/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200624.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 24, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 126 Headlines ADB INTERESTS: Elson PI Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas ALDI INC: Almondmilk Has Less Vanilla Content, Guzman Suit Says AMERICAN FIRE: Spring House Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa. ANDIE CO: Conner Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act ANTHONY'S LUNCH: Faces Melchor Suit in New York Supreme Court ARCH INSURANCE CO: Jackson Files Suit in Missouri ASSET RECOVERY: Huang FDCPA Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y. ATLANTIC CONTRACTING: Loor Seeks Overtime Pay for Carpenters BANK OF AMERICA: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Boston Retirement Suit BARNES & NOBLE: Lopez Alleges Price-Fixing of Course Materials BLUE VALLEY USD: Court Dismisser Baker Civil Rights Suit BOLLORE LOGISTICS: Alvarez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime CAPIO PARTNERS: Brull Files FDCPA Suit in New York CAPITAL ONE: Appeals Ruling in Colbert Breach Suit to 2nd Cir. CARNIVAL CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 27 Deadline CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY: Montesano Demands Refund of Tuition and Fees CO-DIAGNOSTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 17 Deadline CO-DIAGNOSTICS: Schall Law Firm Announces Filing of Class Action CONN'S INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 14 Deadline COPPER COW COFFEE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in New York COWAN LIEBOWITZ: Gurvey Appeals S.D.N.Y. Order to Federal Circuit CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 20 Deadline DELOITTE CONSULTING: Fails to Secure PII, Julius Suit Alleges DNC SERVICES: Wilding Files Cert. Petition to Supreme Court DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Fisher Files Fraud Class Suit in Calif. DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Ruffin Asserts Breach of FDCPA in Florida EAST COAST COMPANIES: Underpays Pavers, Chavela-Lira Claims EDWARD JONES & CO: Huang Files Cert. Petition in McDonald Suit ENCOMPASS HEALTH: May Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA ERIE COUNTY, PA: McMurray Appeals W.D.N.Y. Ruling to Second Cir. ETS: Program Fails to Serve Under-Resourced Students, Suit Says FCA US: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Decision in Tremper Suit FIFTH THIRD: Harmon Appeals S.D. Ohio Ruling to Sixth Circuit FINEVINE LLC: Hartanovich Sues Over Charcoal in Toothpaste FLOWCO PRODUCTION: Gaona Sues Over Overtime Miscalculation Policy G. JONES: Josema Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Laborers GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE'S: Roth Appeals S.D. Fla. Ruling to 11th Cir. HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 10 Deadline HUB GROUP: Tennison Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. California IT'S JUST LUNCH: Barton Appeals Order in Rodriguez Customers Suit JACK IN THE BOX: Gessele Appeals D. Oregon Ruling to 9th Circuit JOHN/JANE DOES: Blackwood Files Suit in Virginia JUSTINE KARL MEENACH: Garcia Files Suit in California KEYCORP: Stark ERISA Class Suit Removed From S.D. to N.D. Ohio LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Tanious Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Johansen Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls LYFT INC: Appeals D. Mass. Ruling in Cunningham Suit to 1st Cir. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Olson Appeals S.D.N.Y. Rulings to 2nd Cir. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Olson Suit MASSAGE ENVY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in McKinney-Drobnis Suit MASTER WOK INC: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Liang Claims MEDIC AMBULANCE: Silva Appeals Judgment in Labor Suit to 9th Cir. MERCK & CO: Kaye Appeals D. Conn. Order and Judgment to 2nd Cir. MIDLAND CREDIT: Ravitz Asserts Breach of FDCPA MORGAN STANLEY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Harvey Class Suit NATIONWIDE TRANSPORT: Mitchell et al Sue Over Unpaid Overtime NEW YORK: Board Appeals Judgment in Gulino Suit to Second Circuit NEW YORK: Board Files Five Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit NEW YORK: Dorce Appeals S.D. New York Rulings to Second Circuit OLIPOP INC: Crosson Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act PENNSYLVANIA SERS: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Ke Class Suit PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Lombard Suit Balks at Sale to Alexion RICHMOND, VA: Protesters File Class Action Over Use of Tear Gas RITE AID: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Stafford Suit RUHNN HOLDINGS: Appeals N.Y. Sup. Decision in Lyu Securities Suit SCWORX CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 29 Deadline SHANG NOODLE: Fails to Provide Proper Pay to Chefs, Han Claims SOUTH CAROLINA: Baker Files Cert. Petition to Supreme Court SUMMIT BANK: Denise M Henning Files Suit in Pennsylvania TOWNSQUARE MEDIA: Portnoy Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims TRUIST FINANCIAL CORP: Trepeta Alleges Violation of TCPA ULTRA ENTERPRISES: Brooks Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida UNITEDLEX PROFESSIONAL: Underpays Project Attorneys, Cook Claims WALL & ASSOCIATES: Vandermast Suit Transferred to W.D.N.Y. WALMART INC: Espinoza Voluntarily Dismisses Suit WALMART INC: Ortiz Labor Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal. WAWA: Class Action Veterans to Lead Data Breach Mass Action WESTWARD MANAGEMENT: Channon Suit Remanded to State Court WILLIS TOWERS: Misled Stockholders on Merger Deal, Carter Claims YGRENE ENERGY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Woolley Fraud Suit ZURN INDUSTRIES: Hopler Sues Over Defective QickClamp Crimp Rings ********* ADB INTERESTS: Elson PI Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Emily Elson, Stacy Haavisto, Loretta Oakes, Michelle Lanum, Julia Lefebvre, Sue Grlicky, Tilly Dorenkamp, Dina Salas, Arlene Rodriguez and Jerry Gaines and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Sharon Dalton, Allyson McCarthy, Sheila Smith, Mary Dennis, Kelli Frederick, Joey Campbell, Carol Richter and Brooke Neufeld, Consol Plaintiffs v. Ashley Black, an individual, Ashley Diana Black International Holdings, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, ADB Interests, LLC, a Texas Corporation and DOES 1-100, Defendants, ADB Innovations, LLC, Ashley Black Guru and Ashely Black Fasciology LLC, Consol Defendants, was transferred from the California Central with the assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-00116 to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston) on June 17, 2020, and assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-02125. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Personal Injuries Product Liability filed pursuant to the Petition for Removal- Personal Injury. ADB Interests is a multi-national, CPG, and direct to consumer company operated by Ashley Black.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Perrin Ferrari Disner, Esq. Law Offices of Perrin F Disner 4630 Sepulveda Blvd Ste 105 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Tel: (310) 742-7944 Fax: (888) 544-5154 - and - Michael M Liskow, Esq. Calcaterra Pollack LLP 1140 Avenue of the Americas Suite 9th Floor New York, NY 10036-5803 Tel: (212) 899-1761 The Consolidated Plaintiffs are represented by: David R Shoop, Esq. Shoop, APLC 9701 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 950 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Tel: (310) 620-9533 Fax: (310) 620-6330 Email: david.shoop@shooplaw.com - and - Thomas S Alch, Esq. Shoop, APLC 9701 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 950 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Tel: (310) 620-9533 Fax: (310) 620-6330 Email: thomas.alch@shooplaw.com - and - Bonner C Walsh, Esq. Walsh PLLC 1561 LONG HAUL RD GRANGEVILLE, ID 83530 Tel: (903) 574-1807 Fax: (866) 503-8206 Email: bonner@walshpllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Craig L Winterman, Esq. Herzfeld and Rubin LLP 10250 Constellation Boulevard Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 553-0451 Fax: (310) 553-0648 - and - Richard C Moreno, Esq. Murchison and Cumming LLP 801 South Grand Avenue 9th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-4613 Tel: (213) 623-7400 Fax: (213) 623-6336 - and - Scott L Hengesbach, Esq. Murchison and Cumming LLP 801 South Grand Avenue 9th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-4624 Tel: (213) 623-7400 Fax: (213) 623-7400 - and - Daniel J. Kasprzak, Esq. Johnson, DeLuca, Kurisky & Gould 1221 Lamar St, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77010 Tel: (713) 652-2525 Fax: (713) 652-5130 Email: dkasprzak@jdkklaw.com - and - George A Kurisky , Jr, Esq. Johnson Deluca Kurisky and Gould PC 4 Houston Center 1221 Lamar Street Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77010 Tel: (713) 652-2525 Fax: (713) 652-5130 - and - Gregory J Finney, Esq. Johnson Deluca Kurisky and Gould PC 4 Houston Center 1221 Lamar Street Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77010 Tel: (713) 652-2525 Fax: (713) 652-513 - and - Mark A Bankston, Esq. Johnson Deluca Kurisky and Gould PC Houston Center 1221 Lamar Street Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77010 Tel: (713) 652-2525 Fax: (713) 652-5130 - and - Matthew G Johnston, Esq. Johnson Deluca Kurisky and Gould PC 4 Houston Center 1221 Lamar Street Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77010 Tel: (713) 652-2525 Fax: (713) 652-5130 - and - Tina H Vo, Esq. Murchison and Cumming LLP 801 South Grand Avenue 9th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-4613 Tel: (213) 623-7400 Fax: (213) 623-6336 ALDI INC: Almondmilk Has Less Vanilla Content, Guzman Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Albert Guzman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aldi Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02550 (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2020), alleges that the Defendant's Vanilla Almondmilk product is misleading because it contains less vanilla than expected relative to its total flavoring. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Product's vanilla taste is mainly provided by artificial flavors and non-vanilla flavors, which are not disclosed to consumers. Aldi manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells Vanilla Almondmilk under its Friendly Farms brand in cartons of 64 OZ. The Product is available to consumers from the Defendant's retail stores--over 1,600--across the United States with several dozen in New York. The front label representations include "Friendly Farms, "Vanilla" and "Almond milk," the complaint says.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Ste. 311 Great Neck NY 11021-5101 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com AMERICAN FIRE: Spring House Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa. -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Spring House Tavern, Inc., individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. American Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant, was transferred from the Court of Common Pleas Of Montgomery County with the assigned Case No. 20-06069 to the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on June 16, 2020, and assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02872. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance seeking Declaratory Judgment. American Fire & Casualty Company provides fire and casualty insurance products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. Kenneth A. Murphy, Esq. Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP One Logan Square, Suite 2000 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 988-2837 Fax: (215) 988-2757 Email: kenneth.murphy@Faegredrinker.com ANDIE CO: Conner Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act --------------------------------------------------------- Andie, Co. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Andie, Co., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02693 (E.D. N.Y., June 17, 2020). Andie Co is an online retailer of women's swimwear. The company is based in New York, NY.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com ANTHONY'S LUNCH: Faces Melchor Suit in New York Supreme Court ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anthony's Lunch Room LLC. The case is captioned as SERGIO MELCHOR and CLARA LORENA GARNICA PEREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ANTHONY'S LUNCH ROOM LLC (d/b/a KISSENA GRILL) and RALPH MANNARINO, Case No. 706975/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., June 8, 2020). The Defendants operate a restaurant business.[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 E-mail: mfaillace@faillacelaw.com ARCH INSURANCE CO: Jackson Files Suit in Missouri ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arch Insurance Company. The case is styled as John Jackson, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Arch Insurance Company and Out of Towne, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00496-BCW (W.D. Mo., June 16, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other filed over Diversity-Other Contract. The Company offers property, casualty, and specialty insurance for corporations, professional firms, and financial institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy L. Sifers, Esq. Potts Law Firm, LLP - Westwood KS 1901 West 47th Place, Suite 210 Westwood, KS 66205 Tel: (816) 931-2230 Fax: (816) 931-7030 Email: tsifers@potts-law.com ASSET RECOVERY: Huang FDCPA Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Bing Huang, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC and John Doe 1-10, Defendants, was transferred from the State of New York, County of Kings with the assigned Case No. 504865/2020 to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) on June 16, 2020, and assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-02668-AMD-RML. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full service asset recovery management company that is committed to establishing unmatched standards of performance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Goldenberg, Esq. Law Office of Simon Goldenberg PLLC 818 East 16 Street Brooklyn, NY 11230 Tel: (347) 640-4357 Fax: (347) 472-0347 Email: simon@goldenbergfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew B Corwin, Esq. Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP 800 Third Avenue 13th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 471-6200 Fax: (212) 935-1166 Email: mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com ATLANTIC CONTRACTING: Loor Seeks Overtime Pay for Carpenters ------------------------------------------------------------ GABRIEL LOOR, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- ATLANTIC CONTRACTING OF YONKERS INC. (D/B/A ATLANTIC CONTRACTING OF YONKERS), GOTHAM DRYWALL INC. (D/B/A GOTHAM DRYWALL), JOEL ACEVEDO, and JOHN FITZPATRICK, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03886 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, for the failure of the Defendants to pay appropriate overtime compensation for the hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours per week pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the N.Y. Labor Law ("NYLL"). Plaintiff Loor was employed as a carpenter by Defendants at Atlantic Contractor of Yonkers Inc. and Gotham DryWall from approximately May 2016 until on or about October 2019. Atlantic Contracting of Yonkers Inc. is an insulation contractor in Yonkers, New York. Gotham Drywall Inc. is a dry wall contractor in New York City, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is 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 BANK OF AMERICA: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Boston Retirement Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Alaska Department of Revenue, Treasury Division, Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation and Iron Workers Pension Plan of Western Pennsylvania filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated May 8, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled Boston Retirement System and Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY (F/K/A BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED), MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL, NATWEST MARKETS PLC (F/K/A THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC), NATWEST MARKETS SECURITIES INC. (F/K/A RBS SECURITIES INC.), and JOHN DOES 1-50, Case No. 16-cv-3711, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks damages arising from Bank of America, RBS, and their co-conspirators' unlawful conduct to fix, raise, maintain, stabilize, or otherwise manipulate the prices of Eurozone Government Bonds sold to or bought from U.S. investors throughout the United States. The Defendants are among the world's largest dealers of Eurozone Government Bonds. They compete for customers based on the prices they offer for the purchase and sale of Eurozone Government Bonds. Bond dealers typically quote bond prices to investors by providing them with their bid and ask prices. Generally, the smaller the "spread" (difference) between the "bid" (buy) and "ask" (sell) prices, the better and more competitive the prices are for customers. However, from at least as early as January 1, 2007 and continuing through at least December 31, 2012, rather than compete with each other, Defendants colluded to fix the prices at which they bought and sold Eurozone Government Bonds. That is, they agreed to widen the bid-ask spreads they quoted to customers, thereby increasing the prices investors paid for the Eurozone Government Bonds or decreasing the prices at which investors sold the bonds. The complaint alleges that the Defendants' traders orchestrated and maintained their conspiracy via regular electronic communications, including instant messaging and chatrooms. Through such communications, these traders discussed their respective customers' identities and confidential information about the size and nature of their orders before deciding the prices that they would quote to their customers for Eurozone Government Bonds. The Defendants' misconduct has injured U.S. investors in Eurozone Government Bonds. Defendants have inflated the prices at which they sold Eurozone Government Bonds to investors and reduced the prices at which they purchased these products from investors, including Plaintiffs and members of the Class. Thousands of U.S.-based investors have transacted billions of dollars' worth of Eurozone Government Bonds in the United States directly with Defendants. The appellate case is captioned as In re: SSA Bonds Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 20-1759, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Alaska Department of Revenue, Treasury Division, Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, and Iron Workers Pension Plan of Western Pennsylvania, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Susan Katina Alexander, Esq. Andrew Love,, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center 1 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 E-mail: salexander@rgrdlaw.com alove@rgrdlaw.com - and - Jeremy Andersen, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3685 E-mail: jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com - and - Daniel L. Brockett, Esq. Thomas Lepri,, Esq. Stephanie Solomon, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com thomaslepri@quinnemanuel.com stephaniesolomon@quinnemanuel.com - and - Christopher Seck, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-3091 E-mail: christopherseck@quinnemanuel.com Defendants-Appellees Bank of America, N.A., Deutsche Bank AG, Hiren Gudka, BNP Paribas S.A., HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., HSBC Bank PLC, Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Limited, Royal Bank of Canada, RBC Europe Limited, The Toronto-Dominion Bank, RBC Capital Markets LLC, TD Securities (USA) LLC, Nomura Securities International, Inc., and Nomura International plc are represented by: Adam Selim Hakki, Esq. SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 848-4924 E-mail: ahakki@shearman.com - and - John Francis Terzaken, III, Esq. ALLEN & OVERY LLP 1101 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 683-3800 E-mail: john.terzaken@stblaw.com - and - Wesley Railey Powell, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 787 7th Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 728-8264 E-mail: wpowell@willkie.com - and - Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr., Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP 1 Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 225−2000 Facsimile: (212) 225−3499 E-mail: cboccuzzi@cgsh.com - and - Daniel Lawrence Stein, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 506-2500 E-mail: dstein@mayerbrown.com - and - Adam Mintz, Esq. CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP 80 Pine Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 701-3981 E-mail: amintz@cahill.com - and - Benjamin Fleming, Esq. Lisa J. Fried, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 390 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 918-3000 E-mail: benjamin.fleming@hoganlovells.com lisa.fried@hoganlovells.com - and - Jay B. Kasner, Esq. Karen Hoffman Lent, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 735-2628 E-mail: jkasner@skadden.com karen.lent@skadden.com - and - Alexander John Willscher, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-4104 E-mail: willschera@sullcrom.com - and - Paul S. Mishkin, Esq. Robert Gerard King, Esq. James H.R. Windels, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4000 E-mail: paul.mishkin@davispolk.com rob.king@davispolk.com james.windels@davispolk.com - and - Aidan Synnott, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 E-mail: asynnott@paulweiss.com - and - John D. Buretta, Esq. CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP Worldwide Plaza 825 8th Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 474-1000 E-mail: jburetta@cravath.com BARNES & NOBLE: Lopez Alleges Price-Fixing of Course Materials --------------------------------------------------------------- JULIO LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARNES & NOBLE COLLEGE BOOKSELLERS, LLC; BARNES & NOBLE EDUCATION, INC.; CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.; FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP; MCGRAW HILL LLC; and PEARSON EDUCATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-06152 (D.N.J., May 20, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated college students, alleges that the Publisher and Retailer Defendants conspired to monopolize the market for sales of course materials in any courses and on any colleges in which the Inclusive Access policy applies. Inclusive Access requires students to obtain their course materials only in an online format and only from their official on-campus bookstore, and not from any other source, thereby preventing the Defendants from facing competition from new print textbooks, used print textbooks, and other online sources, and also from off-campus and online bookstores and sellers. The Publisher Defendants and Retailer Defendants' actions in conspiring to create the Inclusive Access system create a virtual monopoly, undercutting academic freedom and low-cost options of students. Barnes & Noble Education, Inc. is a Basking Ridge, New Jersey-based contract operator of bookstores on college and university campuses across the United States. Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, LLC is a limited liability company based in Basking Ridge, New Jersey that operates Barnes & Noble's campus bookstores across the United States. Follett Higher Education Group is a corporation based in Westchester, Illinois that operates Follett's campus bookstores across the United States. Cengage Learning, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in Boston, Massachusetts that publishes college textbooks and course materials. McGraw Hill LLC is a Delaware limited liability company based in New York that publishes college textbooks and course materials. Pearson Education, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in Upper Saddle River, New Jersey that publishes college textbooks and course materials. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Shah, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 475 White Horse Pike Collingswood, NJ 08107 Telephone: (856) 858-1770 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com - and – Eric L. Young, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: eyoung@sfmslaw.com BLUE VALLEY USD: Court Dismisser Baker Civil Rights Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TERRI E. BAKER, Plaintiff, v. USD 229 BLUE VALLEY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-CV-02480-HLT-JPO (D. Kan.), Judge Holly L. Teeter of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted the Motions to Dismiss lodged by the State Defendants and Blue Valley USD, as the School Defendant. Plaintiff Terri Baker is a Christian who engages in Biblical holistic dietary and medical treatment. She has sincere religious convictions and objections to vaccines. As a result, Baker's child, S.F.B., has not received any injections with vaccines. Plaintiff sent a letter claiming a religious objection to vaccinations, and S.F.B. was allowed to enroll in the Blue Valley School District for the 2018-2019 school year. S.F.B. remains unvaccinated and is apparently still enrolled in school. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff, individually and as parent of S.F.B., now sues Defendants Blue Valley Unified School District ("School Defendant"), as well as Lee Norman, Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Derek Schmidt, Kansas Attorney General, and Laura Kelly, Governor of Kansas (collectively, "State Defendants") regarding the state's vaccination laws for schoolchildren. The claims asserted in the amended complaint are many and varied. Very briefly summarized, the Plaintiff claims her request for a religious exemption was inadequate under state law and school policies and should not have been accepted. And if the Defendants correctly applied Kansas law and school policies, they would have rejected the Plaintiff's request for a religious exemption and S.F.B. would have been excluded from public schools until he was fully vaccinated. But, the Plaintiff argues, that would also be problematic, because the statutes requiring vaccinations for schoolchildren in Kansas, including the religious exemption, are unconstitutional. The Plaintiff commenced the case on behalf of herself and her minor child, S.F.B. Blue Valley has asserted in a declaration signed by its assistant superintendent that it regards the Plaintiff's letter as a sufficient statement of religious objection to exempt S.F.B. from vaccination requirements under current Kansas law and district policy and it has no current intention to suspend or expel S.F.B., or otherwise terminate S.F.B.'s enrollment at a Blue Valley school based on his non-vaccinated status or the form or content of the religions objection made via the Plaintiff's letter. Several motions are pending in the case. All the Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and, in the case of State Defendants, failure to state a claim. At the time the case was filed, the Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary and permanent injunction, and she later filed a motion to certify a class action. The State Defendants filed a motion requesting that the Court deny any request for a permanent injunction as premature. And the Defendants filed a joint motion to stay briefing on the class-certification motion pending resolution of their motions to dismiss. State Defendants raise a variety of issues in their motion to dismiss, including that the Plaintiff lacks Article III standing. The School Defendant also argues that the Plaintiff lacks Article III standing, and thus the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants' arguments about standing under Rule 12(b)(1) are intertwined with the merits of the case because the Plaintiff claims the Defendants are misapplying the statutes (in a way that apparently benefits the Plaintiff and S.F.B.) and once they correctly apply them, the Plaintiff and S.F.B. will be harmed. Judge Teeter disagrees that it impermissibly intertwines standing with the merits of the case. The issue now is not the interpretation of the statutes. The issue is whether Plaintiff or S.F.B. have suffered an injury-in-fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent. Regardless of whose interpretation of the statute is correct, there is no dispute that S.F.B. remains unvaccinated and enrolled in school. The Plaintiff's suppositions that, at some point in the future, school or state officials might rethink the exemption granted to S.F.B. does not create an injury, and certainly not one that is more than conjectural or hypothetical. Equally unpersuasive is the Plaintiff's claim that a credible threat of enforcement exists because the Court can rule that the Defendants are not properly enforcing the statutes, order them to enforce it in the way that the Plaintiff argues it should be enforced, which would then put the Plaintiff "in the crosshairs of a proper enforcement by all the Defendants" which harms them. That argument turns the Article III case-or-controversy requirement on its head. Accordingly, Judge Teeter held that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated an injury-in-fact sufficient to sustain Article III standing, and thus ruled that Plaintiff's case is dismissed without prejudice. The Judge denied without prejudice as moot the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction, the State Defendants' Motion to Stay Deadlines, the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify as Class Action, and the Defendants' Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 13, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/9QhVr1 from Leagle.com. Terri E. Baker, Indvidually and as parent and next friend of minor S.F.B., Plaintiff, represented by Linus L. Baker -- linusbaker@prodigy.net -- Linus L. Baker. USD 229 Blue Valley, Defendant, represented by Angus W. Dwyer -- adwyer@spencerfane.com -- Spencer Fane, LLP, Stephanie Lovett-Bowman -- slovettbowman@spencerfane.com -- Spencer Fane, LLP & W. Joseph Hatley -- jhatley@spencerfane.com -- Spencer Fane, LLP. Lee A. Norman, Secretary for the Kansas Dept of Health and Environment, in his official capacity, Derek Schmidt, Kansas Attorney General, in his official capacity & Laura Kelly, Governor of Kansas, in her official capacity, Defendants, represented by Arthur S. Chalmers, Office of Attorney General. BOLLORE LOGISTICS: Alvarez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, ESTHER I. ALVAREZ, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOLLORE LOGISTICS USA, INC., a New York Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-22095-XXX (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt office employee from on or about May 2006 through on or about December 13, 2019. According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked approximately an average of 65 hours per week. However, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff overtime hours worked in excess of 40 hours weekly at a rate of time-and-one-half the regular rate despite knowing about Plaintiff's work schedule, pay records, and the rate that she was being paid for her hours. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs from Defendant pursuant to FLSA. Bollore Logistics USA, Inc. provides international transport and logistics services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel T. Feld, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A. 2847 Hollywood Blvd. Hollywood, FL 33020 Tel: (954) 361-8383 Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com - and - Isaac Mamane, Esq. MAMANE LAW LLC 10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 350A Miami, FL 33161 Tel: (305) 773-6661 Email: mamane@gmail.com CAPIO PARTNERS: Brull Files FDCPA Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capio Partners, LLC. The case is styled as Efraim Brull, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capio Partners, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-04634 (S.D. N.Y., June 17, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Capio Partners is the largest healthcare debt purchaser in the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com CAPITAL ONE: Appeals Ruling in Colbert Breach Suit to 2nd Cir. -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Capital One, N.A. v. Sabrina Colbert, Case No. 20-193, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent SABRINA CAPRI COLBERT, on behalf of herself 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-Petitioner CAPITAL ONE N.A. 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 CARNIVAL CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 27 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on June 17 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. BIDU Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/baidu-inc-information-request-form?prid=7388&wire=1 CONN Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/conns-inc-information-request-form?prid=7388&wire=1 CCL Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/carnival-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=7388&wire=1 * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW * Baidu, Inc. (BIDU) BIDU Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 16, 2019 - April 7, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 22, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/baidu-inc-information-request-form?prid=7388&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Baidu, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Baidu's feed services were not in compliance with applicable Chinese regulatory standards; (ii) the foregoing noncompliance subjected the Company to a heightened risk of regulatory enforcement, including the removal or suspension of certain of Baidu's services and products; (iii) accordingly, the Company's revenues derived from online marketing services were unlikely to be sustainable; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Conn's, Inc. (CONN) CONN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased September 3, 2019 - December 9, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 14, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/conns-inc-information-request-form?prid=7388&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Conn's, Inc. 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. Carnival Corporation & Plc (CCL) CCL Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased September 26, 2019 - May 1, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/carnival-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=7388&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Carnival Corporation & Plc made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's medics were reporting increasing events of COVID-19 illness on the Company's ships; (2) Carnival was violating port of call regulations by concealing the amount and severity of COVID-19 infections on board its ships; (3) in responding to the outbreak of COVID-19, Carnival failed to follow the Company's own health and safety protocols developed in the wake of other communicable disease outbreaks; (4) by continuing to operate, Carnival ships were responsible for continuing to spread COVID-19 at various ports throughout the world; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- 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 [GN] CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY: Montesano Demands Refund of Tuition and Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANIELLA MONTESANO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:20-cv-01496 (D.D.C., June 8, 2020), seeks refunds arising from the Defendant's decision to close campus, constructively evict students, and transition all classes to an online/remote format as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the complaint, while closing campus and transitioning to online classes was the right thing for the Defendant to do, this decision deprived the Plaintiff and the other members of the Classes from recognizing the benefits of in-person instruction, access to campus facilities, student activities, and other benefits and services in exchange for which they had already paid fees and tuition. The Defendant has either refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees and other costs that the Defendant is no longer providing, or has provided inadequate and/or arbitrary reimbursement that does not fully compensate the Plaintiff and members of the Class for their loss, according to the complaint. This action seeks refunds of the amount the Plaintiff and other members of the Class are owed on a pro-rata basis. The Defendant University is an institution of higher learning located in the District of Columbia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis A. Boykin, Esq. DOUGLAS & BOYKIN, PLLC 1850 M Street, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 776-0370 E-mail: caboykin@douglasboykin.com - and - Eric M. Poulin, Esq. Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 614-8888 E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com roy@akimlawfirm.com CO-DIAGNOSTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 17 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 16 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Co-Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CODX) between February 25, 2020 and May 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Co-Diagnostics investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Co-Diagnostics class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1876.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 alleges that Defendants made continual, knowing and willful misstatements about their main product, a COVID-19 diagnostic test, to pump up the price of Co-Diagnostics, Inc.'s stock while the officers and directors exercised low priced options and dumped their stock into the market. Their fraudulent misstatements, and disregard for the basic scientific principles that make their falsity of their statements clear in retrospect, caused investors to lose millions of dollars. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 17, 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-1876.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 -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- 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. Contacts: 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 [GN] CO-DIAGNOSTICS: Schall Law Firm Announces Filing of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on June 16 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Co-Diagnostics, Inc. ("Co-Diagnostics" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: CODX) for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February 25, 2020 and May 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before August 17, 2020. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Co-Diagnostics knowingly spread misinformation about its COVID-19 diagnostic test to inflate its stock price while officers and executives exercised options and dumped their shares into the market. The Company's statements about its product had no basis in scientific fact and were only designed to enrich Company insiders. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about Co-Diagnostics, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. Contacts The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq. www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] CONN'S INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 14 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Conn's, Inc. (NASDAQ: CONN) between September 3, 2019 and December 9, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important July 14, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Conn's investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Conn's class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1857.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Conn's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants 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) Conn's made certain underwriting adjustments, including tightening its standards for new customers and online applicants; (4) as a result, Conn's same-store sales would be adversely impacted; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Conn's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 14, 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-1857.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 -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- 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 [GN] COPPER COW COFFEE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------- Copper Cow Coffee, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Copper Cow Coffee, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02692 (E.D. N.Y., June 17, 2020). Copper Cow Coffee provides all-natural specialty portable pour over Vietnamese coffee sweetened with California condensed milk and sugar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com COWAN LIEBOWITZ: Gurvey Appeals S.D.N.Y. Order to Federal Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Amy R. Gurvey filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Gurvey v. Cowan, Liebowitz & Lathman, PC, Case No. 1:06-cv-01202-LGS-HBP, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. U.S. ticketing Patentee-Plaintiff Amy R. Gurvey, sole named inventor of US ticketing apparatus, method and design patents and pending patents (Gurvey US Patent Nos. 7603321; D647910S that issued October 13, 2009, November 1, 2011), appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from all orders of the District Court through the final order entered March 9, 2020. The Plaintiff contends that the case docket reflects organized corruption in a patent lawsuit against a prose litigant. She notes that several docketed entries were since removed from the docket after filing, including her 2010 motion seeking damages for infringement and the District Court also never adjudicated other motions that were filed and stamped by the District Court. The final Docketed orders #s 427-430 finally denied the Plaintiff's claims for US patent infringement, aiding and abetting infringement pursuant to 35 USC 271, 285, 286, and antitrust treble damages in violation of the Clayton Act, 15 USC Section 18, and also denied reconsideration. Infringing Defendants include the world's largest concert promoter/venue owner Live Nation, Inc., its February 2009 merged partner Ticketmaster, Inc., and wholly owned subsidiary Instant Live Concerts, LLC, the parties' common NYC patent practitioners, including defendant Cowan Liebowitz & Latman, PC, and Mike Gordon of PHISH, against whom claims were filed since 2006, the Plaintiff says. The appellate case is captioned as AMY R. GURVEY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. COWAN, LIEBOWITZ & LATHMAN, PC, CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., LIVE NATION, INC., INSTANT LIVE CONCERTS, LLC, NEXTICKETING, INC., WILLIAM BORCHARD, MIDGE HYMAN, BAILA CELEDONIA, CHRISTOPHER JENSEN, DALE HEAD, STEVE SIMON, SUSAN SCHICK, Defendants-Appellees DOES, 1-X Inclusive, MICHAEL GORDON, Defendants, Case No. 20-1620, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Amy R. Gurvey is represented by: Brian Michael, Esq. DRATCH FRANZLAU DRATCH, P.C. 354 Eisenhower Parkway, Plaza One Livingston, NJ 07039 Telephone: (973) 992-3700 Facsimile: (973) 992-7945 E-mail: bdratch@njcounsel.com - and - Amy Rebecca Weissbrod, Esq. USPTO INVENTOR ISSUED US PATENTS 315 Highland Avenue Montclair, NY 07043 Telephone: (973)-655-0991 Facsimile: (973)-655-0992 E-mail: amyweissbrod@verizon.net - and - Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON LLP 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 Facsimile: (212)-421-6553 E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com Defendants-Appellees COWAN, LIEBOWITZ & LATHMAN, PC, CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., LIVE NATION, INC., INSTANT LIVE CONCERTS, LLC, NEXTICKETING, INC., WILLIAM BORCHARD, MIDGE HYMAN, BAILA CELEDONIA, CHRISTOPHER JENSEN, DALE HEAD, STEVE SIMON, SUSAN SCHICK are represented by: Andrew B. Cripe, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, L.L.P. 222 N. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 704-3000 - and - John Richard Supple, Jr., Esq. Schuyler Blake Kraus, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY SCARBOROUGH, LLP 280 Park Avenue, Floor 15 West New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 471-6210 Facsimile: (212) 935-1166 E-mail: rsupple@hinshawlaw.com skraus@hinshawlaw.com - and - Eric Roman, Esq. ARENT FOX LLP (NYC) 1301 Avenue of Americas, Floor 42 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 484-3900 Facsimile: (212) 484-3990 E-mail: eroman@orrick.com - and - Ian Hugh Hummel, Esq. MAXIM GROUP LLC 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212)-895-3500 Facsimile: (212) 895-3860 E-mail: ihummel@maximgrp.com - and - Jonathan B. Rubenstein, Esq. Steven Gregory Schortgen, Esq. BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 2001 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214)-953-6500 Facsimile: (214)-661-4594 E-mail: jonathan.rubenstein@bakerbotts.com sschortgen@sheppardmullin.com CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 20 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CTMX) between May 17, 2018, and May 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important July 20, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for CytomX investors under the federal securities laws. To join the CytomX class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1860.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) CytomX had downplayed issues with CX-072's efficacy observed in the PROCLAIM-CX-072 clinical program; (2) CytomX had similarly downplayed issues with CX-2009's efficacy and safety observed in the PROCLAIM-CX-2009 clinical program; and (3) as a result, CytomX's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 20, 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-1860.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 -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- 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 [GN] DELOITTE CONSULTING: Fails to Secure PII, Julius Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- BRIANA JULIUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP, Case No. 3:20-cv-00542 (S.D. Ill., June 8, 2020), seeks damages as a result of Deloitte's failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's personally identifying information. The Plaintiff contends that she applied for unemployment benefits through the web-portal created and maintained by Deloitte, and her PII was left publicly accessible. As a result of the her data being exposed, she received notice from her bank regarding fraudulent charges on her bank account that she did not make and her debit card was shut off, she adds. Deloitte provides audit, consulting, tax, and advisory services to many of the world's famous brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq. CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC 8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100 Saint Louis, MO 63105-1643 Telephone: 314-541-0317 E-mail: tyiatras@gmail.com tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com - and - Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR. 3518A Arsenal Street Saint Louis, MO 63118 Telephone: 314-662-2836 E-mail: casey@lawofficeflynn.com francisflynn@gmail.com DNC SERVICES: Wilding Files Cert. Petition to Supreme Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Carol Wilding filed with the Supreme Court of the United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled Carol Wilding, et al. v. DNC Services Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-1185. Petitioner Carol Wilding petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in the case titled CAROL WILDING, STANLEY RIFKEN, SHARON CRAWFORD, WILLIAM SCOTT FRANZ, DAVID PULASKI, MARY JASMINE WELCH, JOSE ALBERTO GONZALEZ, JANE ELLEN PLATTNER, KIM MARIE HOULE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. DNC SERVICES CORPORATION, DEBORAH WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-14194. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned CAROL WILDING, STANLEY RIFKEN, SHARON CRAWFORD, WILLIAM SCOTT FRANZ, DAVID PULASKI, MARY JASMINE WELCH, JOSE ALBERTO GONZALEZ, JANE ELLEN PLATTNER, KIM MARIE HOULE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DNC SERVICES CORPORATION, DEBORAH WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-14194. The plaintiffs in this putative class action are donors to the Democratic National Committee, donors to the 2016 presidential campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders, and voters affiliated with the Democratic Party in various states. The defendants are the DNC and its former chairwoman and current U.S. Representative Deborah Wasserman Schultz. The Plaintiffs essentially allege that during the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries the DNC and Ms. Wasserman Schultz improperly tipped the scales in favor of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was challenging Senator Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination. In their complaint against the DNC and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, the plaintiffs asserted a number of common-law and statutory claims, including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The DNC and Ms. Wasserman Schultz moved to dismiss the claims, arguing both that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing and that they failed to state claims for relief. The district court dismissed all six claims. It concluded that the plaintiffs had not satisfied the injury-in-fact element of Article III standing as to their negligence claim, the causation element as to their fraud, negligent misrepresentation, CPPA, and unjust enrichment claims, and the redressability element as to their fiduciary duty claim. The named plaintiffs representing the DNC donor class have not satisfied Rule 9(b)'s pleading requirements. Specifically, they have failed to allege with particularity the manner in which they relied on the defendants' statements. For example, they did not allege on which of the statements they relied. The claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation are therefore dismissed. Whether a plaintiff has Article III standing is a question distinct from whether she has a statutory cause of action. The Court concludes, for a number of reasons, that the CPPA claim of the DNC donor class fails the plausibility standard set out in cases like Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007). As noted, the CPPA prohibits various unfair or deceptive trade practices. It allows a consumer to bring an action seeking relief from the use of a trade practice in violation of a law of the District of Columbia. A consumer, in turn, is a person who does or would purchase or receive consumer goods or services. As a result, the CPPA does not cover all consumer transactions, and instead only covers trade practices arising out of consumer-merchant relationships. Instead of responding to these arguments, and addressing the cases cited by the defendants, the plaintiffs merely set out the elements of an unjust enrichment claim and say without any elaboration that they have alleged these elements. The Court agrees with the defendants that the plaintiffs in the DNC donor class have failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment. Under Rule 8, a complaint must allege sufficient underlying facts to make a claim plausible, and the mere formulaic recitation of elements or legal conclusions will not suffice. And that pleading standard applies to state-law claims litigated in federal court. The unjust enrichment claim here contains no factual allegations explaining (a) why Florida law would deem it necessary or appropriate to imply a contract between the DNC and those who contributed money to it, or (b) why it would be inequitable for the DNC to retain the donations made by the members of the DNC donor class. Absent any allegations as to the reasons for their donations, the plaintiffs have not made out a plausible unjust enrichment claim under Florida law. The plaintiffs in the Democratic voter class do not allege any injury resulting from the defendants' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duty. The complaint says only that the plaintiffs in the Democratic voter class were proximately damaged by the alleged breaches. Indeed, the plaintiffs conceded at oral argument that the complaint does not specify any resulting injuries. Accordingly, the district court's order of dismissal is affirmed, but the case is remanded so that the district court can amend its order consistent with the 11th Circuit's opinion. The order should dismiss the fraud, negligent misrepresentation, CPPA, and unjust enrichment claims - which fail on the merits--with prejudice, and dismiss the negligence and fiduciary duty claims--which fail for lack of standing--without prejudice, rules the 11th Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners Carol Wilding, et al., are represented by: Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq. CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A. 6541 NE 21st Way Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 Telephone: (561) 676-6370 Facsimile: (561) 320-0285 E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Fisher Files Fraud Class Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc. The case is styled as Linda Fisher, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01222-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal., June 17, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud filed over Diversity-(Citizenship). Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc. is one of the leading mortgage subservicing companies in the United States specializing in servicing loans on behalf of commercial banks, credit unions, mortgage banking companies and state and local housing finance agencies nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Shah, Esq. Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP 201 Filbert St., Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94133 Tel: (856) 858-1770 Fax: (856) 300-7367 Email: jshah@sfmslaw.com DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Ruffin Asserts Breach of FDCPA in Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Gusie Ruffin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC, Pendrick Capital Partners II, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00272 (M.D. Fla., June 17, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full service debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Zeig, Esq. Zeig Law Firm, LLC 3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310 Hollywood, FL 33024 Tel: (754) 217-3084 Fax: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com EAST COAST COMPANIES: Underpays Pavers, Chavela-Lira Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, ISRAEL CHAVELA-LIRA, individually and in behalf of all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EAST COAST COMPANIES, INC. d/b/a EAST COAST PAVING & SITE DEVELOPMENT, and ROBERT VAN TASSELL, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06160 (D.N.J., May 20, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a paver from around July 2017 until October 21, 2019. According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked approximately between 40 and 70 hours per week. However, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff any wages from September 1, 2019 until the end of his employment despite Defendant's promised to pay Plaintiff $40 per hour until September 10, 2019 and $72.00 per hour thereafter. The complaint asserts that Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff in the amount of additional money owed under the contract. Robert Van Tassell exercised substantial control over the functions of Defendant's employees and established their wages and hours. East Coast Companies, Inc. d/b/a East Coast Paving & Site Development provides paving services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John M. Gurriieri, Esq. Justin A. Zeller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Tel: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Emails: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com jazeller@zellerlegal.com EDWARD JONES & CO: Huang Files Cert. Petition in McDonald Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Objector Shiyang Huang filed with the Supreme Court of the United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled Shiyang Huang v. Valeska Schultz, et al., Case No. 19-1366. Response is due on July 13, 2020. Objector Shiyang Huang petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit in the case titled Charlene F. McDonald, individually and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan; Windle Pompey Plaintiffs Valeska Schultz; Melanie Waugh; Rosalind Staley, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., Defendant-Appellee; The Jones Financial Companies Defendant The Edward Jones Investment and Education Committee Defendant-Appellee John & Jane Does, 1-25 Defendant Brett Bayston; Bonnie Caudle; Mark Vivian; Stina Wishman; Jan-Marie Kain; Linda Banniester; Ann Echelmeier; Curtis Long; David Gibson; Ken Blanchard; Jason Jonczak; Julie Rea; Asma Usmani; Glenn Kolod; Juli Johnson; Jess Dechant; Peggy Robinson; Edward Jones Profit Sharing and 401(k) Administrative Committee; John Does, 1-30, Defendants-Appellees v. Shiyang Huang Objector-Appellant Anna Mae Krause; Heath J. Petsche Objectors, Case No. 19-2158. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 7, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment certifying a settlement class, approving the settlement agreement, and awarding attorneys' fees and case contribution awards. In the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action, objector Shiyang Huang appeals the district court's judgment. Initially, the Appellate Court finds that the Plaintiffs had standing to bring the class action. It also concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(A), as the action was brought on behalf of the plan and requested plan-wide relief, raising the risk of inconsistent adjudications that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for defendants if individual actions were brought. Further, the named Plaintiffs' case contribution awards did not render their interests adverse to those of the class, and the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the awards and attorneys' fees, the Appellate Court opines. The lawsuit was brought to recover damages as a result of the Defendants' breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Objector-Petitioner Shiyang Huang, of Topeka, Kansas, appears pro se.[BN] ENCOMPASS HEALTH: May Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MAY and JEAN JAMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENCOMPASS HEALTH CORP., CAMELLA HOME HEALTH OF THE GULF COAST, LLC, WEST MISSISSIPPI HOME HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, INC., HOME HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, INC., HOME HEALTH CARE OF BOGLUSA, INC., CAMELLA HOME HEALTH OF EAST TENNESSEE, LLC and WILFORD A. "ABB" PAYNE, III, Case No. 3:20-cv-00394-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss., June 8, 2020), seeks to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are current or former "per visit" and "point system" employees of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that they were not paid overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week as required by the FLSA. The Defendants provide home health and hospice services in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joel Dillard, Esq. JOEL F. DILLARD, P.A. 775 N. Congress Street Jackson, MS 39202 Telephone: (601) 487 7369 E-mail: joel@joeldillard.com - and - Scott E. Brady, Esq. Philip Bohrer, Esq. Amanda E. McGowen, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925 5297 Facsimile: (225) 231 7000 E-mail: scott@bohrerbrady.com phil@bohrerbrady.com amcgowen@bohrerbrady.com ERIE COUNTY, PA: McMurray Appeals W.D.N.Y. Ruling to Second Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Nate McMurray, Pauline Grabeki, and Ronald Coons filed an appeal from the District Court's Decision and Order entered on June 11, 2020, in the lawsuit styled McMurray v. Mohr, Case No. 20-cv-689, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (Buffalo). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the docket of the case states the nature of suit as "Civil Rights: Voting" filed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act. The appellate case is captioned as McMurray v. Mohr, Case No. 20-1818, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Nate McMurray, a Candidate for Congress and as an Enrolled Democratic Party Voter In Erie County, Pauline Grabeki, as an Enrolled Republican Party Voter in Erie County, and Ronald Coons, as an Enrolled Democratic Party Voter in Erie County, individually and on behalf of a Class of Erie County Voters Similarly Situated, are represented by: Joshua Dubs, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA DUBS The Cornell Mansion 484 Delaware Avenue Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 854-2050 Facsimile: (716) 768-2258 E-mail: joshdubsesq@gmail.com Defendants-Appellees Ralph M. Mohr, individually and as Commissioners of the Erie County Board of Elections, and the Erie County Board of Elections, and Jeremy Zellner, individually and as Commissioners of the Erie County Board of Elections, and the Erie County Board of Elections, are represented by: Daniel Spitzer, Esq. HODGSON RUSS LLP The Guaranty Building 140 Pearl Street Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 848-1420 E-mail: dspitzer@hodgsonruss.com ETS: Program Fails to Serve Under-Resourced Students, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- J.P., on behalf of her minor son R.P.; THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR FAIR & OPEN TESTING, doing business as FAIRTEST; A.K.; R.G., on behalf of her minor son J.G.; and M.S., on behalf of her minor daughter Z.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICES (ETS); THE COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAMINATION BOARD, doing business as THE COLLEGE BOARD; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-04502 (C.D. Cal., May 19, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of implied in fact contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of Americans With Disabilities Act, the Unruh Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the California Business & Professions Code. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly-situated individuals, allege that the Defendants failed to administer its Advanced Placement program properly and without prejudice. The College Board decided to offer the AP program at home to students in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the ETS and the Board failed to address concerns with the at-home AP format's likely impact on students with disabilities and those who have no computer, access to Internet or quiet workspaces from which to work, or on under-resourced students in general. The College Board acknowledged that these issues existed, but it did not change its policies to address them. As a result of the Defendants' actions and inactions, the Plaintiffs and Class members suffered economic losses and damages as they cannot fully access and use the services that they paid for. The National Center for Fair & Open Testing, doing business as FairTest, is a nationwide public charity that operates in California. Educational Testing Service is registered as a non-profit organization headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey. College Entrance Examination Board, doing business as The College Board, is a New York corporation that operates an Advanced Placement program, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. It does business in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Phillip A. Baker, Esq. Jennifer L. Stone, Esq. BAKER, KEENER & NAHRA LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 5500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 241-0900 Facsimile: (213) 241-0990 E-mail: pbaker@bknlawyersc.com jstone@bknlawyers.com - and – Marci Lerner Miller, Esq. Christina N. Hoffman, Esq. MILLER ADVOCACY GROUP 1303 Avocado Avenue, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-9734 Facsimile: (949) 266-8069 E-mail: marci@milleradvocacy.com choffman@milleradvocacy.com FCA US: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Decision in Tremper Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant FCA US LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Stephen Tremper, et al. v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00828-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland. As previously reported in the Class Action reporter on March 11, 2020, the Defendant filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Monterey (Case No. 20CV000047), to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on February 4, 2020. The Plaintiffs bring the lawsuit for the following claims: breach of express warranty (Count I); violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") Civil Code Section 1750 et seq. (Count II); violation of the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") Cal. Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. (Count III); and restitution, money had and received, unjust enrichment, and/or quasi-contract and assumpsit (Count IV). The appellate case is captioned as Stephen Tremper, et al. v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 20-80089, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents STEPHEN TREMPER and HEATHER TREMPER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and the general public, are represented by John William Hanson, Esq. Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. THE HANSON LAW FIRM 16870 W. Bernardo Drive, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 451-0291 Facsimile: (858) 451 0281 E-mail: john@thesandiegolemonlawyer.com Defendant-Petitioner FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is represented by: Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq. Kathy Wisniewski, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP One U.S. Bank Plaza 505 N. 7th Street St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 552-6354 Facsimile: (314) 552-7000 E-mail: sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com FIFTH THIRD: Harmon Appeals S.D. Ohio Ruling to Sixth Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Billie Joann Harmon filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Billie Harmon v. Fifth Third Bancorp, Case No. 1:18-cv-00402, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks redress from the Defendant's alleged unlawful practices perpetrated on its checking accountholders to increase fees. Ms. Harmon alleges that at least with respect to the first $100 of any deposit, 5/3 improperly charges low-income consumers a fee for a useless service: the provision of funds "immediately" that are already "immediately" available. The appellate case is captioned as Billie Harmon v. Fifth Third Bancorp, Case No. 20-3623, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant brief is due on July 27, 2020; and -- Appellee brief is due on August 24, 2020.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant BILLIE JOANN HARMON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Alyson Steele Beridon, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS 425 Walnut Street, Suite 2315 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 381-2224 E-mail: alysonb@bsjfirm.com Defendant-Appellee FIFTH THIRD BANCORP is represented by: Victor A. Walton, Jr., Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE 301 E. Fourth Street, Suite 3500 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 723-4000 E-mail: vawalton@vorys.com FINEVINE LLC: Hartanovich Sues Over Charcoal in Toothpaste ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, SAMANTHA HARTANOVICH and DONNA GILBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. FINEVINE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00213-JED-JFJ (N.D. Okla., May 19, 2020), arises from the Defendant's violations of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act and the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligent and grossly negligent misrepresentations and material omissions, statutory deceit, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false advertising, negligence, and unfair and deceptive marketing practices in connection with the sale of a line of dental products containing activated charcoal, including the Activated Coconut Charcoal Powder and the Activated Coconut Charcoal Toothpaste. The Defendant represents its oral care products as natural teeth whiteners and detoxifiers that are safe for gums, teeth and enamel as well as generally effective for dental hygiene and cosmetic benefits, and healthy and beneficial for daily, long-term oral care use. However, the Defendant did not possess the requisite evidence to substantiate its claims concerning the benefits and safety of its Charcoal oral care products, as such evidence did not exist at the times it made its claims, nor does it currently exist. FineVine knew or should have known that many of its claims regarding its Charcoal dentifrices lacked a credible basis or substantiation, and that they were misleading, deceptive, and/or false. FineVine also omitted material facts, including that scientific literature counter-indicates the safety and efficacy of charcoal in oral care use. Such representations and omissions were material and likely to deceive a reasonable consumer, yet FineVine nonetheless negligently and recklessly proceeded with its opportunistic marketing campaign, and it continues to do so, without regard to the consequences to the deceived consumer. As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages including out-of-pocket losses. Furthermore, some consumers have experienced the negative effects that activated charcoal can cause, including discoloration of the gumline, gum irritation, excessive abrasion of tooth enamel and dentin, yellowing of the teeth, and damage to dental implants. FineVine, LLC is an oral care company with principal place of business located at 33109 Elm Court, Lawrence Township, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com FLOWCO PRODUCTION: Gaona Sues Over Overtime Miscalculation Policy ----------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Carlos Gaona, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Flowco Production Solutions, LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-00144 (W.D. Tex., June 8, 2020), alleges that the Plaintiff is one of the many non-exempt, hourly employees, who were denied proper overtime wages due to the Defendant's illegal overtime miscalculation policy, which violates the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant paid overtime but did not consider non-discretionary bonuses in the calculation of the "regular rate. He asserts that this made the overtime rate artificially low. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant and reported to its Midland, Texas Location. The Plaintiff was assigned to perform duties at oil and gas wells in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Wyoming and Colorado. Some of the Class/Collective Members were assigned to locations in Pennsylvania as well. The Defendant provides a service to the oil and gas industry providing internal and external spooling services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC 1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200 Southlake, TX 76092-4322 Telephone: 817 416-5060 Facsimile: 817 416-5062 E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com G. JONES: Josema Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Laborers --------------------------------------------------------- LUCKNER JOSEMA, on his own behalf and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. G. JONES, INC. d/b/a G. JONES PLASTERING, a Florida corporation, and GEORGE JONES, individually, Defendants, Case No. 9:20-cv-80815-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2020) alleges Defendant of practicing unlawful employment by failing to properly pay overtime compensation to their current and former employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked with Defendant during the period of approximately November 2015 until approximately January 2019 performing non-exempt work as a laborer and related activities throughout the state of Florida. According to the complaint, Plaintiff routinely worked more than 40 hours per week. But, Defendants paid Plaintiff straight-time wages instead of overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 at an overtime rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay. George Jones is the owner of G. Jones, Inc. who has the over-all authority and control of the company and its operation, including the hiring and firing of employees, employee's work schedule, employee's rate pay, employee's daily or weekly activities, and the company's finances. Jones, Inc. d/b/a G. Jones Plastering provides drywall and plaster repair services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maguene D. Cadet, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A. 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203 Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Tel: 561-853-2212 Fax: 561-853-2213 Email: maguene@dieudonnelaw.com GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE'S: Roth Appeals S.D. Fla. Ruling to 11th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Kerry Roth filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit Kerry Roth v. Government Employee's Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-62942-WPD, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The appellate case is captioned as Kerry Roth v. Government Employee's Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 20-12049, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Defendant GEICO has filed an appeal from a court decision in the lawsuit. That appellate case is entitled Kerry Roth v. GEICO General Insurance Company, Case No. 19-11652. The Defendants own and operate an auto insurance company in Florida.[BN] HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 10 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. (NASDAQ: HEBT) between April 24, 2020 and June 3, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 10, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Hebron investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Hebron class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1868.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) many of Hebron's acquisitions, including Beijing Hengpu and Nami Holding (Cayman) Co., Ltd., involved undisclosed related parties; (2) Hebron's disclosure controls regarding related party transactions were ineffective; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Hebron's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 10, 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-1868.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 -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- 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: 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 [GN] HUB GROUP: Tennison Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH TENNISON, an Individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HUB GROUP TRUCKING, INC., a Delaware Corporation; ESTENSON LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV16259 (Filed April 27, 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 8, 2020. The complaint alleges the Defendants failed to pay overtime wages; failed to pay minimum wages; failed to pay overtime wages at the legal overtime pay rate; failed to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu of; and failed to provide paid rest periods. Hub Group is a transportation provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert R. Roginson, Esq. Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq. Carmen M. Aguado, 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: robert.roginson@ogletree.com paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com carmen.aguado@ogletree.com IT'S JUST LUNCH: Barton Appeals Order in Rodriguez Customers Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Objector Michael James Barton filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated March 2, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled Rodriguez, et al. v. It's Just Lunch International, et al., Case No. 07-cv-9227, 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 filed the lawsuit because they are dissatisfied customers of the Defendants' allegedly fraudulent dating service (IJL). The appellate case is captioned as Rodriguez v. It's Just Lunch International, Case No. 20-1094, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Karen Malak, individually and for all others similarly situated, James Tortora, individually and for all others similarly situated, Lisa Bruno, individually and for all others similarly situated, and Janeen Cameron, individually and for all others similarly situated, are represented by: John Balestriere, Esq. BALESTRIERE FARIELLO 225 Broadway New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 324-5401 E-mail: john.balestriere@balestrierefariello.com Objector-Appellant Michael James Barton is represented by: Anna St. John, Esq. HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE 1629 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (917) 327-2392 E-mail: anna.stjohn@hlli.org JACK IN THE BOX: Gessele Appeals D. Oregon Ruling to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs JESSICA GESSELE, ASHLEY ORTIZ, NICOLE GESSELE, TRICIA TETRAULT, and CHRISTINA MAULDIN filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in their lawsuit styled Jessica Gessele, et al. v. Jack in the Box, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01092-BR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on August 13, 2010, Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele, and Tricia Tetrault filed a putative class-action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon against Jack in the Box, Inc. for violation of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and various Oregon wage-and-hour laws. Christina Mauldin was added as named plaintiff on May 16, 2011. On May 15, 2014, the court granted Jack in the Box's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to timely file written consent forms as required by the FLSA and, therefore, the court never acquired jurisdiction. The entire matter was dismissed without prejudice. On June 10, 2014, Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele, Tricia Tetrault, Christina Mauldin, and Jason Diaz filed a putative class action against Jack in the Box in Multnomah County Circuit Court in which they alleged claims for violation of Oregon's wage-and-hour laws, violation of the FLSA, breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable and quasicontractual claims for return of money. On July 9, 2014, the defendant removed the suit to the district court. The appellate case is captioned as Jessica Gessele, et al. v. Jack in the Box, Inc., Case No. 20-80096, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners JESSICA GESSELE, ASHLEY ORTIZ, NICOLE GESSELE, TRICIA TETRAULT, and CHRISTINA MAULDIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jon M. Egan, Esq. JON M. EGAN, PC 547 Fifth Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009 Telephone: (503) 697-3427 E-mail: info@eganlegalteam.com Defendant-Respondent JACK IN THE BOX, INC., a Delaware Corporation, is represented by" Douglas S. Parker, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 900 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (502) 221-0309 E-mail: dparker@littler.com JOHN/JANE DOES: Blackwood Files Suit in Virginia ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed styled as Jarrod Blackwood, Megan Blackwood, Ryan Tagg, Christopher Gayler and Keenan Angel, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. John/Jane Does, 1-X, in their personal capacities, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00443-DJN (E.D. Va., June 16, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights: Other filed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act. The Defendants are individuals and sued in their personal capacity. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas Hunt Roberts, Esq. Thomas H. Roberts & Associates PC 105 S First St, Suite A Richmond, VA 23219 Tel: (804) 783-2000 Email: thr@robertslaw.org - and - Andrew Thomas Bodoh, Esq. Thomas H Roberts & Associates PC 105 South 1st Street Richmond, VA 23219 Tel: (804) 783-2000 Fax: (804) 783-2105 Email: andrew.bodoh@robertslaw.org JUSTINE KARL MEENACH: Garcia Files Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Justine Karl Meenach. The case is styled as Ruben Garcia, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Justine Karl Meenach, Defendant, Case No. BCV-20-101376 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 16, 2020). The case type is stated as Other Employment - Civil Unlimited. The Defendant is an individual. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sam Sani, Esq. Sani Law Firm 15720 Ventura Blvd., Suite 405 Encino, CA 91436 Tel: (310) 935-0405 Fax: (310) 935-0409 KEYCORP: Stark ERISA Class Suit Removed From S.D. to N.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Gregory Stark, William Gaff, and Michael Lewin, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the KeyCorp 401(k) Savings Plan v. KeyCorp, the Trust Oversight Committee, and John Does 1-30, Case No. 2:20-cv-02922, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on June 8, 2020. The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01254-PAB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Pamela A. Barker The Plaintiffs alleges that the Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the Plan in violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974--to the detriment of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries. The Plaintiffs are Plan participants. The Plaintiffs bring this action to remedy this unlawful conduct and obtain appropriate monetary and equitable relief as provided by the ERISA. KeyCorp is a bank-based financial services company headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert E. DeRose, II, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER 250 East Broad Street, 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Tanious Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Hany Tanious, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Landstar System Inc., a Delaware corporation, Landstar Ranger, Inc, a Delaware corporation, Patrick J. O'MalleyJames B. Gatton, Patrick J. O'Malley and Patrick J. O'Malley, Defendants, was transferred from the District of California Central with the assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-01067 to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville) on June 17, 2020, and assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-00611-MMH-MCR. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Other filed over Labor/Mgmnt. Relationship. Landstar System, Inc. is a worldwide asset-light provider of integrated transportation management solutions delivering safe, specialized transportation services to a broad range of customers utilizing a network of agents, third-party capacity owners and employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Motaz M Gerges, Esq. Law Office of Motaz Gerges 18543 Devonshire Street No 448 Northridge, CA 91324 Tel: (818) 943-0707 Fax: (818) 401-0711 The Defendants are represented by: Christopher Chad McNatt , Jr., Esq. Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary, LLP 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560 Pasadena, CA 91101 Tel: (626) 795-4700 Fax: (626) 795-4790 Email: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com - and - James Anthony Eckhart, Esq. Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson and Feary 10 W. Market Street., Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Tel: (317) 637-1777 Email: jeckhart@scopelitis.com - and - Adam C. Smedstad, Esq. Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, PC 30 W Monroe St Ste 600 Chicago, IL 60603-2427 Tel: (312) 255-7181 Fax: (312) 422-1224 Email: asmedstad@scopelitis.com LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Johansen Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH JOHANSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOANDEPOT.COM LLC, and JOHN DOE CORPORATION D/B/A WATERFRONT CONSULTING, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-00919 (C.D. Cal., May 19, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons, who received illegal telemarketing calls from the Defendant, which is prohibited by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). According to the complaint, the Defendant made telemarketing calls itself and through third parties, such as John Doe Corporation d/b/a Waterfront Consulting. However, the defendants did so by calling residential numbers listed on the National Do Not Call Registry, like Mr. Johansen's, which is prohibited by the TCPA. The Plaintiff never provided his express written consent to receive the calls, which were placed to him for telemarketing purposes. Plaintiff and the other call recipients were harmed by these calls. They were temporarily deprived of legitimate use of their phones because the phone line was tied up, they were charged for the calls and their privacy was improperly invaded. LoanDepot.com, LLC is a Foothill Ranch, California-based company that provides loans services. John Doe Corporation d/b/a Waterfront Consulting is a telemarketer that had an agreement with LoanDepot to make calls in order to originate leads for them.[BN] The Plaintiffs is represented by: Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com LYFT INC: Appeals D. Mass. Ruling in Cunningham Suit to 1st Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Lyft, Inc., Logan Green and John Zimmer filed a petition for a writ of mandamus from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Melody Cunningham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lyft, Inc., Logan Green and John Zimmer, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-11974 , in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies for violations of the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law and the Massachusetts Overtime Law. Lyft is a car service that can be hailed and dispatched through a mobile phone application to transport riders. Melody Cunningham, is a Lyft driver, who claims to be misclassified as an independent contractor, thus, denied minimum wages for all hours worked and overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. She was also required to pay business expenses including but not limited to the cost of maintaining their vehicles, gas, insurance, phone and data expenses and other costs. The appellate case is captioned as In Re: Lyft, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-1371, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents MELODY CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, FRUNWI MANCHO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and UNITED STATES are represented by: Anne R. Kramer, Esq. Shannon Erika Liss-Riordan, Esq. Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC 729 Boylston St., Ste. 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: akramer@llrlaw.com sliss@llrlaw.com apagano@llrlaw.com - and - Donald Campbell Lockhart, Esq. US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1 Courthouse Way, Ste. 9200 Boston, MA 02210 Defendants-Petitioners Lyft, Inc., Logan Green and John Zimmer are represented by: Adele M. El-Khouri, Esq. Elaine Goldenberg, Esq. MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP 1155 F St. NW, 7th Flr. Washington, DC 20004 E-mail: Adele.El-Khouri@mto.com Elaine.Goldenberg@mto.com - and - Michael T. Maroney, Esq. David J. Santeusanio, Esq. Andrew E. Silvia, Esq. James D. Smeallie, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 10 Saint James Ave., 11th Flr. Boston, MA 02116-0000 Telephone: (617) 523-2700 E-mail: michael.maroney@hklaw.com david.santeusanio@HKLAW.com Andrew.Silvia@hklaw.com jd.smeallie@hklaw.com - and - Justin P. Raphael, Esq. Rohit Singla, Esq. MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission St., 27th Flr. San Francisco, CA 94105-2907 Telephone: (415) 512-4085 E-mail: Justin.Raphael@mto.com rohit.singla@mto.com - and - Jeffrey Y. Wu, Esq. MUNGER & TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 S Grand Ave., 50th Flr. Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 E-mail: Jeffrey.Wu@mto.com MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Olson Appeals S.D.N.Y. Rulings to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Kristopher R. Olson, Christopher Clifford, Erik Liptak, Christopher Lopez and Warren Barber filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated April 3, 2020, Judgment dated April 7, 2020, and Memorandum Order dated June 5, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Olson v. Major League Baseball, Case No. 20-cv-632, 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 assert various fraud, negligence, unjust enrichment, and consumer protection law claims based on alleged harm caused by the Defendants' representations and conduct surrounding the by-now-infamous sign-stealing scandal. The amended complaint alleges that Plaintiffs Kristopher R. Olson, Christopher Lopez, Warren Barber, Christopher Clifford, and Erik Liptak, residents of Massachusetts, California, Texas, Florida, and Colorado, respectively, were participants in the daily fantasy baseball contests from April 2, 2017 to October 30, 2019 by DraftKings, an online platform that operates fantasy sports contests on a daily and weekly basis across multiple sports. The appellate case is captioned as Olson v. Major League Baseball, Case No. 20-1831, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Kristopher R. Olson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Christopher Clifford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Erik Liptak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Christopher Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Warren Barber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: David S. Golub, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP 184 Atlantic Street P.O. Box 389 Stamford, CT 06904 Telephone: (203) 325-4491 E-mail: dgolub@sgtlaw.com Defendants-Appellants Major League Baseball, MLB Advanced Media, L.P., Boston Red Sox Baseball Club L.P., and Houston Astros, LLC, are represented by: John L. Hardiman, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-4070 Facsimile: (212) 558-3588 E-mail: hardimanj@sullcrom.com MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Olson Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants MLB Advanced Media, L.P. and Major League Baseball and Third-Party Defendant New York Yankees Partnership filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum and Order dated June 12, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Olson, et al. v. Major League Baseball, et al., Case No. 20-cv-632, 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 assert various fraud, negligence, unjust enrichment, and consumer protection law claims based on alleged harm caused by the Defendants' representations and conduct surrounding the by-now-infamous sign-stealing scandal. The amended complaint alleges that Plaintiffs Kristopher R. Olson, Christopher Lopez, Warren Barber, Christopher Clifford, and Erik Liptak, residents of Massachusetts, California, Texas, Florida, and Colorado, respectively, were participants in the daily fantasy baseball contests from April 2, 2017, to October 30, 2019, by DraftKings, an online platform that operates fantasy sports contests on a daily and weekly basis across multiple sports. The appellate case is captioned as Olson, et al. v. Major League Baseball, et al., Case No. 20-1841, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Kristopher R. Olson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Christopher Clifford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Erik Liptak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Christopher Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Warren Barber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: David S. Golub, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP 184 Atlantic Street P.O. Box 389 Stamford, CT 06904 Telephone: (203) 325-4491 E-mail: dgolub@sgtlaw.com Defendants-Appellants MLB Advanced Media, L.P. and Major League Baseball, and Third Party Defendant-Appellant New York Yankees Partnership are represented by: Jonathan D. Schiller, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 E-mail: jschiller@bsfllp.com MASSAGE ENVY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in McKinney-Drobnis Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Baerbel McKinney-Drobnis, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Baerbel McKinney-Drobnis, Joseph B. Piccola and Camille Berlese, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 4:16-cv-06450-KAW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied David Lapa's Administrative Motion in the case. The District Court preliminarily approved a class action settlement in the class action, which order sets forth the procedure for persons who fall within the class definition to submit a claim, to object to the settlement, and to exclude themselves from the settlement. In his Administrative Motion, Lapa requests to be excluded and to be afforded the right to appear at the final approval hearing to object to the settlement. The Court notes that such proposed procedure is precluded by the Court's June 7 Order, and Lapa fails to identify any cognizable basis for reconsideration of that order. Moreover, as Lapa acknowledges, he has already timely notified the settlement administrator of his request for exclusion and, consequently, he lacks standing to object to the settlement, the Court finds. The cause of action is stated as "Diversity-Breach of Contract." The appellate case is captioned as Baerbel McKinney-Drobnis, et al. v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, Case No. 20-15539 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants' opening brief and excerpts of record shall be served and filed on July 6, 2020; -- Appellees' answering brief and excerpts of record shall be served and filed on August 6, 2020; and -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and served within 21 days of service of the appellees' brief.[BN] MASTER WOK INC: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Liang Claims -------------------------------------------------------- JUN LIANG, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. MASTER WOK, INC. f/k/a Master Wok Kings Plaza, Inc. d/b/a Master Wok; CRYSTAL RUN EXPRESS, INC. d/b/a Master Wok; and FENG YAO, KAI ZHANG YAO, RU YAN YAO, DONALD C. WONG, and "JOHN" YAO, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-03904 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself as well as other employees similarly situated, against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL), arising from Defendants' various willfully and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices. Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over forty (40) each workweek. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as a Miscellaneous and Fry Wok helper from on or about November 1, 2016 to December 1, 2017. Master Wok, Inc., f/k/a Master Wok Kings Plaza, Inc. d/b/a Master Wok, is a Chinese restaurant company with principal business location in New Jersey. Crystal Run Express, Inc., d/b/a Master Wok, is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut with a principal address in Middletown, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 MEDIC AMBULANCE: Silva Appeals Judgment in Labor Suit to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Meghan Silva filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Meghan Silva v. Medic Ambulance Service, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00876-TLN-CKD, in the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of California, Sacramento. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint alleges that the Defendant violated: (1) California Labor Code Section 226.7 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 4 by failing to provide its employees with adequate rest breaks; (2) California Labor Code Section 226 by failing to provide regular accurate itemized wage statements; and (3) California Labor Code Sections 201-203 by failing to pay rest break compensation to Plaintiff and class members, who were not given rest breaks. The appellate case is captioned as Meghan Silva v. Medic Ambulance Service, Inc., Case No. 20-16153, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant Meghan Silva's opening brief is due on August 17, 2020; -- Appellee Medic Ambulance Service, Inc.'s answering brief is due on September 17, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MEGHAN SILVA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, is represented by: Caitlin E. Gray, Esq. Jannah V. Manansala, Esq. Alex Nazarov, Esq. WEINBERG ROGER & ROSENFELD 1001 Marina Village Parkway Alameda, CA 94501 Telephone: (510) 337-1001 E-mail: cgray@unioncounsel.net jmanansala@unioncounsel.net anazarov@unioncounsel.net Defendant-Appellee MEDIC AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. is represented by: Corey Cabral, Esq. Jeremy Taylor Naftel, Esq. CAROTHERS, DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER, LLP 900 University Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 361-0991 E-mail: ccabral@cdflaborlaw.com jnaftel@cdflaborlaw.com MERCK & CO: Kaye Appeals D. Conn. Order and Judgment to 2nd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Roger H. Kaye and Roger H. Kaye, MD PC, filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated March 27, 2020, and Judgment dated March 30, 2020, entered in their lawsuit entitled Kaye, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-1546, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). The lawsuit is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleging that Dr. Kaye received an unsolicited fax advertisement from the Defendants inviting him to participate in a telesymposium regarding a drug named Saphris. The appellate case is captioned as Kaye v. Merck & Co., Case No. 20-1097, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Roger H. Kaye, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Roger H. Kaye, MD PC, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, are represented by: Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 85 Miles Avenue White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 358-5345 E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com Defendants-Respondents Merck & Co. and Medlearning, Inc., are represented by: Edward Wood Dunham, Esq. Kim Elizabeth Rinehart, Esq. WIGGIN AND DANA LLP 1 Century Tower 265 Church Street P.O. Box 1832 New Haven, CT 06508 Telephone: (203) 498-4400 E-mail: edunham@wiggin.com krinehart@wiggin.com - and - Matthew H. Geelan, Esq. Patrick M. Noonan, Esq. DONAHUE, DURHAM & NOONAN, PC 741 Boston Post Road Guilford, CT 06437 Telephone: (203) 458-9168 E-mail: MGeelan@ddnctlaw.com PNoonan@ddnctlaw.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Ravitz Asserts Breach of FDCPA ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management Inc. The case is styled as Yoel Ravitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-04609 (S.D. N.Y., June 16, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management (MCM) is a company that helps consumers resolve past-due financial obligations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic st Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (347) 668-9326 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com MORGAN STANLEY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Harvey Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Brandon Harvey filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Brandon Harvey, et al. v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-02835-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 16, 2020, Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Joint Stipulation Regarding the Briefing Schedule for Plaintiff Harvey's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Enhancement Award and the Chen Plaintiffs' Motion to Intervene and Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards. Plaintiff Harvey and Defendant Morgan ("together, the Harvey Parties") and the Plaintiffs in the case of Chen et al. v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC currently pending in the Orange County Superior Court of California (the "Chen Plaintiffs") submitted the instant Joint Stipulation. On Nov. 14, 2019, Harvey filed his Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Enhancement Award with a hearing date of Feb. 5, 2020 per the Court's Sept. 6, 2019 order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement. Also on Nov. 14, 2019, the Chen plaintiffs filed two motions also with hearing dates on Feb. 5, 2020--a Motion to Intervene and a Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards. The Harvey Parties and the Chen Plaintiffs have since agreed to a mutually agreeable alternate briefing schedule for the briefs related to the motions for attorney fees and motion to intervene. Specifically, they requested that the Court sets the following briefing schedule for the motions for attorneys' fees and motion to intervene: (1) any opposition to the motions for attorneys' fees and motion to intervene will be filed on Dec. 18, 2019; and (2) any reply brief(s) will be filed on Jan. 16, 2020. The cross-appeal briefing schedule is set as follows: -- First cross appeal brief is due on July 1, 2020, for Mathew Lucadano and Tracy Chen. -- Second brief on cross appeal is due on July 31, 2020, for Brandon Harvey and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC; -- Third brief on cross appeal is due on August 31, 2020, for Mathew Lucadano and Tracy Chen; and -- Optional cross appeal Reply brief for Brandon Harvey is due 21 days from service of Third brief on cross appeal.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant BRANDON HARVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jeffrey K. Compton, Esq. David S. Markun, Esq. MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON, LLP 17383 West Sunset Boulevard Pacific Palisades, CA 90272-4181 Telephone: (310) 454-5900 E-mail: jcompton@mzclaw.com - and - Marita Murphy Lauinger, Esq. CLAPP & LAUINGER 701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92011 Telephone: (760) 209-6565 E-mail: mlauinger@clapplegal.com - and - George Nemiroff, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH C. ABSALOM 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 905 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 392-5040 - and - Edward Wynne, Esq. WYNNE LAW FIRM 80 E. Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, Suite 3G Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 461-6400 E-mail: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com Objector-Appellee MATHEW LUCADANO is represented by: Mark Humenik, Esq. HABER POLK KABAT, LLP 423 S. Estate Drive Orange, CA 92869 Telephone: (949) 636-5754 E-mail: mhumenik@haberpolk.com - and - Christopher McNerney, Esq. Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 E-mail: cmcnerney@outtengolden.com jsagafi@outtengolden.com - and - Laura Sullivan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LAURA SULLIVAN 423 South Estate Drive Orange, CA 92869 Telephone: (714) 744-1522 Defendant MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC is represented by: Katie Elizabeth Briscoe, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 400 Capitol Mall Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 Telephone: (916) 233-9728 E-mail: kbriscoe@orrick.com - and - Lynne C. Hermle, Esq. ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015 Telephone: (650) 614-7400 E-mail: lchermle@orrick.com - and - Andrew Livingston, Esq. ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 773-5588 E-mail: alivingston@orrick.com NATIONWIDE TRANSPORT: Mitchell et al Sue Over Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MITCHELL and STEVEN LANGA, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONWODE TRANSPORT SERVICES LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-60989-RKA (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2020) seek unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as Freight Brokers at Defendant's Orlando office located at 250 N. Orange Ave., #1110, Orlando, Florida 32801 through work release program. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week. But, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs time and one-half his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per work week during one or more work weeks. Nationwide Transport Services LLC provides full service auto transport carrier and broker. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew R. Gunter, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Tel: (407) 420-1414 Fax: (407) 867-4791 Email: mgunter@forthepeople.com NEW YORK: Board Appeals Judgment in Gulino Suit to Second Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from District Court's judgment dated October 17, 2019, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, 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, alleged that 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 classwide injunctive relief. The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board, Case No. 19-3882, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Denise Ebanks is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 Email: joshua.sohn@dlapiper.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York is represented by: Georgia Mary Pestana, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-356-2400 E-mail: gpestana@law.nyc.gov NEW YORK: Board Files Five Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed appeals from the District Court's ruling in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII. The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, 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 the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. The appellate cases brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit are: -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 20-1829; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 20-1830; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 20-1833; -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 20-1835; and -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 20-1838.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Geraldine Decady, Jesus Estaba, Jose Ruiz, Antonia Guzman and Bertha Tavarez are 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 New York City School District of the City of New York is represented by: James Edward Johnson, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-356-2500 E-mail: jjohnson@law.nyc.gov NEW YORK: Dorce Appeals S.D. New York Rulings to Second Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs McConnell Dorce, Cecilia Jones and Sherlivia Thomas-Murchison filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated May 16, 2020, and Judgment dated May 19, 2020, entered in their lawsuit entitled Dorce v. City of New York, Case No. 19-cv-2216, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Stephen Witt & Kelly Mena, writing for Kings County Politics, reported that with millions of dollars of intergenerational black and brown community wealth on the line, the city argued in federal court filings that its Third Party Transfer (TPT) program passes U.S. Constitution muster, and that property owners who have had their fully paid off properties taken with no compensation should be denied recourse in their effort to certify a class action lawsuit. Under the TPT program--the subject of an ongoing KCP investigative series--the city seizes properties they deem "distressed," and give them to the public/private non-profit Neighborhood Restore, who in turn give the property for a nominal fee to a qualified non-profit or for-profit developer. The program was created in the late 1970s, when the city had a large number of abandoned and neglected buildings. However, with gentrification, these properties, and others in the same program, are now worth millions of dollars in market value. Almost all were completely paid for with no mortgage and located in traditionally black and brown neighborhoods, which are becoming increasingly gentrified. In early March, three of the property owners, McConnell Dorce, Cecilia Jones and Sherlivia Thomas-Murchinson, filed papers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging their properties were unconstitutionally confiscated under the in rem foreclosure process. Their filing was to seek certification to pursue a class action lawsuit, which if successful, could cost the city tens of millions of dollars and the return of dozens of properties. Their suit was bolstered in late March, when Kings County Supreme Court Judge Mark Partnow ordered the city to give six Central Brooklyn property owners their property back, restoring millions of dollars of intergenerational wealth in the black and Latino community. The six properties were among more than 60 that were taken in a single in rem court foreclosure action in Dec. 2017 and were then put into the TPT program, violating constitutional rights under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, and article 1, section 7, of the New York State Constitution. The appellate case is captioned as Dorce v. City of New York, Case No. 20-1809, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants McConnell Dorce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Cecilia Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Sherlivia Thomas-Murchison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Keith H. Wofford, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 596-9000 E-mail: Keith.Wofford@ropesgray.com - and - Robert John Valli, Jr., Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7180 E-mail: rvalli@vkvlawyers.com Defendants-Appellees City of New York, Neighborhood Restore Housing Development Fund Co. Inc., BSDC Kings Covenant Housing Development Fund Company, Inc., and Maria Torres-Springer, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, are represented by: James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 -and - Brian J. Markowitz, Esq. GOLDSTEIN HALL PLLC 80 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 768-4127 E-mail: bmarkowitz@goldsteinhall.com OLIPOP INC: Crosson Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Olipop Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Olipop Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02691 (E.D. N.Y., June 17, 2020). Olipop is a clinically backed consumer beverage that offers benefits for microbiome, digestive function and metabolic health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com PENNSYLVANIA SERS: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Ke Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Zhaojin David Ke filed an appeal from a court ruling in his lawsuit titled Zhaojin David Ke v. Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System, Salvatore Darigo (in his official and individual capacities), and Gerald Villella, Case No. 1-19-cv-01695, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to have his First Amended Complaint served on the Defendants so that they may participate and mount their own defense instead of being "represented" by the District Court without even knowing they were sued six months ago and so that the District Court may stop lawyering and developing argument for them to severely prejudice petitioner. The motion is granted. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff sues Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System ("SERS") and SERS' in-house attorney Salvatore Darigo for their violation of his constitutional rights by depriving him of his property--disability supplemental--without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment--actionable under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983--which "provides a federal cause of action for the deprivation, under color of law, of a citizen's 'rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States." The Plaintiff also sues Darigo and his ex-wife's attorney Gerald Villella for Section 1983 conspiracy for removing 50% of his disability supplemental without due process. That deprivation has inflicted on him emotional distress caused by his worries about how to make ends meet and about his future as such deprivation is continuing conduct, reset each month when fifty percent of his disability supplemental is illegally removed. A disability supplemental given to plaintiff is to accommodate him because of his wage loss in line with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the ADA, and, under the same logic, SERS' continuing deprivation of 50% of his disability supplemental in contravention of its own policy is a serious violation of these federal laws. The appellate case is captioned as IN RE: ZHAOJIN DAVID KE, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent, Case No. 20-1693, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Plaintiff-Petitioner ZHAOJIN DAVID KE, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, appears pro se.[BN] PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Lombard Suit Balks at Sale to Alexion -------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD LOMBARD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., SCOTT GARLAND, JEFFREY W. BIRD, LAURA A. BREGE, DENNIS M. FENTON, JOHN H. JOHNSON, TED W. LOVE, HOLLINGS C. RENTON, DAVID C. STUMP, H. WARD WOLFF, ODYSSEY MERGER SUB INC., and ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00769-UNA (D. Del., June 8, 2020), is brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of the Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company to Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Odyssey Merger Sub Inc. According to the complaint, the Defendants have violated the Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and misleading solicitation statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2020. The 14D-9 recommends that Portola stockholders tender their shares in favor of a proposed transaction whereby Portola is acquired by Alexion. The Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on May 5, 2020, when Portola and Alexion announced that they had entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Alexion will commence a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Portola for $18.00 per share. The deal is expected to close in the third quarter of 2020. The Plaintiff asserts that the 14D-9 contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the sales process, financial projections prepared by Portola management, and the financial analyses conducted by Centerview Partners LLC, Portola's financial advisor. The Plaintiff contends that this information is necessary to provide Company stockholders a complete and accurate picture of the sales process and its fairness. He adds that without this information, stockholders were not fully informed as to the Defendants' actions. Without all material information, Portola stockholders are unable to make a fully informed decision in connection with the Proposed Transaction and face irreparable harm, he adds. The Plaintiff owns of shares of Portola's common stock. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction, including filing any amendment to the 14D-9, unless and until the material information discussed below is included in any such amendment or otherwise disseminated to Portola's stockholders. In the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated without the material omissions referenced below being remedied, the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations. Portola is a biopharmaceutical company incorporated in 2003 that develops treatments for thrombosis and inflammation. The Company has one drug, Andexxa, approved to treat bleeding in patients taking specific anticoagulants. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gina M. Serra, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Shane T. Rowley, Esq. Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq. ROWLEY LAW PLLC 50 Main Street, Suite 1000 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 400-1920 Facsimile: (914) 301-3514 RICHMOND, VA: Protesters File Class Action Over Use of Tear Gas --------------------------------------------------------------- Jess Nocera, writing for Richmond Times-Dispatch, reports that five protesters who attended a June 1 protest where Richmond police officers deployed tear gas at the Robert E. Lee monument are suing the officers for their actions. The class action lawsuit, filed in federal court on June 16, seeks undisclosed monetary damages for violating the protesters' First Amendment, Fourth Amendment and 14th Amendment rights and for assault, battery and gross negligence. The plaintiffs are Richmond residents Jarrod and Megan Blackwood, Ryan Tagg, Christopher Gayler and Keenan Angel. They are being represented by Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, a law firm that handles personal injury and civil rights claims. The plaintiffs are suing individually and "on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals," meaning anyone who was at the June 1 protest. The defendants are the police officers, who have not yet been identified, who participated in, encouraged or authorized the attack on protesters. "We have not specified an amount that we're asking for. We believe it's more appropriate to focus on the wrongful nature of the conduct rather than just the number we would list in the complaint," said Andrew T. Bodoh, one of the firm's attorneys, in an interview on June 16. The police department said the agency does not respond to questions about active lawsuits. On June 1, Richmond police officers tear-gassed kneeling demonstrators at the foot of the Lee statue 20 minutes ahead of the-then 8 p.m. city curfew. The police department tweeted an apology nearly two hours later that called the gassing "unwarranted action." Mayor Levar Stoney and Police Chief William Smith, who was forced to resign on June 16, apologized the next day and promised to discipline the officers. "It should not have happened," Stoney told an angry crowd that had gathered at City Hall on June 2. The suit claims police tried to encourage violence by peaceful protesters when they formed a "skirmish line" around Lee Circle and "assumed aggressive shooting stances, and trained their rifles or sidearms in the assembly, causing many in the peaceful assembly that witnessed this to fear these armed individuals were about to fire upon them." "At no time prior to the ambush was the assembly at the Lee Circle violent, there was no property destruction or any attempts to deface, destroy, damage the memorial or other public or private property," the suit states. Three plaintiffs -- Tagg, Gayler and Angel -- were tear-gassed, while the Blackwoods, who are married, were not, the suit alleges. The Blackwoods represent other protesters who may have left unscathed but witnessed police pointing guns and deploying tear gas. Tagg, who also was pepper-sprayed, stumbled across the street to get away from the officers, the suit alleges. Before being pepper-sprayed at close range, Tagg's eyes and mouth began to burn from the tear gas, resulting in him saying to nearby officers "I am leaving. Don't shoot me," the suit states. An officer then jogged toward Tagg and sprayed pepper spray in his face at close range, the suit claims. Next steps include identifying the unnamed officers, as the suit is directed at the individual officers and not the police department as a whole, Bodoh said. If Richmond police do not provide the names willingly, the law firm will ask the court to issue subpoenas and possibly dispositions to identify the officers, Bodoh said. "We want to hear the officers' side of the story," he said. "Why they think they were justified for the conduct that they did." Earlier in June, Thomas H. Roberts & Associates filed a civil lawsuit against unidentified officers on behalf of Jonathan Arthur, an attorney with the firm. Arthur, who attended the June 1 protest, was tear-gassed twice, according to the civil suit. At this time, the two cases remain separate, but they may be joined together, Bodoh said. Stoney announced on June 16 that he had asked for the police chief's resignation, three days after another incident at the Lee monument in which an officer driving a department SUV struck protesters blocking his path. Police deployed tear gas again on June 14 and June 15 nights at protesters who were gathered at police department headquarters. Police said they were attacked before using the tear gas, a claim disputed by protesters. This story has been updated to include a response from the Richmond Police Department. [GN] RITE AID: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Stafford Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Rite Aid Corporation filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Bryon Stafford, et al. v. Rite Aid Corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-01340-AJB-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Anthony J. Bataglia of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended complaint. Byron Stafford brings a potential class action against Rite Aid for an alleged price discrimination scheme involving Rite Aid's Rx Savings Program. The Rx Program, available to the general public, provides access to a significant price cut on certain generic drugs. Stafford alleges Rite Aid failed to report the Rx Program prices to insurers, where they would be used to calculate the co-pays that insured customers pay when they pick up a prescription--the "usual and customary" price. This failure, Stafford asserts, distorted the overall prescription calculations, resulting in higher copays. Based on this alleged scheme, Stafford brings claims for negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, as well as claims under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. The Defendant moves to dismiss Stafford's second amended complaint. Its motion to dismiss challenges many of Stafford's allegations regarding Rite Aid's allegedly unlawful two-tiered pricing scheme which caused Stafford and others to pay artificially inflated copayments for prescription drugs. The appellate case is captioned as Bryon Stafford, et al. v. Rite Aid Corporation, Case No. 20-55333, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant Rite Aid Corporation's opening brief is due on July 2, 2020; -- Appellee Bryon Stafford's answering brief is due on August 3, 2020; -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee BRYON STAFFORD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: George C. Aguilar, Esq. Steven M. McKany, Esq. ROBBINS LLP 5040 Shoreham Place San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 E-mail: gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com smckany@robbinsarroyo.com - and - Stuart Andrew Davidson, Esq. Mark J. Dearman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 E. Palmetto Park Road Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 E-mail: SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Robert Russell Henssler, Jr., Esq. David W. Mitchell, Esq. Brian Oliver O'Mara, Esq. Arthur Lewis Shingler, III, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 E-mail: bhenssler@rgrdlaw.com davidm@rgrdlaw.com bomara@rgrdlaw.com ashingler@rgrdlaw.com Defendant-Appellant RITE AID CORPORATION is represented by: Joseph H. Bias, Esq. Margret Lavin Flodeen, Esq. John Warren Rissier, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-7397 E-mail: joseph.bias@morganlewis.com margret.flodeen@morganlewis.com warren.rissier@morganlewis.com RUHNN HOLDINGS: Appeals N.Y. Sup. Decision in Lyu Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Ruhnn Holding Limited, et al., filed an appeal from the Decision and Order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, issued on April 22, 2020, in the matter styled JIANMING LYU, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RUHNN HOLDING LIMITED, MIN FENG, LEI SUN, CHAO SHEN, ZHENBO CHI, KE CHENG, SHEK YUEN TING, FENGCHUN JIN, SHANGZHEN LI, ZHENXING SHAO, PEN HUNG TUNG, JUNHONG QI, XIAOCAO XU, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., and UBS SECURITIES LLC, Case No. 655420/2019. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and those who purchased Ruhnn American Depositary Shares in or traceable to the Company's April 3, 2019 initial public offering, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement filed in connection with the IPO was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted material facts, and failed to make adequate disclosures required under the rules and regulations governing the preparation of such documents. The Plaintiff contends that the Registration Statement highlighted the dramatic growth in Ruhnn's net revenues derived from its full-service model, but failed to disclose that it had already shuttered almost 40% of its online stores in the fourth quarter of 2019, which ended March 31, 2019, and preceded the IPO. On August 8, 2019, Ruhnn ADSs closed at $3.42 per ADS, which price represented a 73% decline from the price at which Ruhnn ADSs had been sold to the investing public only four months earlier in the IPO. Plaintiff Jianming Lyu purchased Ruhnn ADSs directly in the IPO and has been damaged thereby, according to the complaint. Further, Defendants Citigroup Global Markets Inc., UBS Securities LLC, and Ruhnn Holding Limited move to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff Jianming Lyu opposes the motion. The motion is granted in part. In moving to dismiss because there was no material omission, Defendants rely on statements in the Offering Materials that purport to fully disclose the shift away from the full-service to the platform model. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is granted only to the extent that the section 12(a)(2) claim is dismissed against Ruhnn and the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further ORDERED that a preliminary conference will be held telephonically on June 3, 2020, and the parties shall submit their joint letter at least one week before. The appellate case is captioned as Jianming Lyu, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Ruhn Holding Limited, Min Feng, Lei Sun, Chao Shen, Zhenbo Chi, Ka Cheng, Shek Yuen Ting, Fengchun Jin, Shangzhen Li, Zhenxing Shao, Pen Hung Tung, Junhong Qi, Xiaocao Xu, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., and UBS Securities LLC, Case No. 2020-02555, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division: First Judicial Department.[BN] Plaintiff JIANMING LYU, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mark T. Millkey, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mmillkey@rgrdlaw.com - and - Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 674-4674 E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - Kenneth J. Black, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 E-mail: kblack@rgrdlaw.com - and - Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 40 Powder Springs Street Marietta, GA 30064 Telephone: (470) 632-6000 E-mail: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com Defendants-Appellants Ruhnn Holding Limited and Xiaocao Xu are represented by: George S. Wang, Esq. Shannon K. McGovern, Esq. Eamonn W. Campbell, Esq. Stephanie L. Hon, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Ave. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 455-2000 Facsimile: (212) 455-2502 E-mail: gwang@stblaw.com smcgovern@stblaw.com eamonn.campbell@stblaw.com stephanie.hon@stblaw.com Defendants-Appellants Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and UBS Securities LLC are represented by: Jay B. Kasner, Esq. Scott D. Musoff, Esq. Mollie M. Kornreich, Esq. SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 735-3000 Facsimile: (212) 735-2000 E-mail: jay.kasner@skadden.com scott.musoff@skadden.com mollie.kornreich@skadden.com SCWORX CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 29 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on June 16 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. BIDU Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/baidu-inc-information-request-form?prid=7378&wire=1 DNK Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/phoenix-tree-holdings-limited-loss-form?prid=7378&wire=1 WORX Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/scworx-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=7378&wire=1 * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW * Baidu, Inc. (BIDU) BIDU Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 16, 2019 - April 7, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 22, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/baidu-inc-information-request-form?prid=7378&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Baidu, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Baidu's feed services were not in compliance with applicable Chinese regulatory standards; (ii) the foregoing noncompliance subjected the Company to a heightened risk of regulatory enforcement, including the removal or suspension of certain of Baidu's services and products; (iii) accordingly, the Company's revenues derived from online marketing services were unlikely to be sustainable; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 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 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 26, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/phoenix-tree-holdings-limited-loss-form?prid=7378&wire=1 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. SCWorx Corp. (WORX) WORX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 13, 2020 - April 17, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 29, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/scworx-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=7378&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, SCWorx Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose 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. 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 -- http://www.zlk.com-- 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 [GN] SHANG NOODLE: Fails to Provide Proper Pay to Chefs, Han Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- BAIGUANG HAN, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. SHANG NOODLE HOUSE INC d/b/a Shang Kitchen; ZHI ZHONG LIU a/k/a Zhizhong Liu, and SUMMER ZHANG a/k/a Summer Liu Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02266 (E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff BAIGUANG HAN, on behalf of himself as well as other employees similarly situated, against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL), arising from Defendants' various willfully and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices. Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. Shang Noodle House Inc., d/b/a Shang Kitchen, is a Chinese noodle restaurant located in Flushing, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 SOUTH CAROLINA: Baker Files Cert. Petition to Supreme Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Joshua Baker filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled Joshua Baker, Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Petitioner v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, et al., Case No. 19-1186. Joshua Baker is sued in his official capacity as Director of the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. Petitioner Joshua Baker petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case titled PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTH ATLANTIC; JULIE EDWARDS, on her behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. JOSHUA BAKER, in his official capacity as Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 18-2133. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the individual plaintiff, a Medicaid recipient, in her suit challenging South Carolina's decision to terminate Planned Parenthood South Atlantic's (PPSAT) provider agreement because it offers abortion services. The Plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of this claim, the district court held, for two interrelated reasons: first, the Medicaid Act's free-choice-of-provider provision, 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(23)(A), confers on "any individual" a private right to sue that may be enforced under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; and second, South Carolina denied plaintiff the right to select the willing, qualified family-planning provider of her choice. This dispute arose following South Carolina's termination of two Planned Parenthood centers as Medicaid providers. PPSAT operates two healthcare centers in South Carolina, one in Charleston and the other in Columbia. These centers provide a range of family planning and preventative care services, including physical exams, cancer screenings, contraceptive counseling, and pregnancy testing. For four decades, PPSAT has been a South Carolina Medicaid provider that receives reimbursements for care provided to Medicaid beneficiaries. In recent years, PPSAT's South Carolina centers have treated hundreds of patients insured through Medicaid annually. In July 2018, South Carolina's Department of Health and Human Services (SCDHHS) terminated PPSAT's Medicaid provider agreement. SCDHHS did not contend that PPSAT was providing subpar service to its Medicaid patients, or to any other patients. Instead, PPSAT was terminated solely because it performed abortions outside of the Medicaid program. According to SCDHHS, PPSAT's termination was part of a plan by Governor Henry McMaster designed to prevent the state from indirectly subsidizing abortion services. In 1995, the South Carolina legislature passed a law preventing state funds appropriated for family planning services from being used to fund abortions. On July 27, 2018, PPSAT and the individual plaintiff filed suit in federal district court in South Carolina against Joshua Baker, in his official capacity as Director of SCDHHS. The individual plaintiff brought suit on her own behalf and that of a purported class of South Carolina Medicaid beneficiaries who received, or would like to receive, healthcare services at PPSAT. Plaintiffs brought this action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief on the grounds that SCDHHS violated their rights under the Medicaid Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. On July 30, plaintiffs filed for preliminary injunctive relief solely on the basis of their Medicaid Act claims. The district court held hearings on plaintiffs' motion on August 23. In their complaint and at the hearing, plaintiffs argued that the Medicaid Act's free-choice-of-provider provision confers on recipients a private right, to use the qualified and willing provider of their choice, and that South Carolina violated this right when it terminated PPSAT for reasons unrelated to its professional competence to provide medical services. The District Court agreed with the Plaintiffs and granted a preliminary injunction on August 28, 2018. Because the district court held that injunctive relief was appropriate based on the individual plaintiffs Medicaid Act claim alone, it did not analyze PPSAT's Medicaid Act claim. Because the individual plaintiff has a private right of action to challenge South Carolina's denial of her right to the qualified and willing family-planning provider of her choice, the Court of Appeals agree with the district court that she has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on her free-choice-of-provider claim. They also hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in enjoining South Carolina from terminating PPSAT's provider agreement.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner Joshua Baker is represented by: John J. Bursch, Esq. BURSCH LAW PLLC 9339 Cherry Valley SE, #78 Caledonia, MI 49316 E-mail: jbursch@burschlaw.com SUMMIT BANK: Denise M Henning Files Suit in Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Summit Bank. The case is styled as Denise M. Henning, CPA, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Summit Bank and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00899-MPK (W.D. Pa., June 17, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other filed pursuant to the Diversity-Other Contract. Summit Bank is Oregon's Business Bank, meeting the banking needs of businesses and professionals in Eugene, Portland, and Bend, Oregon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. Golomb & Honik, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 985-9177 Fax: (215) 985-4169 Email: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com TOWNSQUARE MEDIA: Portnoy Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises Townsquare Media, Inc. (NYSE: TSQ) investors that the firm has initiated an investigation into alleged violations of securities laws, and may file a lawsuit on behalf of investors to recover losses suffered by investors. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone 310-692-8883 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, including eligibility for appointment as a class representative. The investigation focuses on whether Townsquare Media misled investors regarding its compliance with proper accounting practices. On June 9, 2020, Townsquare Media disclosed that it would report an impairment charge of approximately $39.4 million for its licenses and an impairment charge of approximately $69.0 million for its goodwill. The Company also announced that certain financial statements for fiscal years 2017, 2018 and 2019 should no longer be relied upon and would be restated due to an error "in the projected cash flows that were utilized in [its] valuation model." On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.20, or nearly 19%, to close at $5.28 per share on June 9, 2020, thereby injuring investors. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm -- http://www.portnoylaw.com-- represents investors from around the world and specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights litigation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 [GN] TRUIST FINANCIAL CORP: Trepeta Alleges Violation of TCPA -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Truist Financial Corporation. The case is styled as Robert Trepeta, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Truist Financial Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00443-DJN (E.D. Va., June 16, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Truist Financial Corporation is an American bank holding company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. The company was formed in December 2019 as the result of the merger of BB&T and SunTrust Banks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew James Erausquin, Esq. Consumer Litgation Associates PC (Alex) 1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22314 Tel: (703) 273-7770 Fax: (888) 892-3513 Email: matt@clalegal.com ULTRA ENTERPRISES: Brooks Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marcy Brooks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ultra Enterprises Inc., Defendant, was transferred from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court with the assigned Case No. 20-010655-CA-01 to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on June 17, 2020, and assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-22495-JEM. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other, and Diversity-Notice of Removal as the cause for filing. Ultra Enterprises Inc. is an education management company based out of United Kingdom.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus W. Corwin, Esq. 6001 Broken Sound Parkway, N.W., Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33487-2754 Tel: (561) 482-3636 Fax: (561) 482-5414 Email: mcorwin@corwinlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel Brandon Rogers, Esq. Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP 201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3200 Miami, FL 33131-4332 Tel: (305) 358-5171 Fax: (305) 358-7470 Email: drogers@shb.com - and - Katherine Grace Mastrucci, Esq. Shook, Hardy and Bacon LLP 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 3200 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 358-5171 Email: kmastrucci@shb.com - and - Hildy M. Sastre, Esq. Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. 201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3200 Miami, FL 33131-4332 Tel: (305) 358-5171 Fax: 358-7470 Email: hsastre@shb.com UNITEDLEX PROFESSIONAL: Underpays Project Attorneys, Cook Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHASE COOK, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITEDLEX PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02250 (D. Kan., May 19, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Project Attorney from on or about October 2018 through on or about February 2020 at Defendant's office located in Overland Park, Kansas. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the other similarly situated Project Attorneys routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. However, Defendant paid them for the hours they worked in excess of 40 per week at their regular rate of pay only, rather than at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. Allegedly, Defendant erroneously relied on the FLSA's bona fide professional exemption to overtime pay. Unitedlex Professional Services, LLC provides consulting and litigation support services to law firms and corporate legal departments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brendan J. Donelon, Esq. DONELON, P.C. 4600 Madison, Suite 810 Kansas City, MO 64112 Tel: (816) 221-7100 Fax: (816) 709-1044 Email: brendan@donelonpc.com - and - Daniel W. Craig, Esq. DONELON, P.C. 6642 Clayton Rd., #320 St. Louis, MO 63117 Tel: (314) 297-8385 Fax: (816) 709-1044 Email: dan@donelonpc.com WALL & ASSOCIATES: Vandermast Suit Transferred to W.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Bridget Vandermast, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wall & Associates, Inc., Defendant, was transferred from the New York Supreme Court Niagara County with the assigned Case No. E168480/2019 to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (Buffalo) on June 16, 2020, and assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00736. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other filed pursuant to Diversity-Fraud. Wall & Associates, Inc. is an administrative tax representation firm.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. The Defendant is represented by: Paul G. Joyce, Esq. Colucci & Gallaher, P.C. 2000 Liberty Building 424 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202-3695 Tel: (716) 853-6509 Fax: (716) 854-4070 Email: pjoyce@colucci-gallaher.com WALMART INC: Espinoza Voluntarily Dismisses Suit ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Guillermo Espinoza, individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Walmart Inc., Green Dot and Green Dot Bank, doing business as: Bonneville Bank, Defendants, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California with the assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01972 to the U.S. District Court of Utah (Central) on June 17, 2020, and assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00383-DBB. On June 18, the case was dismissed per Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiff Guillermo Espinoza. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other with Diversity as cause of filing. Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. The company was founded by Sam Walton in 1962 and incorporated on October 31, 1969.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Alan Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 321 N MALL DR STE R108 ST GEORGE, UT 84790 Tel: (800) 400-6808 Email: jason@kazlg.com WALMART INC: Ortiz Labor Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON ORTIZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. WALMART, INC.; WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.; WALMART FULFILLMENT CENTER; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV10378 (Filed March 16, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 8, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-05052 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims for alleged violations of the California Labor Code for failure to pay all hours worked at the legal minimum wage and failure to pay overtime wages. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Robert J. Herrington, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 586-7700 Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 E-mail: herringtonr@gtlaw.com WAWA: Class Action Veterans to Lead Data Breach Mass Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Max Mitchell, writing for Law.com, reports that lawyers who've been involved in a range of class actions, from the Equifax and Capital One data breach cases to drug marketing litigation, have been selected to lead a mass action against the regional convenience store chain Wawa. U.S. District Judge Gene Pratter of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 12 selected nine attorneys from Pennsylvania and New York to act as co-lead, class and liaison counsel in the proposed class action lawsuit over the hack announced late last year that exposed payment card information from Wawa users at potentially all of the company's locations. The leaders are set to handle three tranches of litigation: one brought by consumers, another from financial institutions, and the last involving employees. Specifically, Pratter appointed Sherrie Savett -- ssavett@bm.net -- of Berger Montague; Roberta Liebenberg of Fine, Kaplan and Black; Benjamin Johns -- BFJ@chimicles.com -- of Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith; and Linda Nussbaum -- lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com -- of Nussbaum Law Group as interim co-lead counsel for the consumer class action cases. For the lawsuits brought by financial institutions, the judge appointed Gary Lynch -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- of Carlson Lynch; Christian Levis -- clevis@lowey.com -- of Lowey Dannenberg; and Jeannine Kenney -- jkenney@hausfeld.com -- of Hausfeld as interim class counsel, with Mindee Reuben -- mreuben@litedepalma.com -- of Lite DePalma Greenberg also being appointed as interim liaison counsel for that group. Pratter also appointed Donald Haviland of Haviland Hughes as interim class counsel for the employee plaintiffs. According to Pratter, with the appointments, the attorneys are now tasked with developing and performing the discovery, coordinating meetings and calls, examining witnesses and acting as the primary point of contact between the parties and the court. Pratter also said the attorneys could apply for long-term leadership positions as well. "The main criteria for such leadership will be willingness and availability to commit to a time-consuming project, ability to work cooperatively with others, professional experience in this type of litigation, and access to sufficient resources to prosecute the litigation in a timely manner," Pratter said. The appointment settles a dispute that had arisen between several firms over who should lead the class action. In early January, Johns and Savett filed motions in the cases asking the court to consolidate the proposed class actions and have them appointed as lead counsel. The motions also asked the court to appoint attorneys from Ahdoot & Wolfson in Los Angeles; Federman & Sherwood in Oklahoma City; Philadelphia-based Kohn Swift & Graf; and New York-based firms Stull, Stull & Brody and Milberg Phillips Grossman. Nussbaum, however, filed a response, saying the request by Johns and Savett was "premature" and that she also planned to move to be appointed lead counsel. The first lawsuits over the data breach began to be filed Dec. 20 -- the day after Wawa's CEO said in an open letter there had been a breach of the company card payment data. According to the letter, malware that had been active since March was discovered Dec. 10, and the company contained it by Dec. 12. The letter said the malware potentially exposed payment card information from customers at all Wawa locations, including credit and debit card numbers, expiration dates and names. Attorneys said they appreciated being appointed to the position. "We are pleased with the court's order, and look forward to moving the case forward on behalf of the consumer plaintiffs," Johns said. In a statement published online, Kenney said, "I am honored to be serving with such talented co-counsel and look forward to obtaining relief for credit unions and other financial institutions injured by this data breach." Lynch and Reuben both declined to comment and Savett, Liebenberg, Nussbam, Levis and Haviland did not return a call seeking comment. [GN] WESTWARD MANAGEMENT: Channon Suit Remanded to State Court --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Andrea R. Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, remanded the case, HARRY CHANNON and DAWN CHANNON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated Plaintiffs, v. WESTWARD MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-05522 (N.D. Ill.), to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The Channons brought the putative class action against Westward, alleging that Westward violated the Illinois Condominium Property Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, by charging fees for condominium owners looking to sell their properties to obtain documents that Illinois law requires them to provide prospective buyers. The action was originally filed in Illinois state court but Westward removed it to the Illinois District Court. On April 16, 2019, the Channons filed their complaint against Westward in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division. They attempted to serve Westward on May 7, 2019 with the assistance of the Cook County Sheriff's Office, which left a copy of the summons and complaint at the Chicago address listed for Westward's registered agent. A Westward employee working at the reception desk, Laz Estrada, accepted service. In July 2019, Westward retained counsel. One of Westward's attorneys, Krista Stoumbos, emailed the Channons' attorney, Terrie Sullivan, on July 9 to inform her that Stoumbos had been assigned to the matter. Sullivan responded by informing Stoumbos that she wanted to schedule a phone call to discuss the case. The attorneys scheduled a call for the next day, July 10. During that call, Sullivan asked when Westward's counsel would be filing an appearance in the matter. Stoumbos responded that she would be filing an appearance in the next week and indicated that she would need additional time to answer or otherwise plead on behalf of her client. In a follow-up email confirming the substance of their call, Sullivan also attached an appearance filed by her co-counsel in the matter, Liz Al-Dajani. Sullivan and Stoumbos spoke again on July 18, 2019 when they ran into each other at court after a hearing in a different matter. Sullivan asked Stoumbos whether she had filed an appearance in the present action, and Stoumbos replied that she had not because she was waiting for authorization from her client. The next day, or 72 days after service was delivered at the address listed for Westward's registered agent, the Channons moved for default judgment due to Westward's failure to appear or file a responsive pleading. On July 25, Westward filed a motion to quash service of process. In its motion, Westward argued that service was ineffective because the Westward employee who accepted service was not authorized to do so. Included as exhibits to the motion were two declarations, one from Estrada and one from David Westveer, Westward's registered agent. Westveer stated in his declaration that he never received a copy of the summons and complaint. And while Estrada acknowledged receiving the summons and complaint on May 7, he stated that he did not give Westveer those documents on that day. At the default judgment hearing on July 29, 2019, Westward's counsel agreed to accept service in open court and withdrew Westward's motion to quash. In exchange, the Channons withdrew their motion for default judgment. However, the Channons did not concede that the initial May 7 service was improper. The Agreed Order entered that day stated that the Defendant's counsel to accept service of process as of July 29, 2019. Furthermore, the order gave Westward until Aug. 28, 2019, to file a responsive pleading. Instead of filing a responsive pleading, Westward filed a notice of removal to the Illinois District Court on August 15 under the Class Action Fairness Act. The Channons argue that the action must be remanded to state court for three reasons. First, they contend that Westward's notice of removal was untimely because it was filed 102 days after Westward received a copy of the summons and complaint. Second, the Channons argue that Westward engaged in conduct that evinced an intent to litigate the action in state court and therefore waived its right to remove. Finally, the Channons argue that the District Court lacks diversity jurisdiction under CAFA because Westward is a citizen of illinois. While the Channons contest the removability of the action, Judge Wood finds that they do not contend that Al-Dajani's appearance supplies any grounds for removal not present in the complaint. Nor does Westward contend that its basis for removal comes from any document other than the complaint. Indeed, Westward's notice of removal cites only the complaint in arguing the propriety of removal. Because the Channons do not include the appearance itself but only the email attaching the appearance as an exhibit to their motion, the Judge cannot discern whether the appearance provided any new facts putting Westward on notice that the complaint was removable. Consequently, Westward's receipt of Al-Dajani's appearance did not serve to trigger its time for removal. As of July 10, the removal clock had not yet begun to run. Next, after accepting service, Westward took no further action before the state court and instead filed its notice of removal just two weeks later. The Judge is not persuaded by the Channons' claim that Westward's request for leave to file a responsive pleading on or before Aug. 28, 2019, was a representation to the state court that Westward would be litigating the action there. Rather, Westward simply made a routine scheduling request and, presumably, used that time to consider its options. What matters is that Westward ultimately did not file a responsive pleading before the state court but instead timely removed to the District Court. Thus, the Judge concludes that Westward did not take any action that showed an intent to litigate the matter in state court. For that reason, the action cannot be remanded based on Westward's purported waiver of its right to remove. Finally, Westward has the burden to come forward with competent proof to persuade the District Court by a preponderance of the evidence that its principal place of business is in Denver rather than Chicago. Yet Westward tries to carry its burden with four declarations that leave open ample room for the District Court to doubt that there is minimal diversity between the parties. Because that doubt must be construed in favor of the Channons' chosen forum, the Judge finds that the District Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the suit and remands the action to state court. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wood granted the Channons' motion to remand. The action is remanded to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 13, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/IhcAiP from Leagle.com. Harry Channon & Dawn Channon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jeffrey Charles Blumenthal -- jeffrey@jcblawyer.com -- Law Office of Jeffrey C Blumenthal, Elizabeth M. Al-Dajani -- ealdajani@kerkoniandajani.com -- Kerkonian Dajani LLC, Michael David Richman -- michael@jcblawyer.com -- Jeffrey C. Blumenthal Chartered & Terrie Sullivan -- terrie@jcblawyer.com -- Jeffrey C. Blumenthal Chartered. Westward Management, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian James Riordan -- briordan@clausen.com -- Clausen Miller P.C., James Michael Weck, Clausen Miller PC & Krista Marie Stoumbos -- KStoumbos@clausen.com -- Clausen Miller P.C. WILLIS TOWERS: Misled Stockholders on Merger Deal, Carter Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIS TOWERS WATSON PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, VICTOR F. GANZI, JOHN J. HALEY, ANNA C. CATALANO, WENDY E. LANE, BRENDAN R. O'NEILL, JAYMIN B. PATEL, LINDA D. RABBITT, PAUL THOMAS and WILHELM ZELLER, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03865 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly-situated public holders of the common stock of Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company, alleges that the Defendants filed a materially incomplete and misleading Form PREM14A Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission in order to convince Willis Towers shareholders, including the Plaintiff, to vote in favor of the proposed merger between Willis Towers and Aon PLC. In particular, the proxy statement contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the financial projections for Willis Towers that were prepared by the company and relied on by Defendants in recommending that Willis Towers shareholders vote in favor of the proposed transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by Willis Towers' financial advisor, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC in support of its opinion that the merger consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the Board relied. The Plaintiff claims that the material information that has been omitted from the proxy statement should be disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to allow the shareholders to make an informed decision regarding the proposed transaction. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from holding the shareholder vote on the proposed merger and taking any steps to consummate the transaction unless, and until, the omitted material information is disclosed. AON announced in March this year that it would buy Willis Towers Watson Plc for nearly $30 billion, in an all-stock deal. According to Reuters, the deal will make the combined company the world's biggest insurance broker and give it more pricing power, but also attract regulatory scrutiny. The acquisition, the insurance sector's largest ever, unifies the second and third largest brokers globally into a company worth almost $80 billion, overtaking market leader Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc., Reuters said. The report noted Aon had scrapped plans last year to pursue a merger with Willis, a day after media reports forced it to reveal it was in the early stages of considering an all-stock offer for the Irish-domiciled company. The merger agreement came right after a 12-month restriction under Irish rules for revisiting the deal expired. Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company is a global advisory, broking and solutions company with its principal executive offices located at 51 Lime Street, London, England. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com YGRENE ENERGY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Woolley Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs George W. Woolley, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in their lawsuit entitled George Woolley, et al. v. Ygrene Energy Fund, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01258-LB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of a national class and California and Florida subclasses, sue Ygrene Energy for fraud relating to home-improvement loans. The appellate case is captioned as George Woolley, et al. v. Ygrene Energy Fund, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-80088, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners GEORGE W. WOOLLEY, TAMMY S. WOOLLEY, ANTHONY LOOK, Jr., KIMBERLY LOOK, ALEJANDRO MARCEY, and FELICIA MARCEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jaclyn L. Anderson, Esq. Graham B. LippSmith, Esq. KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP 360 East 2nd Street, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 254-480 E-mail: janderson@klwtlaw.com glippsmith@klwtlaw.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 615-3948 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com Defendants-Respondents YGRENE ENERGY FUND, INC. and YGRENE ENERGY FUND FLORIDA, LLC are represented by: Ali Abugheida, Esq. Fredrick S. Levin, Esq. Michael Rome, Esq. BUCKLEY LLP 100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 424-3900 E-mail: aabugheida@buckleyfirm.com flevin@buckleyfirm.com mrome@buckleyfirm.com ZURN INDUSTRIES: Hopler Sues Over Defective QickClamp Crimp Rings ----------------------------------------------------------------- GLENN HOPLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZURN INDUSTRIES, LLC, REXNORD LLC, and REXNORD CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00754-NJ (E.D. Wis., May 19, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged breach of implied warranty and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff has purchased hundreds of Zurn QickClamp Crimp Rings through Plaintiff's licensed plumber who he had contracted to help him build his house. According to the complaint, approximately two years after the Zurn QickClamp Crimp Rings were installed by the plumber, it started to burst causing leakage. Consequently, Plaintiff was forced to shut off the water in entire sections of his house, and has spent over $100,000 to repair the damage which significantly decreased the value of Plaintiff's home and essentially prevented Plaintiff from selling it. Moreover, Plaintiff filed a product claim with Defendant regarding the property damage due to its defective QickClamps. However, Defendant denied that there was any defect in the clamps. Zurn Industries, LLC, Rexnord LLC, and Rexnord Corp. manufacture and sell plumbing products and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 7th Avenue New York, NY 10019 Tel: (646) 837-7150 Fax: (212) 989-9163 Email: jmarchese@buursor.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***