHENG, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04324 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 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 Chen was employed by the Defendants as chef. Canteen 82 Inc. d/b/a Canteen 82 is a Connecticut corporation engaged in the restaurant business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 CAPITAL ONE: Fourth Cir. Appeal Filed in Colbert Data Breach Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Capital One, N.A., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Sabrina Colbert v. Capital One N.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-00165-SAG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore. The lawsuit arises from a consumer data breach. The appellate case is captioned as Sabrina Colbert v. Capital One N.A., Case No. 20-1381, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee SABRINA CAPRI COLBERT, on behalf of herselt and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jeffrey C. Toppe, Esq. David M. Trojanowski, Esq. Cory L. Zajdel, Esq. Z LAW, LLC 2345 York Road Timonium, MD 21093 Telephone: (443) 213-1977 E-mail: jct@zlawmaryland.com dmt@zlawmaryland.com clz@zlawmaryland.com Defendant-Appellant CAPITAL ONE N.A., d/b/a Capital One Auto Finance, is represented by: Brooke Kelley Conkle, Esq. Jonathan S. Hubbard, Esq. Syed Mohsin Reza, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP 1001 Haxall Point Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 697-1873 E-mail: brooke.conkle@troutman.com jon.hubbard@troutman.com CAPPO MANAGEMENT: Underpays Employees, Perez Claims --------------------------------------------------- DAVID PEREZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPPO MANAGEMENT LI, LLC, a Florida limited company, d/b/a OCEAN HONDA OF NORTH HOLLYWOOD, VICTORY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., a Michigan corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20BBCV00373 (Cal. Sup. Ct., June 11, 2020) brings this complaint against Defendants pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Plaintiff worked for Defendants from approximately June 2018 to approximately September 21, 2019 at Defendants' Ocean Honda dealership located in North Hollywood, California. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. However, Defendant did not compensate them proper overtime equal to one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours they worked. The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to: -- include the Incentive Pay when calculating Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees regular rate of pay for overtime purposes; -- provide them with all legally-compliant meal and rest periods and compensate them for each work day they stayed on the work premises during meal and rest periods as required by Defendants; -- provide complete and accurate itemized wage statements; and -- maintain accurate records of employees. Moreover, Plaintiff sent a notice to Defendants via certified mail and the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) via its website on April 6, 2020 concerning Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code. But, there was no response from both parties. Cappo Management Li, LLC and Victory Automotive Group, Inc. operate motor vehicle dealership. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Lidman, Esq. Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq. Milan Moore, Esq. Romina Tamiry, Esq. LIDMAN LAW, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 150 El Segundo, CA 90245 Tel: (424) 322-4772 Fax: (424) 322-4775 Emails: slidman@lidmanlaw.com enguyen@lidmanlaw.com mmoore@lidmanlaw.com rtamiry@lidmanlaw.com - and – Paul K. Haines, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Tel: (424) 292-2350 Fax: (424) 292-2355 Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com CBL & ASSOCIATES: Continues to Defend Tennessee Securities Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. Securities Litigation, 1:19-cv-00149-JRG-CHS. The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in three putative securities class action lawsuits (collectively, the "Securities Class Action Litigation"), each filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities during a specified period of time. Those cases were consolidated on July 17, 2019, under the caption In re CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. Securities Litigation, 1:19-cv-00149-JRG-CHS. The complaints filed in the Securities Class Action Litigation allege violations of the securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants made certain materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's contingent liabilities, business, operations, and prospects during the periods of time specified above. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of damages sought. The outcome of these legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. is a self managed and self administered real estate investment trust. The Company owns regional shopping malls and community shopping centers in the United States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee. CENTRAL PAYMENT: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in Custom Hair Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Central Payment Co., LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Custom Hair Designs by Sandy, et al. v. Central Payment Co., Case No. 8:17-cv-00310-JFB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, Omaha. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska (i) granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; (ii) denied the Defendant's motion to file a sur-reply brief and/or strike evidence; (iii) denied the Defendant's motion to strike the testimony of Karl J. Borden; and (iv) denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs are merchants that processed credit and debit transactions through Defendant Central Payment Co., LLC ("CPAY"). CPAY processes over 65,000 businesses and over $10 billion in credit sales annually. The Plaintiffs contracted with CPAY from November 2015 through February 2017 for payment processing services. The Plaintiffs allege that CPAY charged fees for its payment processing services that do not coincide with the terms of their merchant agreements and Terms and Conditions. They plead the case as a putative nationwide class action and argue that CPAY is a multi-year, interstate, multi-million-dollar scheme to defraud unsophisticated merchants. The appellate case is captioned as Custom Hair Designs by Sandy, et al v. Central Payment Co., Case No. 20-1677, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Custom Hair Designs by Sandy, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Skip's Precision Welding, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Eric David Barton, I, Esq. Melody R. Dickson, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. Sarah Steen Ruane, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL Suite 300, 4740 Grand Avenue Kansas City, MO 64112-0000 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 E-mail: ebarton@wcllp.com mdickson@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com sruane@wcllp.com Defendant-Appellant Central Payment Co., LLC, is represented by: David L. Balser, Esq. Jonathan R. Chally, Esq. Brandon R. Keel, Esq. Allison H. White, Esq. KING & SPALDING 1180 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 E-mail: dbalser@kslaw.com jchally@kslaw.com bkeel@kslaw.com awhite@kslaw.com - and - Kenneth W. Hartman, Esq. BAIRD & HOLM 1500 Woodmen Tower 1700 Farnam Street Omaha, NE 68102-0000 Telephone: (402) 344-0500 E-mail: khartman@bairdholm.com CLAIRE'S STORES: Blind Can't Use Store App, Lucius Claims --------------------------------------------------------- The case, WINDY LUCIUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. CLAIRE'S STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-22381 (S.D. Fla., June 9, 2020), arises from the Defendant's violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant designed and programmed a mobile phone app to sell a variety of products ranging from earrings, beauty products, and hair clips to fashion accessories. However, the Plaintiff alleges that the app has digital barriers which limit the ability of blind and visually impaired consumers, including her, to access it, even with the use of Apple's assistive technology. The Plaintiff and other blind and visually impaired consumers use the assistive technology on the iPhone mobile devices to access the Defendant's app content but it does not properly interact with the assistive technology in a manner that will allow them to enjoy the app like any other general consumers. By continuing to operate its app with discriminatory conditions, the Defendant contributes to the Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation and deprives the Plaintiff the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges and/or accommodations available to the general public. Claire's Stores, Inc. is an owner and operator of multiple stores called CLAIRE'S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq. J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC 8950 SW 74TH Court, Suite 2201 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 351-2014 Facsimile: cc@cunninghampllc.com CLEAN HARBORS: McMurtry Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to D.N.J. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM T. MCMURTRY; JOHNNIE STANLEY; and AYIZAN DEREONCOURT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CLEAN HARBORS, INC.; CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.; CLEAN HARBORS INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.; CLEAN HARBORS INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.; and ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10 (Filed April 21, 2020), was removed from the New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on June 2, 2020. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-06774 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege that they provided prevailing wage labor at PSEG facilities in New Jersey under the Energy Strong Program, and that the Defendants failed to pay prevailing wages, in violation of New Jersey Statutes Annotated. Clean Harbors is a provider of environmental, energy and industrial services, including hazardous waste disposal for companies, including Fortune 500 companies, small waste generators and federal, state, provincial and local governments.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Zatuchini, Esq. ZATUCHINI & ASSOCIATES, LLC 287 South Mani St. (Route 29) Lambertville, NJ 08530 - and - Bruce Clarke, Esq. Christopher J. Michie, Esq. CLARK MICHIE, LLP 220 Alexander St. Princeton, NJ 08540 The Defendants are represented by: Caroline R. Robb, Esq. James N. Boudreau, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1717 Arch St., Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19148 Telephone: 215 988 7833 Facsimile: 215 988 7801 E-mail: boudreauj@gtlaw.com robbc@gtlaw.com CLOUDERA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cloudera, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a securities class action suit entitled, In re Cloudera, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:19-cv-3221-LHK. On June 7, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Christie v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-3221-LHK. The complaint named as defendants Cloudera, its former Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and a former officer and director, asserting alleged class claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and SEC Rule 10b-5. Two substantially similar class action complaints, entitled Zarantonello v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-4007-LHK, and Dvornic v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-4310-LHK, were subsequently filed against the same defendants in the same court on July 12, 2019 and July 26, 2019, respectively. The suits have been consolidated under the name, In re Cloudera, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:19-cv-3221-LHK. The court subsequently appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 14, 2020. The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims against the Company and three individual defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, based on allegedly false and misleading statements between April 28, 2017 and June 5, 2019. It also adds as defendants ten current or former directors or officers of the Company and Intel Corporation and asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of all persons who acquired Cloudera stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration statement filed in connection with Cloudera's January 2019 merger with Hortonworks, and alleging that the registration statement contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted material facts. The complaint seeks, among other things, an award of damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 18, 2020, the court vacated its prior order appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel and reopened the lead plaintiff process. Cloudera believes that the allegations in the action are without merit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Cloudera, Inc. provides platform for machine learning and analytics in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The company operates through two segments, Subscription and Services. Cloudera, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. CLOUDERA INC: Hortonworks Merger-Related Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------- Cloudera, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Cloudera, Inc. Securities Litigation, related to the company's merger agreement with Hortonworks, Inc. In January 2019, the company completed its merger with Hortonworks, Inc., a publicly-held company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, and a provider of enterprise-grade, global data management platforms, services and solutions. On June 7, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, entitled Lazard v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 19CV348674. The complaint named as defendants Cloudera, thirteen individuals who are current or former directors or officers of the Company, and Intel Corporation. The complaint alleged that the registration statement contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted material facts. Two substantially similar suits, entitled Franchi v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 19CV348790, and Cannizzo v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 19CV348974, were subsequently filed in the same court on June 11, 2019 and June 14, 2019, respectively. The suits have been consolidated under the name In re Cloudera, Inc. Securities Litigation, and the consolidated amended complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all persons who acquired Cloudera stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration statement filed in connection with Cloudera's January 2019 merger with Hortonworks, and alleges that the registration statement contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted material facts. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Cloudera believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without merit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Cloudera, Inc. provides platform for machine learning and analytics in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The company operates through two segments, Subscription and Services. Cloudera, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. COLONY CAPITAL: Levi & Korsinky Files Class Action Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on June 8 disclosed that class action lawsuit have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Colony Capital Inc. Colony Capital, Inc. (CLNY) CLNY Lawsuit: On behalf of investors who purchased August 9, 2019 to May 7, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/colony-capital-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7194&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Colony Capital, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Colony's sale of its industrial real estate portfolio and the bifurcation of Colony Credit Real Estate's portfolio were foreseeably likely to negatively impact Colony's financial and operating results; (ii) certain of Colony's remaining portfolio companies carried unsustainable levels of debt secured by hotels and healthcare-related properties and were thus at a significant risk of default; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] COLUMBIA COLLEGE: Buschauer Seeks Refund of School Fees ------------------------------------------------------- DAVID BUSCHAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO; and the BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO, Defendants, Case: 1:20-cv-03394 (N.D. Ill., June 9, 2020) alleges that the Defendant refuses to refund Spring 2020 tuition or fees to the Plaintiff and the Class. According to the complaint, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Columbia suspended in-person classroom instruction from March 12, 2020 through April 6, 2020. There were no classes at all for three full weeks. Columbia unilaterally decided to change the remaining weeks of the Spring 2020 semester (April 6, 2020 through May 15, 2020) from in-classroom instruction to an online-only format, despite the Plaintiff and the Class contracting and paying Columbia tuition and fees for the full Spring 2020 semester for in-person instruction and full use of on-campus facilities, services, events, technologies, and supplies. The Plaintiff requested a prorated refund of his tuition and fees for March 12 through May 15, 2020 of the Spring 2020 semester, but Columbia rejected that request, and instead, directed the Plaintiff on how to take out a loan during the COVID-19 pandemic. Columbia College Chicago offers degrees in both undergraduate and graduate level curriculum. The College offers part time and full time programs in art history, creative writing, dance, fashion design, journalism, graphic design, marketing communication, music, and photography. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Peterson, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Ste. 201H, #105 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: mpeterson@varnellandwarwick.com jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com - and - Gregory P. Smith, Esq. OLDHAM & SMITH, PL. P.O. Box 1012 Tavares, FL 32778 Telephone: (352) 343-4090 Facsimile: 352-742-4900 E-mail: greg@oldhamsmith.com COMERICA INC: Fahmia Seeks Payment of PPP Loan Agent Fees --------------------------------------------------------- FAHMIA, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMERICA INC.; COMERICA BANK; COMERICABANK & TRUST, N.A.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01536-B (N.D. Tex., June 11, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, unjust enrichment, and conversion. According to the complaint, the Defendants refused to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated agents who assisted Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan recipients with their applications. Under the Small Business Administration's PPP passed by the U.S. Congress on March 27, 2020, the lenders will be compensated by the federal government in the form of a generous origination fee and they would be responsible for paying the fee owed to the loan applicants' agents. The Defendants did not set up a structure or ask any questions to determine whether PPP borrowers utilized an agent in completing their applications. The Plaintiff and Class members have been harmed by the Defendants' practice of refusing to pay agents who assist in the preparation and submission of PPP loan application materials because they have no other recourse for collecting such fees as the responsibility for paying agents is solely delegated to the lenders as per SBA PPP regulations. Fahmia, Inc. is a Certified Public Accounting (CPA) firm incorporated in California, with its principal place of business located in Torrance, California. Comerica Inc. is a financial services company headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Comerica Bank is a banking association headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A. is a financial services firm chartered under the federal National Bank Act and headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq. Paul Stickney, Esq. STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com krogers@sgc.law judgestick@gmail.com - and – Richard D. McCune, Esq. Michele M. Vercoski, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com mmv@mccunewright.com - and – Elaine S. Kusel, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP One Gateway Center, Suite 2600 Newark, NY 07102 Telephone: (973) 737-9981 E-mail: esk@mccunewright.com CONVERSE INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Madeira Labor Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Bryan Madeira filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Bryan Madeira v. Converse, Inc., Case No. 5:19-cv-00154-CJC-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order: 1. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and 2. remanding the action to San Bernardino Superior Court. In November 2018, the Plaintiff Bryan filed this putative wage and hour class action against Defendant Converse, Inc., et al., in San Bernardino Superior Court, asserting claims on behalf of current and former hourly Converse employees in California. On January 25, 2019, Converse removed the lawsuit to the District Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. The Plaintiff worked as an Equipment Operator at the Converse Distribution Center from December 7, 2015, through July 18, 2018. The appellate case is captioned as Bryan Madeira v. Converse, Inc., Case No. 20-80063, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner BRYAN MADEIRA, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Mikael H. Stahle, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com MStahle@maternlawgroup.com Defendant-Respondent CONVERSE, INC., a Delaware corporation, is represented by: Michael Afar, Esq. Jon D. Meer, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 207-9301 E-mail: mafar@seyfarth.com jmeer@seyfarth.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Agreement Reached in Jadan Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 10, 2020, that the parties in the case, Jadan v. Costco Wholesale Corp., (Case No. 19-CV-340438; Santa Clara Superior Court; filed Jan. 3, 2019) have reached an agreement to settle the dispute. In January 2019, a former seasonal employee filed a class action, alleging failure to provide California seasonal employees meal and rest breaks, proper wage statements, and appropriate wages. The complaint seeks relief under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. In October 2019, the parties reached an agreement on a class settlement, which is subject to court approval. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bid to Nix Washington Securities Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 10, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated putative class action suit in Washington remains pending. The Company and its CEO and CFO are defendants in putative class actions brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired Company stock between June 6 and October 25, 2018. Johnson v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash. filed Nov. 5, 2018); Chen v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash. filed Dec. 11, 2018). The complaints allege violations of the federal securities laws stemming from the Company's disclosures concerning internal control over financial reporting. They seek unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest, and costs and attorneys' fees. On January 30, 2019, an order was entered consolidating the actions, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 16, 2019. On November 26, 2019, the court entered an order dismissing the consolidated amended complaint and granting the plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint. A further amended complaint was filed on March 9, which the Company moved to dismiss on April 23. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Canela Suit Still Stayed Pending 9th Cir. Review ------------------------------------------------------------------ Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 10, 2020, that the class action suit entitled, Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (Case No. 5:13-CV-03598; N.D. Cal.; filed July 1, 2013) is still stayed pending review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company is a defendant in a class action alleging violation of California Wage Order 7-2001 for failing to provide seating to member service assistants who act as greeters in the Company's California warehouses. The complaint seeks relief under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. The action has been stayed pending review by the Ninth Circuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Martinez Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 10, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Martinez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 3:19-cv-05624; N.D. Cal.; filed June 11, 2019). In June 2019, an employee filed a class action against the Company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime, to provide meal and rest periods, itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair business practices. The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Rough Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 10, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-01340; E.D. Cal.; filed May 28, 2019). In May 2019, an employee filed a class action against the Company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime, to provide itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair business practices. Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. In August 2019, Rough filed a companion case in state court seeking penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. FCS053454, Sonoma County Superior Court, filed August 23, 2019). Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The state court action has been stayed pending resolution of the federal action. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Decision to Remand Nevarez Suit Appealed ---------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 10, 2020, that the decision to remand the Nevarez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-03454; C.D. Cal.; filed Mar. 25, 2019) class action suit has been appealed. In March 2019, employees filed a class action against the Company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime, to provide meal and rest periods and itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair business practices. Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. In December 2019, the court issued an order denying class certification. In January 2020, the Plaintiffs dismissed their Labor Code claims without prejudice and the court remanded the action to state court. The remand is being appealed. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Opioid Claims in NJ and Oklahoma Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 10, 2020, that claims against the company in the opioid related class suits before state courts in New Jersey and Oklahoma have been dismissed. In December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated numerous cases filed against various defendants by counties, cities, hospitals, Native American tribes, third-party payors, and others concerning the impacts of opioid abuse. In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) (N.D. Ohio). Included are federal cases that name the Company, including actions filed by counties and cities in Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, Virginia and South Carolina, a third-party payor in Ohio, and class actions filed on behalf of infants born with opioid-related medical conditions in 40 states, and class actions and individual actions filed on behalf of individuals seeking to recover alleged increased insurance costs associated with opioid abuse in 43 states and American Samoa. In 2019, similar actions were commenced against the Company in state court in Utah. Claims against the Company in state courts in New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Arizona have been dismissed. The Company is defending all of these matters. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. DELL TECH: Bid to Dismiss Class V Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------- Dell Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 1, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the complaint in the case, In Re Dell Class V Litigation (Consol. C.A. No. 2018-0816-JTL), is under consideration. Four purported stockholders brought putative class action complaints arising out of the Class V transaction described in Note 1of the Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. The actions were captioned Hallandale Beach Police and Fire Retirement Plan v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action No. 2018-0816-JTL), Howard Karp v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action No. 2019-0032-JTL), Miramar Police Officers’ Retirement Plan v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action No. 2019-0049-JTL), and Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action No. 2019-0115-JTL). The four actions were consolidated in the Delaware Chancery Court into In Re Dell Class V Litigation (Consol. C.A. No. 2018-0816-JTL), which names as defendants the Company's board of directors and certain stockholders of the Company, including Michael S. Dell. The plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the former holders of Class V Common Stock in connection with the Class V transaction by allegedly causing the Company to enter into a transaction that favored the interests of the controlling stockholders at the expense of such former stockholders. The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, a judicial declaration that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and an award of damages, fees, and costs. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in August 2019 making substantially similar allegations to those described above. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action in September 2019. The plaintiffs replied to the motion to dismiss in November 2019, and the defendants filed a reply in December 2019. A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on March 13, 2020. The Court has taken this motion under consideration. Dell Technologies Inc. provides computer products. The Company offers laptops, desktops, tablets, workstations, servers, monitors, printers, gateways, software, storage, and net working products. Dell Technologies serves customers worldwide. Dell Technologies Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Round Rock, Texas. DELTA PACKING: Barbosa Sues Over Wages, Rest & Meal Breaks ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, IRMA BARBOSA and CECILIA MATA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. DELTA PACKING COMPANY OF LODI, INC., AKA DELTA FRESH; SALINAS FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, INC.; ERNIE COSTAMAGNA; ANNAMARIE COSTAMAGNA; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-at-00525 (E.D. Cal., May 29, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and provisions of California labor laws by failing to pay the Plaintiffs and all others similarly-situated non-exempt employees all overtime wages and minimum wages owed, failing to provide timely meal and rest periods, and/or provide appropriate compensation in lieu thereof, and failing to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employees to work within the Intradistrict Venue of the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District in California, performing produce handling, sorting, and packing. Delta Packing Company of Lodi, Inc. is a grower, packer, and shipper of cherries, wine grapes and grape juice, with its principal place of business located at 6021 E. Kettleman Lane, Lodi, California. Salinas Farm Labor Contractor, Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company that conducts business in and around San Joaquin County, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Hector R. Martinez, Esq. Leanna Marie Sac, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612-3547 Telephone: (510) 832-9999 Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com LMSac@TheMMLawFirm.com DENVER, CO: Faces Class Action Over Police Use of Excessive Force ----------------------------------------------------------------- CBS4 reports that Denver Police Chief Paul Pazen announced changes to the department's use of force policy. He sent the memorandum of changes to the Use of Force Committee on June 7 afternoon, the 11th day of protests. Changes included an immediate ban on all chokeholds, saying the policy is now consistent with a recommendation from the Center for Policing Equity. Furthermore, a Use of Force report will be filed when an officer points a firearm at someone, and body cameras will be required for SWAT officers during tactical operations. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order restricting police use of tear gas, rubber bullets and other non-lethal weapons against protesters. The order came after four people who filed a class-action lawsuit against the city accusing police of using the weapons to assert dominance and suppress their right to protest had made a strong case the police had used excessive force. The judge, Brooke Jackson, said while police officers often have a thankless job, they have failed to police themselves at the recent protests. Part of the order was modified on June 6 at the department's request to say lieutenants could also approve the use of the weapons, saying there were not enough captains to comply with the original order. [GN] DENVER, CO: TRO Issued Limiting DPD's Use of Less-Lethal Force -------------------------------------------------------------- Wilson Beese, writing for 9News, reports that protests sparked by the in-custody death of George Floyd were taking place in Denver for the 11th straight day. Denver Public Schools (DPS) students were leading Black Live Matter march at 10 a.m. from Civic Center to the Martin Luther King Jr. statue in City Park. At 10:30 a.m., the crowd left Civic Center and began marching down Colfax Avenue. The march comes two days after Denver Board of Education members formally proposed ending the district's contract with the Denver Police Department (DPD). If the proposal is approved, it would remove all DPD officers currently assigned to DPS schools. "We want to make sure all students in all of our schools, especially our students of color, feel safe and protected," said school board member Tay Anderson, who is spearheading the proposal. Anderson and Jennifer Bacon, DPS school board vice president, introduced a resolution on the morning of June 5 on the steps of West High School to end the district's contract with the DPD. If the board approves, it would remove DPD officers from schools in Colorado's largest school district. It would be a change to a system of policing that many feel targets students of color. Broncos lead large demonstration on 10th day of protests Members of the Broncos organization led one of many demonstrations in Denver and the rest of the state on June 6. About 50 players, all 24 coaches, and team executives led a rally at Civic Center that drew thousands. Many Broncos address the crowd including outside linebacker Jeremiah Attaochu, who came to the United States from Nigeria when he was 8 years old. He spoke about the school systems in this country and the need for policy changes. "You can't keep putting a Band-Aid on an old wound," Attaochu said to the crowd. "Overt police brutality, hate, racism, that is all built by the system and the younger generation is tired of it. We want some real healing. We need to heal as a country." Justin Simmons, Davontae Harris, Alexander Johnson, De'Vante Bausby and Von Miller were the other Broncos players who spoke to the large gathering before leading a march through downtown Denver. Judge modifies temporary restraining order limiting DPD's use of less-lethal force June 6 marked the first full day that a temporary restraining order issued by a federal judge in Colorado limiting DPD's use of less-lethal force on protesters. The order came after a class-action complaint filed June 4 in Denver District Court that claims DPD cannot be trusted with the use of less-lethal weapons against protesters and that its officers use them without regard to the constitutional rights of protesters and bystanders. The plaintiffs asked for a temporary restraining order barring DPD officers from the use of tear gas, rubber bullets, pepper balls, pepper spray and flashbangs. The order, which was handed down on June 5, puts restrictions on officers in using any kind of chemical weapons or projectiles against protesters unless an on-scene supervisor at the rank of captain or above "specifically authorizes such use of force in response to specific acts of violence or destruction of property that the command officer has personally witnessed." The City and County of Denver filed motion late on June 5 says that it's not feasible to require a supervisor with the rank of captain or above to authorize such use of force because DPD has only four officers of high enough rank in the downtown area. The motion requests that lieutenants also be allowed to make that call. Jackson granted that request on June 6. The city's motion also asks for the elimination of the requirement that all officers deployed to demonstrations have their body-worn cameras recording at all times. Jackson wrote "The Court denies the motion to the extent it requests modification of the body camera language. However, as a matter of common sense, the Court is not requiring that body cameras be activated and draining batteries when nothing is in the officer's vicinity. The cameras should be activated and filming any and all acts of confrontation between police officers and others," adding "if that means increasing the supply of batteries, so be it." The motion says not all other jurisdictions that have been assisting DPD with the protests have body-worn cameras and that the cameras' batteries don't last long enough to keep the camera recording for the many hours that the protests have been going for. [GN] DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Class Action Seeks Refund of Tuition, Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Elaine S. Povich, writing for Stateline.org, reports that the coronavirus left Grainger Rickenbaker, a 21-year-old Drexel University student and hockey goalie, without in-person lectures, seminars or labs as the school switched to remote learning. So he sued. Rickenbaker is suing the Philadelphia university for the pro-rated price of his tuition, saying he didn't get what he paid for. His lawsuit is one of at least 100 closure-related suits filed against colleges and universities in federal and state courts. In total, more than 2,000 pandemic-related lawsuits against a variety of businesses, groups and officials had been filed by the end of May, according to the law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth, which has been tracking the cases. Many involve plaintiffs seeking compensation for what the pandemic has taken, as well as taking aim at governments and politicians for their restrictive orders. Some legal experts say cases such as Rickenbaker's will be tough to win. Experienced lawyers and professors say signing up for college may or may not constitute a legal contract. Education has been ongoing, albeit in a new format. The cost to the college of providing that education remotely may be more, or less, depending on how it's calculated. The atmosphere of the college or university campus, while a selling point, may or may not be an integral part of the education that the institution provides. Sam Hodge Jr., a legal studies professor at Temple University's Fox School of Business also in Philadelphia, said the schools have three defenses against such lawsuits. They can argue that the pandemic has made it impossible to fulfill the contract; they can say they mitigated the damage by providing online instruction; and they can point out that they have had to continue to pay salaries and other expenses. Moreover, he said, a contract can be superseded by an unforeseen occurrence of nature -- most contracts have a "force majeure," or "act of God" clause -- and COVID-19 appears to qualify. "Most students got most of the semester in the same way they got the rest of their education; now they are all getting the credits they were promised toward their degree," said Nashville attorney Audrey Anderson, a former in-house counsel for Vanderbilt University who is now in private practice. She suggested since the students are getting their credits and education, they have not been deprived. "Think of it like going to a restaurant and you are used to the ambiance being a certain way. And there's a fire next door that interrupts your meal before dessert. Are you going to ask for your money back? They would say, ‘We've got to close the restaurant now, but here's your dessert to go.'" Rickenbaker, the Drexel hockey player, said in a Facebook message to Stateline that he wasn't able to talk about the case to reporters. But Roy Willey, a class-action attorney with the Anastopoulo Law Firm who represents Rickenbaker and many other students in a class action, said the cases are about basic fairness. "Colleges and universities are not unlike any other business in America, and they too have to tighten their belts during this unprecedented time," he said in an email. "They are not any more entitled to keep money for services they are not delivering than the mom and pop bakery on Main Street." Drexel refunded room and board for the spring semester, which began in April (the school is on the quarter system), but not tuition. The suit estimates that Drexel's tuition reimbursement could be $5 million, plus the $2,405 in fees that Rickenbaker and others paid, plus damages. In an emailed statement, Drexel's Niki Gianakaris, director of media relations, said the university's "top priority is the health and safety of all members of its community during this unprecedented time." "Despite the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, students continue to have access to Drexel's broad spectrum of academic offerings and support, building on the University's long-standing tradition of innovation and creativity in the classroom and remote environments," she said. "The university is aware of the court filing and has no further comment on the pending litigation." Many other colleges and universities have returned pro-rated room and board payments to students no longer using university housing and meal plans. But tuition has become a sticking point, since most schools are continuing to educate students through distance learning. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue there is more to on-campus learning than what can be transmitted over a video. They cite lab experiments for science majors and on-stage performances for theater and dance majors, among others. Some attorneys and students have speculated that universities with billions in endowment are in a better position to forgive tuition payments than other schools that rely on tuition to fund the day-to-day education they provide. But high-endowment schools argue that those monies are tightly regulated by agreements with donors and legal restraints and can be used only for certain purposes. Public universities may find additional protection in laws that make it harder to sue states. The California Tort Claims Act, for example, limits the types of accidents and injuries for which the state can be liable. Many suits also are being filed against governors and states themselves over the COVID-19 crisis, including businesses that allege they are being hurt by orders to stay closed. In one recent action, a state Court of Claims judge in Michigan ruled Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, was within her constitutional rights to issue executive orders in response to the pandemic, including closing businesses. In some of the college cases, plaintiffs have focused on their loss of the "city as a classroom" experience, touted by many schools that see their cities as extensions of their campuses. One of the highest-profile cases is the suit against New York University, partially because the school showcases its presence in the large, vibrant city as an asset, and partially because New York has been among the areas most affected by the virus. Christina Rynasko of Palm Beach, Fla., whose daughter Emily studies musical theater at NYU, sued the school for a partial refund of tuition, fees, and room and board. "(O)nline classes are particularly ineffective and inadequate for musical theater majors, who cannot participate in required performances, receive in-person feedback/critique, or partake in the facilities necessary to perform," the suit said. In an email to Stateline, NYU spokesman John Beckman said the suit is "unwarranted and ill-advised. The reality is that in the face of an unprecedented, world-altering pandemic … faculty continue to teach, and continue to be fully paid; students continue to have class with their faculty; student work is evaluated; academic credit is appropriately awarded; and students will graduate." But whistleblower and class-action expert attorney Brian Mahaney said there are grounds for these suits, especially when they involve programs that require hands-on learning like cooking classes, physical education or physical therapy, to name a few. "You can't say you are going to learn to play the piano by watching a video," he said. "It's not the same quality of education." While his firm has not yet filed any suits, Mahaney has heard from parents of a handful of students who want to take action, including parents whose children have gone to the same schools that they attended. "They say, ‘I paid for my son to get the same education I got, and now we are paying and he's sleeping till 4 in the afternoon and taking a couple of classes (online) and that's not the same.' The quality of the education is not the same," Mahaney said. "I feel badly for the kids who are taking on debt to finance this." Mahaney is best known for bringing a whistleblower claim against Bank of America for fraudulent housing loans ahead of the Great Recession. It resulted in a $17 billion settlement, one of the largest in U.S. history. Lynn Pasquerella, president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, which advocates for liberal education, said the lawsuits could have a lasting impact, especially as the schools look toward a safe reopening. "College and university leaders are doing the best they can to ensure safety of students, faculty and staff as we plan to reopen," she said in a phone interview. "Leaders are facing enormous uncertainty about COVID-19 standards of care. Even though they have engaged in reasonable decision-making, it's that uncertainty that will have an impact." She called on Congress to protect higher education institutions "against the economic threat of lawsuits at this moment of maximum economic vulnerability." Atlanta attorney Derin Dickerson, an expert in class action and higher education law at the Alston & Bird firm, said it is unfortunate that plaintiffs firms are "using these claims against colleges and universities that are doing the best they can to ensure the health and safety of students." He said plaintiffs are going to have a tough time showing that paying tuition constitutes an actual contract with the school. "You have to show there's a contract, that it was breached, and you suffered damages," he said. And he says arguments that online education is cheaper may not hold in this instance because colleges had to ramp up technology quickly, and they are still paying their tenured professors to teach, rather than hiring professors for lower pay to helm online courses. A study by Boston Consulting Group and Arizona State University found online classes saved colleges between $12 and $66 a credit hour, but mostly because the classes were taught by adjuncts and teaching assistants who are paid less than tenured professors. "In reality, class actions are primarily driven by law firms," he said. "These class-action law firms walk away with a lot of money." [GN] DTE ENERGY: Underpays Staff, Aguilar Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DTE ENERGY COMPANY; DTE PIPELINE COMPANY; DTE GAS COMPANY; DTE MIDSTREAM, LLC, ENBRIDGE (U.S.) INC.; and ENBRIDGE INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-11451-SJM-DRG (E.D. Mich., June 4, 2020) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Aguilar was employed by the Defendants as hourly paid, non exempt employee. DTE Energy Company, a diversified energy company, develops and manages energy-related businesses and services nationwide. The Company, through its subsidiaries, generates, purchases, transmits, distributes, and sells electric energy in southeastern Michigan. DTE is also involved in gas pipelines and storage, unconventional gas exploration, development, and production. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer L. McManus, Esq. FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C. 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910 Telephone: (248) 542-6300 E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com DUN & BRADSTREET: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The Sacramento Labor Law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., alleging that the company violated labor laws by failing to provide accurate wages and not providing required rest periods to their California employees. The class action lawsuit against Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., is currently pending in the Sacramento Superior Court, Case No. 34-2020-00277776. The lawsuit filed against Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., alleges the company (a) failed to pay minimum wages, (b) failed to pay overtime wages, (c) failed to provide required meal periods, (d) failed to provide required rest periods, (e) failed to provide accurate itemized statements, and (f) failed to provide wages when due.To the extent that the time worked off the clock did not qualify for overtime premium payment, DEFENDANT allegedly failed to pay minimum wages for the time worked off-the-clock in violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1. Additionally, from time to time, DEFENDANT also failed to provide PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS with complete and accurate wage statements which failed to show, among other things, the correct gross and net wages earned. Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 226 provides that every employer shall furnish each of his or her employees with an accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing, among other things, gross wages earned and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding amount of time worked at each hourly rate. For more information about the class action lawsuit against Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., call (800) 568-8020 to speak to Attorney Nicholas De Blouw. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, is a labor law firm with law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los Angeles County, Orange County, Sacramento County, and San Francisco County. The firm has a statewide practice of representing employees on a contingency basis for violations involving unpaid wages,overtime pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and other types of illegal workplace conduct. [GN] DUNCAN TRUCKING: Underpays Employees, Hart Claims ------------------------------------------------- MARGARET HART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DUNCAN TRUCKING, LTD., an Arizona company, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01186-SPL (D. Ariz., June 15, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged unlawful failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt gate attendant and data entry clerk from in or around November 2018 until on or around May 12, 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the Collective Members routinely worked over 40 hours in a given workweek, but they only received straight time pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a given workweek. Allegedly, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the Collective Members overtime at one and one-half times their regular rate. Duncan Trucking, Ltd. is a transportation/trucking/railroad company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Zoldan, Esq. Jason Barrat, Esq. ZOLDAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 14500 N. Northsight Blvd., Suite 133 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Tel: 480-442-3410 Emails: mzoldan@zoldangroup.com jbarrat@zoldangroup.com ERIE INSURANCE: Faces Business Interruption Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Phil Fairbanks, writing for Buffalo News, reports that in the event of a blizzard, flood or fire, Mark Hutchinson could always look to his insurers for help in keeping his string of restaurants afloat. But what about a global pandemic? The owner of Hutch's says the answer from his insurer is no, the Covid-19 outbreak is not an insurable event. "Business owners pay premiums for years to ensure they're protected, not to be abandoned at times of crisis," said Christopher Berloth, one of the lawyers representing Hutchinson's company. In a new lawsuit, Hutch & Associates, which also owns the Remington Tavern in North Tonawanda, point to the "business interruption" coverage in its commercial insurance policy and says Erie Insurance was wrong to deny its claim. Hutch's and the Remington Tavern, both well-known dining spots, have been closed since March 16, although the Remington Tavern continued to serve takeout and has since opened its patio. The suit seeks to become a class action on behalf of other policyholders and is part of a larger trend unfolding across the country, the latest consequence of a virus that shuttered businesses and hit the restaurant industry particularly hard. Those same restaurants are now learning their insurers don't always cover virus-related losses, often because of pandemic exclusions in their policies or a lack of physical damage to the business. "Given the unpredictability and unimaginable potential for worldwide losses, insurance is simply unable to cover a global pandemic," Sean Kevelighan, head of the Insurance Information Institute, a national industry group, said in a statement. Like Hutch's, Buffalo Xerographix in Tonawanda is challenging its insurance denials in court and seeking to turn its lawsuit into a class action. The defendants in the case include Hartford Insurance, New England Insurance and Pacific Insurance. Salvatore's Italian Gardens, one of the region's most well-known dining venues, is also suing its insurer. After the SARS crisis in 2003, the insurance industry began addressing the risks of viruses and bacteria and one of the first steps was writing specific "virus exclusions" into some commercial policies. Buffalo Xerographix, which helps other businesses manage documents and information, says there is no such exclusion in its policy. "Insurers are denying claims with little or no investigation into an insured's specific facts," said Berloth. To hear him talk, the denials are part of a larger plan for avoiding claims. The insurers, Berloth said, are required to communicate with policyholders about Covid-19 coverage and are using those communications to discourage and preempt claims. Their message is "don't waste your time filing," he said. Like Hutchinson, restaurant owners across the country are taking their insurers to court and the fight is attracting the support of celebrity chefs such as Thomas Keller, Wolfgang Puck and Cat Cora. With the help of other big names, they formed the Business Interruption Group and used the organization to publicly accuse the insurance industry of "putting tens of millions of people on unemployment lines." "I paid business interruption insurance for the last 38 years," Puck told the Los Angeles Times. "They make an excuse and say the virus is not really included in your insurance. Well, the virus really didn't shut us down. The government shut us down. They should pay up. And the government should bail out the insurance companies the same way they do with the airline industry." The campaign to force insurers to retroactively provide Covid-19 coverage is also gaining ground in state capitals across the nation, including Ohio, New Jersey and Massachusetts. A new bill in the New York State Assembly would require coverage for all insured companies with 100 employees or less. The industry is fighting back and recently suggested the "world's richest chefs" are asking for the retroactive rewriting of policies, which is both unconstitutional and unwise. Insurers claim it would put their industry at great financial risk and threaten their ability to pay covered claims by homeowners, workers and drivers. "Tragically, millions of businesses across the country have closed their doors because of government-ordered shutdowns," Matthew Sturdevant, a spokesman for Hartford, said in a statement. "Unfortunately, viruses are generally outside the scope of business interruption coverage due to the absence of any physical damage." The industry thinks the business losses caused by Covid-19 are simply too big for private insurance companies to absorb. Their answer is the federal government and, more specifically, a proposal for a federally financed program known as the COVID-19 Business and Employee Continuity and Recovery Fund. Advocates say that fund would be modeled after the 911 Victims Compensation Fund and help businesses hit hard by the coronavirus shutdowns. [GN] EURO DESIGN & STONE: Underpays Construction Workers, Mariano Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CALVIN ADONY MARIANO ESPINOZA, CESAR GUERRERO, EDWIN FABRICIO CASHABAMBA TUBON, JOSE GALVEZ, JOSE HERNANDEZ, JUAN MAURICIO GUZMAN, MELVIN JAVIER AGUILAR, MIGUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ, MOISES MORALES FELIPE, MONICA ALEXANDRA RAMON ROSALES GALVEZ, RONALD AGUILAR, JIMMY AGUILAR, ARNOL GARCIA, CRISTIAN MENDEZ ROSAS, MARVIN AMADOR, and PORFIRIO PEREZ ROSARIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EURO DESIGN AND STONE LLC (D/B/A EURO DESIGN AND STONE), SALIH OZEN A.K.A. KADIR OZEN, ALEXANDER RAMOS A.K.A. JUNIOR MORALES, and ROBERT LALA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04381 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and all others similarly-situated construction workers appropriate minimum wage and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week and for failure to maintain accurate recordkeeping of all their worked hours, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction workers at sites in Manhattan, Rockland County and Brooklyn for the corporations located at 1000 Pleasantview Terrace, Ridgefield, New Jersey from approximately 2018 until or in 2019. Euro Design and Stone LLC, d/b/a Euro Design and Stone, is a construction company located at 1000 Pleasantview Terrace, Ridgefield, New Jersey. [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 FAIR ISAAC: Suit Alleges Monopoly in Credit Score Market --------------------------------------------------------- ALTERNATIVE FINANCE, INC. and BROOKFIELD MANAGEMENT COMPANY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03204 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in the U.S. The Plaintiffs seek to represent similarly-situated end-user business-customers that indirectly purchased the Defendant's FICO Score in the business market for credit scores for use and not for resale from January 1, 2006 through the present. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant is engaged in anticompetitive practices to maintain and expand its monopoly in the business market for credit scores. The Defendant entered into anticompetitive contract terms with credit bureaus, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, to restrict their ability to develop or sell VantageScore Solutions, a credit scoring system, and any other credit score alternatives, to foreclose competition from VantageScore through a penalty pricing and bundling scheme, and to allow Fair Isaac to extract monopoly prices through contract provisions. As a result, Fair Isaac has maintained a monopoly share in excess of 90% of that market and forced businesses, including the Plaintiffs, to pay artificially inflated prices for credit scoring services. Alternative Finance, Inc. is a financial services company located in East Greenwich, Rhode Island. Brookfield Management Company is a real property management company located in Farmington Hills, Michigan. Fair Isaac Corporation is a data analytics company that focuses on credit scoring services, with its principal place of business located at 181 Metro Drive, Suite 700, San Jose, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carol V. Gilden, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 357-0370 E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com - and – Brent Johnson, Esq. Daniel McCuaig, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com dmccuaig@cohenmilstein.com - and – Michael Eisenkraft, Esq. Christopher Bateman, Esq. David O. Fisher, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com cbateman@cohenmilstein.com dfisher@cohenmilstein.com - and – Aubrey H. Tobin, Esq. AUBREY H. TOBIN ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C. 2140 Walnut Lake Road West Bloomfield Township, MI 48323 Telephone: (248) 932-3070 E-mail: aubrey@tobinpc.com FCA US: Faces Class Action Over Defective Tigershark Engines ------------------------------------------------------------ David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Chrysler oil consumption lawsuit has been filed alleging vehicles equipped with 2.4L Tigershark MultiAir II engines burn or consume abnormally high amounts of oil. The lawsuit alleges vehicle occupants are put in danger because the oil consumption problems cause the engines to suddenly shut down while driving. And while low oil pressures and stalled engines are allegedly bad enough, the plaintiffs claim the problems could be avoided if the oil indicator systems alerted drivers to low oil levels in these vehicles. * 2015–2016 Chrysler 200 * 2013–2016 Dodge Dart * 2016–2020 Fiat 500X * 2014–2020 Jeep Cherokee * 2017–2020 Jeep Compass * 2015–2020 Jeep Renegade The plaintiffs also allege drivers don't know about dangerously low oil levels until the vehicles suddenly shut down, even though the oil change indicators allegedly don't yet recommend a change of oil. Fiat Chrysler (FCA US) allegedly knows about oil consumption issues because hundreds of vehicle owners and lessees have complained about their vehicles shutting down due to low oil levels. The automaker also allegedly knows about the Tigershark engines because a technical service bulletin (TSB) allegedly conceals known defects by telling dealerships the oil consumption problems are normal. Classifying the low oil levels as normal allegedly provides FCA a way to avoid official recalls as owners spend their own money while trying to diagnose and repair the excessive oil consumption issues. According to the class action lawsuit, customers complained about underpowered vehicles prior to 2013, causing Chrysler to switch to the larger 2.4L Tigershark MultiAir II engines. Chrysler allegedly markets the 2.4L Tigershark engines as technology to increase engine power and torque, reduce emissions and decrease fuel consumption. But the lawsuit alleges the MultiAir system won't function properly unless there is strict maintenance of oil volume. The plaintiffs complain about the oil change indicator systems that receive input from various engine operating conditions to determine when to change the oil, then drivers are warned it's time to change the oil. FCA says conditions such as frequent short trips, towing a trailer and driving in extremely hot or cold ambient temperatures will influence when the Change Oil or Oil Change Required messages are displayed to drivers. In addition, the owner's manuals say operating a vehicle in severe conditions may cause the oil message to activate as early as 3,500 miles. Owners are told to change the oil within the next 500 miles. The manuals also explain the oil should be changed "at 4,000 miles (6,500 km) or 350 hours of engine run time if the vehicle is operated in a dusty and off road environment or is operated predominately at idle or only very low engine RPMs." The lawsuit alleges in other conditions, the oil change intervals shouldn't exceed "10,000 miles (16,000 km), twelve months or 350 hours of engine run time, whichever comes first. The 350 hours of engine run or idle time is generally only a concern for fleet customers." Low engine oil will prevent the Tigershark engine from proper cooling and lubrication, allegedly causing premature wear and failures of the engine. Vehicle owners further complain how dealerships allegedly swear a vehicle shutting down in the middle of a highway is a safety feature. According to the class action, the Tigershark engines allow oil to escape past the oil control piston rings and into the combustion areas. This is allegedly caused by oil control piston rings that do not function properly with the cylinders in which they operate. "Although piston rings do not require maintenance, and are purportedly lifetime parts, the rings in Class Vehicles wear down, whereby the oil control piston ring is worn flush with the piston wall, allowing engine oil to be consumed during the compression cycle." - Oil consumption lawsuit The Chrysler oil consumption lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan: Davis, et al., v. FCA US LLC. The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, the Miller Law Firm, P.C., and Goldenberg Schneider, LPA. [GN] FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Indirect Customers' Suit Ongoing in Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that there are 13 remaining state law claims brought by a putative class of indirect customers. Ferrellgas, L.P. has been named as a defendant, along with a competitor, in putative class action lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions. The lawsuits, which were consolidated in the Western District of Missouri on October 16, 2014, allege that Ferrellgas and a competitor coordinated in 2008 to reduce the fill level in barbeque cylinders and combined to persuade a common customer to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to direct customers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The lawsuits seek treble damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief and costs on behalf of the putative class. These lawsuits have been coordinated for pretrial purposes by the multidistrict litigation panel. The Federal Court for the Western District of Missouri initially dismissed all claims brought by direct and indirect customers other than state law claims of indirect customers under Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont law. The direct customer plaintiffs filed an appeal, which resulted in a reversal of the district court's dismissal. The company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari which was denied. An appeal by the indirect customer plaintiffs resulted in the court of appeals affirming the dismissal of the federal claims and remanding the case to the district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Thereafter, in August 2019, Ferrellgas, L.P. reached a settlement with the direct customers, pursuant to which it agreed to pay a total of $6.25 million to resolve all claims asserted by the putative direct purchaser class. With respect to the indirect customers, the district court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, but then granted in part Ferrellgas' pleadings-based motion and dismissed 11 of the 24 remaining state law claims. As a result, there are 13 remaining state law claims brought by a putative class of indirect customers. Ferrellgas, L.P. believes it has strong defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself against these remaining claims. Ferrellgas, L.P. does not believe loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time related to the putative class action lawsuit. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. distributes and sells propane and related equipment and supplies. The company transports propane to propane distribution locations, tanks on customers' premises, or to portable propane tanks delivered to retailers. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas. FIRST LINE: Underpays Construction Workers, Maldonado et al. Say ---------------------------------------------------------------- FREDIS MALDONADO, IVIS GUEVARA SANCHEZ, JOSE R. JACO, and PABLO GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FIRST LINE CONTRACTING GROUP INC. (D/B/A FIRST LINE CONTRACTING), MIKE MOUROUNAS, PETER DOE, ASPIRO DOE, and MIKE DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02566 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and all others similarly-situated construction workers appropriate overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week and for failure to maintain accurate recordkeeping of all their worked hours, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as roofers and mechanics at the construction corporation located at 24-38 47th St. Astoria, New York between 2017 and 2020. First Line Contracting Group Inc., d/b/a First Line Contracting, is a construction company located at 24-38 47th St. Astoria, New York and at 7-30 130th St. College Point, 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 FIRST SOLAR: Agreement in Principle Entered in Maverick Fund Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- First Solar, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated June 5, 2020, that the Company and the plaintiffs in the case, Maverick Fund, L.D.C. v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01156-ROS (the Opt-Out Action), have entered into an agreement in principle to settle the claims in the Opt-Out Action. First Solar and certain of its current and former directors and officers are defendants in a lawsuit titled Maverick Fund, L.D.C. v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01156-ROS (the "Opt-Out Action"), which was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona by putative stockholders that opted out of the purported class action lawsuit titled Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No 2:12-cv-00555-DGC (the "Class Action"), filed in the Court. On June 3, 2020, the Company and the plaintiffs in the Opt-Out Action entered into an agreement in principle to settle the claims in the Opt-Out Action. Under the terms of the agreement in principle, the Company has agreed to pay a total of $19 million in exchange for a dismissal with prejudice of the Opt-Out Action and mutual releases. The Company had accrued $13 million of estimated losses for the Opt-Out Action as of March 31, 2020, which represented the Company's best estimate of the lower bound of the costs to resolve this case. The proposed settlement contains no admission of liability, wrongdoing, or responsibility by any of the defendants, and is subject to the negotiation and execution of a definitive settlement agreement among the parties. The entry into the agreement in principle does not affect the class-wide settlement filed with the Court in the Class Action on February 13, 2020. First Solar, Inc. provides photovoltaic (PV) solar energy solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates in two segments, Modules and Systems. The company was formerly known as First Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to First Solar, Inc. in 2006. First Solar, Inc. was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Tempe, Arizona. FLOWERS BAKING: Shepard Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to E.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS SHEPARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FLOWERS BAKING CO OF MODESTO, LLC., a California limited liability company, ABM GENERAL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CV-20-002203 (Filed April 28, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Stanislaus to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 2, 2020. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-at-00396 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges claims for failure to pay lawful wages owed; failure to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to provide lawful rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to timely pay wages; knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; failure to indemnify employees for expenditures; and violations of the unfair competition law. Flowers Baking was founded in 2013. The Company's line of business includes the manufacturing of fresh or frozen bread and bread-type rolls, cakes, pies, and other perishable bakery products.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexander M. Chemers, Esq. Jared L. Palmer, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 E-mail: alexander.chemers@ogletree.com jared.palmer@ogletree.com FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Funds Sue over Botched Merger Deal ---------------------------------------------------------- THE ARBITRAGE FUND; WATER ISLAND LEVARB FUND, LP; WATER ISLAND DIVERSIFIED EVENT-DRIVEN FUND; WATER ISLAND MERGER ARBITRAGE INSTITUTIONAL COMINGLED MASTER FUND LP; and ALTSHARES MERGER ARBITRAGE ETF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; MICHAEL DECESARE; and CHRISTOPHER HARMS, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03819 (N.D. Cal., June 10, 2020) alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, on May 18, 2020, Forescout Technologies, Inc. announced that on May 158 it received notice from its acquisition partner, Advent International Corporation ("Advent"), that Advent "would not be proceeding to consummate the acquisition of Forescout" pursuant to the parties February 6, 2020 merger agreement. As a result of the disclosure, Forescout's stock price plummeted 23.5% from $29.52 per share at close on May 15 to $22.57 per share at close on May 18, wiping out approximately $300 million in market capitalization. During February 6, 2020 to May 15, 2020, inclusive, Forescout failed to reveal to investors that: (i) its fourth quarter 2019 revenues were inflated by the abnormal transaction with Merlin International: (ii) its financial performance was experiencing a significant and disproportionate decline starting early in the first quarter of 2020, (iii) Advent repeatedly expressed concerns regarding Forescout's recent financial performance; (iv) Forescout was not meeting its obligations under the Merger Agreement; (v) there was a material risk the Transaction would not close or (vi) that Advent had informed Forescout it was considering terminating the Merger Agreement. ForeScout Technologies, Inc. provides automated security control solutions. The Company develops proprietary agentless technology that discovers and classifies IP-based devices in real time as they connect to the network and monitors their security posture. ForeScout Technologies serves industries and organizations worldwide. [BN] *. *. * Michael Novinson, writing for CRN.com, reports Forescout sued Advent on May 20 after the private equity firm failed to close its previously announced $1.9 billion buy of the cybersecurity vendor. Advent said it received an email May 5 from forescout.whistleblower@protonmail.com alleging that Forescout involved Merlin in a “channel stuffing scheme” during Q4 2019. Forescout says the claim is without merit. Advent has subpoenaed Merlin in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com kpachman@susmangodfrey.com - and - Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1170 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 710-5960 Facsimile: (212) 894-7272 E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com - and - Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq. Brendan J. Brodeur, Esq. Andrew M. Sher, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10171 Telephone: (212) 894-7200 Facsimile: (212) 894-7272 E-mail: vcappucci@entwistle-law.com bbrodeur@entwistle-law.com asher@entwistle-law.com FROEDTERT HEALTH: Mismanaged 401(k) Plan, Bangalore Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- NITISH S. BANGALORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. FROEDTERT HEALTH, INC.; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF FROEDTERT HEALTH, INC.; and FROEDTERT HEALTH, INC. BENEFIT PLAN COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00893 (E.D. Wis., June 12, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence and for failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of the Froedtert Health, Inc. 403(b) Plan beginning six years before the commencement of this action and running through the date of judgment, alleges that the Defendants failed to employ a prudent and loyal process by failing to critically or objectively evaluate the cost and performance of the Plan's investments and fees in comparison to other investment options. The Defendants selected and retained for years as Plan investment options mutual funds with high expenses relative to other investment options that were readily available to the Plan at all relevant times. The Defendants also failed to engage in a prudent process for monitoring the Plan's investments and removing imprudent ones within a reasonable period. This resulted in the Plan continuing to offer unreasonably expensive funds and share classes compared to equivalent and/or comparable low-cost alternatives that were available to the Plan. In addition, the Defendants failed to remove members of the Benefits Plan Committee whose performance was inadequate in that they continued to maintain imprudent, excessively costly, and poorly performing investments within the Plan, and caused the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees, all to the detriment of the Plan and Plan participants' retirement savings. Froedtert Health, Inc. is a healthcare services provider with its principal headquarters located at 400 Woodland Prime, Suite 302, N74 W12501 Leatherwood Court, Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. Paul M. Secunda, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com FRUTAROM INDUSTRIES: Class Action in the U.S. Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Tomer Ganon, writing for CTech, reports that in the early hours of June 3, following a few weeks' delay due to the coronavirus (Covid-19) outbreak, the opening shot was fired. The Israeli police and investigators from the Israel Securities Authority (ISA) knocked on the doors of five former Frutarom Industries Ltd. executives to search their homes and hurl them in for questioning. At the same time, during a raid on Frutarom's offices in central Israeli town Herzliya, some 15 computers and cellphones were confiscated by the police. The executives - the most prominent of whom was Frutarom's former CEO and president Ori Yehudai who was at the company's helm for 20 years - may have been surprised by the timing of the raid but not by the allegations that led to it. In August last year, Frutarom's parent company, NYSE-listed International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. (IFF), announced it had uncovered bribes and improper payments made by Frutarom representatives in Russia and Ukraine in aninternal probe. Since then, additional suspicions of fraud, breach of trust, false entries in corporate documents, and various violations of Israeli securities laws have come to light. The arrested former executives were released after a Tel Aviv court ruled they were not to leave the country for 180 days. They were also required to post high bail: NIS 1 million (approximately $288,000) for Yehudai; NIS 500,000 (approximately $144,000) for Ari Rosenthal, formerly Frutarom's general manager for Israel and emerging markets; NIS 450,000 (approximately $129,700) for Alon Granot, the company's former chief financial officer and now the chairman of Israeli cannabis cultivator Canndoc Ltd.; NIS 300,000 (approximately $86,500) for former vice president of finance Guy Gill; and NIS 50,000 (approximately $14,400) for Igor Alterman, formerly the company's general manager of Russia and Ukraine. The official investigation started after IFF released the findings of the internal probe it conducted about a year after it acquired Frutarom for over $6.4 billion. According to IFF, it only learned of any misdoing after the deal was signed. Now, it has become clear what instigated IFF's probe, to begin with. In July 2018, an IFF stakeholder, MK Investments LLC, sent a 24-page letter before action to Yehudai and additional former Frutarom executives. The letter, reviewed by Calcalist, was based on evidence and testimonies that have reached MK Investments. About six weeks after the letter was sent, IFF first informed its shareholders that it had initiated the probe, conducted by international law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP. The materials first presented in the letter are now being used as evidence in the criminal investigation as well as a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. In the letter, sent by Israel-based law firm Elbert, Nazaretsky, Rakov & Co., MK Investments demands to be paid between $454 million and $611 million in damages, otherwise, it will be forced to take legal actions. In its letter, MK Investments claimed the bribe mechanism it has uncovered has affected at least NIS 280 million (approximately $80 million) in Frutarom's revenue in 2008-2018. MK Investments claimed that, since these revenues were earned as a result of bribes paid to officials in eastern Europe, they could potentially expose IFF, in which it holds a stake to heavy fines, according to U.S. federal laws. One term that repeated itself throughout the letter is "otkat," the Russian equivalent of kickback, meaning the diversion of part of the funds allocated for a purchase to a person responsible for said purchase. The letter refers to cash paid unlawfully to key figures in client companies meant to secure a flow of orders, increase the deals' size, or hike their prices. According to the letter, Rosenthal was a key figure in Frutarom's otkat mechanism. MK Investments also alleged that Yehudai and chairman John Farber were fully aware of the payments and that they were made with their approval. "Frutarom made illicit payments to its clients' key employees," the letter stated. "These payments were sometimes referred to as bonuses or commissions but sometimes also openly as otkat," it continued. In Russia, these bribes sometimes amounted to 2%-15% of the total deal and, at other times, were calculated at a set price per kilogram of product sold, the letter said. In some cases, the letter further alleged, "the payments made by the client were intentionally inflated in Frutarom's books, with the bribed employee pocketing the difference in cash. In other cases, the bribe was used to get key people to agree, on behalf of their employers, to pay more for Frutarom's product, according to the letter. "The bribes were paid in cash from time to time, ranging from tens of dollars to thousands of dollars, with the sums paid to each of the customers' employees approved beforehand by Frutarom's management in Israel," the letter stated. It further alleged that delivering the bribes was the responsibility of Frutarom's employees in Russia in accordance with sales made, that the payments were included in Frutarom's expense budget, and that monthly, quarterly, and annual reports on them were issued. According to MK Investments' letter, the bribes were an open secret at Frutarom's Russia offices, its developing markets department, and its finance division in Israel and was referred to as regular expenses. "Coordinating otkat payments regarding specific clients in accordance with pre-approved sums was done via email correspondence in Russian between Frutarom employees and their direct managers," the letter stated. Approval of a new otkat or any changes to its sums were made via email correspondence in English between Rosenthal and Frutarom executives, it further alleged. Routine updates in English, which named the customer, its bribed employee, their position in the company, and the sums paid were sent to Gill, while Yehudai and Granot were informed on more principal issues, the letter stated. "On several occasions, the bribes were even discussed by the company's internal auditor and its chairman," it added. According to the letter, the otkat practice was employed by Frutarom for at least nine years, between 2009 and 2018, in which millions of dollars were paid as bribes by the company. In 2010, for example, Frutarom paid bribes for 31.8% of its sales in Russia, the letter stated, estimating the average for the entire nine-year period to be 35% of all deals. MK Investments estimated that Frutarom's sales for the period in Russia amounted to some $152 million, meaning that at least $53.2 million were derived from deals procured through bribes. According to the letter, Frutarom's methods in Ukraine were similar but, there, bribes were also paid to customs officials to hurry the release of Frutarom's imports from customs. The payments were referred to in Frutarom's Ukraine activity as cash expenses or cash commissions and were calculated either as 3%-10% of the total sales or using a set sum per kilo. MK Investments alleged in its letter that after concerns were raised that using foreign currency to pay bribes in Ukraine was too risky, Frutarom changed the way it transfers the bribes. Instead of having employees bring in cash from Israel, Frutarom began to inflate its employees' salaries in Ukraine and pay them in cash. The employees then used the excess payments to pay off state officials, the letter alleges. Here too, according to MK Investments, regular reports in English were sent to the finance division for the approval of Gill, Yehudai, Granot, and Farber. According to the letter, Frutarom paid thousands of dollars in bribes in Ukraine each month and a total of millions throughout the period. In 2010, the letter states, 49.3% of Frutarom's sales in Ukraine were the result of bribes and it is safe to assume that the average for the entire nine-year period to be as high as 60% of all deals. According to MK Investments' estimates, Frutarom's sales revenue in Ukraine throughout the period amounted to some $46 million, at least $27.6 million of which were for sales secured through bribes paid to customers' employees. "Together with the bribes paid to customs officials, it would appear all of Frutarom's activity in Ukraine was tainted with bribes," the letter states. The letter mentioned various documents reviewed by the lawyers proving the involvement of Frutarom's Israeli management in the bribe operation in eastern Europe. The letter alleged that the effectiveness of the bribes paid was often carefully examined by the company. The letter also claimed that, in January 2009, Gill specifically instructed employees to only pay bribes for completed and paid for transactions. According to the letter, Yehudai and Farber were fully aware of these practices. Frutarom's management knew that the bribe payment operation put the company at risk and attempted to minimize the chances of it being uncovered and that is why it changed the way the money was handled in Ukraine, the letter claims. "The bribe operation was also examined by the company's internal auditor, who discussed it with Yehudai and Farber, but the bribes' overall positive effect on Frutarom's sales in Russia and Ukraine was so massive that the management was unwilling to let go of it, despite the risk," the letter stated. Navit Negev and Iris Niv-Sabag of Sheinman-Negev-Niv Law Offices, Moshe Mazor of Goldfarb Seligman, and Nati Simchoni who represent Yehudai, Granot, Gill, and Rosenthal, respectively, did not respond to Calcalist's request for comment. IFF and Frutarum's representation, Pinhas Rubin and Lior Porat of Gornitzky & Co. did not respond as well. Farber could not be reached for comment. In response to Calcalist's request for comment, Coby Margolov and Alon Harel of law firm Katz, Margolov, Harel, who represent Alterman, stated: "our client filled a number of positions at Frutarom before being fired in 2014 over a professional disagreement with the management that is currently under investigation." [GN] G4S SECURE: Clark and Duffy Sue Over Unlawful Wages ---------------------------------------------------- JULIE CLARK and TIMOTHY DUFFY, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-VOE-2020-4301 (Calif. Super., San Joaquin Cty., May 27, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation, maintain time records, offer paid rest and meal breaks, and provide itemized wage statements in violation of the California Labor Code. Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as security guards in the state of California. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. is an American/British-based security services company situated in California, and a subsidiary of G4S PLC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by : Adam Blair Corren, Esq. Spencer D. Sinclair, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CORREN & CORREN 5345 N. El Dorado, Suite 7 Stockton, CA 95207 Telephone: (209) 478-2621 Facsimile: (209) 478-3038 Email: acorren@correnlaw.com ssinclair@correlaw.com GENERAL MOTORS LLC: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Ignition Switch MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Patricia Barker, et al., filed an appeal from court rulings entered in the multidistrict litigation entitled In re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, Case No. 14-md-2543, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Jesse Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Summary Judgment Ruling in the General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation. The litigation arises from alleged defects in the ignition switches and other features of certain General Motors vehicles. Some of the claims are brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of putative classes of GM car owners and lessors whose vehicles were subject to recalls and who now seek to recover economic losses, on the theory that they overpaid for their vehicles because a car with a safety defect is worth less than a car without a safety defect. In particular, the Court reached three significant conclusions. First, the Court held that, in all three Bellwether States, Plaintiffs' benefit-of-the-bargain damages are properly measured as the lesser of (1) the cost of repair, or (2) the difference in fair market value between the Plaintiffs' cars as warranted and those same cars as sold. Second, the Court explained: That means that evidence of New GM's post-sale repairs is relevant to the calculation of Plaintiffs' damages and, indeed, could theoretically eliminate those damages altogether. Third, and most significantly, the Court concluded that, whether or not Plaintiffs' claims for cost-of-repair damages could survive New GM's motion, Plaintiffs' claims for difference-in-value' damages could not because Plaintiffs' sole evidence of such damages, the expert testimony of Stefan Boedeker was insufficient as a matter of Bellwether State law to establish the existence of damages, an essential element of any such claim. The Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of three aspects of the Court's summary judgment Opinion and Order. First, Plaintiffs challenge the Court's conclusion that, under California law, benefit-of-the-bargain damages may be mitigated, including through post-sale recalls and repairs. Second, Plaintiffs argue that Texas law does not allow complete mitigation of benefit-of-the-bargain damages sustained by plaintiffs whose products manifested defects. Third, and most significantly, Plaintiffs urge the Court to reverse its holding that the evidence, in particular, Boedeker's expert analysis is insufficient as a matter of law to establish benefit-of-the-bargain damages based on a difference in value. The appellate case is captioned as In re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, Case No. 20-1119, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Patricia Barker, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated; Chimen Basseri; Michael Benton; Kimberly Brown-Shipley; Kellie Cereceres; Sylvia Benton, indiviually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Yvonne James-Bivens; Javier F. Malaga, an individual; and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Crystal Hardin; Santiago Orosco; David Padilla; Winifred Mattos; William L. Rukeyser; Michelle Thomas; Esperanza Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Deloris Hamilton; Cynthia Hawkins; Brad Akers; Ronald Robinson; Mario Stefano; Kenneth Robinson; Patrice Witherspoon; Gareebah Al-ghamdi; Christopher Tinen; Dawn Fuller; Michael Graciano; Dawn Bacon; Lisa McClellan; Lisa Simmons; Shenyesa Henry; Malinda Stafford; and Keisha Hunter are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 2nd Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com Defendant-Appellee General Motors LLC is represented by: Andrew Baker Bloomer, Esq. Richard C. Godfrey, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2482 E-mail: andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com richard.godfrey@kirkland.com GOOGLE INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Over Incognito Mode ---------------------------------------------------------- The Economic Times reports that search engine behemoth Google found itself in the middle of a proposed class action lawsuit filed in California for invading the privacy of users even when they are browsing the web in what is called the private or incognito mode. The $5 billion class action suit alleges that the tech giant collects user's data by tracking his activity on the web even in the private mode through Google Analytics, Google Ad Manager and website plug-ins, a Reuters report said. Users normally login through the incognito mode assuming that it's safe as their search history isn't being tracked. The petitioners have alleged that Google collects the private data even as the users are under the impression that their data is safe and that amounts to misrepresentation. Google, in its response, has denied the allegations and says that it has been upfront in disclosing that websites could collect data of the user each time they open them in the incognito mode. "As we clearly state each time you open a new incognito tab, websites might be able to collect information about your browsing activity," Jose Castaneda, Google's spokesman, said. The complainants have alleged that the search engine giant has violated the federal wiretap law and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The federal wiretap act prohibits the intentional or purposeful interception, disclosing or using the contents of a wire, oral or electronic communication. The California Invasion of Privacy Act prohibits tapping into private communication and thereby maintaining the privacy of individuals. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Grand Atlas et al. Allege Digital Ad Markets Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------------- GRAND ATLAS TOURS, SUREFREIGHT GLOBAL LLC DBA PRANA PETS, and HANSON LAW FIRM, PC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-03556 (N.D. Cal., May 27, 2020) contends that, in violation of the Sherman Act and the Unfair Competition Law, search-engine giant Google has through unlawful means acquired and maintained a monopoly in digital advertising markets. Over the past several years, Google leveraged its stranglehold on online search and search advertising to gain an illegal monopoly in brokering display advertising on other companies' websites. Google achieved this market dominance in part by acquiring rivals in the online advertising space, conditioning access to its search-results data and YouTube video advertising platform upon the purchase of its separate display advertising services, and ensuring those systems were not compatible with those of its competitors in online advertising. Because of Google's pervasive monopoly conduct, companies, including the Plaintiffs, who wish to place online advertisements have little choice but to pay Google for its advertising services. The result of Google's extraction of monopoly rents has been higher advertising prices, higher consumer prices, lower payments to publishers of online advertisements, and reduced competition in the purchase and placement of online advertisements. The Plaintiffs dealt directly with Google in its capacity as digital advertising broker, having placed online advertisements using Google's services. Plaintiffs, like the other class members, overpaid or otherwise suffered economic losses due to Google's monopolization of these markets, and therefore sue for damages and appropriate injunctive relief. Google LLC is a California-based technology company that provides Internet-related services and products, including online advertising technologies and a search engine. Alphabet Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California. Google LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alphabet.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christina C. Sharp, Esq. Jordan Elias, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 Email: dsharp@girardsharp.com jelias@girardsharp.com apolk@girardsharp.com scottg@girardsharp.com - and - Scott L. Silver, Esq. SILVER LAW GROUP 11780 W. Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 Telephone: (954) 755-4799 Email: ssilver@silverlaw.com GREAT AMERICAN: Fails to Notify Close of Policy, Tavakolian Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- HAMID R. TAVAKOLIAN, Individually, and on Behalf of the Class v. GREAT AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-01133 (C.D. Cal., June 2, 2020), arises from GALIC's refusal to comply with mandatory provisions of the California Insurance Code, as well as California common law, regulating the lapse and termination of life insurance policies. Since January 1, 2013, GALIC and other related entities have systematically and purposely failed to provide certain classes of policy owners, insureds, assignees and others, proper notices of pending lapse or termination, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff contends that GALIC has failed to notify thousands of policy owners of their right to designate someone to receive critical notices and information regarding life insurance, despite being required to do so on an annual basis. All of these important safeguards are required by California Insurance Code. Ultimately, the Plaintiff alleges, the Defendant has robbed thousands of their customers and beneficiary of the investment in such policies, policy benefits as well as the security intended to be provided from such insurance. Great American operates as a stock insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org - and - Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq. Georg M. Capielo, Esq. Sarah Ball, Esq. WINTERS & ASSOCIATES 8489 La Mesa Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 234-9000 Facsimile: (619) 750-0413 E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net gcapielo@einsurelaw.com sball@einsurelaw.com GREAT CONSTRUCTION: Cruz Seeks Overtime Pay for Workers ------------------------------------------------------- The case, JORGE CRUZ, CARLOS CRUZ, WILLIAM ORDONEZ, AND SEGUNDO ORDONEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. GREAT CONSTRUCTION GROUP CORP., GREAT CONSTRUCTION PARTNERS CORP., EVERWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC., JIRI OSICKA, AND KAMIL SVRCEK, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-04380 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and all others similarly-situated current and former employees overtime premium pay for hours worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction workers in New York at any time since May 20, 2017. Great Construction Group Corp. is a construction company with a business address of 111 Manor Road, Patterson, New York. Great Construction Partners Corp. is a construction company with actual address of 111 Manor Road, Patterson, New York. Everwood Construction Inc. is a construction company with a registered business address of 1036 Route 6, Mahopac, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com GREIF INC: Suit Over Noxious Odor at Wisconsin Plant Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Greif, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the company, together with Container Life Cycle Management (CLCM), continues to defend a putative class action suit in Wisconsin concerning one of CLCM's Milwaukee reconditioning facilities. On November 8, 2017, the Company, Container Life Cycle Management (CLCM) and other parties were named as defendants in a punitive class action lawsuit filed in Wisconsin state court concerning one of CLCM's Milwaukee reconditioning facilities. The plaintiffs are alleging that odors from this facility have invaded their property and are interfering with the use and enjoyment of their property and causing damage to the value of their property. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, along with their legal fees. The Company and CLCM are vigorously defending themselves in this lawsuit. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Greif, Inc. produces and sells industrial packaging products and services worldwide. It operates through four segments: Rigid Industrial Packaging & Services; Paper Packaging & Services; Flexible Products & Services; and Land Management. The company was formerly known as Greif Bros. Corporation and changed its name toGreif, Inc. in 2001. Greif, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in Delaware, Ohio. HEALTHEQUITY INC: Purchasers' Class Suit v. WageWorks Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- HealthEquity, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that WageWorks, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated class action suit initiated by its common stock purchasers. On August 30, 2019, HealthEquity, Inc. closed the acquisition of WageWorks, Inc. ("WageWorks"), pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), for $51.35 per share in cash, or approximately $2.0 billion to WageWorks stockholders (the "Acquisition"). On March 9, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Securities Class Action"). On May 16, 2019, a consolidated amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiffs asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against WageWorks, its former Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer on behalf of purchasers of WageWorks common stock between May 6, 2016 and March 1, 2018. The complaint also alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, arising from WageWorks' June 19, 2017 common stock offering against those same defendants, as well as the members of its board of directors at the time of that offering. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. HealthEquity, Inc. is an American health care company that is designated as a non-bank health savings trustee by the IRS.[2] This designation allows HealthEquity to be the custodian of health savings accounts regardless of which financial institution the funds are deposited with. The company is based in Draper, Utah. HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Cynes Sues over 18% Drop in Share Price ---------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL CLYNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEBRON TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.; ANYUAN SUN; and CHANGJUAN LIANG, Defendants, Case 1:20-cv-04420 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2020) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Hebron securities between April 24, 2020 and June 3, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, Hebron conducts equipment and engineering service operations focusing on the research, development and manufacture of fluid equipment including valves, pipe fittings and others. Since July 2019, the Company has also provided financial advisory service operations. On June 3, 2020, Grizzly Research presented a report alleging that Hebron is an "insider enrichment scheme without economic basis," citing questionable transactions including an undisclosed related party transaction for nearly $26 million. On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.26, or nearly 37%, to close at $14.29 per share on June 3, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock continued to decline the next trading session by $2.51, or nearly 18%, to close at $11.78 per share on June 4, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that many of Hebron's acquisitions, including Beijing Hengpu and Nami Holding (Cayman) Co., Ltd., involved undisclosed related parties; (2) that the Company's disclosure controls regarding related party transactions was ineffective; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. develops and manufactures valves and pipe fittings. The Company offers pipeline design, installation, construction, and ongoing maintenance services, as well as holistic solution services. Hebron Technology serves the pharmaceuticals, biology, food, and beverage industries in Shanghai, Wenzhou, and Taiwan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 HIGH TECH LANDSCAPES: Underpays Landscapers, Arias Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSE ARIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIGH TECH LANDSCAPES, INC.; and PAUL CERNUTO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-07046 (D.N.J., June 10, 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 Arias was employed by the Defendants as landscaper. High Tech Landscapes, Inc. operates as a civil construction firm. The Company offers landscape lighting, landscape planting, site work, mansory work, excavating, and storm management services. High Tech Landscapes operates in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. 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: Aglenn@JaffeGlenn.com jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com HILL'S PET: Ambassador TCPA Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to N.D. Ill. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as AMBASSADOR ANIMAL HOSPITAL, LTD., Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., Case No. 2020CH3822 (Filed April 13, 2020), was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois on June 5, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-03326 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts a federal law claim for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and a state law claim for conversion. Ambassador Animal is a full-service animal hospital in Hanover Park, Illinois. Hill's Pet Nutrition marketed simply as "Hills," is an American pet food company that produces dog and cat foods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Erika A. Dirk, Esq. Tammy B. Webb, Esq. Rebecca J. Schwartz, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 111 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4700 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 704-7700 Facsimile: (312) 558-1195 E-mail: eadirk@shb.com tbwebb@shb.com rschwartz@shb.com HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY: Latvala Seeks Tuition Fee Refund ---------------------------------------------------- MIAH LATVALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02368 (E.D.N.Y., May 27, 2020) is a class action brought on behalf of Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals who paid tuition and/or fees to Defendant Hofstra University for the academic term encompassing March 2020 and thereafter, and who (i) did not receive their bargained-for educational and other services and (ii) have not been refunded a prorated portion of their tuition and fees after the University ceased providing such services to students during the Spring 2020 academic semester due to Coronavirus Disease 2019. As a result of Defendant's wrongful acts and unfair business practices alleged herein, Plaintiff and the proposed Class (i) have not received any refund or reimbursement for the unused services for which they paid tuition or fees and/or (ii) did not receive any refund or reimbursement for the decreased value of the education they received from Hofstra when their classes transitioned from in-person instruction at the University's campus facilities to an entirely remote, online learning format. The Defendant refuses to refund or reimburse Plaintiff and similarly-situated Hofstra students the fees they paid for the education and other services they are not being provided, including fees for libraries and gyms they can no longer access, despite receiving over $6 million in government funding through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) Act, half of which is federally mandated to go toward students who are in need of emergency financial assistance. Hofstra University is a private university in Hempstead, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ellen Noteware, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 874-4604 Email: enoteware@bm.net - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 43 SE Main Street, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 Email: emdrake@bm.net jhashmall@bm.net HP INC: Consolidated Gensin Class Suit in Israel Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit in Israel entitled, Gensin v. HP Inc. On October 25, 2017, a purported consumer class action, captioned Gensin v. HP Inc., was filed in the District Court in Jerusalem against HP arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. The petition and motion for certification as a class action alleges: (1) tortious wrongdoing in violation of the Computers Law, 5755-1995; (2) breach of Contracts Law, 5731-1970; (3) breach of the Consumer Protection Law, 5741-1981; (4) negligence; and (5) improper enrichment. The named petitioner initially sought to represent nationwide classes comprised of anyone who "owns an HP printer that has been blocked, disrupted, or interfered with by HP in the use of ink cartridges not manufactured by HP" or who "purchased ink cartridges not manufactured by HP for use in the blocked printers." Plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees. On November 16, 2017, a second purported consumer class action was filed against HP in the Central District Court, captioned Dror v. HP, Inc., also arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. The petition and motion allege similar causes of action on behalf of similar nationwide classes. After the Dror case was consolidated with the Gensin case in Jerusalem, the District Court on June 24, 2018 dismissed the Dror case and designated Gensin as the lead matter. On March 9, 2020, the petitioner moved to modify the proposed nationwide class to be comprised of "all persons who have an HP printer and whose printer was blocked or rendered unusable by HP with any ink cartridge that is not made by HP" and "all persons who purchased ink cartridges that are not made by HP, for use in the Blocked Printers." HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HP INC: Parziale Plaintiffs May Amend Complaint ----------------------------------------------- HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the court in Parziale v. HP Inc., has granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On August 27, 2019, a purported consumer class action was filed against HP in federal court in the Northern District of California arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. The complaint alleges two causes of action under Florida Consumer Protection statutes: (1) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, F.S.A. Sections 501.201 et seq., and (2) violation of the Florida Misleading Advertisement Law, F.S.A. Sections 817.41 et seq. The named plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of "all United States Citizens who, between the applicable statute of limitations and the present, had an HP Printer that was modified to reject third party ink cartridges or refilled HP ink cartridges." On November 13, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding three causes of action to the case: (1) violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1030 et seq., (2) trespass to chattels, and (3) tortious interference with business relations. Plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, including punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. On December 30, 2019, HP moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. On April 24, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part HP's motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed plaintiff's causes of action under the Florida Consumer Protection statutes, as well as the tortious interference with business relations claim and four of the five claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The Court denied HP's motion to dismiss on the remaining claims and the request for injunctive relief. The Court has granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HP INC: Suit by Electrical Workers Pension Fund Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. HP Inc., et al. On February 19, 2020, Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion Weisler, Catherine Lesjak, and Steven Fieler in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges, among other things, that from February 23, 2017 to October 3, 2019, HP and the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements about HP's printing supplies business, including HP's use of its four-box model to manage the demand for supplies. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and other relief. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. INFINITE BLOOM: Duboise Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sharyl Duboise, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Infinite Bloom LLC d/b/a Bloom Dispensaries, an Arizona limited liability company, Case No. 2:20-cv-01073-SRB (D. Ariz., June 2, 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 beginning August 2019, the Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to her cellular telephone. She asserts that the Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., selling her medical marijuana. Bloom provides medical marijuana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Aaron M. Ahlzadeh, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305-975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com INTEL CORP: Sells Defective CPUs, Blue Peak Hosting et al. Allege ----------------------------------------------------------------- BLUE PEAK HOSTING, LLC; PAMELA GREEN; TITI RICAFORT; MARGARITE SIMPSON; and MICHAEL NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INTEL CORPORATION, Defendant, (D. Or., May 29, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly-situated consumers who purchased or leased one or more Intel central processing units (CPUs) or one or more devices containing an Intel CPU in Wyoming. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant is engaged in false, misleading and deceptive advertising and selling of its CPUs due to its failure to disclose that its CPUs contained design defects which made them vulnerable to unauthorized access and cyber attacks. Moreover, mitigations to address the defects would result in significant CPU performance degradation. Had the Plaintiffs known that Intel's CPUs have significant security vulnerabilities that gave unauthorized program instructions access to protected data, they would not have bought the affected devices containing Intel processors or it would have paid less for them. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's deceptive acts and practices, the Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered and will continue to suffer injury, ascertainable losses of money or property, and monetary and non-monetary damages, including from not receiving the benefit of their bargain in purchasing the CPUs, and increased time and expense in dealing with performance and security issues. Blue Peak Hosting, LLC is a provider of website hosting and virtual private server hosting services, with principal place of business in Utah. Intel Corporation is a multinational corporation and technology company with its principal place of business located at 2200 Mission College Blvd., Santa Clara, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve D. Larson, Esq. Jennifer S. Wagner, Esq. STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C. 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 227-1600 E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com jwagner@stollberne.com - and – Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com - and – Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 388 Market Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-2420 E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com - and – Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1811 E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com - and – Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com - and – Melissa R. Emert, Esq. STULL, STULL, & BRODY 6 East 45th Street New York City, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 687-7230 E-mail: memert@ssbny.com - and – Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Telephone: (952) 941-4005 E-mail: rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com - and – Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com - and – Adam J. Levitt, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dlcfirm.com JMTJ: Valeriano Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Pay for Delivery Workers --------------------------------------------------------------- AGUSTIN SAUL VALERIANO VILLAREAL and PRIXCO SORIANO REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. JMTJ CORP. (d/b/a WING BISTRO), CIPOLLA ROSSA ON 61 INC., DOMINGO DOE, JUNIOR DOE, and MICHAEL DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04337 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Minimum Wage Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and all others similarly-situated workers appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked beyond 40 hours per week, failing to maintain accurate recordkeeping for their total hours worked, and for requiring them to perform non-tipped duties. Plaintiff Valeriano and Plaintiff Soriano were employed by the Defendants as delivery workers and dishwashers at the restaurant located at 1109 1st Avenue, New York, New York from approximately February 10, 2018 until on or about September 16, 2018 and approximately January 5, 2018 until on or about December 23, 2019, respectively. JMTJ Corp., d/b/a Wing Bistro, is a restaurant owner and operator with principal place of business located at 1109 1st Avenue, New York, New York. Cipolla Rossa On 61 Inc. is an Italian restaurant with principal place of business located at 1109 1st Avenue, 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 KANDI TECH: Time to Appeal Nixed N.Y. Securities Suit Expires ------------------------------------------------------------- Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the time to appeal the dismissal of putative shareholder class actions in New York federal court has run. Beginning in March 2017, putative shareholder class actions were filed against Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. and certain of its current and former directors and officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally alleged violations of the federal securities laws based Kandi's disclosure in March 2017 that its financial statements for the years 2014, 2015 and the first three quarters of 2016 would need to be restated, and seek damages on behalf of putative classes of shareholders who purchased or acquired Kandi's securities prior to March 13, 2017. Kandi moved to dismiss the remaining cases, all of which were pending in the New York federal court, and that motion was granted by an order entered on September 30, 2019, and the time to appeal has run. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Kandi Technologies Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures, and commercializes electric vehicle (EV) products and parts and off-road vehicles in the People's Republic of China and internationally. It offers off-road vehicles, including go-karts, all-terrain vehicles, utility vehicles, and other vehicles for sale to distributors or consumers; and EV parts comprising battery packs, EV drive motors, EV controllers, air conditioners, and other electric products. The company was formerly known as Kandi Technologies, Corp. and changed its name to Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. in December 2012. Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Jinhua, the People's Republic of China. KIRKLAND'S INC: Discovery Underway in Miles Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Kirkland's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the putative class action suit entitled, Miles v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc. The Company has been named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of California, Miles v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc. The case has been removed to Federal Court, Central District of California, and trial is not yet set. The complaint alleges, on behalf of Miles and all other hourly Kirkland's employees in California, various wage and hour violations. Kirkland's denies the material allegations in the complaint and believes that its employment policies are generally compliant with California law. The parties are currently engaging in discovery, and the Plaintiff has until November 9, 2020, to file for class certification. The Company believes the case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. Kirkland's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of home decor in the United States. The company's stores provide various merchandise, including holiday decor, framed arts, furniture, ornamental wall decor, fragrance and accessories, mirrors, lamps, decorative accessories, textiles, housewares, gifts, artificial floral products, frames, clocks, and outdoor living items. Kirkland's, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is based in Brentwood, Tennessee. KIRKLAND'S INC: Gennock Suit Over Credit Card Info Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- Kirkland's, Inc. continues to defend against the case, Gennock v. Kirkland's, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2020. The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in April 2017 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Gennock v. Kirkland's, Inc. The complaint alleged that the Company, in violation of federal law, published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number on customers' receipts. On October 21, 2019, the District Court dismissed the matter and ruled that the Plaintiffs did not have standing based on the Third Circuit's recent decision in Kamal v. J. Crew Group, Inc., 918 F.3d 102 (3d. Cir. 2019). Following the dismissal in federal court, on October 25, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Praecipe to Transfer the case to Pennsylvania state court. The Company continues to believe that the case is without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. Kirkland's said, "The matter is covered by insurance, and the Company does not believe that the case will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition, operating results or cash flows. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Kirkland's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of home decor in the United States. The company's stores provide various merchandise, including holiday decor, framed arts, furniture, ornamental wall decor, fragrance and accessories, mirrors, lamps, decorative accessories, textiles, housewares, gifts, artificial floral products, frames, clocks, and outdoor living items. Kirkland's, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is based in Brentwood, Tennessee. KODIAK CONCEPTS: Keller Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Aarin Keller, an individual v. Kodiak Concepts, LLC, dba Great Alaskan Bush Company, an Arizona Limited Liability Company; Anthony Tam, an individual; Doe Managers 1-3 and Does 4-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01120-MHB (D. Ariz., June 5, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated for damages due to the Defendants evading the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, charging illegal kickbacks and illegally absconding with the Plaintiff's tips. The Plaintiff began working as a dancer for the Defendants in the prior three years to the filing of this complaint. The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility located at 2980 Grand Ave., in Phoenix, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel R. Randall, Esq. RANDALL LAW PLLC 4742 N. 24th Street, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 328-0262 E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.com - and - Leigh Montgomery, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77066 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 E-mail: leigh@hughesellzey.com - and - Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. KRISTENSEN LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: 310-507-7924 E-mail: jesenia@kristensenlaw.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Caterer's in the Park Seeks Pay for COVID-19 Loss ----------------------------------------------------------------- CATERER'S IN THE PARK LLC t/a NANINA'S IN THE PARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE; and OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06867-MCA-LDW (D.N.Y., June 4, 2020) alleges that the Defendants unlawfully denied the Plaintiff's insurance claim. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, most businesses insure against such catastrophic events like the current unforeseen COVID-19 pandemic through all-risk commercial property insurance policies. These policies promise to indemnify the policyholder for actual business losses incurred when business operations are involuntarily suspended, interrupted, curtailed, when access to the premises is prohibited because of direct physical loss or damage to the property, or by a civil authority order that restricts or prohibits access to the property. This coverage is commonly known as "business interruption coverage" and is standard in most all-risk commercial property insurance policies. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, and most insurance companies who have issued all-risk commercial property insurance policies with business interruption coverage, are denying the obligation to pay for business income losses and other covered expenses incurred by policyholders for the physical loss and damage to the insured property from measures put in place by the civil authorities to stop the spread of COVID-19 among the population. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company operates provides insurance services. The Company offers car, motorcycle, boat, life, property, landlord, and flood insurance. Liberty Mutual Insurance serves clients in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. SEEGER WEISS 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 - and - Paul J. Geller, Esq. Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 LODI MEMORIAL: Mireles Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- Janine Mireles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lodi Memorial Hospital Association, Inc.; Adventist Health System/West; and Does 1-25, Case No. STK-CV-VOE-2020-4458 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., June 2, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked, in violation of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants failed to provide off-duty meal and rest periods, to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and to reimburse business expenses. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated are current and former employees of the Defendant. Lodi Memorial Hospital operates as a non-profit health organization. The Hospital provides medical and surgical hospital services. Adventist Health is a faith-based, nonprofit integrated health system serving more than 80 communities on the West Coast and in Hawaii.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. Zachary Gershman, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 777 S. Alameda Street, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Telephone: (213) 358-7046 E-mail: jon@lebelaw.com zachary@lebelaw.com - and - Sam C. Khoury, Esq. Michael D. Singer, Esq. J. Jason Hill, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 E-mail: ikhoury@ckslaw.com msinger@ckslaw.com Jhili@ckslaw.com LOTO-QUEBEC: Elisabetta Bertucci Files Class Action Over Poker -------------------------------------------------------------- Isaac Munga, writing for TUNF, reports that there is a poker player who claims that the online poker software for Apple-sized glitcQuebec's provincial gambling monopoly has been hit with a class-action suit. Elisabetta Bertucci, filed a class-action lawsuit in Quebec Superior Court on June 1, alleging that "until the evening of May 18, 2020, Loto-Quebec's Texas Hold'em poker platform had a serious defect unknown to the vast majority" of players. Regardless of whether or not a player chose to expose the hole cards, the suit claims that players using iPads could see other players' hole cards after a hand was complete. Therefore, the suit claims that players using non-iOS devices were inconvenienced since they could not see these hole cards. On May 13, after playing a tournament using an iPad for the first time, Bertucci is said to have revealed the glitch. Espacejeux support was called by Bertucci, claiming that a technician confirmed to her that the glitch existed. However, the glitch had not been patched five days later. As a result, Bertucci called back and spoke to a supervisor named 'Carlos,' after which the glitch was patched. Bertucci got an email from a Loto-Quebec rep on May 21, confirming that "the incident affecting the poker hand history on OK Poker is now resolved." The agent offered her C$15 in compensation and apologized for any "inconvenience" Bertucci may have suffered. The suit alleges Loto-Quebec failed to change all players' user names to prevent their hand histories from being analyzed in this fashion, and it does not notify players of this iOS glitch. The suit also claims that Loto-Quebec deceived its poker players by failing to provide "a secure platform that respects the integrity and rules" of the game. Bertucci's suit notes that GVC Holdings' PartyPoker site recently suffered an integrity breach, and the site responded by changing the usernames of all players in order "to level the playing field." All individuals who paid any money until May 18 to play Texas Hold'em on Espace-Jeux or OK Poker are invited by Bertucci's lawyers at LPC Avocat to add their names to the suit. The suit seeks reimbursement of disciplinary damages of C$300 per player and an order forcing the platforms to allow users to change their screen-names together with of all money paid to play on the poker site. [GN] LOTO-QUEBEC: Glitchy Poker Platform Faces Class-Action ------------------------------------------------------ Paul Brooks, writing for Casino Reports (Canada), reports that Loto-Quebec faces serious charges because of an ongoing glitch of its gaming platform that has led to some unfair advantage for some poker players. A class-action lawsuit was recently filed, as an application was filed at the beginning of this month. It claims that Texas Hold'em poker action comes with a flawed platform that benefits some players. The alleged flaw in the way the system works has allegedly allowed some poker players to have an advantage while gaming online. Elisabetta Bertucci was the individual who decided to fight for her rights when it comes to fair gambling in the online space. June 1 saw the introduction of the class-action lawsuit to the Quebec Superior Court. Joey Zukran is the lawyer from LPC Avocats representing Ms. Bertucci and the people possibly affected by the online poker flaw of the Loto-Quebec platform. The lawsuit claims that information about the poker rivals was available to some poker players participating in Texas Hold'em gaming action. Ms. Bertucci herself claims that she had lost about CA$18,000 as a result of the platform glitch. It should also be noted that upon encountering her complaint, the Crown corporation offered her CA$15 as an online gaming bonus she could use across espacejeux.com. The glitch occurred up until May 18, 2020, and it benefitted individuals using an iOS device to play online. As it is specified, iPad users had the option to reveal pocket or hole cards of their rivals on the table. Two hole cards at the end of each hand could be revealed and the player was unable to stop this process. The lawsuit also makes a point that the glitch might have also been benefitting all iOS devices users. As a result of this flaw, some players had access to their rivals' cards and an unfair advantage over them. This also revealed their strategy and made it easier for the iOS users, in turn, to adjust their own strategy and plan their next move. The class-action lawsuit involves a wider group of individuals all affected by the same conditions and allegedly unfair treatment. LPC Avocats now offer individuals the chance to register and become part of the group of people directly affected by this flaw. All poker enthusiasts that have participated in online poker at espacejeux.com or OK POKER up until May 18, 2020, have the right to register and become part of the class-action lawsuit seeking to protect their violated rights. According to the lawsuit, Loto-Quebec should return the money poker individuals have poured in online gaming on that platform up until May 18. Moreover, each individual entering the lawsuit would then claim CA$300 covering the damages caused by the platform glitch. The lawsuit claims that the Crown corporation has failed to provide online gaming fans with a reliable platform while it also violated the very rules of traditional Texas Hold'em Poker action. [GN] LOUISIANA: Flood Victims Obtain Favorable Class Action Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- McHugh David, writing for Livingston Parish News, reports that a big step in the right direction came for the City of Walker, and all those entities involved in the Class Action lawsuit against the State of Louisiana, DOTD, and the contractors that worked on the Geaux Wider project. 19th District Judicial Judge Chip Moore, on June 3, ruled on seven motions and exceptions that had been pending in the litigation regarding the 2016 flooding in and around the City of Walker against the design-build contractors hired by DOTD and private contractors. Judge Moore's rulings were all in favor of those affected by the flood. The lawsuit states that the 19-mile-long concrete median barrier on Interstate 12 from East Baton Rouge to Livingston Parish, which was built as part of the Geaux Wider construction project, acted as a man-made flood wall, or dam, that interrupted the natural flow of surface waters, causing widespread destruction that would not have occurred if the wall had been properly built with access for water to pass through. "The Court's ruling speaks for itself. We have argued from the start of this litigation that the defendants were negligent in the design and construction of this median barrier wall, and based on these rulings, the Court has listened. These victories get us a step closer to obtaining justice for the people of this region," said Joshua M. Palmintier of deGravelles and Palmintier, one of the attorneys representing the Class Members. Walker Mayor Jimmy Watson said that he and city attorney Robert 'Bobby' King would be sitting down later on June 4 to discuss the results and possible next steps. The defendants will have chance to bring the case to appellate court. "This is a big step for us, a big win," Mayor Watson said, "I'm just glad it went that way. "We already have a storm in the Gulf," Watson added, referencing Tropical Depression Cristobal, "so we're just hoping no storms come through and causes a problem before we can get (this barrier situation) fixed." The following are statements from the Ruling on Motions and Exceptions: "It is clear that the placement of a solid concrete median barrier prevented the natural flow of flood water and artificially raised the level of the flood." Ruling on Motions and Exceptions, p. 9. "The [Defendants] should have known that the barrier wall it designed and constructed . . .would obstruct and impede the natural drain of flood waters. Had [Defendants] followed the Hydraulic Manual used by the DOTD, as it was required, a design respecting the natural drain would have been implemented." Ruling on Motions and Exceptions, p. 5. "The design and placement of the barrier by Defendants which, through negligence, failed to contemplate or consider past flooding events or how a solid barrier would affect future flooding events, was not a "necessary consequence" of the public project." Ruling on Motions and Exceptions, p. 9. [GN] LOYOLA UNIVERSITY: Class Action Seeks Tuition and Fees Refunds -------------------------------------------------------------- Kayleigh Padar, writing for Loyola Phoenix, reports that Loyola Universiry joined the list of universities grappling with lawsuits in the wake of wide-spread campus closures due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. A Loyola undergraduate student's mother, Andreea Gociman, filed a class action complaint against Loyola University Chicago May 26 asking the federal courts to require Loyola to provide partial refunds after students lost access to on-campus resources when in-person classes quickly transitioned online in March. Gociman declined to comment and her attorney didn't respond to requests for comment. Loyola officials didn't comment on the issue. Loyola's campuses closed March 19, a week after students were first told to leave residence halls and professors were told to move classes online, The Phoenix reported. Most campus buildings closed March 20, The Phoenix reported. Since then, Loyola offered students partial refunds of room and board fees and student development fees -- which pay for certain on-campus services -- in April but it hasn't refunded any tuition money or other fees, according to the university's website. Gociman's federal class action complaint was filed in the North District of Illinois on behalf of "all similarly situated individuals" described as other Loyola students and their families. About 17,000 students attended Loyola during the 19-20 academic year, according to its website. In class action lawsuits, the judge's decision applies to the entire group of affected people defined as the "class" in the lawsuit. However, a complaint isn't certified as a class action until later in the process at which point those included in the "class" will be notified and can choose to opt-out. The complaint filed by Gociman argues the university should refund "a significant part" of students' tuition in addition to the already refunded room and board payments and fees because students didn't have access to the resources they were promised at the time of enrollment and paid for in tuition. These resources include campus buildings and facilities, equipment, technology and in-person internships and classes. "Defendant is thus profiting from COVID-19, asking students and their families -- many of whom have been laid off, become ill, lost loved ones, or are otherwise suffering significantly -- to bear the financial brunt of the pandemic," the lawsuit stated. Undergraduate tuition cost $22,065 per semester for the 19-20 school year excluding fees and undergraduate room and board payments can cost anywhere from about $7,400 to $14,680 depending on the building, according to Loyola's website. Loyola's website includes phrases specifically promoting the on-campus experience which students weren't able to receive during the last four months of the 19-20 spring semester, the lawsuit notes. In addition to losing access to an on-campus experience and resources, the complaint argues Loyola provided a "dramatically lower quality and less valuable education" as the university quickly transitioned online in March. "In addition to being denied tangible benefits, Loyola students were forced into online 'classes' that were nowhere close in quality to the on-campus courses in which they had enrolled for the Spring 2020 semester," the complaint said. "Rather, these classes were watered-down, overpriced substitutes that were shoehorned at the last minute into an online format." The complaint includes three counts. The first count -- breach of contract -- alleges the university broke its contract by not providing students the education they initially promised to provide. The second and third counts -- restitution based on quasi-contract and conversion -- argue Loyola has an unspoken contract to provide the services and resources the student or family paid for regardless of what the written words of the contracts signed at enrollment say. In order for the case to move forward, at least one of these counts has to be determined to have merit by a judge. A count has merit if what's accused is against the law. Other public and private schools across the country are facing similar lawsuits. Nearby at DePaul University two students filed a complaint also requesting partial tuition refunds. Decisions made by other judges in similar court cases in Illinois -- such as dismissing a similar case or deciding a similar count has merit -- can impact the legal decisions in the complaint against Loyola. Other cases playing out across the country might not impact the case in a legal way but other universities' experiences could still have an effect on the way Loyola responds. A spokeswoman from DePaul University told The DePaulia -- the university's student newspaper -- the lawsuit "attempts to take advantage of the difficult decisions DePaul University made to save lives." She also said the university has taken "unprecedented measures" to help students during the pandemic, although these didn't include tuition refunds. Like Loyola, DePaul University refunded housing and meal plan charges for students in residence halls. Unlike Loyola, DePaul University also canceled next year's planned tuition increase and gave students the option to drop their spring quarter classes with a full refund, according to The DePaulia. [GN] MACY'S INC: Underpays Managers, Ptiman Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------- BRIAN PTIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MACY'S WEST STORES, INC.; MACY'S INC.; and DOES I through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20CECG01623 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., June 4, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff Ptiman was employed by the Defendants as manager. Macy's West Stores, Inc. operates department stores. The Company offers clothing, footwear, bedding, furniture, jewelry, beauty products, and house wares. Macy's West Stores serves customers throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq. Laurel N. Holmes, Esq. Alejandro Quinones, Esq. QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES 22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 Telephone: (949) 458-9675 Facsimile: (949) 458-9679 MADERA KITCHEN: Fails to Pay Wages Under Labor Code, Garcia Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- BLAS GARCIA, an individual v. MADERA KITCHEN, a business entity form unknown; MILTON SZNAIDER, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV20832 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 2, 2020), is brought under the California Labor Code on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees alleging that the Defendants failed to pay all wages due. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime wages due, and failed to provide all meal periods and/or premium pay for missed meal periods. The Plaintiff contends that the he and other aggrieved employees, were paid for approx. 20-hours of work in a given pay period, through a regular itemized wage statement, and the remainder of their hours were paid as regular wages in a separate personal check. Blas Garcia was hired by Madera and Mr. Sznaider in May 2016 as a general laborer and cook, performing exclusively non-exempt duties at Madera's restaurant. Madera Kitchen is a farm to table seasonal restaurant in Hollywood, which serves new American cuisine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Pouya B. Chami, Esq. CHAMI LAW, PC 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 484-5001 Facsimile: (310) 484-5002 E-mail: pchami@chamilaw.com MAJESTIC DUDE: Fails to Properly Pay Chefs, House Claims -------------------------------------------------------- CORY HOUSE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MAJESTIC DUDE RANCH, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, and ROBERT A. BUCKSBAUM, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01505 (D. Colo., May 27, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff as a result of Defendants' practice and policy of not paying its employees, including Plaintiff, for all hours worked and appropriate wages for hours worked overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Wage Claim Act. Plaintiff was hired as Sous Chef for Defendants in May 2018. Plaintiff’s first day of work was May 27, 2018. Majestic Dude Ranch, LLC is in the hospitality business and operates a guest dude ranch in Mancos, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Albrechta, Esq. John A. Coble, Esq. ALBRECHTA & COBLE, LTD. 2228 Hayes Avenue, Suite A Fremont, OH 43420 Telephone: (419) 332-9999 Email: jalbrechta@lawyer-ac.com jcoble@lawyer-ac.com - and - David T. Albrechta, Esq. Eleni K. Albrechta, Esq. ALBRECHTA & ALBRECHTA, LLC 530 Main Avenue, Suite D03 Durango, CO 81301 Telephone: (970) 422-3288 Email: david@albrechtalaw.com eleni@albrechtalaw.com - and - Tod J. Thompson, Esq. 810 Sycamore Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 322-4348 Email: tod@thompsonlaw.com MARKU CONTRACTING: Alvarez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, LUIS ALVAREZ, on behalf of Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. MARKU CONTRACTING CORP. and ISMAIL MERKU, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02602 (E.D.N.Y., June 11, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from June 2017 through the end of June 2018 as a construction worker. Plaintiff claims that, instead of paying him the full over-time for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, Defendants paid him at straight time regardless of 60 or more hours a week he worked. Moreover, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for the last 4 weeks of work in June 2018 and failed to track hours worked by Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals. Ismail Merku is an owner, officer, director and/or managing agent of Marku Contracting Corp. Marku Contracting Corp. offers general contracting services for single-family houses in Brooklyn, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq. Imran Ansari, Esq. AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS, P.C. 546 5th Avenue New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 486-0011 Email: ls@aidalalaw.com MARTIN RESOURCE: Linder Seeks Overtime Pay for Dispatchers ---------------------------------------------------------- EVAN LINDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. MARTIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AND MARTIN TRANSPORT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00186-JRG (E.D. Tex., June 9, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated former and current workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants unlawfully classified them as exempt from laws, although they actually were and are non-exempt and entitled to overtime pay. The Plaintiff worked as a dispatcher for the Defendants from September 2013 through June 2017. Martin Resource Management Corporation is an independent provider of transportation, terminalling, marketing and logistics management services for hydrocarbon products and by-products, chemical and other bulk liquids, with its principal place of business located in Kilgore, Texas. Martin Transport, Inc. is a provider of transportation services with its principal place of business located in Kilgore, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. Travis Gasper, Esq. BRAZIEL DIXON, LLP 1910 Pacific Avenue, Suite 12000 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com gasper@l-b-law.com MDL 2938: Anderson v. Evenflo Co. Over Booster Seats Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as GRETA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Case No. 0:20-cv-00569 (Filed Feb. 20, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston) on June 5, 2020. The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-11070-DJC to the proceeding. The lawsuit demands $5 million in damages. The Anderson case is being consolidated with MDL 2938, In Re: EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2020. These actions share common factual questions, and that centralization in the District of Massachusetts will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. In its June 2, 2020 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve discovery regarding the design, testing, and marketing of the booster seat, as well as Evenflo's decision to represent the booster seat as safe for children under 40 pounds. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper. The lead case is Case No. 1:20-md-02938-DJC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Rusch, Esq. Jennell K. Shannon, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com jshannon@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com The Defendant is represented by: Amanda M. Cialkowski, Esq. Cortney G. Sylvester, Esq. NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS PA 250 Marquette Avenue South, Ste. 800 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-7500 Facsimile: (612) 305-7501 E-mail: ACialkowski@nilanjohnson.com CSylvester@nilanjohnson.com MDL 2951: Transfer of Six Actions to Illinois or Wisconsin Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In MDL No. 2951, In re: Secondary Ticket Market Refund Litigation, the Movants ask the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for an order transferring six actions, as well as any tag-along cases, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Alternatively, the Movants ask the Panel for an order transferring the Actions to the Western District of Wisconsin. The Movants are Matthew McMillan, Dustin Snyder, Lindsey Anderson, Timothy Nellis, Janel Dranes, and Lucy Suza. The actions are largely overlapping putative class actions pending in four different District Courts, alleging that the major players in the secondary event ticketing market have uniformly refused to offer required refunds for events disrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic. The Movants are the Plaintiffs in three of the Actions. Each of the Defendants--StubHub, Vivid Seats, and SeatGeek--offered a functionally identical money-back guarantee to buyers for tickets to cancelled events. The 6 actions are: -- Alcaraz v. StubHub, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-02595 (N.D. Cal.); -- Kopfmann v. StubHub, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-03025 (N.D. Cal.); -- Nellis et al v. Vivid Seats, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02486 (N.D. Ill.); -- Trader v. SeatGeek, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03248 (S.D.N.Y.); -- Reynolds v. StubHub, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03508 (S.D.N.Y.); and -- McMillan, Matthew v. Stubhub Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00319 (W.D. Wis.). The Movants are represented by: Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. Steven D. Liddle, Esq. LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: 313-392-0015 Facsimile: 313-392-0025 E-mail: sliddle@ldclassaction.com ncoulson@ldclassaction.com MERLIN ENTERTAINMENTS: Case Seeks Refund for Cancelled Attractions ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOYCE CASE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. MERLIN ENTERTAINMENTS GROUP U.S. HOLDINGS INC.; LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA, LLC; MERLIN ENTERTAINMENTS SHORT BREAKS LLC; MADAME TUSSAUDS HOLLYWOOD LLC; MADAME TUSSAUDS SAN FRANCISCO LLC; and SAN FRANCISCO DUNGEON LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01049-BEN-MSB (S.D. Cal., June 8, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, false advertising, breach of contract, negligence, fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff seeks to represent similarly-situated customers who bought tickets, memberships, and vacation packages for the Defendants' attractions and entertainment events like the Legoland California. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants breached their uniform standardized agreements with their customers by failing to honor and perform their duties and obligations to accept customer cancellations and refund all money paid by the customers following the closure of the Defendants' attractions and other entertainment venues to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Under the terms and conditions of their agreements, if the Defendants cancel or are unable to perform their obligations, they must refund all money paid for tickets, memberships, and vacation packages to their customers. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful practices and the retention of the Plaintiff and the Class members payments, they have suffered concrete harm and injury, including, but not limited to, monetary loss. Merlin Entertainments Group U.S. Holdings Inc. is an attraction operator in California owned by British entertainment company Merlin Entertainments Ltd. LEGOLAND California, LLC is a theme park, miniature park, and aquarium operator located in Carlsbad, California. Merlin Entertainments Short Breaks LLC is an attraction operator in California owned by British entertainment company Merlin Entertainments Ltd. Madame Tussauds Hollywood, LLC is a wax museum and tourist attraction operator located on Hollywood Boulevard in Hollywood, California. Madame Tussauds San Francisco LLC is a wax museum and tourist attraction operator located in Fisherman's Wharf, San Francisco, California. San Francisco Dungeon LLC is a tourist attraction operator located in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Teel, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. TEEL 1425 Broadway, Mail Code: 20-6690 Seattle, WA 98122 Telephone: (866) 833-5529 Facsimile: (855) 609-6911 E-mail: lawoffice@rlteel.com - and – Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Michael T. Houchin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com mike@consumersadvocates.com MINNEAPOLIS, MN: ACLU of Minnesota Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- The Davis Vanguard reports that on June 2, the ACLU of Minnesota filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of journalists who have been tear-gassed, pepper-sprayed, shot in the face with rubber bullets, threatened and arrested by law enforcement without cause, while covering protests over the police murder of George Floyd. On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a Minneapolis citizen, was murdered by an officer of the Minneapolis Police Department, Derek Chauvin. Floyd was pinned down on the street, becoming unresponsive while Chauvin knelt on Mr. Floyd's upper back and neck. Two officers aided in holding him down, and another stood by. All four officers have been fired by the City and Chauvin has been charged with second-degree murder and manslaughter. Due to the videos of this incident spreading across social media thousands of people gathered across the country to protest and mourn Mr. Floyd's murder. These protests have led to the escalation of unlawful force deliberately targeting reporters and protesters. The lawsuit holds that the actions brought on by law enforcement are in violation of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The lawsuit demands a temporary restraining order, an injunction to stop law enforcement from attacking and targeting journalists, and damages compensation for the plaintiff. The Minnesota ACLU, Fredrikson & Byron P.A. and Apollo Law LLC are suing the City of Minneapolis, Minneapolis Chief of Police Medaria Arradondo, Lieutenant of Minneapolis Police Department Robert Kroll, Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety John Harrington, Minnesota State Patrol Colonel Matthew Langer, and John Does, unidentified individuals who committed the acts specified in the brief. Jared Goyette et al. v. City of Minneapolis et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Minnesota District. The Plaintiff Jared Goyette, a freelance journalist, brought this action on behalf of other similarly situated people, members of the news media, who will in the future watch and record protest activity and the conduct of law enforcement officers on duty. The Plaintiff Class is defined as, "All members of the news media who intend to engage in newsgathering or reporting activities in Minnesota related to the protest activities that followed the death of George Floyd and the law enforcement response to those protests." Count 1 of the lawsuit argues there has been a violation of the First Amendment which protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and right to petition. They allege the defendants retaliated against journalists for participating in a constitutionally protected activity. They noted the defendant's retaliation is "part of a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct that is certain to continue absent any relief." The lawsuit notes that the Plaintiff Class reasonably fears retaliation in the form of chemical agents, unlawful seizure, and excessive force and that there is a need for more police training. Count 2 of the lawsuit alleges there has been a violation of the Fourth Amendment which protects people from unlawful searches and seizures. They claimed that the Plaintiff Class were seized by defendants when the officers terminated their freedom of movement and when they arrested and detained them. As a result of these acts the lawsuit states, "Defendants' acts were objectively unreasonable and constituted unlawful seizure and excessive force." Further, they note that they did not commit any crime since members of the media are exempt from curfew orders and permitted to cover protests outside of restriction times, nor did they pose a threat to anyone. Count 3 of the lawsuit alleges a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, stating that the due process rights were violated when Defendants arrested members of the Plaintiff Class without probable cause and deployed chemical agents without warning. The Due Process clause declares that states may not deny any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law." They further noted that the Plaintiff Class fear further violation in the future if they continue to do their jobs. The lawsuit's lead plaintiff, Jared Goyette, was documenting protesters' efforts to help an injured young Black man when police fired a projectile at his face. The lawsuit argues, "Plaintiff Goyette's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was deliberately targeted and shot with a rubber bullet during the course of his reporting activities." The lawsuit also demands a temporary restraining order, and a preliminary injunction, excluding the Defendants from engaging in unconstitutional conduct toward journalists. They further seek a declaration that the defendant's conduct violated the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Lastly, they ask for damages compensation for Plaintiff Goyette for his injuries, an award of attorney fees, and "an award of such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just." As the protests unfolded many confrontations occurred involving MPD, State Patrol, and groups of demonstrators to whom law enforcement, without any warning, deployed less-lethal ballistics and chemical irritants against the demonstrators. There have been numerous instances of the Defendants aggressively confronting members of the news media and many have reported injuries sustained as a result of law enforcement's use of riot control tactics against clearly identifiable members of the news media. The lawsuit refers to numerous instances of arrests, injuries, and physical threats that journalists have received while in the field. One account was Lucas Jackson who was pepper sprayed in the face and shot in the back by a less-lethal projectile. Jackson stated, "It's not that we were being shot because we were between cops and protesters. It's that we were shot at if we were anywhere in line of sight. I've been hit because I was in the wrong place before. I've never been aimed at so deliberately so many times when I was avoiding it." The lawsuit also recalls the incident where Linda Tirado, a freelance journalist, was shot in her left eye with a less-lethal projectile and is now permanently blind in that eye. "Law enforcement is using violence and threats to deter the media from vigorously reporting on demonstrations and the conduct of police in public places," stated ACLU-MN Legal Director Teresa Nelson. "The press protects us all by keeping us informed about the activities of our government. When the government violently represses journalists in violation of the Constitution, we have a duty to speak out and protect the press in return," stated Attorney Kevin Riach with Fredrikson & Byron. The lawsuit further claims that Minneapolis police have a history of unconstitutional actions stating, "The State and Municipal Defendants have a history of unconstitutional actions against journalists." They refer to several instances through previous years. In mentioning the Minneapolis Police Policy and Procedure Manual section 6-200, they state that it provides no instruction or guidance on how to identify the media or ensure their First Amendment rights are respected. Further it does not discuss how to safeguard press freedoms at protests. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all media personnel and asks the Court to restrain the Defendants from committing further violence and unconstitutional conduct. The lawsuit states, "The press is under assault in our City." [GN] MOLEKULE INC: Poznansky Balks at Deceptive Claims on Air Purifiers ------------------------------------------------------------------ RON POZNANSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. MOLEKULE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-03860 (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for deceit and fraudulent concealment, violation of California's False Advertising Law, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated consumers, alleges that the Defendant is engaged in a deceptive and misleading marketing campaign to sell its air purification devices called the Molekule Air, Air Mini, and Air Mini+. The Defendant made a number of claims regarding the performance, abilities, and benefits of the Air Purifiers, including that the Air Purifiers: (1) use Photo Electrochemical Oxidation (PECO) filter technology that outperforms high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters in every category of pollutant; (2) eradicate the full spectrum of indoor air pollutants; (3) are capable of achieving quantified pollution-removal benchmarks; (4) were subject to independent testing that served as the basis for Molekule's claims; (5) are rated to function in rooms of certain sizes; and (6) provide allergy and asthma symptom relief. Additionally, the Defendant has tailored its advertising to capitalize on current events, claiming, for example, that the Air Purifiers would neutralize pollution caused by the wildfires and destroy coronavirus. The Plaintiff and Class members who purchased and used the Air Purifiers found out that the product is defective as it fails to deliver as represented by the Defendant. The Air Purifier's PECO filter does not remove any pollution from the air and also it performs worse than traditional HEPA air purifiers. As a result of Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered real financial damages. Molekule, Inc. is a manufacturer of air pollution control equipment with its headquarters in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Esfand Y. Nafisi, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 388 Market Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 489-7004 - and – Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E., Ste. 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 MONEYGRAM PAYMENT: Sends Spam Messages to Consumers, Babare Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL BABARE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONEYGRAM PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-05545 (W.D. Wash., June 9, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in unlawful practice of promoting its services through sending text messages to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated consumers in Washington using automatic telephone dialing system without their prior express written consent. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members were harmed including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc. is a Dallas, Texas-based provider of cross-border peer-to-peer (P2P) payments and money transfers services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: MHiraldo@Hiraldolaw.com - and – Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd, Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and – Kira M. Rubel, Esq. THE HARBOR LAW GROUP 3615 Harborview Drive, NW, Suite C. Gig Harbor, WA 98332-2129 Telephone: (253) 251-2955 E-mail: Kira@theharborlawgorup.com MULAN THREE: Flores et al. Seek Unpaid Wages, OT for Laundry Staff ------------------------------------------------------------------ REYNA FLORES MORENO, TERESA MAGDALENO, and LETICIA ANSELMO LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MULAN THREE INC. (D/B/A LAUNDROMAT), NEWASH INC. (D/B/A CARLTON LAUNDROMAT), MUBASHAR FAROOQ, MOBY DOE, and OLUWAYEMISI FAMOJURO AKA GENESIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04331 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for requiring the Plaintiffs and all others similarly-situated laundry attendants to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing them the appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation and for failing to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laundry attendants at the laundry services located at 1394 Ogden Avenue, Bronx, New York and at 179 E. 105th St., New York, New York between June 2015 and October 2019. Mulan Three Inc., d/b/a Laundromat, is a laundry service operator located at 1394 Ogden Avenue, Bronx, New York. Newash Inc., d/b/a Carlton Laundromat, is a laundry service operator located at 179 E. 105th St., 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 MYLAN INC: Dakota Drug Alleges Epinephrine Monopoly --------------------------------------------------- DAKOTA DRUG, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MYLAN INC.; MYLAN SPECIALTY L.P.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; CAREMARKPCS HEALTH LLC; CAREMARK LLC; CAREMARK RX LLC; EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY; EXPRESS SCRIPTS INC.; MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; UNITED HEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED; UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC.; OPTUM INC.; OPTUMRX HOLDINGS, LLC, and OPTUMRX INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:20-cv-01334-PJS-ECW (D. Minn., June 9, 2020) is an action on behalf of a proposed class of direct purchasers of EpiPen, EpiPen Jr., EpiPen 2-Pak, and EpiPen Jr. 2-Pak, and generic versions of those products from Mylan to recover overcharges due to the Defendants' illegal conduct which led to the artificial inflation of the list prices for EpiPen (and Mylan-sold generic EpiPen) in the U.S. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants engaged in a scheme to maintain and increase the volume and dollar amount of its EpiPen sales by paying bribes and kickbacks to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) -- namely defendants Express Scripts, CVS Caremark, and OptumRx (and other, unnamed PBMs) -- in exchange for: (a) favorable placement of Mylan's EpiPens on the PBMs' formularies (and the exclusion or restriction of competing epinephrine auto-injectors (EAI) on the PBM's formularies); and (b) the elimination of price constraints that enabled Mylan to dramatically raise its prices without fear of PBM penalties. Mylan's and the Defendant PBMs' scheme (which began by 2012, if not earlier) had the purpose and effect of eliminating a check on Mylan's ability to aggressively increase its list prices for EpiPens. Consequently, both to: (a) generate the bribe and kickback money it paid to the Defendant PBMs, and (b) profit from the decreased competition and improperly-obtained pricing power, Mylan aggressively increased its EpiPen list prices far beyond what it would have (and could have) done absent the scheme. EpiPen list prices were below $240 at the end of 2012 and increased over the next four years to $609 in May 2016. Because Mylan's bribes and kickbacks (and accompanying fraud in concealing that its list price increases were part and parcel of the bribes and kickbacks) enabled and caused tremendous EpiPen list price increases that would not have happened absent the misconduct alleged herein, Mylan's illegal conduct allowed it to improperly maintain and extend its monopoly pricing power in the Epinephrine auto-injectors (EAI) market. Mylan Inc. is a global generic and specialty pharmaceuticals company. The Company operates an active pharmaceutical ingredient manufacturer and runs a specialty business focused on respiratory, allergy, and psychiatric therapies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 43 SE Main Street, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: (612) 594-5933 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net - and - Peter Kohn, Esq. Joseph T. Lukens, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP One Penn Center, Suite 1550 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 277-5770 E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com jlukens@faruqilaw.com - and - Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq. Noah Silverman, Esq. GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP 88 Pine Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 398-0055 E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com nsilverman@garwingerstein.com - and - David F. Sorensen, Esq. Andrew C. Curley, Esq. Nicholas Urban, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net acurley@bm.net nurban@bm.net - and - Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq. ODOM & DES ROCHES, LLC 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 522-0077 E-mail: stuart@odrlaw.com - and - David Golub, Esq. Steven Bloch, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP 184 Atlantic Street Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 325-4491 E-mail: dgolub@sgtlaw.com sbloch@sgtlaw.com - and - Susan Segura, Esq. David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq. SMITH SEGURA RAPHAEL & LEGER, LLP 221 Ansley Blvd. Alexandria, LA 71303 Telephone: (318) 445-4480 E-mail: ssegura@ssrllp.com draphael@ssrllp.com - and - Russ Chorush, Esq. HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP 1111 Bagby, Suite 2100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 221-2000 E-mail: rchorush@hpcllp.com NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Morales et al. Sue Over Denied Tuition Refund ------------------------------------------------------------------ SERINA MORALES and ADRIANA GUIDRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04418-UA (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated students who are enrolled for the Spring 2020 academic term at New York University, allege that the Defendant refused to refund tuition and other fees paid by students despite the fact that they did not receive the full-value of the services paid such as the benefits of in-person instruction due to the closure of the campus in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendant continues to charge for tuition and certain fees despite students' complete inability to continue school as normal, occupy campus buildings and dormitories, or avail themselves of school programs and events. As a result, the Defendant's actions have financially damaged the Plaintiffs and the Class members. New York University is an institution of higher learning primarily located at 70 Washington Square South, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathaniel A. Tarnor, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 752-5455 E-mail: nathant@hbsslaw.com - and – Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and – Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq. Whitney K. Siehl, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (708) 628-4949 E-mail: dank@hbsslaw.com whitneys@hbsslaw.com NEW YORK: Second Cir. Appeal v. Fiorentino Filed in Gulino Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated February 24, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, filed the action in 1996. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule 23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and class-wide injunctive relief. The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of Education of the City School District, Case No. 20-1031, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Georgina Fiorentino is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York is represented by: James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 NIELSEN CITRUS: Mislabeled Lemon Juice Products, Freeze Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- ALICIA FREEZE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NIELSEN CITRUS PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC., dba SunTree; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2020-00018733-CU-NP-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., June 4, 2020) seeks to recover damages and restitution for the Defendants' unlawful and deceptive labeling of their lemon juice products. According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures the lemon juices under the brand name SunTree. SunTree is known for its shelf-stable lemon and lime juices, including the SunTree "California Wedge" lemon juices products. Lemon Juice Products are sold in a number of sizes, including in four and seven ounce containers. The Defendant markets its Lemon Juice Products as "made purely from the juice of the fruit" without additives. On the front of each of the Lemon Juice Products, the Defendant describes the product as "100% Lemon Juice From Concentrate." However, this is simply not true. The Defendant's Lemon Juice Products contain chemical preservatives, including sodium benzoate and sodium bisulfite. Accordingly, the Lemon Juice Products are demonstrably not "100% Lemon Juice From Concentrate." Nielsen Citrus Products Company Inc. bottles and packages citrus juices, concentrates, and purees. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 402 West Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-2126 Facsimile: (248) 746-2123 E-mail: tkashima@sommerspc.com NORDSON CORP: Mediation This Month in Ortiz Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Nordson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that mediation is ongoing in the purported class action suit initiated by a former employee. On February 22, 2019, a former employee, Mr. Ortiz, filed a purported class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court, California, against Nordson Asymtek, Inc. and Nordson Corporation, alleging various violations of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount for unpaid wages, actual, consequential and incidental losses, penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs. Mediation is currently scheduled for June 2020. Nordson said, "Management believes, based on currently available information, that the ultimate outcome of the proceeding described above will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or results of operations." Nordson Corporation engineers, manufactures, and markets products and systems to dispense, apply, and control adhesives, coatings, polymers, sealants, biomaterials, and other fluids worldwide. Nordson Corporation was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Westlake, Ohio. NORTH SHORE: Harrison Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA and WWPCL --------------------------------------------------------------- TINA HARRISON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NORTH SHORE HEALTHCARE LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00850-WCG (E.D. Wis., June 5, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived her and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of their wages earned for all compensable work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendant is a privately-owned assisted living, skilled-nursing, and rehabilitation entity headquartered in Glendale, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott S. Luzi, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com NORTHWOOD: Law Firm Proposes COVID-19 Class-Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Young, writing for Atlantic.CTVNews.ca, reports that breaking a three-day streak of zero new cases, Nova Scotia on June 7 reported one new case of COVID-19. The total number of confirmed cases is now at 1,059. The QEII Health Sciences Centre's microbiology lab completed 637 for Nova Scotia tests on June 6. To date, Nova Scotia has 45,466 negative test results. COVID-19 Death Outlook The province did not report any additional deaths on June 7. Sixty-one Nova Scotians have died from COVID-19. The latest death was reported on June 4. It involved a man in his 70s who had underlying health conditions. He lived in the central zone and was not a resident of a long-term care home. Fifty-three of the province's 61 deaths have involved residents at Halifax's Northwood long-term care home, which has seen the most significant outbreak in the province. Additionally, a Halifax-based law firm is proposing a class-action lawsuit against the facility, claiming normal standards of care weren't met to protect against infection from COVID-19. Active Cases At Negative One? Inconsistencies Explained The province says 999 COVID-19 patients have recovered. Their cases are considered resolved. According to the provincial numbers, 1,059 positive cases minus 61 deaths and 999 recoveries would leave active cases in Nova Scotia at a total of negative one. This has caused much confusion. Despite those numbers, Northwood is reporting two active cases, involving one resident and one staff member. This means two residents have recovered from the virus since June 4, when four active cases were reported in three residents and one staff member. During the pandemic, there has been confusion over the number of recovered and active cases reported by the province, which don't always match up with the numbers reported at Northwood. Dr. Robert Strang, Nova Scotia's chief medical officer of health, has explained that the data from long-term care homes comes from a different data source than the one used by public health and is on a different timeline. As a result, the data isn't always congruent. "As we have said many times, data is from a number of sources and reporting periods differ. It cannot be combined," said Strang on June 5. On June 7, Strang said that while restrictions are eased, he wants residents to take things slow and steady. "We still need to be cautious. That is why we are taking things slowly and monitoring how it goes," said Strang. "If everyone follows the public health rules, uses common sense, and acts with kindness, we will be in the best possible position to prevent further spread of COVID-19." Case Breakdown There are still three people in hospital as a result of complications due to COVID-19. Two patients are in intensive care units. The province's confirmed cases range in age from under 10 to over 90. Sixty-two per cent of cases are female and 38 per cent are male. The latest case was confirmed in the Nova Scotia Health Authority's central zone, which contains the Halifax Regional Municipality, and has seen the most significant number of cases. Western zone: 54 cases Central zone: 908 cases Northern zone: 45 cases Eastern zone: 52 cases Anyone who travels outside of Nova Scotia must also self-isolate for two weeks. The provincial state of emergency, which was first declared on March 22, has been extended to June 14. Reopening Weekend Continues For Many Businesses Most businesses that were forced to close at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March were allowed to reopen on June 5 After the tough financial toll the virus took on the local economy, Premier Stephen McNeil congratulated businesses on working to provide safer experiences for customers. "As Nova Scotians enjoy the reopening of many businesses closed by COVID-19, I want to congratulate operators for working hard to welcome patrons back to a safe environment," said McNeil. "The virus is still among us. We must remain vigilant and continue to follow public health measures." Businesses allowed to reopen include hair salons, barber shops, spas and gyms. Bars and restaurants can also offer dine-in service. Most businesses are required to operate at 50 per cent capacity to allow for physical distancing. Some health services are also reopening, including dentists, optometrists, chiropractors and physiotherapists. Not all businesses may choose to reopen at this time, however. On June 5, Strang noted that businesses that weren't forced to close still must have a reopening plan, but it doesn't need to be submitted for approval. COVID-19 Symptoms Last month, the province expanded the list of symptoms for which it is screening. Anyone who experiences one of the following symptoms is encouraged to take an online test to determine if they should call 811 for further assessment: -- fever (i.e. chills, sweats) -- cough or worsening of a previous cough -- sore throat -- headache -- shortness of breath -- muscle aches -- sneezing -- nasal congestion/runny nose -- hoarse voice -- diarrhea -- unusual fatigue -- loss of sense of smell or taste [GN] NUTANIX INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Cal. Suit Set for Aug. 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nutanix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the hearing on the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has been scheduled for August 12, 2020. Beginning on March 29, 2019, several purported securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the company and two of its officers. The initial complaints generally alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. In July 2019, the court consolidated the actions into a single action, and appointed a lead plaintiff, who then filed a consolidated amended complaint (the "Original Complaint"). The action was brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock between November 30, 2017 and May 30, 2019, inclusive. The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the Original Complaint, and the court granted that motion on March 9, 2020, while providing the lead plaintiff leave to amend. On April 17, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (the "Current Complaint"), again naming the company and two of its officers as defendants. The Current Complaint alleges the same class period, includes many of the same factual allegations as the Original Complaint, and again alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5. The Current Complaint seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Current Complaint on May 22, 2020, and a hearing before the court has been scheduled for August 12, 2020, during which the parties will argue their positions on the motion. Nutanix said, "This case is in the very early stages and we are not able to determine what, if any, liabilities will attach to the Current Complaint." Nutanix, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops and provides an enterprise cloud platform in North America, Europe, the Asia Pacific, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. The company was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. OG COLLECTIVE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bartel Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- JOANNE BARTEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OG COLLECTIVE, LLC, Defendant, Case 5:20-cv-01184 (C.D. Cal., June 10, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. OG Collective, LLC, is an Oregon limited liability company, offering cannabis for medical purpose. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Facsimile: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: seth@epllc.com OVATIONS FOOD: Harper et al Seek Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- LATASIA M. HARPER and LAMAR A. HOWARD, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OVATIONS FOOD SERVICES, L.P., a Foreign Limited Partnership, d/b/a Spectra Food Services & Hospitality, Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-01355 (M.D. Fla., June 11, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged unlawful employment practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as non-exempt and hourly paid warehouse clerk/event workers. Plaintiffs claim that Defendant failed to pay them overtime at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 during each seven-day workweek. Allegedly, Defendant defrauded its hourly employees by stealing employees' time to reduce its labor costs with the help of its General Manager, who surreptitiously accessed employee's time records and manipulated their time records. Ovations Food Services, L.P. d/b/a Spectra Food Services & Hospitality The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert S. Norell, Esq. James A. Peterson, Esq. ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A. 300 NW 70th Ave, Suite 305 Plantation, FL 33317 Tel: (954) 617-6017 Fax: (954) 617-6018 Emails: rob@floridawagelaw.com james@floridawagelaw.com PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: Pinzon Seeks Refunds Due to COVID Closure ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH PINZON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-04928-DMG-KS (C.D. Cal., June 3, 2020), alleges that despite sending students home and closing its campus, the Defendant continues to charge for tuition, fees, and/or room and board as if nothing has changed, continuing to reap the financial benefit of millions of dollars from students. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant does so despite students' complete inability to continue school as normal, occupy campus buildings and dormitories, or avail themselves of school programs and events. He adds that while some colleges and universities have promised appropriate and/or alleges that the proportional refunds, the Defendant excludes itself from such other institutions treating students fairly, equitably and as required by the law, and for some students and families, the Defendant does so based on outdated financial aid equations and collections, without taking into account disruptions to family income, a particular concern now where layoffs and furloughs are at record levels. As a result, the Defendant's actions have financially damaged the Plaintiff and the Class Members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this action because he and the Class Members did not receive the full value of the services paid, and did not receive the benefits of in-person instruction. The Plaintiff contends that he and the class have lost the benefit of their bargain and/or suffered out-of-pocket loss, and are entitled to recover compensatory damages, trebling where permitted, and attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff Joseph Pinzon is a citizen and resident of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is the parent of a current Pepperdine graduate student and paid his son's tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 and Summer 2020 academic term at the Defendant. Pepperdine is an institution of higher learning located in Malibu, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq. Whitney K. Siehl, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com christopherp@hbsslaw.com dank@hbsslaw.com whitneys@hbsslaw.com PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Underpays Servers, Helgason et al. Allege --------------------------------------------------------------- Rian Helgason and Caroline Crawford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) Plaintiffs, v. Perry's Restaurants LTD; Perry's LLC; PBS Holdings, Inc.; and Leasing Enterprises, LTD, collectively d/b/a Perry's Steakhouse and Grille; and Christopher V. Perry, individually, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01573-E (N.D. Tex., June 12, 2020) is a collective action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act who worked for Defendants as servers and who were paid a direct cash wage of less than $7.25 per hour. According to the complaint, Defendants have a policy and practice of paying all their employee servers, including Plaintiffs, subminimum hourly wages under the tip credit provisions of the FLSA. However, Defendants failed to follow federal law and violated Section 203(m) in that Defendants unlawfully (1) failed to inform Plaintiff and Class Members of the tip credit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 203(m); (2) did not allow Plaintiffs and Collective Members to retain all of their tips; (3) required Plaintiffs and Collective Members to contribute a portion of their tips to an illegal tip pool; (4) required Plaintiffs and Collective Members to incur business expenses; (5) required Plaintiffs and Collective Members to perform non-tipped work unrelated to Plaintiffs and Collective Members' tipped occupation (i.e., "dual jobs"); and (6) required Plaintiffs and Collective Members to perform non-tipped work that, although related to Plaintiffs and Collective Members' tipped occupation, exceeded 20% of their time worked during each workweek. Defendants' illegal practices in violation of the FLSA have resulted in a forfeiture of the "tip credit." Consequently, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs and Collective Members for the full minimum wage for every hour worked during the statutory time period plus all other statutory damages provided for under the FLSA. Perry's Restaurant, Ltd., Perry's LLC, PBS Holdings, Inc. and Leasing Enterprises, Ltd. operate restaurant chains commonly known as Perry's Steakhouse and Grille with locations in Texas, Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, and Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 Facsimile: (817) 887-1878 E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com POPULAR INC: Employee Misconduct Suits v. Bank Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Motions to dismiss employee-related putative class complaints against Popular Bank and certain of its current employees are pending, according to Popular, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. In July 2019, Popular Bank ("PB") was served in a putative class complaint in which it was named as a defendant along with five current PB employees (collectively, the "AB Defendants"), captioned Aileen Betances, et al. v. Popular Bank, et al., filed before the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the "AB Action"). The complaint, filed by five current and former PB employees, seeks to recover damages for the AB Defendants' alleged violation of local and state sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation laws. Additionally, in July 2019, PB was served in a putative class complaint in which it was named as a defendant along with six current PB employees (collectively, the "DR Defendants"), captioned Damian Reyes, et al. v. Popular Bank, et al., filed before the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the "DR Action"). The DR Action, filed by three current and former PB employees, seeks to recover damages for the DR Defendants' alleged violation of local and state discrimination and retaliation laws. Plaintiffs in both complaints are represented by the same legal counsel, and five of the six named individual defendants in the DR Action are the same named individual defendants in the AB Action. Both complaints are related, among other things, to allegations of purported sexual harassment and/or misconduct by a former PB employee as well as PB's actions in connection thereto and seek no less than US$100 million in damages each. On October 21, 2019, PB and the other defendants filed several Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiffs opposed the motions in December 2019 and PB and the other defendants replied on January 22, 2020. The Company said, "Although the Court set a hearing on the Motions to Dismiss in both cases for March 16, 2020, that hearing was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic and has not been rescheduled. The Motions to Dismiss are still pending resolution." Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail, mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular, Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. PORTLAND, OR: Protesters File Class Action Over Tear Gas Use ------------------------------------------------------------ Maxine Bernstein, writing for The Oregonian, reports that Mayor Ted Wheeler has directed Portland Police not to use sonic warning tones to control crowds after officers activated it at the tail end of an all-night protest and signaled he's in favor of a 30-day ban on tear gas, just as Seattle has done. The developments on June 5 came as the mayor faced renewed pressure to address police tactics during protests against police brutality and racial injustice that have brought thousands to downtown. He tweeted out the ban on the warning sounds without fanfare -- then a short time later, facing pointed questions from a protest crowd in the city's downtown, switched gears on tear gas after saying at an earlier news conference that he wasn't ready to outlaw tear gas at demonstrations without more discussion. The flurry of announcements followed a confrontation at 1:30 a.m. on June 5 when police blasted a piercing sound from a supervisor's SUV in a rare activation of the loud warning tone from the police department's Long Range Acoustic Device, known as LRAD. The powerful portable speaker was developed for the U.S. military but has been increasingly used by law enforcement agencies to break up crowds. Officers used the warning sound to try to deter a disruptive group without harming peaceful demonstrators, Deputy Police Chief Chris Davis said. It marked only the second time police here have blared the warning tone and drew criticism after days of condemnation over the use of tear gas on demonstrators protesting the death of George Floyd, who was pinned to the ground by a Minneapolis police officer with a knee to his neck. Protesters have filed a class-action lawsuit against the city for what they're calling "indiscriminate use" of tear gas during nightly protests. The suit is filed on behalf of two protesters, Nicholas Roberts and Michelle "Misha" Belden, and the advocacy group Don't Shoot Portland. Wheeler's office declined to comment. [GN] POTTS LAW: Gore Appeals Ruling in Malpractice Suit to 3rd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Debbie Gore and Doris Lance Smith filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Debbie Gore, et al. v. Bruce Nagel, et al., Case No. 2-19-cv-14287, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was removed from the New Jersey Superior Court, Bergen County, to the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey (Newark) on June 26, 2019. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-14287-MCA-LDW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo. According to a report by Mesh Medical Device News Desk, the case alleges legal malpractice by six firms involved in pelvic mesh litigation in New Jersey. Women, who had their cases settled in the New Jersey court have "paid improper and excessive attorney's fees and expenses from their settlements," and in doing so their lawyers have breached their fiduciary duty while enriching themselves. If successful, it could mean the return of conservatively $15 million to about 1,450 plaintiffs filed in New Jersey, who were represented by the named firms. The appellate case is captioned as Debbie Gore, et al. v. Bruce Nagel, et al., Case No. 20-1710, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DEBBIE GORE, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, and DORIS LANCE SMITH are represented by: David M. Freeman, Esq. Adam M. Slater, Esq. David A. Mazie, Esq. MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN 103 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 207 Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 228-9898 E-mail: dfreeman@mskf.net aslater@mskf.net dmazie@mskf.net Defendants-Appellees BRUCE H. NAGEL, ANDREW L. O'CONNOR, ROBERT H. SOLOMON, NAGEL RICE, DEREK POTTS, POTTS LAW FIRM, BAILEY PEAVEY BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC, BAILEY PEAVEY BAILEY, MESH LITIGATION CENTER, ANNIE MCADAMS, STEELMAN MCADAMS, JUNELL & ASSOCIATES PLLC, K. CAMP BAILEY PC, and BURNETT LAW FIRM are represented by: Joanna P. Piorek, Esq. Thomas F. Quinn, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER 200 Campus Drive, 4th Floor Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 735-5767 E-mail: joanna.piorek@wilsonelser.com thomas.quinn@wilsonelser.com - and - Michael R. Darbee, Esq. Stephen M. Orlofsky, Esq. Adrienne C. Rogove, Esq. BLANK ROME 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 220 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 750-2649 E-mail: mdarbee@blankrome.com orlofsky@blankrome.com rogove@blankrome.com - and - Mark M. Tallmadge, Esq. BRESSLER AMERY & ROSS 325 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 301 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 514-1200 E-mail: mtallmadge@bressler.com PROGENICS PHARMA: Agreement Reached to Settle Lantheus Merger Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on June 8, 2020, that the parties in the consolidated class action suit related to the company's merger with Lantheus Holdings, Inc. have reached an agreement to settle the dispute. On February 20, 2020, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Progenics") entered into an Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger with Lantheus Holdings, Inc. ("Lantheus Holdings") and Plato Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Lantheus Holdings ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into Progenics, with Progenics surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Lantheus Holdings (the "Merger"). In connection with the Merger, Progenics filed a definitive proxy statement, dated March 19, 2020, and a supplement to the definitive proxy statement, dated May 14, 2020 (as supplemented, the "Proxy Statement"), with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), relating to the special meeting of its stockholders to be held on June 16, 2020 to vote on matters related to the Merger. The company faces ten securities lawsuits, six putative class actions and four individual actions—have been filed against it and the board of directors (the "Progenics Board") alleging inadequate disclosure by Progenics relating to the Merger, three of which also name Lantheus Holdings and Merger Sub as defendants. Five of ten lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by plaintiffs, with no settlements from, or other agreed obligations by, the respective defendants thereunder. On November 22, 2019, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Johnson v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-02183 (the "Johnson Action"), against Progenics and members of the Progenics Board. On March 5, 2020, the Johnson Action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On November 25, 2019, a second purported stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Thompson v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-02194, against Progenics, certain members of the Progenics Board, Lantheus Holdings, and Merger Sub. On March 10, 2020, the Thompson Action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On November 26, 2019, a third purported stockholder filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Wang v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-10936 (the "Wang Action"), against Progenics and members of the Progenics Board. On June 1, 2020, the Wang Action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On December 9, 2019, a fourth purported stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Michael A. Bernstein IRA v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-21200 (the "Bernstein IRA Action"), against Progenics, members of the Progenics Board, Lantheus Holdings, and Merger Sub. On April 21, 2020, an amended complaint was filed in the Bernstein IRA Action, and on May 6, 2020, the Bernstein IRA Action was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-03521. On December 12, 2019, a fifth purported stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Pill v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-02268, against Progenics and members of the Progenics Board. The purported stockholder voluntarily dismissed this action without prejudice and the court closed the case on March 10, 2020. On December 20, 2019, a sixth purported stockholder filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Hess v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-11683 (the "Hess Action"), against Progenics, Progenics' Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and members of the Progenics Board. On April 8, 2020, an amended complaint was filed in the Hess Action. On June 4, 2020, the Hess Action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On April 2, 2020, a seventh purported stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Goldstone v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02750 (the "Goldstone Action"), against Progenics, members of the Progenics Board, Lantheus Holdings, and Merger Sub. On April 6, 2020, the purported stockholder in the Johnson Action filed a new putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Johnson v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, et al., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02847 (the "Johnson S.D.N.Y. Action"), against Progenics and members of the Progenics Board. On April 8, 2020, an eighth purported stockholder filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Krueger v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02913 (the "Krueger Action"), against Progenics and members of the Progenics Board. On June 3, 2020, a ninth purported stockholder filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Sigrist v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, et al., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04238 (the "Sigrist Action"), against Progenics and members of the Progenics Board. The complaints in the Bernstein IRA, Goldstone, Johnson S.D.N.Y., Krueger and Sigrist Actions (collectively, the "Merger Litigation") allege, among other things, that Progenics and the members of the Progenics Board violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and 17 C.F.R. Section 244.100 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act, by misstating or omitting certain allegedly material information in the registration statement filed with the SEC on November 12, 2019, the amended registration statement filed with the SEC on March 16, 2020 and/or the Schedule 14A proxy statement filed with the SEC on March 19, 2020 related to the Merger. The Bernstein IRA Action also alleges that Lantheus Holdings and Merger Sub violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Goldstone Action further alleges that the members of the Progenics Board breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, and good faith to the stockholders of Progenics related to the Merger, that Progenics, Lantheus Holdings and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty and that Lantheus Holdings and Merger Sub violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the Merger, damages in the event of consummation of the Merger, declaratory relief related to disclosures in the registration statement, and certain fees and expenses. The parties to the Merger Litigation subsequently engaged in arm's-length negotiations to attempt to resolve the claims asserted in the Merger Litigation, and reached an agreement whereby the Company would file on this Current Report on Form 8-K certain supplemental disclosures regarding the Merger. Progenics believes that the Merger Litigation is without merit and that no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable law. However, in order to avoid the risk of such actions delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, Progenics has determined to voluntarily supplement certain disclosures in the Proxy Statement with the supplemental disclosures set forth below (the "Supplemental Disclosures"). Progenics specifically denies all allegations in the complaints that any additional disclosure was or is required or material. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://bit.ly/3fiuuse. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., develops innovative medicines for targeting and treating cancer, with a pipeline that includes several product candidates in later-stage clinical development. These products in development include therapeutic agents designed to precisely target cancer (AZEDRA(R) and 1095), and imaging agents (1404 and PyLTM) intended to enable clinicians and patients to accurately visualize and manage their disease. PSCU INC: Underpays Customer Service Assistants, Brown Says ----------------------------------------------------------- CONNIE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PSCU, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-11510-DPH-DRG (E.D. Mich., June 10, 2020) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Brown was employed by the Defendant as customer service assistant. PSCU Inc. provides online financial services. The Company offers services such as ATM, prepaid card, bill payment, and mobile banking to credit unions. PSCU serves customers throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com QUORUM HEALTH: Zwick Partners Case Still Pending in Tennessee Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned ZWICK PARTNERS, LP and APARNA RAO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. QUORUM HEALTH CORPORATION, COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., WAYNE T. SMITH, W. LARRY CASH, THOMAS D. MILLER, and MICHAEL J. CULOTTA, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02475, (M.D. Tenn.), a summary notice of the pendency of the class action has been entered on June 8, 2020. The Summary Notice is addressed to ALL PURCHASERS AND ACQUIRERS OF QUORUM HEALTH CORPORATION COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 2, 2016 THROUGH AND INCLUDING AUGUST 10, 2016 (THE "CLASS PERIOD"). Excluded from the Class are the defendants, officers and directors of Quorum Health Corporation, Community Health Systems, Inc., and members of their immediate families and their legal representative, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. The District Court has entered an order on March 19, 2019, certifying the case as a Class Action. The Action has not been settled and continues to be litigated. Accordingly, no claim form need be filed at this time. If you are a member of the Class, your rights are affected by this action and you may have the right to participate in any recovery. You also have the right to exclude yourself from the Class in accordance with the directions set forth in a more detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action, which is available on the case website, www.QuorumHealthSecuritiesLitigation.com. That Notice of Pendency of Class Action describes the Class Action and your rights with respect thereto. If you have not received a Postcard Notice by mail, please contact us in writing: Quorum Health Corporation Securities Litigation PO Box 3230 Portland, OR 97208-3230 info@QuorumHealthSecuritiesLitigation.com www.QuorumHealthSecuritiesLitigation.com Telephone: 866-977-0746 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Class Counsel: Michael J. Wernke POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: 212-661-1100 Facsimile: 212-661-8665 Inquiries should not be directed to the Court, the Clerk's Office, the Defendants, or Defendants' counsel. [GN] RED ROCK AUTO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barton Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- JASON BARTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RED ROCK AUTO GROUP, INC. d/b/a RED ROCK NISSAN, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01627 (D. Colo., June 5, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Rock Auto Group, Inc., d/b/a Red Rock Nissan, is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles and vehicle service to businesses and individuals. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com RTI SURGICAL: Continues to Defend Lowry Class Suit -------------------------------------------------- RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Patricia Lowry. On March 16, 2020, the Audit Committee of the Board of RTI, with the assistance of independent legal and forensic accounting advisors, conducted an internal investigation of matters relating to the Company's revenue recognition practices for certain contractual arrangements, primarily with original equipment manufacturer ("OEM") customers, including the accounting treatment, financial reporting and internal controls related to such arrangements (the "Investigation"). The Investigative procedures also examined transactions to understand the practices related to manual journal entries for accrual and reserve accounts. The Investigation was precipitated by an investigation by the SEC initially related to the periods 2014 through 2016. The SEC investigation is ongoing, and the Company is cooperating with the SEC in its investigation. On April 7, 2020, the Audit Committee of the Board concluded that the Company will restate its previously issued audited financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, and selected financial data for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the unaudited financial statements for the quarterly periods within these years commencing with the first quarter of 2016. Based on the results of the Investigation, the Company has concluded that revenue for certain invoices should have been recognized at a later date than when originally recognized. In response to binding purchase orders from certain OEM customers, goods were shipped and received by the customers before requested delivery dates and agreed-upon delivery windows. In many instances the OEM customers requested or approved the early shipments, but the Company has determined that on other occasions the goods were delivered early without obtaining the customers' affirmative approval. Some of those unapproved shipments were shipped by employees in order to generate additional revenue and resulted in shipments being pulled from a future quarter into an earlier quarter. In addition, the Company has concluded that in July 2017 an adjustment was improperly made to a product return provision in the Direct Division. The revenue for those shipments is being restated, as well as for other orders that shipped earlier than the purchase order due date in the system for which the Company could not locate evidence that the OEM customers had requested or approved the shipments. In addition, the Company has concluded that in the periods from 2015 through the fourth quarter of 2018, certain adjustments were incorrectly or erroneously made via manual journal entries to accrual/reserve accounts, including a July 2017 adjustment to a product return provision in the Direct Division, among others. Accordingly, the Company has restated its financial statements to correct these adjustments. There is currently ongoing stockholder litigation related to the Investigation. A class action complaint was filed by Patricia Lowry against the Company, and certain current and former officers of the Company, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 23, 2020 demanding a jury trial. A shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed by David Summers on behalf of the Company against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 5, 2020 demanding a jury trial. In the future, the company may become subject to additional litigation or governmental proceedings or investigations that could result in additional unanticipated legal costs regardless of the outcome of the litigation. RTI said, "If we are not successful in any such litigation, we may be required to pay substantial damages or settlement costs. Based on the current information available to the Company, the impact that current or any future stockholder litigation may have on the Company cannot be reasonably estimated." RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc. is a leading global surgical implant company providing surgeons with safe biologic, metal and synthetic implants. Committed to delivering a higher standard, RTI's implants are used in sports medicine, general surgery, spine, orthopedic and trauma procedures and are distributed in nearly 50 countries. The company is based in Deerfield, Illinois. SB ONE BANCORP: Parshall Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statement ------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL PARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SB ONE BANCORP, EDWARD J. LEPPERT, ANTHONY LABOZZETTA, RICHARD BRANCA, SALVATORE A. DAVINO, GAIL GORDON, MARK J. HONTZ, WALTER E. LOEFFLER, MICHAEL F. LOMBARDI, MICHAEL X. MCBRIDGE, ROBERT MCNERNEY, and PETER MICHELOTTI, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00809-UNA (D. Del., June 15, 2020) brings this complaint against Defendants for their alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff owns SB One common stock. According to the complaint, the Individual Defendants caused the Company to enter into the Merger Agreement with Provident Financial on March 11, 2020 in which shareholders will receive 1.357 shares of Provident Financial common stock for each share of SB One they own. However, the Proxy Statement filed with the SEC in connection with the proposed transaction omits material information, such as SB One's and Provident Financial's financial projections, the financial analyses performed by the financial advisor KBW, and KBW's engagement, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Additionally, the omitted material information is important to stockholders in deciding how to vote on the Proposed Transaction. Thus, Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with irreparable harm because of the false and misleading statements in the Proxy Statement. Edward J. Leppert is Chairman of the Board of the Company. Anthony Labozzetta is Chief Executive Officer, President, and a Director of the Company. Mark J. Hontz is Vice Chairman of the Board of the Company. Richard Branca, Salvatore A. Davino, Gail Gordon, Walter E. Loeffler, Michael F. Lombardi, Michael X. McBridge, and Robert McNerney are directors of the Company. Peter Michelotti is Chief Operating Officer, Senior Executive Vice President, and a director of the Company. SB One Bancorp operates as a bank holding company for SB One Bank that provides commercial banking and related financial services to individual, business, and government customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 295-5310 Fax: (302) 654-7530 Emails: 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 Tel: (484) 324-6800 Fax: (484) 631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com SCHAEFFLER GROUP: July 23 Hearing Set for Proposed Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC; Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, LLP; Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.; Cera LLP; and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC ("Settlement Class Counsel") on June 8 disclosed that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division ("Court") has approved the following announcement concerning a class action settlement with the Schaeffler Defendants in a lawsuit alleging that Defendants conspired to raise, fix, maintain, and stabilize prices, rig bids, and allocate markets and customers for Bearings sold in the United States in violation of federal antitrust laws. The settlement affects those who purchased Bearings in the United States from January 1, 2000 through March 21, 2017 directly from any of the following entities: Schaeffler Group USA Inc.; Schaeffler Technologies GmbH & Co. KG (now Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG); FAG Kugelfischer GmbH; JTEKT Corporation; Koyo Corporation of U.S.A.; Koyo France SA.; Koyo Deutschland GmbH; Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp.; Nachi America Inc.; Nachi Technology, Inc.; Nachi Europe GmbH; NSK Ltd.; NSK Americas, Inc.; NSK Europe Ltd.; NSK Corporation; AB SKF; SKF GmbH; SKF USA Inc.; NTN Corporation; NTN USA Corporation; NTN Walzlager GmbH; and NTN-SNR Roulements SA. A hearing will be held on July 23, 2020, at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable Marianne O. Battani, United States District Judge, at the Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, Courtroom 250 (or such other courtroom as may be assigned for the hearing), to consider whether the Court should approve the proposed plan of distribution of the Schaeffler Settlement Fund and Settlement Class Counsel's requests for reimbursement of litigation expenses and service awards to the Class Representatives. A Notice of Hearing and Claim Form (the "Notice") was mailed to potential Schaeffler Settlement Class members on or about May 26, 2020. The Notice describes the options available to settlement class members with respect to the Schaeffler settlement in more detail. The Notice also explains what steps a Class Member must take to: (1) file a Claim Form to share in the settlement proceeds; or (2) object to the proposed plan of distribution of the Settlement Fund or Settlement Class Counsel's requests for reimbursement of litigation expenses, or service awards to the Class Representatives. The Notice and other important documents related to the settlements can be accessed at www.AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com/Bearings, or by calling 1-888-737-9578 or writing to Bearings Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, P.O. Box 4230, Portland, OR 97208-4230. Those who believe they may be a member of the Schaeffler settlement class, are urged to obtain a copy of the Notice if they have not received one in the mail. URL: www.AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com/Bearings [GN] SCWORX CORP: Rosen Law Reminds of June 29 Motion Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of SCWorx Corp. (NASDAQ: WORX) between April 13, 2020 and April 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important June 29, 2020 deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for SCWorx investors under the federal securities laws. To join the SCWorx class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1848.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) SCWorx's supplier for COVID-19 tests had previously misrepresented its operations; (2) SCWorx's buyer was a small company that was unlikely to adequately support the purported volume of orders for COVID-19 tests; (3) as a result, the Company's purchase order for COVID-19 tests had been overstated or entirely fabricated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 29, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1848.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Johnson Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01305-PAB (N.D. Ohio, June 15, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged failure to pay proper overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid Assistant Manager from July 2008 until May 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours. But, Defendant failed to pay them proper overtime rate because Defendant did not include nondiscretionary bonuses in their regular rate of pay to compute their overtime. The Sherwin-Williams Company is an American Fortune 500 company in the general building materials industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tess Bradford, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Emails: tess@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Judge Tosses Jackson Residents' Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Vicory, writing for Mississippi Clarion Ledger, reports that a class-action lawsuit from Jackson residents against Siemens Industry Inc. for water bill overcharges has been dismissed. U.S. District Judge Tom S. Lee dismissed with prejudice on June 2 the lawsuit that sought more than $5 million in damages from the company hired to fix Jackson's water and billing systems. The plaintiffs in the case, a Jackson nonprofit and three residents, sued to recoup what they say are "inaccurate" and "inflated" water bills due to the city of Jackson's nearly $90 million contract with the company. The complaint was first filed in the U.S. Southern District of Mississippi last summer by the nonprofit Poindexter After-School Club Inc., and Jackson residents William Kellum, Charles Jordan and Belinda Chase. They sued "individually and on behalf of all persons" who have received water services and been billed by the city of Jackson during its contract with the multinational company that was signed in 2012. Siemens, according to court records, said the plaintiffs could have sought relief through the state Public Service Commission or the city of Jackson through its recently implemented "Water and Sewer Billing Customer Bill of Rights." The bill of rights gives residents the opportunity to appeal water bills. The court rejected that argument but ultimately ruled the company was not contractually obligated to Jackson ratepayers. The court cited language in the contract between the city and Siemens that precludes "rights or benefits" to any other parties. "Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than the (city) and Siemens without express written consent of both parties." In a similar case, several Jackson residents in 2018 filed a lawsuit against the city of Jackson to prevent their water from being cut off, citing more than $80,000 in "grossly inaccurate" account balances. The complaint, filed in Hinds County Chancery Court, claimed plaintiffs' water accounts should not be shut off given the city's admission of widespread billing issues in its own lawsuit against Siemens. The case was dismissed with prejudice in February. No right to cut off water: Jackson residents, business cite Siemens in suit against city The city went on to sue Siemens itself and eventually settled for the full cost of the original contract. [GN] SIENNA SENIOR: Class Action Over COVID-19 Outbreak Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Kim Zarzour, writing for Vaughan Citizen, reports that Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) was onsite on June 7 at another COVID-plagued long-term care home -- Woodbridge Vista in Vaughan. The home is operated by Sienna Senior Living, a private company currently beset with lawsuits, COVID-19 outbreaks at several nursing homes and the controversial departure of one of its top executives. It's the second Sienna home to see armed forces step in, after the province redeployed troops to support Scarborough's Altamont Care Community in April. The move follows news, from the Ministry of Long-term Care June 4, that the William Osler Health System would take over as interim manager of the facility. "Despite receiving hospital support, Woodbridge Vista Care Community has been unable to contain the spread of COVID-19," a ministry statement said. Sienna's head office referred enquiries to the provincial government. Ministry spokesperson Gillian Sloggett said long-term care homes that receive armed forces deployment are "those with the most acute staffing challenges leading to poor resident outcomes." CAD is conducting an onsite assessment at Vista and news about next steps will be available in coming days, she said. As of June 6, the 224-bed home has recorded 142 cases of COVID-19 -- 102 residents and 40 staff -- with 22 deaths attributed to the virus. Eighteen acutely ill residents were rushed to hospital. Families marched outside of the home on June 4, expressing anger over the care of their loved ones and the allegedly demeaning remarks by company vice-president Joanne Dykeman. Anthony Manieri, whose sister has disabilities and COVID-19, lives in the home at Steeles Avenue and Martin Grove Road, said Dykeman hosted a Zoom meeting on June 3. After the meeting, not realizing her microphone was still on, she ridiculed families' questions and referred to "bloodsucking class action lawsuits," he said. Later that evening, Sienna announced that Dykeman had been let go. In her email sent to families dated June 6, Lois Cormack, president and CEO, said the company was advised the armed forces would be deployed to support care at the home. "This is good news for us, and will provide our organization with much-needed capacity during the time ahead. "Our sole focus is on ensuring residents' and our health care teams' safety and well-being during this unprecedented time," she added. Families say the action is long overdue. "These problems are just coming to light now but they've been going on for years," said Luigi Marra, whose father, a resident in the home, recently died. "Covid-19 just brought it to the forefront." "Family members have been advocating for weeks and weeks," said Miriana Perticarini. "Sienna failed miserably in protecting our most precious elders, loved ones. They are responsible for our loved ones and did not protect them. They completely screwed up, to say it mildly . . . It was obvious before COVID, this just brought it into the limelight . . . and it cannot be swept underneath the carpet." Sienna, which owns and operates 37 long-term care homes in Ontario and eight in British Columbia, is the focus of a $20-million class-action lawsuit. [GN] SIENNA SENIOR: To Carry Out Policy Review Amid Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Stefan Labbe, writing for Castanet, reports that the parent company of a Port Coquitlam long-term care home at the centre of an ongoing COVID-19 outbreak has launched what it calls a "sweeping set of initiatives" aimed at protecting residents. Sienna Senior Living, which owns Nicola Lodge, says it has hired Ontario's former Deputy Attorney General to carry out "an immediate, company-wide review into the policies, practices and culture" at its care facilities. Of the 37 long-term care and retirement homes the company runs in Ontario and British Columbia, 16 have documented COVID-19 outbreaks. The investigation follows allegations of neglect, incompetence and abuse from both the Canadian Armed Forces and several whistleblowers. In a damning report which includes one of its Scarborough facilities, Canadian forces personnel detail "horrific" allegations of insect infestations, aggressive resident feeding that caused choking, bleeding infections and residents crying for help for hours. The home -- site of 53 COVID-19 deaths -- is now subject to a $20 million class action lawsuit filed on behalf of family members. And while some allegations of neglect at its Ontario facilities, like how residents are not receiving three meals a day and how the military brought in its own food to feed residents, echo the allegations at Nicola Lodge, others, like bed sores worn through to the bone and dangerous errors in administering medication, go much further. "As part of the investigation led by Mr. Boniferro, any residences that raise red flags will be identified and addressed," wrote a spokesperson for Sienna Senior Living in a press release. [GN] SIGUE CORPORATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Babare Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL BABARE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIGUE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-05544 (W.D. Wash., June 9, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Sigue Corporation provides payment processing services. The Company offers money transfer, bill payment, and other services. Sigue serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: MHiraldo@Hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd, Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and - Kira M. Rubel, Esq. THE HARBOR LAW GROUP 3615 Harborview Drive, NW, Suite C. Gig Harbor, WA 98332-2129 Telephone: (253) 251-2955 E-mail: Kira@theharborlawgorup.com SITEL OPERATING: Wright Suit Alleges FCRA Violation ---------------------------------------------------- ALLISON WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SITEL OPERATING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 108599160 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., June 9, 2020) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Sitel Operating Corporation provides business process outsourcing services. The Company offers back office, collection, customer care, technical support, and acquisition and sales services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com gnichols@wfclaw.com - and - Scott M. Weaver, Esq. THE WEAVER LAW FIRM, P.A. 801 West Bay Dr., Suite 426 Largo, FL 33770 Telephone: (727) 316-5330 Facsimile: (727) 499-7322 E-mail: scott@theweaverlawfirm.com SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Class Suits in Calif. Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Slack Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the the company continues to defend shareholder class action suits in California. Beginning in September 2019, seven purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, its directors, certain of its officers, and certain investment funds associated with certain of its directors, each alleging violations of securities laws in connection with the Company's registration statement on Form S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Six of these lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo and one of these lawsuits was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Federal Action"). In the Federal Action, captioned Dennee v. Slack Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:19-CV-05857-SI, a lead plaintiff has been appointed and the operative complaint was filed in January 2020. In January 2020, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In April 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. On May 5, 2020, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to certify the court's order for interlocutory appeal. A hearing for the motion is scheduled for June 12, 2020. The six state court actions were consolidated in November 2019, and the consolidated action is captioned In re Slack Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 19CIV05370 (the "State Court Action"). The operative complaint was filed in the State Court Action in December 2019. The Company and the other defendants filed demurrers to the complaint on February 20, 2020. The state court will schedule a hearing on the demurrers once certain restrictions on court proceedings related to the COVID-19 pandemic are lifted. The Federal Action and the State Court Action seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of investors who purchased the Company's Class A common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement. Slack Technologies, Inc. is the leading channels-based messaging platform, used by millions to align their teams, unify their systems, and drive their businesses forward. Slack offers a secure, enterprise-grade environment that can scale with the largest organizations in the world. The company is based in San Francisco, California. SOCIETY INSURANCE: Refuses to Cover COVID Losses, Cardelli Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CARDELLI ENTERPRISE, L.L.C., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, a mutual company, Case No. 1:20-cv-03263 (N.D. Ill., June 2, 2020), seeks declaratory judgment establishing that the Plaintiff and others are entitled to receive the benefit of the insurance coverage they purchased. On March 16, 2020, during the term of the policy issued by Society Insurance to the Plaintiff, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker issued Executive Order 2020-07 mandating that all restaurants and bars suspend all on-premises consumption of food and beverages due to the "ongoing spread of COVID-19 and the danger the virus poses to the public's health and wellness." Thereafter, Governor Pritzker issued additional COVID-19 Executive Orders that extended these restrictions into the future, with the current Executive Order 2020-33 extending this suspension through May 29, 2020. The Plaintiff is the owner and operator of Enzo & Lucia Italian restaurant and bar in historic downtown Long Grove, Illinois, which was forced, by recent orders issued by the Governor of the State of Illinois, to suspend all on-premises dining and beverage consumption operations--through no fault of its own--as part of the State's efforts to slow the spread of the global COVID-19 pandemic. The closures mandated by these government orders pose an existential threat to its business, which employs many Illinois residents, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff contends that Society Insurance has uniformly refused to provide Business Income, Extra Expense, Civil Authority, Contamination, or any other coverage to many, if not all, Illinois businesses that have submitted claims under the Businessowners Form as a result of COVID-19 and the Civil Action Orders. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant breached its contract obligations in the insurance policy to indemnify and pay for loss of business income and extra expenses incurred. The Plaintiff also asserts bad faith claims handling under Illinois law. Society Insurance is a business insurance carrier headquartered in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Antonio DeBlasio, Esq. David M. Gower, Esq. DE BLASIO & GOWER LLC 2001 Midwest Road, Suite 100 Oak Brook, IL 60523 Telephone: (630) 560-1123 Facsimile: (630) 364-4206 E-mail: deblasio@DGLLC.net gower@DGLLC.net - and - Peter S. Lubin, Esq. Patrick D. Austermuehle, Esq. LUBIN AUSTERMUEHLE, P.C. 360 W Butterfield Rd., No. 325 Elmhurst, IL 60126 Telephone: (630) 333-0333 E-mail: peter@l-a.law patrick@l-a.law SORL AUTO: Suits Over Ruli International Merger Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- SORL Auto Parts, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is a defendant in class action suits related to its merger with Ruili International Inc. On April 26, 2019, the Company announced its receipt of a preliminary non-binding proposal letter (the "Proposal"), dated April 25, 2019, from Mr. Xiaoping Zhang, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, Ms. Shuping Chi and Mr. Xiaofeng Zhang, directors of the Company and Ruili Group Co., Ltd. (together, the "Consortium"), to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of the Company not already owned by the Consortium (the "Going Private" transaction). On May 21, 2019, the Board of Directors of the Company formed a special committee (the "Special Committee") of independent directors consisting of Mr. Xiao Lin and Mr. Binghua Feng, with Mr. Lin as the Chairman of the Special Committee, to evaluate the Proposal. On November 29, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), with Ruili International Inc. ("Parent"), a Delaware corporation, and Ruili International Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent. Parent was formed by Mr. Xiaoping Zhang solely for the purpose of entering into the Merger Agreement and consummating the Going Private transaction contemplated thereby. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, subject to the terms and conditions thereof, at the effective time , Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company being the surviving corporation, and each share of common stock of the Company issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger will be automatically cancelled and converted into the right to receive $4.72 in cash (the "Merger Consideration") without interest, except for (i) shares of common stock beneficially owned by members of the Consortium, Parent, Merger Sub or their respective affiliates, which will be automatically cancelled for no consideration at the effective time of the Merger, and (ii) shares of common stock held by stockholders who have not voted in favor of the Merger and who have properly and validly perfected and not effectively withdrawn or lost their statutory rights of appraisal in accordance with Section 262 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware ("Section 262"), which will be automatically cancelled at the effective time of the Merger and will cease to have any rights with respect thereto, except the right to receive payment of the appraised value of such shares to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 262. The following putative stockholder class action complaints have been filed against the Company and certain officers and directors thereof in connection with the Going Private transaction. The first, Richard Scarantino v. SORL Auto Parts, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00216, was filed on February 13, 2020, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "Delaware Action"). The second, Jose Carlos SanJuan Paz v. SORL Auto Parts, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01318, was filed on February 14, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The third, Ongarov v. SORL Auto Parts, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-1815, was filed on March 2, 2020 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The fourth, Mark Patenaude v. SORL Auto Parts, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01929, was filed on March 4, 2020 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The fifth, Sherri Gough v. SORL Auto Parts, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02182, was filed on March 11, 2020 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The sixth, Bruce LeBeau v. SORL Auto Parts, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02266, was filed on March 13, 2020 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints allege that the preliminary proxy statement omitted material information with respect to the Going Private transaction that renders the preliminary proxy statement false and misleading. In March 2020, the five actions filed in the Southern District of New York -- the Paz, Ongarov, Patenaude, Gough, and LeBeau matters -- were consolidated with the Paz action designated as the lead case (the "Consolidated Action"). On April 16, 2020, plaintiff in the Delaware Action voluntarily dismissed his claims without prejudice. Between April 17, 2020, and April 29, 2020, plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action also voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice. The seventh, on May 7, 2020, Jose Carlos Sanjuan Paz and Samuel Levin, filed a Section 220 lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking to compel the Company to allow them to inspect certain documents identified in the complaint. The complaint seeks to enjoin defendants from consummating the Going Private transaction. The Company believes the allegations in the complaint are without merit, but cannot predict with certainty the results of the litigation. Incorporated on March 24, 1982, SORL Auto Parts, Inc. is a Delaware corporation. Through its 90% ownership of the Ruili Group Ruian Auto Parts Co., Ltd., a Sino-Foreign joint venture, SORL Auto Parts, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries) develops, manufactures and distributes automotive brake systems and other key safety related auto parts to automotive original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, and the related aftermarket both in China and abroad. The Company's products are used in different types of commercial vehicles, such as trucks and buses. Automotive brake systems and other key safety related auto parts are critical components that ensure driving safety. SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Calvo Sues over COVID-19 Drug Announcement ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, JEANNETTE CALVO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC., HENRY JI, and MARK R. BRUNSWICK, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01066-JAH-WVG (S.D. Cal., June 11, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly-situated individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired Sorrento securities between May 15, 2020, and May 22, 2020, alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Sorrento's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the announcement of Sorrento's discovery of the STI-1499 antibody on May 15, 2020 and the company's overstatements about the prospects of the STI-1499 antibody for completely inhibiting COVID-19, which led to the increase of Sorrento's stock price at $4.14 per share, or 158.02%, to close at $6.76 per share on May 15 and up to $10.00 per share on May 18. After few days, several publications have emerged expressing skepticism and doubt about Sorrento's antibody announcement which resulted to the continuous decline of the company's stock price. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. is a San Diego, California-based clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that engages in the development of therapies for the treatment of cancer, autoimmune, inflammatory, and neurodegenerative diseases. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and – Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and – Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and – Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com STATE FARM: Elegant Massage Seeks Claims for COVID-19 Losses ------------------------------------------------------------ ELEGANT MASSAGE, LLC d/b/a LIGHT STREAM SPA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00265 (E.D. Va., May 27, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants, individually and on behalf of all persons or entities in the United States who purchased State Farm-branded "all risk" commercial property insurance policies that included Loss of Income and Extra Expense Coverage and were denied claims for lost business income and extra expenses as a result of social distancing guidance and closure/stay-at-home orders issued in connection with the COVID-19 global pandemic. In light of the federal guidance and the subsequent orders issued by the Governor of Virginia, Plaintiff ceased its operations entirely, which has resulted in a significant loss of revenue. According to the complaint, a state of emergency was declared in Virginia in early March 2020, followed by a series of social distancing restrictions and closures aimed to stop the spread of the virus. Notably, on March 17, the Governor of Virginia issued an order limiting the number of patrons permitted in certain businesses. On March 23, the Governor issued an order closing all recreational and entertainment businesses. On March 30, 2020, the Governor ordered all individuals to remain at their place of residence except when engaging in certain necessary activities. Given this complete disruption of its business, Plaintiff tendered a claim to Defendants seeking reimbursement for its lost income and extra expenses under their policy's Loss of Income and Extra Expense Coverage. Defendants, however, wrongfully denied Plaintiff's claim, refusing to provide any reimbursement and claiming that Plaintiff's loss was excluded from coverage. Plaintiff owns and operates Light Stream Spa, which provides therapeutic massages to the Virginia Beach area. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company operates as an insurance company headquartered in Bloomington, Illinois. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company is a Bloomington, Illinois-based company that provides property insurance for State Farm customers in the United States and the product lines that it writes include homeowners, boat owners and commercial lines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William H. Monroe, Jr., Esq. Marc C. Greco, Esq. Kip A. Harbison, Esq. Michael A. Glasser, Esq. GLASSER AND GLASSER, P.L.C. 580 East Main Street, Suite 600 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 625-6787 Facsimile: (757) 625-5959 Email: bill@glasserlaw.com marcg@glasserlaw.com kip@glasserlaw.com michael@glasserlaw.com - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Naumon Amjed, Esq. Melissa L. Troutner, Esq. Ethan Barlieb, Esq. Jordan Jacobson, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com namjed@ktmc.com mtroutner@ktmc.com ebarlieb@ktmc.com jjacobson@ktmc.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973)-994-1700 Facsimile: (973)-994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com ltaylor@carellabyrne.com SUN HEALTH: Faces Hoyos TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Text ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL HOYOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUN HEALTH & DENTAL LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 108072255 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., May 28, 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. According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing with no regard for privacy rights of the recipients of those messages. 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 Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and Class Members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant. The Defendant is a medical plan provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. 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, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305-975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com SUTTELL & HAMMER: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Bjornsdotter Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Anna Bjornsdotter filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in her lawsuit styled Anna Bjornsdotter v. Suttell & Hammer, P.S., et al., Case No. 6:18-cv-02079-MC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation. The appellate case is captioned as Anna Bjornsdotter v. Suttell & Hammer, P.S., et al., Case No. 20-35298, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant Anna M. Bjornsdotter's opening brief is due on July 9, 2020; -- Appellees Patrick J. Layman and Suttell & Hammer, P.S.'s answering brief is due on August 10, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ANNA M. BJORNSDOTTER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, is represented by: Mark Passannante, Esq. BROER & PASSANNANTE, P.S. 1050 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1220 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 294-0910 E-mail: markpassannante@msn.com Defendants-Appellees SUTTELL & HAMMER, P.S., FKA Suttell, Hammer & White, P.S., and PATRICK J. LAYMAN are represented by: Kevin Hisashi Kono, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97201-5610 Telephone: (503) 241-2300 E-mail: kevinkono@dwt.com THARALDSON HOSPITALITY: Turnquist Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as KELSEY TURNQUIST, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. THARALDSON HOSPITALITY STAFFING, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP PLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. RIC2001027 (Filed March 5, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court in the State of California for the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 5, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-01159 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay wages for all time worked at minimum wage, and failed to pay proper overtime wages for daily overtime worked, and all hours worked in violation of the California Labor Code. Tharaldson Hospitality provides hospitality management services. The Company offers management services on a contract and fee basis.[BN] Defendant Tharaldson Hospitality is represented by: William J. Goines, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1900 University Avenue, 5th Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: 650 328.8500 Facsimile: 650 328.8508 E-mail: goinesw@gtlaw.com - and - Lindsay E. Hutner, Esq. Alexa R. Hankard, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415.655.1300 Facsimile: 415.707.2010 E-mail: hutnerl@gtlaw.com hankarda@gtlaw.com TIKTOK: Class Action Over User Data Harvesting Pending in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Waters, writing for IPWatchdog, reports that notwithstanding its negative effects on the world at large, COVID-19 quarantine has been a boon to a growing group of entertainment-based apps and services. Netflix, Amazon, Zoom, and Instagram are a few of the best-known apps that many have used to break the monotony of pandemic-induced isolation. TikTok is also on the list of apps experiencing a growth surge, though chances are that your kids are more likely to have participated in a viral TikTok dance challenge than you. Unfortunately for the Chinese-owned company, this popularity among the tween-and-under set is the source of its ongoing struggles with privacy advocates and regulators. Most recently, prominent consumer and privacy advocacy groups filed an FTC complaint accusing TikTok of particularly egregious privacy lapses relating to children. Democrats on Capitol Hill have piled on with a May 28th letter supporting the advocates' complaint, expressing concern that user data is being funneled to the Chinese government and stating that TikTok's "blatant disregard" for privacy regulations affects all Americans' online privacy. TikTok's Background The company touts itself as the destination for short-form videos, with a mission to capture the world's creativity, knowledge, and precious life moments. Its social media app, which launched in its current iteration in August 2018, reached the milestone of 2 billion downloads during the pandemic and its growing popularity is astonishing. Forbes reports that TikTok has 800 million average daily users, and its parent company ByteDance collected $17 billion in revenue in 2019. TikTok, which began as the simple lip synching app musical.ly, was acquired by ByteDance for $800 million in 2017. According to Bloomberg, the app is now valued at more than $100 billion. TikTok's 18-month growth trajectory is almost unprecedented, but its repeated privacy lapses and foreign ownership have left critics with a lot to complain about. TikTok's Previous Privacy Troubles In February 2019, the FTC filed a complaint in United States District Court alleging various privacy lapses at Musical.ly, which by then was operating under the control of ByteDance with the name TikTok. The FTC's complaint details numerous issues with the app's privacy controls and focuses on its treatment of users under the age of 13. Specifically, the FTC alleged that the app received thousands of emails from parents requesting the closure of their child's account, a function not available from within the app. TikTok closed those accounts upon request, but did not delete the data associated with the child users. Additionally, the complaint highlighted that TikTok had discovered 46 of its most popular users were under the age of 13. Upon this discovery, TikTok instructed those users to edit their bios to indicate that an adult manager or parent was operating their account. TikTok, however, never verified that an adult was actually managing or monitoring those accounts. Most disturbingly, the app's settings defaulted to public profiles and offered a functionality providing a list of other users within a 50-mile radius, which resulted in children being messaged and solicited by adult users. It is not difficult to see why these privacy lapses were alarming to parents—the allegations in the complaint amounted to serious violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). Without admitting guilt, TikTok agreed to settle these privacy charges for $5.7 million and entered into a consent order with the FTC. This amount is dwarfed by both TikTok's current revenue and the FTC's $5 billion settlement with Facebook, but it was a record settlement for COPPA enforcement. Public advocates and government are not the only ones taking aim at the app—private litigants have also filed suits alleging TikTok's privacy problems. TikTok settled for $1.1 million, subject to court approval, in a class action in Illinois which alleged violations of COPPA similar to the FTC's. A putative California class action filed in December 2019, Misty Hong v. TikTok, Inc. et al., alleges that TikTok was secretly harvesting user data, even unpublished draft videos. TikTok also faces lawsuits brought by parents on behalf of unnamed minors in both California and Illinois for violations of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). Each of these complaints reiterates variations of the same allegations that TikTok is not asking for user permission, or parental permission in the case of child users, before using their data in various ways. These allegations are not consistent with what would be required by its consent order with the FTC. TikTok's Latest Privacy Troubles It is not surprising then, that little more than a year after its FTC settlement, TikTok is back in the headlines with advocates and regulators alleging its blatant disregard of the consent order. On May 14, 2020, 20 consumer and privacy advocacy groups led by the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood joined together to file a 56-page complaint with the FTC detailing TikTok's continuing privacy abuses. Among other alleged abuses, TikTok's has allegedly continued to fail to both obtain parental consent before collecting childrens' data and delete children's data upon request. TikTok shouldn't be surprised by the complaint, as these allegations are virtually the same as those leveled in the FTC's 2019 complaint. Central to both complaints is the ease with which users under 13 are able to circumvent the app's age controls. The 2020 complaint also includes fairly extreme examples of child users, whose data arguably should have been deleted pursuant to the 2019 consent order, still appearing in the app. For example, the complaint highlights a 7-year-old with over 44,000 TikTok followers and a 10-year-old with 1.2 million followers. Showing their support of the group's complaint, U.S. Representatives Annie Kuster and Jan Schakowsky, along with 12 other Democratic members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, sent a letter to the FTC encouraging it to investigate TikTok and stating, ". . . as long TikTok is out of compliance with COPPA and the consent decree, young children are at heightened risk." TikTok's use of data has also come under particular scrutiny because of its ties to the Chinese government. Under Chinese law, companies can be compelled to share their data with the Chinese government. There are many nefarious ways an international actor might use data on a large and growing portion of Americans, particularly children. Experts have alleged that TikTok may be currently censoring content and could use its vast data stores as an aid to future propaganda campaigns. Practical Takeaways Issues of Chinese propaganda and national security may seem far afield for U.S. companies building privacy programs. However, the privacy abuses leveled against TikTok serve as a guide for how those abuses arise and how they may be mitigated by any company building and growing a privacy compliance program. * Know your audience. Privacy protocols are necessary for any app that is collecting user data, but where childrens' privacy is concerned you can expect an understandably heightened standard of care. An interesting tidbit from the advocates' complaint to the FTC is Appendix No.1, which details particularly egregious user accounts. The youngest user identified in the exhibit was just 4 years old. Despite this evidence of infant-adjacent users, one of TikTok's most-touted defenses is that it is targeted at an older audience. The takeaway: Don't bury your head in the sand when it comes to knowing your audience. If a large portion of your users are children, even if your app is not targeted at kids, your privacy compliance program should be developed with them in mind. * Assess your age controls. Both FTC complaints are instructive on exactly how to avoid the ire of advocacy groups and regulators with regard to implementing functional age controls on an app or website. For example, the advocates' complaint points out that once an underage user realizes that age restrictions have been imposed on their account, they can simply create a new account from the same device, using a fake birthdate. TikTok could have avoided this problem by using device IDs to require additional parental consent verification—by providing a credit card, for example—on those devices where an underage account was previously created. * Know and follow the law. It is fundamental to a privacy compliance program that you must understand and follow applicable federal and state law. Complying with applicable law may seem to be an obvious point, but in TikTok's case, where it allegedly failed to comply with data deletion requests under COPPA, it bears repeating. If you serve children, your privacy program must comply with COPPA. Further, complying with applicable privacy laws means the often-burdensome effort of keeping up with a rapidly evolving body of law. You may also be subject to various state laws, such as the recently enacted California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), state data breach notification laws, and recently proposed privacy legislation in various states, including Washington. Federal legislators have also proposed privacy bills, which may come into effect in coming years. * Monitor compliance. Finally, privacy compliance programs are not "set it and forget it" endeavors. A compliance program should have a built-in monitoring and QA protocol so you can be sure that your privacy controls are functioning properly. [GN] TOWNE PARK: Ramirez Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to S.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOWNE PARK, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-700003942-CU-OE-CTL (Filed Jan. 23, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on June 5, 2020. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01032-H-KSC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims for failure to pay all wages, failure to pay overtime wages, meal period violations, rest period violations, wage statement violations, waiting time penalties, and failure to reimburse business records pursuant to the Private Attorney's General Act, California Labor Code. Towne Park provides hospitality and parking solutions.[BN] Defendant Towne Park, LLC, is represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. Julia A. Luster, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213 239-9800 Facsimile: 213 239-9045 E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com julia.luster@ogletree.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Chalal Suit Moved From Pennsylvania to New York ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER CHALAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01867 (Filed April 10, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) on June 3, 2020. The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-02450-RPK-SJB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Rachel P. Kovner. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The lawsuit is a civil class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of consumers, who purchased Toyota and Lexus vehicles equipped with certain defective low-pressure fuel pumps. On January 13, 2020, Toyota submitted a safety recall report to NHTSA voluntarily recalling nearly 700,000 Toyota and Lexus vehicles manufactured between August 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019, with defective low-pressure Denso fuel pumps. In the Recall Report, Toyota identified a dangerous defect in the low-pressure fuel pump which can fail and cause the Recalled Vehicles to unexpectedly stall and cause engine shut down. Toyota Motor is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in Toyota, Aichi, Japan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Macoretta, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Ste. 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 E-mail: jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com TRINITY PROPERTY: Calonia Balks at Collection of Biometric Data --------------------------------------------------------------- ISIDRO BUTCH CALONIA JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRINITY PROPERTY CONSULTANTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2020L000609 (Ill. Cir., 18th Judicial, Dupage Cty., June 12, 2020) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant to put a stop to its unlawful collection, use, and storage of Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' sensitive biometric data in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, when employees first begin their jobs at Trinity, they are required to scan their fingerprint in its biometric time tracking system as a means of authentication, instead of using only key fobs or other identification cards. Trinity disregarded its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the BIPA. Specifically, Trinity has violated (and continues to violate) the BIPA because it did not: 1) Properly inform Plaintiff and the Class members in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as required by the BIPA; 2) Provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's and the Class's fingerprints, as required by the BIPA; nor 3) Receive a written release from Plaintiff or the members of the Class to collect, capture, or otherwise obtain fingerprints, as required by the BIPA. Trinity Property Consultants, LLC is a multi-housing management company located in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Fish, Esq. Mara Baltabols, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355-7590 Facsimile: (630) 778-0400 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com mara@fishlawfirm.com UNITED AIRLINES: Miller Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as JON MILLER, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. UNITED AIRLINES, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, DALE BORDELEON an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV10551 (Filed March 16, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 2, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-04910 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges claims for hostile work environment-race, gender/sex; discrimination based on sex/gender, race and disability; failure to reasonably accommodate; failure to engage in interactive process, and sexual battery and battery; assault; retaliation; and failure to take all reasons steps to prevent discrimination, in violation of the California Family Rights Act and Labor Code. United Airlines is a major American airline headquartered at Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Defendant United Airlines, Inc., is represented by: Michele Haydel Gehrke, Esq. Mona A. Razani, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105-3659 Telephone: 415 543 8700 Facsimile: 415 391 8269 E-mail: mgehrke@reedsmith.com mrazani@reedsmith.com UNITED JACKLEAN: Stirling Sues Over Unpaid OT and Minimum Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- ABAGAIL STIRLING, ILENE MAYNARD, CHRIS STIRLING, TIFFANIE HAWKINS v. UNITED JACKLEAN, INC., a California corporation; MINORU KOGURE, an individual aka MICHAEL KOGURE and dba US JACKLEAN; KINUKO KOGURE, an individual and dba US JACKLEAN; and DOES 1 through 100, all inclusive, Case No. 20STCV21365 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 5, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees asserting claims for unpaid base-rate compensation, unpaid overtime compensation, minimum wage violations, and failure to provide opportunity for meal and rest breaks pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Plaintiffs are employees of the Defendants. U.S. Jacklean is a specialty manufacturer of products that foster personal health and well-being.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth W. Ralidis, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. RALIDIS, A.P.L.C. 3435 Wilshire Blvd., 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 251-5480 Facsimile: (323) 953-1171 UNITED STATES: Detainees Class Action in Florida v. ICE Okayed --------------------------------------------------------------- David Ovalle, writing for The Miami Herald, reports that to help curb the spread of the novel coronavirus, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement must give soap, cleaning supplies and masks to detainees at three South Florida detention centers, and also limit transfers to other facilities, a federal judge has ruled. U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke, in an order issued just before midnight on June 6, also allowed detainees at the centers to pursue legal claims in one class-action lawsuit, rather than piecemeal litigation. The judge stopped short of ordering that detainees be released, but the ruling -- which was critical of the government's treatment of people in ICE custody -- was still a victory for the detainees who filed the lawsuit back in April. Cooke noted that social distancing at the three South Florida ICE detention center "is still impossible," detainees aren't properly educated on the use of masks, and continued transfers of detainees to other facilities "substantially increases the risk of spread of the contagion." "In sum, in this moment of worldwide peril from a highly contagious pathogen, the Court is not satisfied that ICE's commitment to detention has meaningfully shifted since the start of the pandemic," Cooke wrote in a 40-page order. Cooke's order expands on an earlier order mandating the thinning of the population at three Florida detention centers because of the spread of COVID-19, the illness caused by the novel coronavirus. The ruling came June 5 as part of an ongoing federal lawsuit seeking the release of detainees at three South Florida detention centers: Krome in Miami-Dade, the Broward Transitional Center in Pompano Beach and the Glades County detention center in Moore Haven. For detention facilities of all types across the United States, the spread of the highly contagious coronavirus has been particularly troubling because of the close quarters and difficulty of social distancing. The Miami-Dade jail system, which houses over 3,000 people awaiting criminal trials and serving short sentences, has had close to 500 inmates stricken by COVID-19. One inmate, Charles Hobbs, has died. A group of community organizers filed a lawsuit against Miami-Dade County seeking the release of "medically vulnerable" inmates. A federal judge ordered the jails to issue soap, masks and disinfectants to inmates, although an appeals court halted the ruling as litigation continues. In the immigration-detention system, organizers filed a similar lawsuit in April. Citing "cruel and unusual punishment" behind bars, Judge Cooke later in April issued an order telling ICE to shrink its detainee populations at the centers to 75% of capacity to allow for social distancing. The order has been extended several times. The judge has also closely monitored how ICE is handling its detention centers throughout the pandemic, hearing directly from detainees, questioning how the system transfers people in custody and even ordering the agency to release information on civilian contractors who have contracted COVID-19. ICE says it has drastically cut the population at its detention centers in accordance with the judge's orders. ICE said in a court filing on June 5, it had removed 105 people from the three facilities, some for deportation, some for other centers to prepare for imminent deportation. But Cooke was alarmed at how the transfers were taking place. She noted that one inmate, who testified during an earlier hearing, was escorted by a guard "who was not donning a mask, despite being seated a mere two feet away from Mr. Borges." The judge ruled that ICE must limit the transfer of "detainees to only instances regarding immediately necessary medical appointments and release from custody," according to the order. "Social distancing requirements should be strictly enforced in buses, vans, and planes," she wrote. The judge also ordered ICE to not quarantine suspected positive detainees together until tests have confirmed that someone has the virus. The practice is known as "cohorting." The judge's order, no longer temporary, will remain in place until a trial can be held. [GN] UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Faces Suit Over Disclosure of Patients' Data ------------------------------------------------------------------ JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, (Ohio Comm. Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., June 12, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for disclosure of non-public medical information, breach of confidence, and invasion of privacy. The Plaintiff, individually and all others similarly-situated patients at University Hospitals Health System, Inc., alleges that the Defendant discloses its patients' personally identifiable, non-public medical information, and the contents of their communication to third parties, including Facebook, Google, Microsoft (Bing), Invoca.net, Liveperson.net, LPSNMedia.net, and Typekit.net, through the Defendant's website www.uhhospitals.org and within the MyUHCare patient portal for marketing purposes without providing notice and obtaining any authorization from patients, including the Plaintiff. The Defendant's conduct violates its promises of confidentiality to patients and also breaches its two separate privacy statements, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Notice of Privacy Practices and Privacy Policy. University Hospitals Health System, Inc. is a non-profit corporation that provides healthcare services, with its headquarters at 3605 Warrensville Center Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart E. Scott, Esq. Kevin C. Hulick, Esq. SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP 1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 696-3232 Facsimile: (216) 696-3924 E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com khulick@spanglaw.com USA JAN: Underpays IHOP Servers, Harding Claims ----------------------------------------------- The case ANGELINA HARDING on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. USA JAN, INC., an Illinois corporation, d/b/a IHOP, NEW ZAKS USA, INC., an Illinois corporation, d/b/a IHOP 1209, FLIP 3132, INC., an Illinois corporation, d/b/a IHOP, FLIPMEASTACK, INC., an Illinois corporation, d/b/a IHOP, SALAUDDIN JANMOHAMMED, an individual, VICTORIA JANMOHAMMED, an individual Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03468 (N.D. Ill., June 14, 2020) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, minimum wages, overtime wages, and earned wages. Plaintiff was employed as server by Defendants within the last three years before the filing of this lawsuit. Plaintiff Harding and other servers customarily and regularly received more than $30.00 per month in tips. Defendants elected to claim a tip credit by compensating servers based upon the lower statutory minimum wage rates for tipped employees and using tips to make up the difference between the lower minimum wage rates for tipped employees and the standard minimum wage rates that would otherwise be owed. Instead of instituting a schedule that ensures that their employees will not work more than 40 hours in a single workweek, Defendants force employees to work more than 40 hours in a single workweek, and then use various schemes to make it appear that these employees worked 40 hours or less in a single workweek. USA Jan Inc., New Zaks USA Inc., and Flip 3132, Inc. are Illinois corporations doing business within the state. They own and operate IHOP franchise restaurants in the Chicagoland area. Flipmeastack provides restaurant management services to USA Jan, New Zaks, and Flip 3132, as well as the approximately 20 other IHOP franchise restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON 5000 Rockside Road Liberty Plaza – Suite 520 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 525-8890 E-mail: james@bswages.com - and - Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Telephone AZ: (480) 382-5176 Telephone OH: (216) 395-4226 E-mail: cliff@bswages.com VERB TECHNOLOGY: Hartmann Class Action in California Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Verb Technology Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a purported class action suit entitled, SCOTT C. HARTMANN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. VERB TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC., and RORY J. CUTAIA, Defendant, Case Number 2:19-CV-05896. On July 9, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, styled SCOTT C. HARTMANN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. VERB TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC., and RORY J. CUTAIA, Defendant, Case Number 2:19-CV-05896. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock between January 3, 2018 and May 2, 2018, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the January 3, 2018, announcement by us of our agreement with Oracle America, Inc. The complaint seeks unspecified costs and damages. Verb Technology said, "We believe the complaint is without merit and we intend to vigorously defend the action." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Verb Technology Company, Inc. provides cloud-based business software products under the Tagg brand name. The company was formerly known as nFusz, Inc. and changed its name to Verb Technology Company, Inc. in February 2019. Verb Technology Company, Inc. was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California. VILLAGE OF SUGAR: Michalek et al Sue Over Unlawful Termination -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, CONNOR MICHALEK, JOSH POLOWY, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. VILLAGE OF SUGAR GROVE, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03434 (N.D. Ill., June 11, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged unlawful employment practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Whistleblower Act, and the Illinois Common Law Retaliatory Discharge. Plaintiffs worked for Defendant and were required to be "on-call" during certain periods. Plaintiffs assert that they were called very frequently by Defendant while they were on-call but were not paid at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. Moreover, Plaintiffs were being terminated by Defendant when they started complaining through verbal and written. Village of Sugar Grove is an organized village in Kane County, Illinois run by its own government. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Lubin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN LUBIN 8800 Bronx Ave., Suite 100H Skokie, IL 60077 Tel: 773-954-2608 Email: jonathan@lubinlegal.com - and – Mitchell Goldberg, Esq. Timothy Edmier, Esq. Lawrence Kamin, Esq. LAWRENCE KAMIN LAW FIRM 300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: 312-372-1947 Website: https://www.lawrencekaminlaw.com/ VIVINT SOLAR: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Dekker Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Vivint Solar, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Gerrie Dekker, et al. v. Vivint Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07918-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit arises from certain misrepresented termination fees imposed by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs contend that these termination fees constitute unlawful penalties that are void and unenforceable under California Civil Code; unlawful and unfair under California's Unfair Competition Law; and unconscionable under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, at consumers' front doors and around their kitchen tables, Vivint Solar sales representatives falsely promise consumers they will only pay for the energy they use. Touting the simplicity of a single, lower energy bill, sales representatives boast about the ease of transferring the Solar System if a consumer sells her home, which is also false. Further, claiming the Solar System will actually increase property value, and they assure consumers installation and customer service is their forte. It most certainly is not, the Plaintiffs assert. The appellate case is captioned as Gerrie Dekker, et al. v. Vivint Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-15572, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants Vivint Solar Developer, LLC, Vivint Solar Holdings, Inc., Vivint Solar Provider, LLC and Vivint Solar, Inc.'s opening brief is due on July 9, 2020; -- Appellees Karen Barajas, Juan Bautista, Jae Chong, Gerrie Dekker, Gennie Hilliard, Marci Hulsey, Cindy Piini, Marlene Rogers, Phyllis Runyon and Daniel Thompson's answering brief is due on August 10, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees GERRIE DEKKER; KAREN BARAJAS, as executor of the Estate of Thompson Bryson; MARLENE ROGERS; DANIEL THOMPSON; JAE CHONG; MARCI HULSEY; CINDY PIINI; PHYLLIS RUNYON; GENNIE HILLIARD; and JUAN BAUTISTA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, are represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com Defendants-Appellants VIVINT SOLAR, INC., VIVINT SOLAR HOLDINGS, INC., VIVINT SOLAR DEVELOPER, LLC, and VIVINT SOLAR PROVIDER, LLC, are represented by: Wyatt Honse, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 2475 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 251-5168 Facsimile: (650) 251-5002 E-mail wyatt.honse@stblaw.com - and - Chet Alan Kronenberg, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 407-7557 Facsimile: (310) 407-7502 E-mail: ckronenberg@stblaw.com WALGREEN CO: Underpays Call Center Agents, Olazagasti Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- LEYLA MARIE CORTES OLAZAGASTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREEN CO., Defendant, Case: 1:20-cv-03338 (N.D. Ill., June 5, 2020) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Olazagasti was employed by the Defendant as call center agent. Walgreen Company provides online medical products. The Company sells prescription refills, health info, contact lenses, and other products. Walgreen serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq. Megan E. Shannon, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 f E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com cmitchell@stephanzouras.com mshannon@stephanzouras.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com WE COMPANY: False Financial Reports Lured Investors, Kockum Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- HENRIETTE KOCKUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. THE WE COMPANY, ADAM NEUMANN, ARTHUR MINSON, MICHAEL GROSS, LEWIS FRANKFORT, BRUCE DUNLEVIE, M. STEVEN LANGMAN, JOHN ZHAO, MARK SCHWARTZ, RONALD D. FISHER and SOFTBANK GROUP CORP., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03894-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 12, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Corporations Code. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly-situated purchasers of WeWork securities between May 15, 2017 and September 30, 2019, alleges that the Defendants made false or misleading statements regarding The We Company's financial results and controlled expansion plans and growth investment strategy in order to attract investors and sell its securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class period. The company's use of fanciful accounting metrics to obscure its true financial condition and its focus on market expansion strategy to induce additional investments were exposed following the rejection of its use of community-adjusted EBITDA metric by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and revelations by investigative journalists and industry analysts about the company's inner workings. In the face of these revelations, from August 2019 onward, the value of WeWork securities plummeted. By November 2019, WeWork was valued at less than $5 billion, a stunning 90% decline in less than a year that devastated the company's investors. The Plaintiff and Class members have suffered significant losses as a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct and omissions. The We Company, d/b/a WeWork, is a private commercial real estate company that specializes in the provision of shared workspace for technology startups and other enterprises. The company maintained dual headquarters in San Francisco, California and New York City. Softbank Group Corp. is a multinational conglomerate holding company headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com - and – Darren J. Robbins, Esq. Travis E. Downs III, Esq. Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-3301 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com travisd@rgdlaw.com bcochran@rgrdlaw.com WELLS FARGO: Faces Perry Suit Over Misleading SEC Statements ------------------------------------------------------------ ADAM PERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, CHARLES W. SCHARF, TIMOTHY J. SLOAN, and JOHN R. SHREWSBERRY, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04494 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of Wells Fargo stock between February 2, 2018 and March 10, 2020, claims that the Defendants released false and misleading statements about Wells Fargo's corporate reforms in its Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings and press releases in order to convince the investing public that the company complied with the consent orders from the Federal Reserve System and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Wells Fargo's public statements led to the artificial inflation of the market price of the company's shares during the Class period. The Plaintiff and Class members relied on the statements made by Wells Fargo and the Individual Defendants and/or the integrity of the market price of Wells Fargo shares in their purchasing decision. The Defendants' misconduct and omissions harmed the Plaintiff and Class members because in reality, Wells Fargo was far from complying with the regulators' directive, including repeatedly submitting insufficiently developed and inadequate remediation plans, struggling to meet deadlines, and failing to implement meaningful reforms. The Plaintiff and Class members would not have purchased the company's shares at artificially inflated prices, or purchased them at any price, had they known about the truth. Wells Fargo & Company is a San Francisco, California-based financial services company that provides range of products and services, including banking, consumer finance, credit cards, investments, leasing, and mortgages. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian Levis, Esq. Frank Strangeman, Esq. Andrea Farah, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: clevis@lowey.com fstrangeman@lowey.com afarah@lowey.com WILLIS TOWERS: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Aon Merger ---------------------------------------------------------- Terry Gangcuangco, writing for Insurance Business America, reports that London-headquartered and Irish-domiciled Willis Towers Watson has quite a lot on its plate, with multiple shareholder class action lawsuits filed against the broking giant in connection with its proposed mega merger with fellow goliath Aon Plc. The latest to announce the filing of a lawsuit is New York-based investor rights law firm Halper Sadeh LLP, whose camp is seeking damages and/or equitable relief on behalf of Willis Towers Watson shareholders under federal securities laws. Willis Towers Watson is being accused of having issued a misleading proxy statement to recommend that its shareholders vote in favor of the Aon deal. The complaint alleges that the proxy statement contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning financial projections and analyses performed by Willis Towers Watson's financial advisor. Halper Sadeh LLP's move comes hot on the heels of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.'s own filing last week in the US District Court for the District of Delaware. Similarly, the complaint points to alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. "Among other things," noted Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., "the complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the proposed transaction, defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy statement filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission." Last month, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Also in May, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. reminded Willis Towers Watson investors of the US stockholder rights law firm's ongoing probe concerning the sale agreement with Aon. [GN] WORK AND INCOME: Class Action Likely Over Redundancy Payments ------------------------------------------------------------- Jihee Junn, writing for The Spinoff, reports that for years, Work and Income has been telling New Zealanders they couldn't get the benefit until their redundancy payments ran out. Turns out, it was wrong. What's all this then? Work and Income has long told New Zealanders receiving redundancy payments that they weren't eligible for the benefit until their redundancy money ran out. However, it was revealed last month that Work and Income was wrong, and that for decades, the organisation has been in breach of its own rules. The revelation came after RNZ reported the story of a cleaner at an Auckland hotel who'd been made redundant at the start of the Covid-19 lockdown. She applied for the job seeker's benefit but was told she wouldn't be eligible until her redundancy payment ran out in September, which Work and Income insisted was correct. But a few days later, Work and Income admitted it had made a mistake after RNZ pointed out that the Social Security Act said redundancy shouldn't be a factor when calculating an entitlement to a benefit. That doesn't sound good. So is this an isolated case or a widespread issue? All evidence seems to point at this being a widespread issue that's been going on as far back as the 1990s. Many stories from those claiming to have also been wrongly denied benefits have since emerged with some experiencing bankruptcy and debt while others report losing their savings and homes. Work and Income, however, has said these were "isolated practice issues" and that its policy guidance, training and IT system contained no errors. Furthermore, a review by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) said it found there were "no systemic issues". Do we know how many people have been affected? According to the MSD review, it found that close to 9% of applicants had been wrongly denied the benefit based on redundancy payments. However, that number comes from a sample of just 185 cases where redundancy was mentioned on applications from February 7 to May 15 this year which means its prevalence over time is still unknown. Legal experts suggest the practice has been unlawful since 1991 which means thousands of people could have been affected. It's also important to note that a number of people have since said they decided not to apply for the benefit in the first place after reading on the Work and Income website that their redundancy payment would make them ineligible, which makes calculating the true cost of Work and Income's error extremely difficult. MINISTER FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CARMEL SEPULONI (PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES) So has Work and Income done anything about this? Late last month, Work and Income reported that 244 people had been in touch with concerns over how their redundancy payments had been handled. Several of these people have since had their cases successfully reviewed and have started receiving back payments. Those with older cases that date back many years, however, are set to take much longer to assess. What's been the response from the government? When the news first broke in May, social development minister Carmel Sepuloni said she'd not been aware of the issue and subsequently ordered MSD to investigate, which led to its review that found there was room for improvement but "no systemic issues". Sepuloni has since reprimanded MSD while saying that mistakes had been made but also that she remained confident in her ministry's approach. Can those affected take legal action? Potentially. One lawyer told RNZ that "on the information presented to date, there is a high prospect of a class action being formed provided people are sufficiently interested". But others point out that with little case law relating to the issue of redundancy and benefit payments, it's unclear exactly how a legal proceeding would pan out. And lastly, what can I do if I'm one of those affected? Work and Income has recommended people call 0800 559 009 if they have concerns over how their benefit start date was calculated, or fill out an enquiry form on its website. The Spinoff's money section is made possible thanks to the support of Kiwi Wealth. They're helping Kiwis like you with info to help you ride out the market storm. [GN] X FINANCIAL: Defending Chen Class Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------- X Financial said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Xiangdong Chen v. X Financial, et al., No. 1:19-cv-06908-KAM-SJB (E.D.N.Y.). On December 9, 2019 a putative class action complaint captioned Xiangdong Chen v. X Financial, et al., No. 1:19-cv-06908-KAM-SJB, was filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, asserting violations of the Securities Act of 1933 based on the company's September 2018 initial public offering. The Company has been served and intends to vigorously defend the action. X Financial provides financial services. The Company offers personal finance, loans, and other related services. X Financial serves customers in China. X FINANCIAL: Still Defends Securities Suit in NY State Court ------------------------------------------------------------ X Financial said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re X Financial Securities Litigation," No. 657033/2019. On November 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint captioned Shivakumar Ningappa v. X Financial, et al., No. 657033/2019, was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering, asserting violations of the Securities Act of 1933 based on our September 2018 initial public offering. Two additional lawsuits were subsequently filed in the same court, containing substantially identical allegations. On February 5, 2020, all three lawsuits were consolidated under the caption "In re X Financial Securities Litigation," No. 657033/2019, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 14, 2020. X Financial provides financial services. The Company offers personal finance, loans, and other related services. X Financial serves customers in China. ZOOM TELEPHONICS: Continues to Defend Schulze Suit Over Old Modems ------------------------------------------------------------------ Zoom Telephonics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action initiated by William Schulze. On January 23, 2020, William Schulze filed a complaint, and subsequently filed an amended complaint on April 3, 2020 (collectively the "Schulze Complaint") as lead plaintiff on behalf of purchasers of Zoom modems in a putative class action lawsuit against Zoom in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Schulze Complaint alleges that Zoom modems were sold as new despite containing refurbished parts. The Company is preparing to file its answer to the Schulze Complaint and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, Zoom Telephonics, Inc., derives its net sales primarily from sales of Internet-related communication products, principally dial-up modems, fixed and mobile broadband products, WiFi(R) compatible and Bluetooth(R) wireless products, and other communication-related products. ZOOM VIDEO: Continues to Defend Suits Over Alleged Data Sharing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zoom Video Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend multiple putative class action suits related to its alleged data sharing with third parties. Beginning on March 30, 2020, multiple putative class actions were filed against the company in various U.S. federal district courts and in one state court relating to the company's alleged privacy and security practices, including alleged data sharing with third parties (the "U.S. Privacy Class Actions"). The plaintiffs claim violations of a variety of state consumer protection and privacy laws, and also assert state constitutional and common law claims, such as negligence and unjust enrichment. They seek to certify both nationwide and state-specific classes of individuals using the company's services in certain time periods. The plaintiffs seek various forms of injunctive and monetary relief, including restitution, statutory and actual damages, and attorneys' fees. The federal cases have been transferred to the Northern District of California and have nearly completed the process of being related there for consolidated litigation, with the company's consent. Zoom Video Communications, Inc. provides a video-first communications platform that delivers happiness and fundamentally changes how people interact. The company connects people through frictionless and secure video, voice, chat, and content sharing and enable face-to-face video experiences for thousands of people in a single meeting across disparate devices and locations. The company is based in San Jose, California. ZOOM VIDEO: Suits Over Data Privacy & Security Measures Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Zoom Video Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend securities class action suits related to the company's data privacy and security measures. On April 7, 2020 and April 8, 2020, securities class action complaints were filed against the company and two of its officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs are purported stockholders of the company. The complaints allege, among other things, that the company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact about the company's data privacy and security measures. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs. Zoom Video Communications, Inc. provides a video-first communications platform that delivers happiness and fundamentally changes how people interact. The company connects people through frictionless and secure video, voice, chat, and content sharing and enable face-to-face video experiences for thousands of people in a single meeting across disparate devices and locations. The company is based in San Jose, California. ZOOM: Major Security Flaws Exposed Amid Shareholder Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shane McGlaun, writing for Hot Hardware, reports that during the coronavirus pandemic, many people who have been working and learning from home have turned to video chat service Zoom. However, the service has had more than its fair share of issues with security and privacy over the last few months. Two new vulnerabilities have surfaced in the video chat platform that could allow malicious users to execute code on targeted computers. Both the vulnerabilities were discovered by Cisco Talos, which is a cyber threat intelligence team that provides network security solutions against emerging threats. Cisco Talos adhered to its coordinated disclosure policy, working with Zoom to ensure that both issues were addressed. One of the issues, TALOS-2020-1056, was patched in May. The other is TALOS-2020-1055, and while Zoom issued a server-side update, Cisco Talos believes that this particular issue requires a patch on the client-side to eliminate the security risk. TALOS-2020-1055 is described as a "Zoom client application chat Giphy arbitrary file write exploit." The security researchers say that a specially-crafted chat message can cause an arbitrary file write, which could be further exploited to achieve code execution on the target machine. To exploit the vulnerability, the attacker would send a message to a user, or group of users. While only Giphy servers were supposed to be used for the feature, the content from an arbitrary server could be loaded. It could then be leveraged to further leak information or exploit additional vulnerabilities. Vulnerability TALOS-2020-1056 is described as a "Zoom client application chat code snippet remote code execution vulnerability." Talos says an exploitable partial path traversal vulnerability exists in the way Zoom Client version 4.6.10 processes messages, including shared code snippets. To exploit the vulnerability, attackers would craft chat messages that could allow arbitrary code execution. That specially-crafted message could then be sent to an individual user or group to exploit the vulnerability. The target user would have to interact with the message for the most severe impact from the flaw. As previously mentioned, Zoom has had other security issues tied to increased usage during the coronavirus pandemic. Zoom has been hit with a class-action shareholder lawsuit over some security lapses that impacted its stock price. In April, it was discovered that half a million Zoom accounts compromised by hackers were up for sale on the dark web. [GN] ZUMIEZ INC: Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied ------------------------------------------------- Zumiez Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2020, that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has denied the company's petition for rehearing en banc. A putative class action, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against the company in the Eastern District Count of California, Sacramento Division under case number 2:16-cv-01802-SB in August 2016. Alexandra Bernal filed the initial complaint and then in October 2016 added Alexia Herrera as a named plaintiff and Alexandra Bernal left the case. The putative class action lawsuit against the company alleges, among other things, various violations of California's wage and hour laws, including alleged violations of failure to pay reporting time. In May 2017 the company moved for judgment on the pleadings in that plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay should fail as a matter of law as the plaintiff and the other putative class members did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which the plaintiff's claims are based. In August 2017, the court denied the motion. However, in October 2017 the district court certified the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings for immediate interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The company then filed a petition for permission to appeal the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which petition was then granted in January 2018. The company's opening appellate brief was filed on June 6, 2018 and the plaintiff's answering appellate brief was filed August 6, 2018. The company's reply brief to the Plaintiff's answering appellate brief was filed on September 26, 2018 and oral arguments were completed on February 4, 2019. On May 20, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the company's motion for leave to file a supplemental brief addressing new authority. On June 10, 2019, the plaintiff's supplemental answering brief was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The company then filed its supplemental reply brief to the plaintiff's supplemental answering brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 24, 2019. On March 19, 2020 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published its opinion (i) affirming the District Court's denial of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff's reporting time pay and minimum wage claims, (ii) reversing the District Court's denial of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff's expense reimbursement claim and (iii) refusing to certify the reporting time pay question to the California Supreme Court. On April 2, 2020 the company filed a petition for rehearing en banc to certify the reporting time pay question to the California Supreme Court and on April 27, 2020 plaintiff filed a response to the company's petition for rehearing en banc. The company in turn filed a reply in support of its petition for rehearing en banc on May 1, 2020. On May 14, 2020, the Ninth Circuit denied the company's petition for rehearing en banc. Zumiez said, "Given the current status of this case, we are unable to express a view regarding the ultimate outcome or, if the outcome is adverse, to estimate an amount, or range, of reasonably possible loss. We have defended this case vigorously and will continue to do so." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Zumiez Inc., founded in 1978, is a mall-based specialty retailer providing sports-related apparel, footwear, equipment, and accessories. It also sells miscellaneous novelties and dvds aimed at young men and women between the ages of 12 and 24 and private-label apparel. In addition, it sells merchandise on its Web site, zumiez.com. The company is based in Everett, Washington. ZUORA INC: Facing IPO Class Suits in California ----------------------------------------------- Zuora, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the company is a defendant in two putative securities class action lawsuits pending before the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, related to its initial public offering (IPO). In April and May 2020, two putative securities class action lawsuits were filed in the San Mateo Superior Court naming as defendants the Company and certain of its current and former officers, its directors and the underwriters of the IPO. The complaints purport to bring suit on behalf of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's IPO and allege claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The suits seek unspecified damages and other relief. Zuora, Inc. is a leading cloud-based subscription management platform. The company provides software that enables companies across multiple industries and geographies to launch, manage or transform to a subscription business model. Architected specifically for dynamic, recurring subscription business models, the company's cloud-based software functions as an intelligent subscription management hub that automates and orchestrates the entire subscription order-to-revenue process, including billing and revenue recognition. The company is based in San Mateo, California. ZUORA INC: Must Defend Against Consolidated Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Zuora, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2020, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has denied the company's motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action. In June 2019, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between April 12, 2018 and May 30, 2019. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act), and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. In November 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting the same claims. In April 2020, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. Zuora, Inc. is a leading cloud-based subscription management platform. The company provides software that enables companies across multiple industries and geographies to launch, manage or transform to a subscription business model. Architected specifically for dynamic, recurring subscription business models, the company's cloud-based software functions as an intelligent subscription management hub that automates and orchestrates the entire subscription order-to-revenue process, including billing and revenue recognition. The company is based in San Mateo, California. ZURICH AMERICAN: Denied Insurance Coverage, Crescent Plaza Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, CRESCENT PLAZA HOTEL OWNER, L.P., individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03463 (N.D. Ill., June 12, 2020), arises from the Defendant's breach of its contractual obligation associated to its insurance policy. The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and on behalf of all others similarly-situated business owners who purchased property insurance policy from the Defendant for the period April 1, 2020 to April 1, 2021, alleges that the Defendant refused to pay claims for business losses and costs due to COVID-19 and the resultant Closure Orders covered by the Zurich policy's Property Damage and Time Element coverages. The Plaintiff suffered a physical loss of property due to COVID-19 and was forced to suspend or reduce business in compliance with the government's Closure Orders to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff and Class members argue that the Defendant is obligated to pay them because Time Element Coverage Extensions, Protection and Preservation of Property losses incurred in connection with the Closure Orders and the necessary interruption of their businesses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic are insured losses under the policy. The Plaintiff and Class members have complied with all applicable provisions of the policy and/or those provisions have been waived by Zurich or Zurich is stopped from asserting them, and yet Zurich has abrogated its insurance coverage obligations pursuant to the policy's terms. Crescent Plaza Hotel Owner, L.P. is the owner a five-star hotel named The Ritz-Carlton, Dallas, located at McKinney Avenue in Dallas, Texas. Zurich American Insurance Company is an insurance provider with its principal place of business located in Schaumburg, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Mark Hamill, Esq. Laura E. Reasons, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com mhamill@dicellolevitt.com lreasons@dicellolevitt.com - and – Douglas Daniels, Esq. DANIELS & TREDENNICK 6363 Woodway, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 917-0024 E-mail: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com - and – Timothy W. Burns, Esq. Jeff J. Bowen, Esq. Jesse J. Bair, Esq. Freya K. Bowen, Esq. BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 286-2302 E-mail: tburns@bbblawllp.com jbowen@bbblawllp.com jbair@bbblawllp.com fbowen@bbblawllp.com - and – Mark Lanier, Esq. Alex Brown, Esq. Skip McBride, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC 10940 West Sam Houston Parkway North, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77064 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 E-mail: WML@lanierlawfirm.com alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com [*] Bill 161 to Hurt Plaintiffs Pursuing Care Home Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marissa Lennox, writing for Toronto Sun, reports some abhorrent observations made by the Canadian military over the past month in Ontario long-term care facilities include -- aggressiveness when changing incontinence pads; not slowing or stopping when resident complained of pain; forceful feeding by staff causing audible choking/aspiration; patients observed crying for help with staff not responding (for 20 minutes to two hours); cockroaches and flies present; rotten food smell; patients being left in soiled diapers rather than being ambulated to toilets. Their unbiased findings have laid bare a system that is failing some of the most vulnerable members of society: Our elderly. The findings have exposed the shameful treatment that thousands of seniors have suffered -- and continue to suffer -- in long-term care homes across the province. In the wake of this report, and of thousands of deaths in long-term care facilities due to COVID-19, seniors and their loved ones are launching class-action lawsuits in pursuit of justice. Among these is a $40-million lawsuit against Southbridge Care and its Orchard Villa home, where of 308 residents, 225 contracted COVID-19, and 77 died. Families are seeking compensation for the loss and suffering inflicted on them. They want change. They want justice. But these grieving families may never get their day in court. Bill 161, the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, 2020, is an omnibus justice reform bill that, among many other things, proposes major reforms to Ontario's Class Proceedings Act. These changes fundamentally alter the test for the certification of class proceedings in favour of defendants — such as long-term care providers like Southbridge Care. They would make it much harder for plaintiffs to certify a class action. As a result, plaintiffs would have to sue individually - an extremely costly and difficult proposition, which most would not be able to undertake. What are the changes that would hurt plaintiffs pursuing class-action suits? The first is a new "predominance" requirement; a concept imported from American law. This requirement would demand that the issues a group of plaintiffs have in common "predominate" over the individual issues that would remain after the conclusion of the class proceedings. In the case of suits against long-term care homes, this could mean that plaintiffs who died of COVID-19, but due to different causes (e.g. lack of staffing, lack of containment, lack of PPE) might not be able to be certified as a class, because the fact that they died of the same illness is not enough of a "predominating" factor. It could mean that residents suffering different forms of abuse -- being force-fed to the point of choking, developing bedsores as a result of neglect, not receiving baths or personal care -- might be denied the ability to form a class, despite the fact that their injuries stem from the same cause: rampant neglect of our elderly. The second change of concern proposed in Bill 161 is the "superiority" requirement, which requires that a class proceeding be superior to all reasonably available means of determining class members' entitlement to relief. Again, this is designed to make it harder for plaintiffs to sue. It puts the burden on plaintiffs to establish that the most effective means of seeking compensation is through a class-action lawsuit; an additional hurdle which could result in their action not being certified. These amendments will unfairly compromise seniors' access to justice by making it much more difficult for certain types of actions to be litigated in class action, including class actions against long-term care homes. Many previous class actions, such as medical and pharmaceutical class actions, including actions involving issues with hip implants, heart devices such as defibrillators and heart lead products, as well as the Walkerton tainted water case, and the General Motors retiree benefits class action, might never have been litigated at all had these proposed rules been in place at the time. Who benefits from these changes to class-action certification? Not ordinary Ontarians. Not victims of wrongdoing. The only beneficiaries are powerful corporations, including banks and insurance companies, who could use these changes to argue against certification of class actions, to avoid paying out for claims against the businesses they insure -- including now, long-term care homes. For a government, and a premier, that pride themselves on standing up for the people, this bill is a radical departure. CARP is therefore calling on the Ontario government to protect the interests of Ontario seniors and their families by withdrawing these proposed changes under Bill 161 to limit access to class actions. [GN] [*] COVID-Related Lawsuits May Tie Up Canadian Courts for Years --------------------------------------------------------------- EverythingGP reports that lawsuits involving seniors homes, airlines, universities and ticket providers affected by COVID-19 could tie up Canadian courts for years, says a litigation lawyer. Michael Smith, a partner at the Bennett Jones law firm in Toronto, says it has been tracking all proposed class-action claims related to the pandemic. From the end of March to June 1, the firm recorded 19 such lawsuits across Canada, including eight against long-term care facilities. "What you find with COVID is the breadth of the sectors it touches," Smith said in an interview. "You're seeing many industry sectors affected simultaneously. We will have COVID-related cases in the courts for many years." Residents at care homes have been particularly infected with the novel coronavirus. The Canadian Armed Forces released a report last month detailing awful conditions at many care homes in Ontario and Quebec where the military has been deployed. Allegations include residents being left in filth and staff failing to isolate those who had tested positive for the virus. Multiple lawsuits have been filed alleging negligence in dealing with COVID-19 in long-term care. "We're going to see more and more claims like that mature as the COVID crisis continues," says Smith. "It really does have such a human element and the issue can be humanized so easily in our minds." Calgary lawyer Clint Docken has filed a lawsuit against Calgary's McKenzie Towne Long Term Care centre, where 19 residents have so far died from COVID-19. He says a class action has been filed against all Ontario homes owned by Revera, the company that also runs McKenzie Towne, but he is focusing on just the Calgary location. "The reason we've shied away from that is we're not sure it was a common experience." Docken is also in the early stages of a lawsuit involving the Cargill meat-packing plant at High River, Alta., the site of one of Canada's worst COVID-19 outbreaks. More than 900 employees tested positive for the virus and two workers died. Docken was previously involved in class actions against Maple Leaf for a deadly listeriosis outbreak in 2008 and against XL Foods after an E. coli outbreak in 2012 lead to the largest food recall in Canadian history. "It's the conditions in the plants. In Maple Leaf it was the sanitary condition in the plant and in XL Foods it was the sanitary condition in the plant," he said.. "In a sense, (Cargill) is another sanitary condition in a plant lawsuit. These plants are cesspools." Michael Hughes, a spokesman for the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 401, which represents workers at Cargill, says leaders have been speaking with lawyers in and outside Alberta about a lawsuit "to try and make whole our members at Cargill who suffered as a result of the outbreak." Other COVID-19 lawsuits involve airline travellers refused fare refunds, businesses looking for compensation against insurance companies not paying interruption insurance, and university students who want partial tuition refunds due to a shortened school year. There's also a class action against Ticketmaster for its refusal to issue refunds for events that have been postponed or rescheduled due to the pandemic. The health crisis is and will continue to affect many industries, said Smith. "I don't know that we will ever see this again, just because of the pervasiveness of the problem. It really infects everything." This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 7, 2020 [GN] [*] Gross Law Informs of Shareholder Class Actions -------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm on June 8 issued the following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (ZM) Investors Affected: April 18, 2019 - April 6, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Zoom Video Communications, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Zoom had inadequate data privacy and security measures; (ii) contrary to Zoom's assertions, the Company's video communications service was not end-to-end encrypted; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, users of Zoom's communications services were at an increased risk of having their personal information accessed by unauthorized parties, including Facebook; (iv) usage of the Company's video communications services was foreseeably likely to decline when the foregoing facts came to light; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/zoom-video-communications-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=7195&from=1 Phoenix Tree Holdings Limited (DNK) Investors affected purchased American Depositary Shares ("ADS") of Phoenix pursuant and/or traceable to prospectuses and registration statements issued in connection with the Company's January 2020 initial public offering A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Phoenix Tree Holdings Limited. According to the filed complaint, the documents Phoenix Tree issued in connection with its initial public offering ("IPO") omitted or otherwise misrepresented the nature and level of renter complaints the Company had received before and as of the IPO, as well as the demand in the Chinese residential rental market and the Company's exposure to significant adverse developments resulting from the onset of the coronavirus in China - particularly in Wuhan - at the time of the IPO. After the IPO, reports emerged indicating that Phoenix was experiencing ongoing problems due to the coronavirus, which was causing financial and other harm to tenants. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/phoenix-tree-holdings-limited-loss-submission-form/?id=7195&from=1 Conn's, Inc. (CONN) Investors Affected: September 3, 2019 - December 9, 2019 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Conn's, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Conn's was experiencing an increase in first payment defaults and 60-plus day delinquencies; (2) as a result, Conn's was reasonably likely to record an increase to its provision for bad debts; (3) the Company made certain underwriting adjustments, including tightening its standards for new customers and online applicants; (4) as a result, the Company's same-store sales would be adversely impacted; 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. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/conns-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=7195&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (212) 537-9430 Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN] [*] Pace of ERISA Class Action Filings at All-Time High ------------------------------------------------------- Ted Godbout, writing for American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries, reports that nearly every employer that sponsors a retirement plan should be concerned about potential liability for excessive fee claims, but it appears there are some plan characteristics that may make a plan more susceptible to being sued, according to a new white paper. Co-authored by Chubb and the Groom Law Group, "The War on Retirement Fees: Is Anyone Safe?" examines the recent history and trends relating to excessive fee claims, as well as plan features that may make it a target of litigation. The paper also discusses steps that fiduciaries can take to reduce exposure to excessive fee lawsuits. "Due to the presence of new plaintiffs' firms in the mix and to constantly evolving theories of legal liability, it is difficult to predict which plans might attract unwanted attention," according to the authors of the paper: Alison Martin, Senior Vice President and Fiduciary Product Manager for Chubb's North America Financial Lines division, and Lars Golumbic, Principal at Groom Law Group and Chair of the firm's litigation practice. One possible reason behind an apparent increase may be that plaintiffs' law firms that were not previously known in the ERISA litigation space have started filing excessive fee claims. "Using plan information obtained from public filings, these new entrants are able to easily model their complaints in ‘cookie cutter' fashion after those filed by more experienced firms that have honed their pleadings through years of experience in much bigger cases," Martin and Golumbic write. And it doesn't matter the type or size of the plan. Excessive fee claims are taking aim at all types, including 403(b) plans, multiple employer plans, defined benefit pension plans and even ERISA-exempt plans, they note. What's more, the suits are targeting publicly traded companies, privately held companies, universities, not-for-profit organizations, financial institutions and health care systems. There also has been an uptick in suits involving plans with fewer than 1,000 participants and less than $100 million in assets, the authors note. "Excessive fee claims have historically been filed against only the largest organizations, specifically those large, publicly traded companies with multi-billion-dollar 401(k) retirement plans," says Martin. "However, over the last several years, there has been a significant surge in litigation targeting a broader range of plans, despite evidence that average plan fees have been steadily declining." Target Range While not meant to imply that plans with the following characteristics are paying excessive fees or engaging in imprudent conduct, the authors offer as an example the areas that have been targeted in the past and may be targeted in the future: * accepting quoted recordkeeping rates without attempting to bargain up-front for lower fees and/or failing to revalidate those fees; * paying recordkeeping fees as a percentage of AUM rather than at a fixed per participant rate and/or not switching to a fixed rate as plan assets grow; * failing to use the least expensive mutual fund share class available (e.g., institutional shares); * failing to use separate accounts or CITs rather than mutual funds as investment options (the authors note that some complaints make the exact opposite allegation); * offering too few or too many investment options, or options that are too risky or too conservative; * failing to offer more index funds; * offering investment options that are affiliated with the plan's recordkeeper; and * offering investment options that underperform net of expense relative to an index or benchmark. One caveat they note is that these cases continue to evolve as the plaintiffs' bar tests out new theories of liability, such as claims concerning the alleged misuse of plan participant data by recordkeepers. Reducing Exposure "The pace of ERISA class action filings is at an all-time high, and these cases are not only expensive to defend, but are also expensive to settle. Some of the largest settlements cost tens of millions of dollars," notes Golumbic, who adds that, "It's therefore critical for plan sponsor fiduciaries to understand their risks and take steps to potentially reduce their exposure." Among the steps the white paper suggests are: * establishing, following and documenting a "robust and prudent process" for retaining recordkeepers and determining their fees, as well as for selecting and regularly reviewing plan investments and investment expenses; * retaining qualified, independent experts to assist with fiduciary decisions; and * documenting the process and rationale behind any fiduciary decision, being "particularly meticulous" when deciding to use more expensive products or services, or when going against expert advice. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Still Face Claims at March 29 ----------------------------------------------------------- CIRCOR International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2020, that subsidiaries Spence Engineering Company, Inc. and CIRCOR Instrumentation Technologies, Inc. continue to face asbestos-related product liability claims. The Company states, "Asbestos-related product liability claims continue to be filed against two of our subsidiaries: Spence Engineering Company, Inc. ("Spence"), the stock of which we acquired in 1984; and CIRCOR Instrumentation Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Hoke, Inc.) ("Hoke"), the stock of which we acquired in 1998. The Hoke subsidiary was divested in January 2020 through our sale of I&S. However, the Company has indemnified the buyer for asbestos-related claims that are made against Hoke. Due to the nature of the products supplied by these entities, the markets they serve and our historical experience in resolving these claims, we do not expect that these asbestos-related claims will have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of the Company." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/77RP2S ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Still Defends Exposure Claims at April 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Navistar International Corporation continues to face asbestos claims related to its facilities and older vehicle models, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020. The Company states, "Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we have been subject to a number of asbestos-related claims. In general, these claims relate to illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from component parts found in older vehicles, although some cases relate to the alleged presence of asbestos in our facilities. In these claims, we are generally not the sole defendant, and the claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos. We have strongly disputed these claims, and it has been our policy to defend against them vigorously. Historically, the actual damages paid out to claimants have not been material in any year to our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. It is possible that the number of these asbestos-related claims, and the costs for resolving them, could become significant in the future." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/UNPoCX ********* 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 ***