/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200630.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 30, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 130 Headlines ACER THERAPEUTICS: Must Face Class Suit Commenced by Skiadas AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Arif Suit Moved From S.D. Florida to D.D.C. ANGI HOMESERVICES: Suit vs. HomeAdvisor Inc. Ongoing AQUIS INC: Cruz Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act AVEDA CORP: Cota Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act BAILEY 44 LLC: Cota Alleges Violation under ADA in California BARCLAYS CAPITAL: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Bigsby Suit BEAUTY CHEF INC: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA in New York BELLRING BRANDS: Suit Against Premier Nutrition Ongoing BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Shareholders' Class Suit Underway BUMBLE BEE: Loses Appeal in Tuna Price-Fixing Class Action CAINE & WEINER: Volynsky Alleges Violation under FDCPA CAMPING WORLD: Court Narrows Claims in IUOE Suit CAMPING WORLD: Geis Class Action Remains Stayed CAMPING WORLD: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for August 5 CANADA: AG Faces Class Action Over Maurice Cloughley Sexual Abuse CANTON, OH: Ohio Northern District Dismisses Roth Civil Rights Suit CAR AROMA: Garcia Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under Labor Code CARNAGIO ENTERPRISES: American Family Files Suit in Illinois CARNIVAL CORP: Portnoy Says Investors Can Seek Recovery of Losses CASPER SLEEP: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing CASPER SLEEP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTIC: Portnoy Law Firm Probes Securities Fraud CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Lowey Dannenberg Files Class Action CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Dr Clark Thomas Files Suit in Alabama CLAIRE'S BOUTIQUES: Duncan Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California CLOUDERA INC: Motion for Class Action Lead Plaintiff Unopposed CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action CONDUENT INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action Denied CONN'S INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 14 Deadline CONSTANT CONTACT: $13-Mil. Deal in McGee Case Wins Final Okay COOKWARE COMPANY: Judge Tosses Most of Frying Plan Class Action D & A SERVICES: Kahn Files Suit under FDCPA in New York DANA MOTORS LTD: Boreham Files Suit in New York DERMADOCTOR LLC: Cruz Asserts Breach of ADA DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Fisher Files Suit in California DPS LAND: Raptis Suit Seeks to Certify Landmen Class DUTTON RANCH: Bid for Prelim. Certification in Hernandez Granted E.L.F. COSMETICS: Cota Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act ENDO INT'L: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Violations ENPHASE ENERGY: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims ENPHASE ENERGY: Hagens Berman Invites Investors with $150K+ Losses ENPHASE ENERGY: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing EQUITRANS MIDSTREAM: Rose Seeks to Certify Inspectors Class FLORISSANT, MO: Baker Suit Seeks to Certify Classes GENERAL MOTORS: Court Junks Second Amended Complaint in Gaines GOOBA INC: Sosa Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act GOOGLE INC: Plans to Contest California BIPA Class Action HAMILTON BEACH: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 21 Deadline HEALTH INSURANCE: Keippel Suit Seeks to Certify Stockholder Class HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline HONEYWELL INT'L: Class Action Moves Forward in New Jersey Court IQVIA INC: Lyngaas PLLC Seeks to Certify TCPA Class JOURNEYS: Cota Files Suit in California under ADA JRCIGARS.COM: Rodriguez Asserts Breach of ADA JUUL LABS: Bautista-Perez Seeks Class Certification of FLSA Suit KENTUCKY: Court Dismisses T. Jackson's Inmates Complaint LOCAL CPAP NEW YORK: Sosa Files ADA Suit in New York LYFT INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suits MATTERPORT INC: Stemmelin Files Suit in California MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Oleson Suit MINTED INC: Faces CCPA Class Action in Calif. Over Data Breach MITOUSHI SUSHI: Rotari Class Suit Gets Partial Prelim Certification MOTT & BOW INC: Slade Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act MUDRICK CAPITAL: Hycroft Warrant Holder's Bid to Dismiss Pending NANTHEALTH INC: Awaits Final Approval of $16.5MM Settlement NATERA INC: TCPA Class Suit Ongoing in California Court NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Another Antitrust Class Action NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Torres Filed in Gulino Bias Suit NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Willoughby Filed in Gulino Bias Suit NEW YORK: NYPD Sued for Violating Bail Reform Laws on DUIs NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal v. Buie Filed in Gulino Bias Suit NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Masri Files FDCPA Suit in New York O'NEILL WETSUITS: Cota Files Suit in California Under ADA O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Dismissal of Courtright Suit Partly Reversed ORGANIFI LLC: Liou Suit Removed From Super. Court to S.D. Calif. ORLANS PC: Wins Dismissal of Suit Over Debt Collection Protocol PARTSBASE INC: Cond. Cert. of FLSA Collective Sought in Sullivan PAT MCGRATH COSMETICS: Sosa Asserts Breach of ADA in New York PENNSYLVANIA DOH: Gill's Bid to Certify Class Denied PROASSURANCE CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action PROASSURANCE CORP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Morgan Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH: Gregg Medicare Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. PUMA NORTH AMERICA: Cota Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act REA.DEEMING BEAUTY: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA RESURGENT CAPITAL: Moncada Files Suit for Breach of FDCPA RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Miller Class Suit Pending ROLYN STUDIO LLC: Cruz Asserts Breach of ADA in New York RUSHMORE LOAN: Maryland Dist. Narrows Claims in Flournoy FDCPA Suit SAGINAW, MA: Judge Dismisses 'Taylor' Parking Class Action SAMS WHOLESALE: Granada Insurance Co Files Suit in Florida SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Class Settlement Gets Prelim. OK in Romero SHEIN FASHION: Conner Alleges Violation under ADA SILVERSTREAK SOLUTIONS: Hensley Files TCPA Suit in California SIROB IMPORTS: Ruling on Final Settlement Approval Pending SOLAR TURBINES: Diaz Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif. STANWELL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Abuse of Market Power SUBARU OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of Powell Class Action UBER TECHNOLOGIES: James Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers UNITED STATES OIL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline UNITED STATES: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Ms. JP Suit UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Dixon Files Suit in Florida VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Gordon Class Suit Pending VIVINT SOLAR: $975,000 Settlement in TCPA Suit Wins Final Approval WELLS FARGO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 3 Deadline WESLEY FINANCIAL: Class Certification Bid in Burgess Case Denied WESTERN DIGITAL: Hattis & Lukacs Amends SMR Class Action WIRECARD AG: Hagens Berman Appointed Lead Counsel in Class Action XPO LOGISTICS: Aug. 31 Hearing on Alvarez, et al. Class Cert. Bid XPRESSION OF AWARENESS: Dhesi Suit Seeks to Certify Class [*] Australia Announces Inquiry Into Class Action Industry [*] Companies Face "Piggyback" Class Action Risk Amid COVID-19 [*] Consumer Class Actions Target Dietary Supplement Industry [*] Gross Law Announces Shareholder Class Actions ********* ACER THERAPEUTICS: Must Face Class Suit Commenced by Skiadas ------------------------------------------------------------ David McAfee, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Acer Therapeutics Inc., a small biotechnology company, must face most claims in a securities class action brought by purchasers of Acer securities who say the company made materially false and misleading statements regarding interactions with the FDA for a new drug. Lead plaintiff Nicholas Skiadas alleges that Acer, its founder, and its chief financial officer misled investors about what the FDA had "agreed to" in a September 2015 meeting regarding the status of Edsivo, which Acer hoped would become the first FDA-approved drug to successfully treat Vascular Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome. The FDA ultimately rejected Acer's new drug application. [GN] AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Arif Suit Moved From S.D. Florida to D.D.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as DANISH ARIF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 0:20-cv-60902 (Filed May 4, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington) on June 12, 2020. The District of Columbia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01555-JDB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John D. Bates. The case is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all people, who paid tuition and other fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at American, and who, because of the Defendant's response to COVID-19 pandemic, lost the benefit of the education for which they paid, without having their tuition and some other fees refunded to them. Mr. Arif is an undergraduate student at American pursuing a bachelor's degree in economics and a minor in finance. He paid $8,994.50 in tuition and fees to the Defendant for the Spring 2020 semester, including tuition for a cross-fit class that he can no longer participate in. Defendant American University is a private research university with its principal place of business at 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, in Washington, DC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah Nicole Westcot, Esq. Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 220 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: scott@bursor.com swestcot@bursor.com The Defendant is represented by: Danielle Yvette Conley, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 663-6006 E-mail: danielle.conley@wilmerhale.com ANGI HOMESERVICES: Suit vs. HomeAdvisor Inc. Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- ANGI Homeservices Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that HomeAdvisor Inc., continues to defend a purported class action suit entitled, In re HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation. A purported class action pending in Colorado entitled, Airquip, Inc. et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. l:16-cv-1849 and Costello et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-1802, both filed in U.S. District Court in Colorado and consolidated under the caption In re HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation. This lawsuit alleges that the company's HomeAdvisor business engages in certain deceptive practices affecting the service professionals who join its network, including charging them for substandard customer leads or failing to disclose certain charges. There have been no material or otherwise noteworthy developments in this case since the filing of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them. ANGI Homeservices Inc. operates a digital marketplace for home services, connecting millions of homeowners with home service professionals in North America and Europe. The company was formerly known as Halo TopCo, Inc. and changed its name to ANGI Homeservices Inc. in May 2017. ANGI Homeservices Inc. was incorporated in 2017 and is headquartered in Golden, Colorado. ANGI Homeservices Inc. is a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp. AQUIS INC: Cruz Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Aquis Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aquis Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04816 (S.D. N.Y., June 23, 2020). Aquis is a San Francisco-based beauty tool manufacturer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal AVEDA CORP: Cota Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act --------------------------------------------------------- Aveda Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aveda Corporation, a Minnesota corporation and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01137-BEN-BGS (S.D. Cal., June 23, 2020). Aveda Corporation is an American cosmetics company founded by Horst Rechelbacher, now owned by Estee Lauder Companies, and headquartered in the Minneapolis suburb of Blaine, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Wilshire Law Firm 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 381-9988 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com BAILEY 44 LLC: Cota Alleges Violation under ADA in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Bailey 44, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bailey 44, LLC, a California corporation and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01138-BEN-WVG (S.D. Cal., June 23, 2020). Bailey 44, LLC is located in Vernon, CA, United States and is part of the Women's Clothing Manufacturing Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Wilshire Law Firm 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 381-9988 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com BARCLAYS CAPITAL: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Bigsby Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Lamar Bigsby, Jr., Herman Grimes and Kathleen Murry filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion & Order issued on October 22, 2019, in their lawsuit entitled Bigsby, et al. v. Barclays Capital Real Estate, Inc., DBA Homeq Servicing Corporation, Case No. 14-cv-1398, 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 are mortgagors, who filed the putative class action against BCREI, in its capacity as successor to a mortgage-servicing company known as HomEq Servicing Corp. ("HomEq"). HomEq collected on home loans on behalf of mortgage-note holders, who were typically trustees and beneficiaries of securitized loans. BCREI acquired HomEq in 2006. The appellate case is captioned as Bigsby, et al. v. Barclays Capital Real Estate, Inc., DBA Homeq Servicing Corporation, Case No. 19-3912, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Lamar Bigsby, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Herman Grimes and Kathleen Murry are represented by: Paul Stuart Grobman, Esq. 555 5th Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: 212-983-5880 Defendant-Appellee Barclays Capital Real Estate, Inc., DBA Homeq Servicing Corporation, is represented by: James E. Brandt, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 885 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: 212-906-1200 E-mail: james.brandt@lw.com BEAUTY CHEF INC: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- The Beauty Chef Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Beauty Chef Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04818 (S.D. N.Y., June 23, 2020). The Beauty Chef Inc. offers Bio-fermented, wholefood nutrition with prebiotics & probiotics for a healthy gut and glowing skin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal BELLRING BRANDS: Suit Against Premier Nutrition Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Bellring Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that Premier Nutrition Company, LLC, continues to defend the so-called Joint Juice Litigation. In March 2013, a complaint was filed on behalf of a putative, nationwide class of consumers against Premier Nutrition Company, LLC (as successor to Premier Nutrition Corporation, "Premier Nutrition") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. The case asserted that some of Premier Nutrition's advertising claims regarding its Joint Juice(R) line of glucosamine and chondroitin dietary supplements were false and misleading. In April 2016, the district court certified a California-only class of consumers in this lawsuit (this lawsuit is hereinafter referred to as the "California Federal Class Lawsuit"). In 2016 and 2017, the lead plaintiff's counsel in the California Federal Class Lawsuit filed ten additional class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of putative classes of consumers under the laws of Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania. These additional complaints contain factual allegations similar to the California Federal Class Lawsuit, also seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. In April 2018, the district court dismissed the California Federal Class Lawsuit with prejudice. This dismissal was appealed and is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The other ten complaints remain pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the court has certified individual state classes in each of those cases. In January 2019, the same lead counsel filed another class action complaint against Premier Nutrition in Alameda County California Superior Court, alleging claims similar to the above actions and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class of California consumers. The Company continues to vigorously defend these cases. Bellring said, "The Company does not believe that the resolution of these cases will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Bellring Brands, Inc. manufactures food supplements. The Company produces nutritional items such as protein shakes, powders, and bars. Bellring Brands serves customers in the State of Missouri. The company is based in St. Louis, Missouri. BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Shareholders' Class Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------- Biglari Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated shareholders class action suit related to the company's alleged dual class structure. On January 29, 2018, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported class action complaint against the Company and the members of its Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton County, Indiana. The shareholder generally alleges claims of breach of fiduciary duty by the members of its Board of Directors and unjust enrichment to Sardar Biglari as a result of the dual class structure. On March 26, 2018, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported class action complaint against the Company and the members of its Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton County, Indiana. This shareholder generally alleges claims of breach of fiduciary duty by the members of our Board of Directors. This shareholder sought to enjoin the shareholder vote on April 26, 2018 to approve the dual class structure. On April 16, 2018, the shareholder withdrew the motion to enjoin the shareholder vote on April 26, 2018. On May 17, 2018, the shareholders who filed the January 29, 2018 complaint and the March 26, 2018 complaint filed a new, consolidated complaint against the Company and the members of its Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton County, Indiana. The shareholders generally allege claims of breach of fiduciary duty by the members of its Board of Directors and unjust enrichment to Mr. Biglari arising out of the dual class structure, including the ability to vote the Company's shares that are eliminated for financial reporting purposes. The shareholders seek, for themselves and on behalf of all other shareholders as a class, a declaration that the defendants breached their duty to the shareholders and the class, and to recover unspecified damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and an award of their attorneys' fees and other costs. Biglari Holdings Inc., through its subsidiaries, primarily operates and franchises restaurants in the United States. The company owns, operates, and franchises restaurants under the Steak n Shake and Western Sizzlin names. The company was formerly known as The Steak n Shake Company and changed its name to Biglari Holdings Inc. in April 2010. Biglari Holdings Inc. was founded in 1934 and is based in San Antonio, Texas. BUMBLE BEE: Loses Appeal in Tuna Price-Fixing Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Cliff White, writing for SeafoodSource, reports that the "Big Three" U.S. tuna companies being sued by their customers for price-fixing have had an emergency appeal denied, which would have halted the civil case against them while they disputed the class certifications in the suit. In a 2-1 decision on June 15, a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against granting a stay in the proceedings requested by Bumble Bee Foods, StarKist, and Chicken of the Sea. The three circuit judges involved in the ruling unanimously agreed to expedite the appeal and made their ruling in an expedited manner. The request from the tuna companies was previously denied by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Judge Janis L. Sammartino, who is presiding over the class-action lawsuit alleging price-fixing. Bumble Bee and StarKist previously pleaded guilty in criminal cases brought by the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, and Chicken of the Sea did not face charges because it served as the whistleblower. On Tuesday, 16 June, former Bumble Bee President and CEO Chris Lischewski was sentenced to 40 months in prison and given a USD100,000 fine (EUR88,000) after being found guilty by a jury for playing a leading role in the conspiracy. The civil lawsuit was filed in 2015, and in July 2019, Sammartino approved the division of the lawsuit into four tracks: claims brought by the direct purchasers bringing their owns suits against the tuna companies, or so called "direct-action plaintiffs" (DAPs); direct purchasers pursuing a collective class action (DPPs); indirect purchasers moving forward as a putative class, or commercial food-preparers (CFPs); and individual consumers proceeding as a joint class, or end-payer plaintiffs (EPPs). On January 3, 2020, Sammartino ordered the DPP and EPP class representatives to cease efforts to notify potential members of their respective class. In May, Sammartino denied the DPP class' request to lift the stay on the case, saying they had not shown they would suffer irreparable harm in waiting until the classes are finalized -- a decision that is also being appealed. With the Ninth Circuit Court's denial of the appeal, the case has been placed back in Sammartino's control to proceed. In Lischewski's 16 June sentencing hearing, several of the parties in the civil litigation took advantage of an opportunity to speak regarding their preferences for punishment in the case. Their comments offered a glimpse into the damages being sought and their desire to pursue separate civil suits seeking remuneration from Lischewski, despite his being dismissed from the existing civil case. William Blechman, an attorney representing Safeway, of the DAP class, said canned tuna is used by his client and others in the supermarket business as a loss-leader, and that price promotions on canned tuna are used primarily to draw in customers, and not as products the supermarkets directly profit from selling. He said Safeway had overpaid Bumble Bee by "millions of dollars" as a result of the price-fixing. "So the fact that the conspiracy had a muted effect on the promotions and actually increased the price had a ripple effect on other parts of what was sold in the stores," he said. "Based on that and other information in the record, Safeway believes itself to be have been directly and proximately harmed by the conspiracy." Blaine Finley, representing the CFP class, said his clients' losses as a result of the price-fixing were in excess of USD100 million (EUR89 million), including a trebling of funds owed to account for damages. "The commercial food preparers class would like to point out the defendant's apparent lack of remorse," Finley said. Finley said it was notable that the defendants in the civil case had not sought a summary judgment. "We would take this as recognition that we were damaged by this conspiracy to some degree or at least that this conspiracy would apply to the commercial food preparer class," he said. He estimated the average harm suffered per restaurant in his class to be in the "hundreds of dollars" range, and said those funds are "significant to anyone, but especially small-business owners in this climate." Chris Lebsock, representing Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, said Lischewski's action had "had a direct impact" on his client. He said the conspiracy had particularly hurt the grocery business, "which has always been characterized by thin margins." "[A financial] analysis shows that all three of the major tuna packers – sold approximately 5 billion of packaged tuna products to direct purchasers [during the conspiracy]," he said. "Prices were approximately 10 percent higher than they should have been." In Olean's case, its USD 2 million (EUR 1.8 million) of packaged tuna product purchases during the time of the conspiracy amounted to damages estimated at USD 200,000 (EUR 178,000). Steve Six, representing Associated Wholesale Grocers of the DPP class, asked the judge sentencing Lischewski to create a fund from Lischewski's criminal fine that would be used as a credit against civil fines levied against him. "[We would] have Mr. Lischewski pay into court to protect the money against the storm of factors that are likely coming his way," he said. Six's suggestion was disregarded by the judge in his sentencing. [GN] CAINE & WEINER: Volynsky Alleges Violation under FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caine & Weiner Company, Inc. The case is styled as Pavel Volynsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Caine & Weiner Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02771 (E.D. N.Y., June 23, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Caine & Weiner is a solution-based accounts receivable management enterprise, founded in 1930, that specializes in providing 1st and 3rd party collection solutions to commercial (B2B) and consumer (B2C) businesses in every major industry, including many Fortune 500 Companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com - and - 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 CAMPING WORLD: Court Narrows Claims in IUOE Suit ------------------------------------------------ Camping World Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the court overseeing the case, International Union of Operating Engineers Benefit Funds of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware v. Camping World Holdings Inc., et al., granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. On December 12, 2018, a putative class action complaint styled International Union of Operating Engineers Benefit Funds of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware v. Camping World Holdings Inc., et al. was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, on behalf of all purchasers of Camping World Class A common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to a secondary offering of such securities in October 2017 ("IUOE Complaint"). The IUOE Complaint names as defendants the Company, and certain of its officers and directors, among others, and alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly materially misleading statements or omissions of material facts necessary to make certain statements not misleading and seeks compensatory damages, including prejudgment and post-judgement interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and any equitable or injunctive relief the court deems just and proper, including rescission. On February 28, 2019, the Company, along with the other defendants, moved to dismiss this action. The parties argued the merits of defendants' motion to dismiss before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Commercial Division, on September 6, 2019. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss on April 22, 2020. Camping World said, "The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims of the plaintiffs and members of the putative class, and any liability for the alleged claims is not currently probable or reasonably estimable." Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an outdoor and camping retailer. The company operates through three segments: Consumer Services and Plans, Dealership, and Retail. Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois. CAMPING WORLD: Geis Class Action Remains Stayed ----------------------------------------------- Camping World Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class action suit entitled, Daniel Geis v. Camping World Holdings, Inc., et al., is still stayed. On February 22, 2019, a putative class action complaint styled Daniel Geis v. Camping World Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, on behalf of all purchasers of Camping World Class A common stock in and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering on October 6, 2016 ("Geis Complaint"). The Geis Complaint names as defendants the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the offering, and alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly materially misleading statements or omissions of material facts necessary to make certain statements not misleading. The Geis Complaint seeks compensatory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other and further relief the court deems just and proper. On April 19, 2019, the Company, along with the other defendants, moved to dismiss this action. The parties argued the merits of defendants' motion to dismiss before the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division on August 20, 2019. On August 26, 2019, the Court stayed the Geis Complaint pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint that is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Camping World said, "The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims of the plaintiff and members of the putative class, and any liability for the alleged claims is not currently probable or reasonably estimable." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an outdoor and camping retailer. The company operates through three segments: Consumer Services and Plans, Dealership, and Retail. Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois. CAMPING WORLD: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for August 5 -------------------------------------------------------- Camping World Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a hearing is scheduled for August 5, 2020, to consider approval of the settlement entered in the consolidated Ronge and Strougo complaint. On October 19, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Ronge v. Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and Crestview Partners II GP, L.P. and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. (the "Ronge Complaint"). On October 25, 2018, a different purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Strougo v. Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and Crestview Partners II GP, L.P. and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. (the "Strougo Complaint"). The Ronge and Strougo Complaints were consolidated and lead plaintiffs (the "Ronge Lead Plaintiffs") appointed by the court. On February 27, 2019, the Ronge lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the Company, certain of its officers, directors, Crestview Partners II GP, L.P. and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C., and the underwriters of the May and October 2017 secondary offerings of the Company's Class A common stock (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, based on allegedly materially misleading statements or omissions of material facts necessary to make certain statements not misleading related to the business, operations, and management of the Company. Additionally, it alleges that certain of the Company's officers and directors, Crestview Partners II GP, L.P., and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. violated Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by allegedly acting as controlling persons of the Company. The lawsuit brings claims on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's Class A common stock between March 8, 2017 and August 7, 2018, and seeks compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees and costs, and any equitable or injunctive relief the court deems just and proper. On May 17, 2019, the Company, along with the other defendants, moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. On March 12, 2020, Ronge Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint, adding those allegations contained in the Daniel Geis v. Camping World Holdings, Inc., et al. complaint. On March 13, Ronge Lead Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, which the Court granted on April 7, 2020. The Settlement Hearing is scheduled for August 5, 2020. Camping World said, "However, there can be no assurance that the proposed settlement will be approved by the Court. The parties have informed the court of the status of their negotiations, and on January 24, 2020, the court struck the pending motions to dismiss without prejudice. Any losses that the Company believes are probable are expected to be covered directly by the Company's applicable insurance policies. The Company is not currently able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of any amount that would be paid directly by the Company's insurance carriers. Moreover, no assurance can be made that this matter either individually or together with the potential for similar suits, will not result in a material financial exposure in excess of insurance coverage, which could have a material adverse effect upon the Company's financial condition and results of operations." Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an outdoor and camping retailer. The company operates through three segments: Consumer Services and Plans, Dealership, and Retail. Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois. CANADA: AG Faces Class Action Over Maurice Cloughley Sexual Abuse ----------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Blake, writing for Cabin Radio, reports that a Nunavut judge is allowing a class action lawsuit against the Attorney General of Canada and the commissioners of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories to proceed. The class action seeks damages for former students of Maurice Cloughley who allege they were sexually abused by him between 1967 and 1981. Lawyers behind the action said there are at least 50 members. Alan Regel, a lawyer with the firm Cooper Regel, told Cabin Radio the action will focus on students who say they were sexually assaulted or had pornographic photos taken of them after 1969. Cases prior to that fall under the federal Indian day school class action. According to court documents, Cloughley was a teacher in several communities in the NWT and what is now Nunavut between 1959 and 1987. In June 1995, he was charged with 22 sexual offences against some of his former students. In February 1996, as part of a mid-trial plea agreement, Cloughley pleaded guilty to nine of those charges while the remaining 13 were stayed. He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. Lawyers applied for the class action to be certified on February 14, 2020. In Nunavut, class actions have to be certified by a judge as the territory does not have class action legislation. In a written decision on June 15, Justice Paul Bychok said the action will help class members who live in remote communities where there are no resident lawyers, to pursue their claim. He said a class action will also allow the court and class members to allocate resources more efficiently than several independent actions. "Given the ongoing vulnerability of our youth in our remote communities, class action litigation may have a beneficial educational impact," he added. Government responsibility The NWT and Nunavut had not contested the certification, but they did object to the inclusion of a claim that the governments owed a fiduciary duty of care to -- or an obligation to act in the best interests of -- the former students in the action. The territories argued there are a limited number of circumstances where governments owe a fiduciary duty, and they are not typically determined on a group basis. Justice Bychok disagreed. He noted the government forced Inuit off the land and into artificial and newly created remote settlements where they established and maintained health care, housing, schools, and law and order. "Government exercised colonial power over Inuit and enforced it, in part, by armed authority," he wrote. Authorities also placed Cloughley in a position of power over his students, Bychok continued. "These Inuit children were extremely vulnerable by the very essence and structure of this student-teacher relationship. Mr Cloughley abused his authority and power over these children." The action's statement of claim alleges the governments are vicariously liable or responsible for the abuse as they failed to investigate Cloughley's background or suitability as a teacher in remote, isolated communities; put little or no restrictions on him; failed to monitor his activities; and did not implement safeguards to ensure, if he did abuse his position of trust and power, it would be quickly detected and stopped. The claim also alleges the governments fostered a cultural perception among Nunavummiut that Kabloonaks (white people) and government workers were to be respected and obeyed and that failure to do so would be punished. "It was impressed upon the children, including the plaintiffs, by their parents and Elders that whatever Cloughley did was not to be criticized, undermined, or complained about," the claim states. According to the claim, that enabled Cloughley to abuse students at his home, schools, and other places in the communities, sometimes during school hours. It alleges he created an "environment of sexuality" to manipulate students and discourage them from reporting what was taking place. Claim alleges shame, fear The claim alleges students endured physical and psychological pain, humiliation, betrayal, shame, embarrassment about their bodies, and fear that photographs taken of them would surface. "Those children who were depicted in the pornographic materials Cloughley created are re-victimized each time their image is viewed," the claim states. "They will live the rest of their live[s] with the knowledge Cloughley, or others he may have shared their images [with], may be viewing their images at any time." The defendants -- the three governments -- have not yet filed any statement of defence in response to the claims. Cloughley, who is not a named defendant, could not be immediately reached for comment. The class action comes after several of Cloughley's former students filed two separate civil lawsuits in the years leading up to 2008. According to court documents in one of those suits, Cloughley was living in New Zealand in 2008 and had been a resident there since 2003. The documents note that, in news reports from the city where he lived, Cloughley appeared as a "somewhat romantic figure given the fact he has sailed the world, written two books" and worked in remote Indigenous settlements in Canada. In December 2016, three plaintiffs filed a notice asking the court to certify a class action seeking damages on behalf of Cloughley's former students. Representatives of the class action can now file their statement of claim with the court and the defendants can respond to the claims. [GN] CANTON, OH: Ohio Northern District Dismisses Roth Civil Rights Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL T. ROTH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CANTON, OHIO, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:17CV0234 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Benita Y. Pearson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, (i) granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, and (ii) denied the Defendants' Motion for Sanctions. The putative class action asserts a pre-enforcement challenge to the constitutionality of Canton Ordinance 505.14, its animal-limit Ordinance. Pending before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Also pending is the Defendants' Motion for Sanctions. The Defendants move for dismissal on the basis of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). They argue that the Plaintiffs lack standing. Three of the four Plaintiffs do not live in Canton, and the only one that does has never been prosecuted or sent an enforcement letter about Canton's animal-limit Ordinance. Plaintiffs Julie Roth, Michael T. Roth, and Joy Wagner do not live in Canton, Ohio. As non-residents, they have no standing because they cannot allege a credible threat of prosecution against them. On June 26, 2018, Plaintiff Julie Roth and "all other occupants" were evicted from 1260 Fulton Road NW, Canton, Ohio 44703 -- the address listed in the Fourth Amended Complaint for Plaintiffs Michael T. Roth and Julie Roth. It occurred three months before the Court entered its Memorandum of Opinion and Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction. Plaintiff Toni Leach lives in Canton, Ohio. But, Leach also lacks standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to Canton Ordinance 505.14 as she fails to allege a credible threat of prosecution. Leach cannot show she has standing to make a challenge to Canton's animal-limit Ordinance based on a completely different political subdivision warning her that it might impose a tax lien, if she failed to clean up cat litter/cat waste, trash, garbage, rubbish and debris, and stop the open feeding of cats in violation of a state law regarding abatement of nuisances. There is another justiciability hurdle that the Plaintiffs must overcome: mootness. The Plaintiffs contend the Amended Ordinance lacks guidelines, rules or procedures as to what acts are specifically prohibited. It specifically states, however, that "keep" and "harbor" are defined exactly as Ohio's courts do so when interpreting Ohio Rev. Code Section 955.28, Ohio's dog-bite statute. Merely feeding a stray animal or allowing it to temporarily stay on one's property is insufficient to be considered a harborer. One may only "harbor" an animal under Ohio law if the animal lives at one's premises and they acquiesce to its presence. Nor can that person be a "keeper" of a stray because a "keeper" is the person having physical charge or care of the animal. Finally, subsection (b) of Amended Canton Ordinance 505.14 removed the license technician from the enforcement process and vests the enforcement duties solely with the Police Department and the Law Department. The Defendants move the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1927 and the Court's inherent authority to sanction the Plaintiffs' counsel for a pattern of misconduct in the case at bar. Specifically, they contend the Plaintiffs' counsel: (i) failed in their obligation to inform the Court and the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit of facts indicating the case may be moot; (ii) knowingly made a false material statement of fact to the Court; and, (iii) repeatedly violated the Court's rules regarding the confidentiality of mediation discussions. The Defendants request a sanctions award of dismissal with prejudice, attorney's fees, and costs. Judge Pearson finds that the Plaintiffs' counsel had a duty to inform the Court and the Sixth Circuit "without delay" that the Roths no longer lived in Canton because their move indicated that their claims "may" -- and, in fact, proved to be -- moot. Given the acknowledgment of the Plaintiffs' counsel, Judge Pearson finds their declaration to the Court that the Roths still lived in Canton was not intended as a misrepresentation. And, according to the Plaintiffs' counsel, after she read in the news that it had been amended on July 2 and 3, 2019, Attorney Huth emailed the Defense counsel requesting a copy of the Amended Ordinance. The Defense counsel apparently never responded. While Judge Pearson does not arrive at her decision lightly, she denies the Defendants' request for sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1927 and the Court's inherent authority. The Plaintiffs' counsel did not multiply the proceedings in a manner so as to warrant 28 U.S.C. Section 1927 sanctions. In her informed discretion, Judge Pearson also declines to impose sanctions under its inherent power because she finds the Plaintiffs' counsel did not engage in bad faith conduct in the litigation. It is obvious from a review of the record that there is plenty of blame to go around; therefore, an award of attorney's fees to the Defendants would not be just. In sum, Judge Pearson (i) granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, and (ii) denied their Motion for Sanctions. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 17, 2020 Memorandum of Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/SCWQV8 from Leagle.com. Michael T. Roth, Julie Roth, Joy wagner & Toni A. Leach, Plaintiffs, represented by Richard B. Rosenthal & Michela J. Huth. City of Canton, Ohio, City of Canton Police Department, Shirley Moore, In her official and individual capacity & John Does, Police Officers and Supervisors, in their official and individual capacities, Defendants, represented by Kristen Bates Aylward, City of Canton Department of Law & Kevin R. L'Hommedieu, City of Canton Department of Law. CAR AROMA: Garcia Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS GARCIA, as an individual and on behalf of all aggrieved employees v. CAR AROMA SUPPLIES, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV22269 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 12, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay for all hours worked, including minimum wage and overtime premium for overtime hours worked. The lawsuit also alleges that the Defendants failed to reimburse for necessary expenditures, failed to pay due and owing wages upon ending of employment for employees within California, and failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from January 7, 2014, through March 21, 2019. The Plaintiff was a salesperson, assigned by the Defendant to drive a certain route to different carwash facilities in order to sell the Defendant's car wash supplies. Car Aroma is the place for car wash supplies and replacement equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Atoy H. Wilson, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net awilson@mahoney-law.net CARNAGIO ENTERPRISES: American Family Files Suit in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carnagio Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., Plaintiff v. Carnagio Enterprises, Inc., an Illinois corporation and Angela Karikari, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03665 (N.D., Ill., June 23, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Insurance filed pursuant to the Diversity-Declaratory Judgement. Carnagio Enterprises, Inc. (trade name McDonald's) is in the Fast-food Restaurant, Chain business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Marc Chemers, Esq. Pretzel & Stouffer, Chtd. One South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606-4673 Tel: (312) 578-7548 Email: rchemers@pretzelstouffer.com CARNIVAL CORP: Portnoy Says Investors Can Seek Recovery of Losses ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm announces the firm representing Carnival Corporation & Plc (NYSE: CCL; CUK) investors in connection with a class action to recover losses suffered following reports that the Company failed to comply with appropriate COVID-19 safety measures on board Carnival cruises. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors on a contingency basis in recovering their losses caused by the Company's alleged fraudulent statements and corporate misconduct. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone or text 310-692-8883 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, or via www.portnoylaw.com. In December 2019, a novel strain of coronavirus, COVID-19, was first reported in Wuhan, Hubei province, China. COVID-19 quickly spread to numerous countries and has since been designated a global pandemic by the World Health Organization. Carnival launched several cruise ships in early 2020, putting tens of thousands of passengers and crew at serious risk and turned Carnival's ships into vessels for seeding the virus across the globe. On January 27, 2020, as COVID-19 spread beyond China, Carnival, however, claimed that the risks of COVID-19 posed to the company's guests, crew, and global business were "very low." Carnival continued to double-down on its statements of "low risk" throughout the next two months by permitting cruises to continue (except those traveling to and from China or where quarantined by authorities) in the face of mounting cruise passenger illnesses and deaths on its own ships due to COVID-19, or soon after disembarking its own ships. On February 3, 2020, just a few days after Carnival reiterated that COVID-19 was "very low" risk to Carnival's guests, crew, and business, Carnival admitted that a passenger who had been onboard its Diamond Princess ship, from January 20, 2020, through January 25, 2020, had tested positive for COVID-19. This diagnosis caused Japanese authorities to conduct a review of all guests and crew as the ship was docked in Yokohama, Japan, causing a delay in the next leg of the ship's journey. On this news, the price of Carnival's common stock declined $0.78 per share, or approximately 2%, from a close of $43.53 per share on January 31, 2020, to close at $42.75 per share on February 3, 2020. Similarly, the price of Carnival's ADSs declined $0.45 per share, or 1.1%, from a close of $41.10 per ADS on January 31, 2020, to close at $40.65 per ADS on February 3, 2020. Investors began to learn the truth about Carnival's prior false and misleading statements through a series of additional disclosures to the market during the Class Period (on March 4, 2020, March 8, 2020, March 27, 2020, and April 16, 2020). Finally, on May 1, 2020, and as a result of the many outbreaks on Carnival ships, as well as reporting that exposed the effects of Carnival's actions and inactions, the United States House of Representatives opened an investigation into Carnival's handling of COVID-19, initiated by a letter addressed to Carnival's Chief Executive Officer requesting records regarding Carnival's COVID-19 response (the "Congressional Letter"). The Congressional Letter, which cited prior outbreaks, stated that the request for records was based on concerns that Carnival was "ignoring the public health threat posed by coronavirus to potential future passengers and crew," and that "officials at Carnival were aware of the threats to some of its ships and did not take appropriate actions, which may have led to greater infections and the spread of the disease." On this news, the price of Carnival's common stock declined $1.97 per share, or 12.4%, from a close of $15.90 per share on April 30, 2020, to close at $13.93 per share on May 1, 2020. Similarly, the price of Carnival's ADSs declined $1.49 per ADS, or 10.7%, from a close of $13.92 per ADS on April 30, 2020, to close at $12.43 per ADS on May 1, 2020. As a result of the revelation of the truth about Carnival's inability and unwillingness to deal with the spread of infectious diseases on its ships, Carnival investors who purchased shares on U.S. exchanges lost billions of dollars when Carnival's shares declined following the corrective revelations. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors on a contingency basis in pursuing claims caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Contact: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. lesley@portnoylaw.com Tel: 310-692-8883 Web site: http://www.portnoylaw.com/ [GN] CASPER SLEEP: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing ------------------------------------------------------------ The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Casper Sleep, Inc. ("Enphase" or the "Company") (NYSE: CSPR) securities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Casper securities in or traceable to the Company's public offering conducted on or around February 7, 2020 (the "IPO"). The lawsuit alleges that the Company misled investors regarding the strength of Casper's global operations. Casper went public in February 2020, selling over 8 million shares at $12 a share. Just a few weeks later, in April 2020, the Company announced that Casper would decrease its global operations, including a dramatic 21% reduction to its global operations and sales team, and close its European operations. Casper also disclosed that Gregory Macfarlane had resigned from his positions as Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] CASPER SLEEP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Enterprise Talk reports that Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 22 disclosed that it has filed a federal class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Casper Sleep Inc. (NYSE: CSPR) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about February 7, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Casper investors under the federal securities laws. 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, the Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Specifically, the lawsuit claims the Offering Documents made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Casper's profit margins were actually declining, rather than growing; (2) Casper was changing an important distribution partner, costing it 130 basis points of gross margin in the first quarter of 2020 alone; (3) Casper was holding a glut of old and outdated mattress inventory that it was selling at steeply discounted clearance prices, further impairing the Company's profitability; (4) Casper was suffering accelerating losses, further placing its ability to achieve positive cash flows and profitability out of reach; (5) Casper's core operations were not profitable, but were causing the Company to suffer over $40 million in negative cash flows during the first quarter of 2020 alone and doubling its quarterly net loss year over year; (6) as a result of the foregoing, Casper's ability to achieve profitability, implement its growth initiatives, and expand internationally had been misrepresented in the Offering Documents, as the Company needed to shutter its European operations, halt all international expansion, jettison over one fifth of its global corporate workforce, and significantly curtail new store openings in order to avoid an imminent cash and liquidity crisis, let alone achieve positive operating cash flows; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, Casper's revenue growth rate was not sustainable and had not positioned the Company to achieve profitability. 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 18, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. [GN] CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTIC: Portnoy Law Firm Probes Securities Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------ The Portnoy Law Firm advises Chembio Diagnostic System, Inc. (NASDAQ: CEMI) investors that the firm has initiated an investigation into possible securities fraud, and may file a class action on behalf of 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, or click here to join the case via www.portnoylaw.com. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. The Portnoy Law Firm investigation focuses on whether the Company misled investors regarding its FDA authorization for the Chembio Diagnostic System DPP COVID-19 IgM/IgG System, a SARS-CoV-2 antibody test (the "DPP Test"). On June 16, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked the emergency use authorization of the DPP Test due to performance concerns with the accuracy of the test. The FDA further stated that: The Chembio antibody test was one of the first antibody tests authorized by the FDA during the COVID-19 public health emergency. At the time of authorization, based on the information that Chembio submitted to the FDA at that time, the agency concluded that the test met the statute's "may be effective" standard for emergency use authorization, and that the test's known and potential benefits outweighed its known and potential risks. As the FDA has learned more regarding the capability for performance of SARS-CoV-2 serology tests during the pandemic, and what performance is necessary for users to make well-informed decisions—through both the continued review and authorization of serology tests as well as through a research partnership with the National Institutes of Health's National Cancer Institute (NCI)— the FDA was able to develop general performance expectations for these tests, which are listed in our serology templates. Data submitted by Chembio as well as an independent evaluation of the Chembio test at NCI showed that this test generates a higher than expected rate of false results and higher than that reflected in the authorized labeling for the device. Under the current circumstances of the public health emergency, it is not reasonable to believe that the test may be effective in detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 or that the known and potential benefits of the test outweigh the known and potential risks of the test, including the high rate of false results. On this news, Chembio's stock fell over 60% in intraday trading on June 17, 2020. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Lowey Dannenberg Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Lowey Dannenberg, a preeminent law firm in obtaining redress for consumers and investors, has filed a federal securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of its client and all similarly situated investors who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. ("Chembio" or the "Company") on March 12, 2020 through June 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action alleges violations of the federal securities laws against Chembio and certain of its current and former officers and directors. Headquartered in Hauppauge, New York, Chembio develops, manufactures, and commercializes point-of-care diagnostic tests for the detection and diagnosis of infectious diseases. In light of the global pandemic, the Company embarked on a mission to develop a rapid test for the detection of the COVID-19 virus and IgM and IgG antibodies (the "DPP COVID-19 Test"). The Complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented that the Company's DPP COVID-19 Test could determine current or past exposure to the COVID-19 virus, that its test provides high sensitivity and specificity, and was 100% accurate. Throughout the Class Period, Chembio represented that it had developed a test which aided in determining current or past exposure to the COVID-19 virus, that it provided high sensitivity and specificity and was 100% accurate. The Company's representations drove the stock from a closing price of $3.10 per share on March 11, 2020 to a Class Period high of $15.54 per share on April 24, 2020, an increase of more than 400%. On June 16, 2020, the FDA issued a press release disclosing that it had revoked the Company's Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") for the Company's DPP COVID-19 Test. The FDA decision was "due to performance concerns with the accuracy of the test" and that the Company's COVID-19 Test "generate[d] higher than expected rate of false results higher than that reflected in the authorized labeling for the device." On this news, the stock dropped from $9.93 per share on June 16, 2020 to close at $3.89 per share on June 17, 2020, a drop of $6.04 per share, or over 60%, on a heavier than usual trade volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the proposed Class and is represented by Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. (www.lowey.com), national firm representing institutional and individual investors, and U.S. Market Advisors Law Group PLLC (www.usmarketlaw.com). If you have suffered a net loss from investment in Chembio common stock from March 12, 2020 through June 16, 2020, you may obtain additional information about this lawsuit and your ability to become a Lead Plaintiff, by contacting Barbara Hart at bhart@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7227 or Andrea Farah at afarah@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7256. [GN] CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Dr Clark Thomas Files Suit in Alabama ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Cincinnati Insurance Company. The case is styled as Dr Clark Thomas, PC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00895-SGC (N.D. Ala., June 24, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other filed pursuant to Diversity-Contract Dispute. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, operating since 1950, is a property casualty insurer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brannon J Buck, Esq. BADHAM & BUCK LLC 2001 Park Place North, Suite 500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Tel: (205) 521-0036 Fax: (205) 521-0037 Email: bbuck@badhambuck.com CLAIRE'S BOUTIQUES: Duncan Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as SHERICE DUNCAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. CLAIRE'S BOUTIQUES, INC., a Colorado corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV15355 (Filed April 21, 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 12, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-05266 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay overtime and minimum wage, and failing to provide meal periods. Claire's Boutiques retails jewelry and accessories. The Company offers earrings, necklaces, bracelets, rings, watches, toe rings, and fashion pins. Claire's Boutiques markets its products to women, teens, and kids.[BN] The Defendant Claire's Boutiques is represented by: Adam Y. Siegel, Esq. Carmen M. Miranda, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com Carmen.Miranda@jacksonlewis.com CLOUDERA INC: Motion for Class Action Lead Plaintiff Unopposed -------------------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, provides the following update on the securities class action lawsuit against Cloudera, Inc. (NYSE: CLDR) and other named Defendants on behalf of all persons who purchased and/or otherwise acquired Cloudera common stock: (i) pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement filed in connection with Cloudera's merger with Hortonworks, Inc. on January 3, 2019 ("Merger"); and/or (ii) between April 28, 2017 and June 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Cloudera shareholders, or former Hortonworks shareholders who acquired Cloudera stock in the Merger, should visit us at https://www.claimsfiler.com/contact or call toll-free (844) 367-9658. Lawyers at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC are available to discuss your legal options. About the Lawsuit On March 18, 2020, the presiding Court vacated its previous Order appointing Lead Plaintiff, reopened the lead plaintiff selection process and required that notice be reissued to include shareholders who acquired Cloudera stock in exchange for their shares of Hortonworks, Inc. in the Merger. On May 18, 2020, the former lead plaintiff, represented by Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, filed a renewed Motion for Lead Plaintiff that is unopposed. The case is In re Cloudera, Inc. Securities Litigation, 19-cv-03221. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler -- http://www.claimsfiler.com-- has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN] CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on June 22 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on behalf of those who acquired Co-Diagnostics, Inc. ("Co-Diagnostics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CODX) securities during the period from February 25, 2020 through May 15, 2020. Investors have until August 17, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the Company made materially misleading statements that its COVID-19 tests were 100% accurate—a staggering claim that appeared to set Co-Diagnostics apart from other competitors developing COVID-19 tests. On May 14, 2020, news outlets reported that Co-Diagnostics was reticent to participate in U.S.-based testing to verify its accuracy claims, casting doubt on Co-Diagnostics' claims of 100% accuracy. On this news, shares of Co-Diagnostics fell $1.29, or 5.5%, to close at $22.13 per share on May 14, 2020. On May 14, 2020, after the markets closed, financial news services began reporting that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced publicly that no COVID-19 test is 100% accurate, undermining Co-Diagnostics' claims about its tests' perfect accuracy. On this news, shares of Co-Diagnostics fell $5.06, or 22.9%, to close at $17.07 per share on May 15, 2020. If you acquired Co-Diagnostics securities, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney LLP -- http://www.kmllp.com-- is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W. Elrod, Esq. (212) 371-6600 investigations@kmllp.com [GN] CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on June 17 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] CONDUENT INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that on June 5, 2020, Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a government services company and certain of its executives under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Emps. Ret. Sys. of the Puerto Rico Elec. Power Auth. v. Conduent Inc., No. CV-19-8237-SDW-SCM, 2020 WL 3026536 (D.N.J. June 5, 2020). Plaintiff alleged that the company had overstated the progress it was making in modernizing the IT infrastructure that supported its electronic toll collection business. The Court held that plaintiff adequately alleged actionable misrepresentations, as well as scienter and loss causation. Plaintiff alleged that the company promoted itself to investors by touting a strategic business plan to grow the company by relying on technology, and falsely asserted that the first phase of that plan was complete. Id. at *1–2. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that, during an earnings call, the company represented to investors that, "[i]n 2017, we addressed" the areas that were the subject of the first phase of the business plan, and that "[n]ext we expect to see benefits from the platform rationalization work completed last year." Id. at *2. Similarly, the company stated that "[d]uring our first year, we needed to" conduct an inventory of IT systems and that "[s]tarting in 2018, we'll begin our work to modernize our offerings with cutting-edge technology." Id. Moreover, the company's revenue guidance during the call indicated that the company "expect[s] transportation [revenue] inside of Public Sector to grow in 2018." Id. The Court first determined that the alleged misstatements and omissions regarding the business plan were specific and material because they "significantly altered the total mix of information available" to the reasonable investor, ruling that the company's own efforts to inform investors about milestones in the business plan reflected the value of the information. Id. at *4–5. In addition, the Court rejected the argument that the alleged misrepresentations were subject to the "safe harbor" provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act for forward-looking statements accompanied by meaningful cautionary language. Id. at *6. The Court determined that the alleged misstatements reflected either "historical facts or a then-present state of affairs," and that alleged omissions do not qualify for safe harbor protection because they are not forward-looking statements. Id. at *6–7. The Court further held that the complaint sufficiently alleged scienter as against the individual defendants because plaintiff alleged that the tolling operations were a "core" business segment, making up $299 million in revenue and 5.5% of the company's total revenues and serving approximately 50% of all automated tolling systems in the United States (id. at *2), and that the company's failure to complete the first phase of its business plan resulted in service issues and network outages, impacting nearly all customers on the East Coast and causing government agencies in several states to fine or withhold payments from the company (id. at *3). The Court thus concluded it was "implausible" that the company's executives were not aware of problems with its tolling platform. Id. at *8. In addition, the Court held that plaintiff adequately alleged "corporate scienter" based on alleged misconduct attributable only to management level officials. Id. While noting that the Third Circuit had not directly addressed whether allegations of "corporate scienter" could support a Section 10(b) claim, the Court also explained that the Third Circuit had "implied" that it may be possible to plead corporate scienter based on an alleged misrepresentation "so dramatic [that it] would have been approved by corporate officials sufficiently knowledgeable about the company to know that [it] was false." Id. at *8 n.9. In particular, the Court pointed to allegations that a confidential witness attended monthly meetings -- which were also attended by various company senior executives -- to discuss incidents that impacted customers or had a significant impact on the company's business. Id. at *8. The Court concluded that these allegations, together with the allegations regarding the importance of the business plan, the "core" nature of the tolling business, and the impact of infrastructure problems on the tolling business, supported an inference of corporate scienter. Id. The Court also held that plaintiff had adequately alleged loss causation by alleging that the company issued a corrective disclosure revealing that it had missed revenue expectations for the current quarter and revising its revenue guidance for the current fiscal year because of "sub-optimal performance" by vendors and "sub-standard IT infrastructure." Id. at *9. Following this disclosure, plaintiff alleged that the company's stock fell 29%, and multiple analyst reports addressed the alleged corrective disclosure, one of which noted that the technology issues "had likely been a problem for some time and could have been shared with investors earlier." Id. The Court concluded that these allegations, taken together, were sufficient to meet the requirement of a "short and plain statement" of economic loss and its causal connection to alleged misrepresentations. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. [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] CONSTANT CONTACT: $13-Mil. Deal in McGee Case Wins Final Okay ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mark L. Wolf granted final approval to the settlement in the case, McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-13114 (D. Mass.), following a fairness hearing on May 27, 2020. Judge Wolf also entered orders approving plaintiffs' attorneys fees as well as a plan of allocation. The Court certified the Class for settlement purposes. North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District Firefighter Pension Plan is the lead plaintiff. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is lead counsel. On March 27, 2018, the parties engaged in a successful mediation session with Michelle Yoshida, Esq. of Phillips ADR Enterprises, P.C., a nationally recognized mediator. These efforts culminated with the parties agreeing to settle the Litigation for $13,000,000, subject to the negotiation of the terms of a Stipulation of Settlement and approval by the Court. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the Company was named as a defendant in a shareholder litigation matter. On February 9, 2016, the Company acquired all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Constant Contact. On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Constant Contact and two of its former officers. An amended complaint, which named an additional former officer as a defendant, was filed December 19, 2016. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and non-disclosure of material facts, regarding Constant Contact's business, operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class period of October 23, 2014 to July 23, 2015. The parties mediated the claims on March 27, 2018, and as a result of that mediation reached an agreement in principle with the lead plaintiff to settle the action. The parties then negotiated the terms and conditions of a stipulation and agreement of settlement and related papers, which, among other things, provide for the release of all claims asserted against Constant Contact and its former officers. On May 18, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion seeking preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, certification of the proposed settlement class for settlement purposes only, and approval of notice to the settlement class. On November 26, 2019, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and scheduling a hearing for May 27, 2020 at which the court is expected to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and whether the case should therefore be dismissed with prejudice. The Company's contribution to the settlement pool under this proposed settlement would be equal to the $1.5 million it reserved for this matter during the year ended December 31, 2018. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides cloud-based platform solutions for small-and medium-sized businesses in the United States and internationally. The company operates in three segments: Web Presence, Domain, and Email Marketing. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts. COOKWARE COMPANY: Judge Tosses Most of Frying Plan Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that if a class action lawsuit against the maker of an as-seen-on-TV frying pan is going to stick, it's likely going to be in Florida. That's because a New York federal judge has thrown out all claims against The Cookware Company except for one: Alleged violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, keeping alive the possibility of a class of Florida customers. The lawsuit claims the $20 Blue Diamond Enhanced Ceramic Non-Stick Pan disappointed each of the three times Elena Lamb, who lives in Florida, used it. In fighting the case, The Cookware Company noted that it gave customers a money-back or replacement warranty, but Lamb instead chose to throw the pan away and file a class action. "That warranty is an express contract concerning the subject matter of Lamb's claims, providing her with an adequate legal remedy," Judge Louis Stanton wrote. On June 15, Stanton dismissed most of Lamb's claims. They were: -- Breach of express warranty; -- Breach of implied warranty of merchantability; -- Injunctive relief; -- Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; and However, Lamb adequately pled her claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Stanton wrote. "The complaint alleges that Cookware represented to Lamb (and other consumers in Florida and throughout the United States) on the Blue Diamond pan's packaging label that the pan is non-stick," Stanton wrote. "Such statements are likely to mislead a reasonable consumer into believing that the pan is non-stick and that food will not stick to it during the cooking process." Lamb's legal team, which includes Morgan & Morgan of Tampa, Fla., will now either wait for the case to be transferred to Florida or ask the court to keep it in New York. [GN] D & A SERVICES: Kahn Files Suit under FDCPA in New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against D & A Services, LLC. The case is styled as Levi Kahn, other, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D & A Services, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-04792 (S.D. N.Y., June 23, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. D&A Services, LLC, also known as Dynia and Associates is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com DANA MOTORS LTD: Boreham Files Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dana Motors Ltd. The case is styled as Shaunna Boreham, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dana Motors Ltd. and James Cognetta, Defendants, Case No. 152690/2019 (N.Y. Sup., June 24, 2020). The case type of the lawsuit is stated as E-Other, Not Specified. Dana Motors, Ltd. was founded in 1978. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of new and used automobiles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kakalec Law Firm, PLLC 195 Montague Street, 14th Fl Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (212) 705-8730 DERMADOCTOR LLC: Cruz Asserts Breach of ADA ------------------------------------------- Dermadoctor, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dermadoctor, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04826 (S.D. N.Y., June 23, 2020). DERMAdoctor is a dermatologist-created skin care brand known for their KP body care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Fisher Files Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------- 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-at-00578 (E.D. Cal., June 17, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Torts - Personal Property - Other Fraud filed and Diversity-(Citizenship) as the cause of filing. 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 DPS LAND: Raptis Suit Seeks to Certify Landmen Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as PETER RAPTIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DPS LAND SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01262-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional certification of and authorizing that notice be sent to: "all Landmen employed by, or working on behalf of, DPS who were classified as independent contractors and paid a day rate with no overtime in the past 3 years"; 3. approving the Notice and Consent forms; 4. authorizing the mailing and emailing of notice, along with a reminder notice; 5. authorizing Class Counsel to contact the Putative Class Members by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice and Consent forms return undeliverable; 6. directing DPS to produce to Class Counsel the contact information for each of the Putative Class Members within 10 days of the Court's order; and 7. authorizing a 60-day notice period for the Putative Class Members to join the case. DPS Land is a full service land company that is dedicated to the Appalachian Basin.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. William R. Liles, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713 352-1100 Facsimile: 713 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com wliles@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST PC 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: 412-766-1455 Facsimile: 412-766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com DUTTON RANCH: Bid for Prelim. Certification in Hernandez Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, OMAR HERNANDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DUTTON RANCH CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00817-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Omar Hernandez's motion for preliminary certification. In December 2018, Plaintiffs O. Hernandez and Antonio Hernandez Santiago initiated the action -- which includes wage-and-hour claims brought on the Plaintiffs' own behalf and on the behalf of those similarly situated -- in state court. The Defendant removed the case to federal court. The current operative complaint -- namely, the second amended complaint ("SAC") -- contains a FLSA claim. O. Hernandez is the only named Plaintiff for this claim. Currently pending before the Court is O. Hernandez's motion for preliminary certification of the FLSA claim. O. Hernandez also asks that the Court facilitates a collective action notice. Judge Chen finds that O. Hernandez has met the lenient standard for preliminary certification. O. Hernandez has effectively alleged that it was a common practice for Dutton to, inter alia, not compensate field workers for expenses incurred in getting H-2A visas; to require field workers to get to work 10-15 minutes before start time to do prepatory work; to require field workers to keep on working 10-15 minutes after end time to clean up; to require field workers to pay for their tools; to require field workers to pay for transportation from the Dutton housing to the work sites, etc. The factual support for the allegations is O. Hernandez's personal observations and the personal observations of at least one other ex-employee, i.e., Mr. Osbaldo. To the extent Dutton argues that O. Hernandez needs more evidence to back up his allegations, the Judge does not agree. Campbell indicates that a lenient standard is applied for preliminary certification; moreover, the focus is largely on the allegations in the pleadings. To the extent Dutton argues that there are too many individualized issues to warrant preliminary certification, it would not defeat preliminary certification. As the Ninth Circuit noted in Campbell, these kinds of distinctions largely become immaterial to certification if in fact there is a common policy, or at least a common practice. In other words, at this juncture, Dutton has not shown that there are so many different circumstances under which field workers worked that a common practice is not plausible. Accordingly, the Judge granted O. Hernandez's motion for preliminary certification. Because preliminary certification is warranted, notice to the putative collective is proper. The Judge directed the parties to meet and confer as required above and will submit a joint proposed notice. If the parties are unable to agree on any specific issue and/or language, then, in a joint submission, the parties will identify what the dispute is and then each party will provide its position on the issue and/or proposed language. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 17, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/mbcx9N from Leagle.com. Omar Hernandez, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, represented by Josephine B. Weinberg -- jweinberg@crla.org -- California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., Ana Vicente De Castro -- avicente@crla.org -- California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., Estella Maria Cisneros -- ecisneros@crla.org -- California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., Peter Scott Rukin -- prukin@rukinhyland.com -- Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP & Valerie Jean Brender -- vbrender@rukinhyland.com -- Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP. Antonio Hernandez Santiago, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Scott Rukin, Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP & Valerie Jean Brender, Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP. Dutton Ranch Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mollie Michelle Burks -- mburks@gordonrees.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP & Nicholas A. Deming -- ndeming@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees. E.L.F. COSMETICS: Cota Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act --------------------------------------------------------- E.L.F. Cosmetics, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. e.l.f. Cosmetics, Inc., a Minnesota corporation and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01140-BEN-MDD (S.D. Cal., June 23, 2020). E.L.F. Cosmetics is an American cosmetics brand based in Oakland, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Wilshire Law Firm 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 381-9988 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com ENDO INT'L: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law firm, on June 22 disclosed that it has commenced an investigation on behalf of Endo International plc ("Endo" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: ENDP) investors concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of the federal securities laws. If you suffered a loss on your Endo investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/endo-international-plc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On June 10, 2020, the New York Department of Financial Services ("DFS") announced that it "has filed charges and initiated administrative proceedings against Endo International plc" and certain of its subsidiaries in connection with "DFS' ongoing investigation into the entities that created and perpetuated the opioid crisis." According to the DFS press release, "Endo . . . [k]nowingly furthered a false narrative to legitimize opioids as appropriate for broad treatment of pain by downplaying their long-known addictive nature and risks"; "[m]isrepresented the safety and efficacy of opioids, without legitimate scientific substantiation"; and "[d]eployed a large sales force to target healthcare providers directly with these misrepresentations." On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.66, or nearly 15%, to close at $3.85 per share on June 10, 2020, thereby injuring investors. Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding Endo should consider their options to aid the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com. About GPM Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP -- http://www.glancylaw.com-- is a premier law firm representing investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018, GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40 attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust, consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including cases involving financial restatements, internal control weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading, violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy, consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs, financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech, cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's, Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] ENPHASE ENERGY: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law firm, on June 17 disclosed that it has commenced an investigation on behalf of Enphase Energy, Inc. ("Enphase" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ENPH) investors concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of the federal securities laws. If you suffered a loss on your Enphase investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/enphase-energy-inc/ You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On June 17, 2020, Prescience Point Capital Management issued a report alleging, among other things, that "at least 39%, or $205.3 million, of [Enphase's] reported U.S. revenue is fabricated." The report also claimed, citing former employees, that "a large portion of [the Company's] astronomical growth over the past two years is attributable to accounting gimmicks that artificially inflate revenue and profits." On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as $14, or nearly 27%, during intraday trading on June 17, 2020. Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding Enphase should consider their options to aid the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com. About GPM Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018, GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40 attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust, consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including cases involving financial restatements, internal control weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading, violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy, consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs, financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech, cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's, Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] ENPHASE ENERGY: Hagens Berman Invites Investors with $150K+ Losses ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hagens Berman urges investors in Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENPH) who suffered losses in excess of $150,000 to submit their losses now. A securities fraud class action has been filed and certain investors may have valuable claims. Class Period: Feb. 26, 2019 - June 17, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Aug. 17, 2020 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/ENPH Contact An Attorney Now: ENPH@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Enphase Energy (ENPH) Securities Fraud Class Action: The complaint alleges that Enphase misrepresented and concealed that: (1) its revenues, both U.S. and international, were inflated; (2) the Company engaged in improper deferred revenue accounting practices; (3) the Company's reported base points expansion in gross margins were overstated; and that (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Investors began to learn the truth, according to the complaint, on June 17, 2020, when research firm Prescience Point published a report concluding that "[a]t least $205.3m of ENPH's reported FY19 US revenue is fabricated, and a significant portion of its international revenue is fabricated as well." Prescience Point also noted since the start of June, possibly when insiders became aware of its investigation, Enphase insiders dumped $120.9 million in stock at inflated prices. In response, the price of Enphase shares plummeted over 25% on June 17, 2020. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving that Enphase misreported revenues and inflated margins," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you purchased shares of Enphase and suffered significant losses, discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Enphase should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call: Reed Kathrein HAGENS BERMAN Tel: 844-916-0895 E-mail ENPH@hbsslaw.com. Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN] ENPHASE ENERGY: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on June 22 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Enphase Energy, Inc. ("Enphase" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: ENPH) for violations of Sections 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 26, 2019 and June 17, 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. Enphase inflated its revenues both within the United States and abroad. The Company utilized improper accounting of deferred revenue as part of this scheme. The increase in gross margins reported by the Company was also inflated. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Enphase, 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] EQUITRANS MIDSTREAM: Rose Seeks to Certify Inspectors Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DONALD ROSE, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v. EQUITRANS MIDSTREAM CORPORATION and EQM MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, L.P., Case No. 2:19-cv-01343-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional certification of and authorizing that notice be sent to: "all Inspectors working for, or on behalf of Equitrans and/or EQM who were paid a day rate with no overtime at any time in the past 3 years"; 2. approving the Notice and Consent forms; 3. authorizing the mailing, emailing, and text messaging of notice, along with a reminder notice; 4. authorizing Class Counsel to contact the Day Rate Inspectors by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice and Consent forms return undeliverable; 5. directing the Defendants to produce to Class Counsel the contact information for each of the Day Rate Inspectors within 10 days of the Court's order; and 6. authorizing a 60-day notice period for the Day Rate Inspectors to join the case. Equitrans Midstream is a natural gas gatherer in the United States. The company provides midstream services to EQT Corporation and multiple third-parties in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. William R. Liles, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713 352-1100 Facsimile: 713 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com wliles@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST PC 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: 412-766-1455 Facsimile: 412-766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com FLORISSANT, MO: Baker Suit Seeks to Certify Classes --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as THOMAS BAKER, SEAN BAILEY, NICOLE BOLDEN, ALLISON NELSON, MEREDITH WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF FLORISSANT, MISSOURI, Case No. 4:16-cv-01693-NAB (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying classes. Florissant is a city in St. Louis County, Missouri, within Greater St. Louis. It is a middle class, second-ring northern suburb of St. Louis.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrea R. Gold, Esq. Matthew Lanahan, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com mlanahan@tzlegal.com - and - Ryan A. Keane, Esq. Nathaniel R. Carroll, Esq. KEANE LAW LLC 7777 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 391-4700 Facsimile: (314) 244-3778 E-mail: ryan@keanelawllc.com nathaniel@keanelawllc.com - and - Blake A. Strode, Esq. Michael-John Voss, Esq. John M. Waldron, Esq. Jacqueline Kutnik Bauder, Esq. ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, INC. 440 N. 4th Street, Suite 390 St. Louis, MO 63103 Telephone: (855) 724-2489 Facsimile: (314) 925-1304 E-mail: bstrode@archcitydefenders.org mjvoss@archcitydefenders.org jwaldron@archcitydefenders.org jkutnikbauder@archcitydefenders.org GENERAL MOTORS: Court Junks Second Amended Complaint in Gaines -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KELLEY GAINES, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17cv1351-LAB (JLB) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Larry Alan Burns of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed without leave to amend Gaines' Second Amended Complaint. The putative class action arises from the sale of Cadillac SRX vehicles with allegedly defective sunroofs. Gaines leased a model year 2010 Cadillac SRX around May of 2010, and apparently later bought it. Her car first experienced a sunroof leak on Feb. 28, 2017, when she found the floorboard carpet soaked. Shortly after that, she took her car to be repaired. The padding between the firewall and instrument panel assembly was saturated with water. The repair shop discovered that the right front sunroof drain hose was loose, and the right front sunroof drain was not seated in the grommet at the firewall. The shop ran an electrical system diagnostic, but Gaines does not allege any electrical repairs were made. The shop replaced both sunroof drain tubes and charged her $442.48. It also charged her $563 for removing, drying, shampooing, and cleaning the carpet. Gaines made an insurance claim, but still ended up paying the $250 deductible out of pocket. Gaines seeks to represent a class of purchasers of model year 2010-2013 Cadillac SRX vehicles who experienced the Leaking Sunroof Defect and who were required to pay for repairs. The Court permitted Gaines to file a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint ("SAC"), and made clear it would have to correct the defects the Court had pointed out. If the proposed amended complaint did not correct the identified defects, the Court would understand it to mean that she could not. The Court directed Gaines to consider whether a class could be certified. The Court pointed out that Gaines had not clearly alleged that what she calls the Leaking Sunroof Defect was actually a single defect, as opposed to various different defects that could cause the sunroof to leak. The SAC alleges that the defect is either a design defect or a defect in the manufacture of the sunroof and its component parts. It alleges that the defect stems alternatively from three other defects. Because GM has not challenged the treatment of this group of defects as a single defect, Judge Burns treats it as one for purposes of the complaint. But the defect can take various forms and have different causes, and because it is not present in all cars, or in the same form in the cars that have it. It is relevant to the amount in controversy. Next, the SAC never mentions an amount in controversy, and does not even include a conclusory allegation that the $5 million amount in controversy threshold for CAFA jurisdiction is met. Nor does it plead facts that could plausibly show that the amount in controversy is met. In short, the SAC does not plead the requisite amount in in controversy for CAFA jurisdiction. Even looking at other allegations to reason out what the amount in controversy, it is probably not met. Only with a good deal of optimistic conjecture could it be met, and precedent is clear it is not enough. Gaines' failure to invoke the Court's jurisdiction means the action cannot go forward in any event, even if she could state a claim. The Court's order pointed out that Gaines lacks standing to represent putative class members whose cars were covered by a customer service program or the "Cadillac Shield." Gaines cannot represent class members who might have claims arising from either type of coverage, and would be forced to abandon those claims. The SAC seeks to certify an "Injunctive or Declaratory Relief Class." The Court already held that injunctive relief claims to prevent future violations were moot, nor is there any reason to suppose either Gaines or the class members would benefit from an injunction or declaratory relief. The SAC does not remedy it. Although the Court directed Gaines to address the issue, the SAC shows no reasonable likelihood the action could be certified as a class action. The Court dismissed Gaines' breach of express warranty claim with prejudice, and the SAC seeks to replace it with a breach of implied warranty claim. The SAC abandons the false advertising claim. The Court finds that the chain of events required before a safety risk materializes is too attenuated in the case. Not only would the defect have to cause a leak, but the leak would have to cause wiring or electronics to fail, which in turn would have to cause a serious malfunction, which would have to occur suddenly and under the wrong circumstances. It is not to say the alleged defect did not pose a risk at all; rather, the risk shown is too speculative to amount to an unreasonable safety risk requiring disclosure. The SAC again fails to show that GM knew of and failed to disclose an unreasonable risk. The SAC also fails to plead enough other facts with particularity to satisfy Rule 9's pleading standard. The SAC contends that GM unjustly enriched itself by concealing and failing to disclose the defect, thereby preventing owners from taking their cars in for inspection or repairs. The Court's earlier order pointed out that the claim is derivative of the SAC's other claims, and could only succeed if they do. The request for an award of attorney's fees under state statutes is also derivative of other claims. Furthermore, unjust enrichment is a quasi-contract claim that depends on the absence of an express written contract covering the same subject matter. Because there was a written contract covering the same subject matter (i.e., the express warranty), the claim fails. The Court also pointed out that Gaines had not shown how declaring her rights concerning her car's formerly leaking sunroof would provide any meaningful relief. The SAC contends that a declaration will be useful because GM continues to deny payment for the cost of inspection and repairs, forcing class members to bear them. The claim is derivative of the SAC's other claims, and fails for the same reasons. In addition to the new allegations already discussed, the SAC argues that the newly-discovered Exhibit 4 is significant in that it extended the customer satisfaction program to Feb. 28, 2017. Had she been living in one of the places where the program was in effect, she might have benefited from it. But the program was in question was not a warranty, and did not cover Gaines' car. Even if GM voluntarily repaired other cars that experienced sunroof leaks around the same time, Gaines has never shown why it would have been obligated to expand the program to cover her car or other cars in California, or why the voluntary program should have been mandatory. Earlier versions of the complaint have included vague or ambiguous allegations and theories, and Gaines was directed to address those. To the extent the SAC is still vague or ambiguous, the natural conclusion is that Gaines has not corrected those defects because she cannot. In other words, failure to amend appears to stem, not from neglect, but from the fact that the claim cannot be successfully pled. The Judge has reviewed the SAC in light of its previous order, and has determined that the proposed amendments would not salvage it. Because the proposed SAC would again be subject to dismissal for reasons pointed out in the Order and in GM's opposition, Judge Burns denied Gaines' motion for leave to amend. Because the defects have already been pointed out to her, the Judge concluded that further opportunities to amend would be futile. Furthermore, Gaines has failed to invoke the Court's jurisdiction; and the allegations strongly suggest she cannot do so, and that no class could be certified. The SAC is therefore dismissed without leave to amend. Gaines' claims are dismissed with prejudice and the putative class' claims are dismissed without prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 17, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/Zpq2jQ from Leagle.com. Kelley Gaines, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert A. Waller, Jr. -- robert@robertwallerlaw.com -- Law Offices of Robert A. Waller, Jr. General Motors, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gregory R. Oxford -- goxford@iccolaw.com -- Isaacs Clouse Crose & Oxford LLP. GOOBA INC: Sosa Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Hernandez a/k/a 6IX9INE and Gooba, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on Behalf of Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Daniel Hernandez a/k/a 6IX9INE and Gooba, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04856 (S.D. N.Y., June 24, 2020). Gooba (stylized in all caps) is a song by American rapper 6ix9ine. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com GOOGLE INC: Plans to Contest California BIPA Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Eric Weiss, writing for FindBiometrics, reports that Google is planning to contest a class action lawsuit that alleges that the company violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) in Illinois. The lawsuit was filed in February, and specifically concerns a facial recognition database that was created after extracting facial templates from photos on the company's platform. BIPA prevents companies from obtaining and storing an individual's biometric information without their express written consent, which the tech giant did not have while creating its database. However, the company will try to argue that the law does not apply to photographs, and instead only covers templates obtained through other means, such as an in-person scan. While the law does include exceptions for photographs, Google's legal strategy is shaky in light of prior BIPA outcomes. Both Facebook and Shutterfly have tried to make similar arguments in the past, but judges have argued that such a sweeping exception would be contrary to the intent of the Illinois law, and have consequently ruled against both companies. Facebook reached a $550 million settlement earlier this year, though the judge in that case believes that amount is too low and did not grant preliminary approval. The company is expected to present more evidence to support its settlement in July. Meanwhile, Google will try to have its own lawsuit moved to Illinois. The class action suit was initially filed in San Jose, California, though the plaintiff is a resident of Illinois. Google has had prior success in the state, where a District Court judge ruled that faces are public information and that Google's use of facial recognition does not constitute concrete harm. That case is now under appeal. Google may not get a favorable outcome even if it does manage to transfer the case. While Facebook's case was settled in California, the decision against Shutterfly was made in Illinois, though that case was recently sent to arbitration. Google also plans to argue that BIPA does not apply across state lines, though judges have rejected that argument since it would make it virtually impossible for any state to apply consumer protection laws online. [GN] HAMILTON BEACH: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 21 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company (NYSE: HBB) between February 27, 2020, and May 8, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important July 21, 2020 deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Hamilton investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Hamilton class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1856.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) Hamilton had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, particularly with respect to one of its Mexican subsidiaries; (2) consequently, Hamilton's accounting included certain irregularities with respect to the timing of recognition of selling and marketing expenses and the classification of certain expenditures within the statement of operations at this Mexican subsidiary, as well as potential misconduct with respect to the realizability of certain assets of the Mexican subsidiary; (3) as a result of all the foregoing, Hamilton could not accurately attest to its financial results, particularly with respect to these metrics, and was consequently at an increased risk of delaying the filing of its periodic reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; and (4) as a result, defendants' 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 21, 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-1856.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] HEALTH INSURANCE: Keippel Suit Seeks to Certify Stockholder Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JULIAN KEIPPEL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC. n/k/a BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., GAVIN SOUTHWELL, and MICHAEL D. HERSHBERGER, Case No. 8:19-cv-00421-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Lead Plaintiffs move the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class consisting of: "all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired HIIQ common stock during the period September 25, 2017 through April 11, 2019, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby"; 2. appointing themselves as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing Saxena White P.A. as Class Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs' claims arise from the Defendants' material misrepresentations and omissions to investors that HIIQ and its third-party call centers had impeccable compliance and customer service records due to HIIQ's purportedly industry-leading compliance systems and controls. HIIQ sells short-term health insurance products.[CC] The Lead Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon T. Grzandziel, Esq. Maya Saxena, Esq. Joseph E. White, III, Esq. Adam Warden, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com jwhite@saxenawhite.com brandon@saxenawhite.com awarden@saxenawhite.com - and - Steven B. Singer, Esq. 10 Bank Street, 8th Floor White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 437-8551 Facsimile: (888) 631-3611 E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com - and - Mitchell M.Z. Twersky, Esq. ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER And TWERSKY, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 279-5050 Facsimile: (212) 279-3655 E-mail: mtwersky@aftlaw.com HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming August 10, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. ("Hebron" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HEBT) investors who purchased securities between April 24, 2020 and June 3, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Hebron investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/hebron-technology-co-ltd/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On June 3, 2020, Grizzly Research presented a report alleging that Hebron is an "insider enrichment scheme without economic basis," citing questionable transactions including an undisclosed related party transaction for nearly $26 million. On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.26, or nearly 37%, to close at $14.29 per share on June 3, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock continued to decline the next trading session by $2.51, or nearly 18%, to close at $11.78 per share on June 4, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that many of Hebron's acquisitions, including Beijing Hengpu and Nami Holding (Cayman) Co., Ltd., involved undisclosed related parties; (2) that the Company's disclosure controls regarding related party transactions was ineffective; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Hebron securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 10, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com [GN] HONEYWELL INT'L: Class Action Moves Forward in New Jersey Court --------------------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, on June 17 disclosed that the securities class action lawsuit against Honeywell International Inc. (NYSE: HON) on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Honeywell securities from February 9, 2018 through October 19, 2018, continues forward in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Honeywell shareholders that purchased or otherwise acquired Honeywell securities in the time period of February 9, 2018 through October 19, 2018 should visit us at https://www.claimsfiler.com/contact or call toll-free (844) 367-9658. Lawyers at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC are available to discuss your legal options. About the Lawsuit On May 18, 2020, the New Jersey federal judge presiding over the case ruled that the plaintiff-investor leading the suit, represented by Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, sufficiently alleged that the Company made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information regarding its liabilities relating to former subsidiary Bendix Friction Materials' use of asbestos in certain automotive products. On June 10, 2020, a conference was held before the Magistrate Judge to implement a schedule for discovery in the case. The case is Kanefsky v. Honeywell International Inc. et al., 2:18-cv-15536. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler -- http://www.claimsfiler.com-- has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN] IQVIA INC: Lyngaas PLLC Seeks to Certify TCPA Class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., individually and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated persons, v. IQVIA INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02370-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class consisting of: "all persons and entities sent one or more facsimiles (a "fax") after May 19, 2016, soliciting participation in a survey or study in exchange for compensation, without prior express invitation or permission and without the clear and conspicuous opt-out notice." The case involves common fact questions about Defendant's fax campaign and common legal questions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. IQVIA provides information and technology services to the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries. The Company offers services such as product and portfolio management capabilities, commercial effectiveness solutions, managed care, and consumer health.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Shenkan, Esq. SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS , LLC P.O. Box 7255 New Castle, PA 16107 Telephone: (800) 601-0808 Facsimile: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com - and - Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Tod A. Lewis, Esq. Molly Stemper, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 E-mail: service@classlawyers.com JOURNEYS: Cota Files Suit in California under ADA ------------------------------------------------- Journeys is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Journeys, a Tennessee corporation and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01141-BEN-WVG (S.D. Cal., June 23, 2020). Journeys offers shoes for men, women, and kids, as well as clothing and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Wilshire Law Firm 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 381-9988 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com JRCIGARS.COM: Rodriguez Asserts Breach of ADA --------------------------------------------- JRCigars.com, 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. JRCigars.com, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02806 (E.D. N.Y., June 24, 2020). JR Cigars is a cigar store and offers premium cigars online.[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 JUUL LABS: Bautista-Perez Seeks Class Certification of FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MARIA DE LA LUZ BAUTISTA-PEREZ, LUZ PEREZ BAUTISTA and SALVADORA CORREA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC., COALITION FOR REASONABLE VAPING REGULATION, LONG YING INTERNATIONAL, INC., DAVID M. HO, and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-01613-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff Maria de la Luz Bautista-Perez asks the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional class certification of and to facilitate collective action to: "all individuals who were hired by Long Ying International, Inc. who traveled between Yes on C Campaign offices to work both a phone banking and a canvassing shift during the same day and worked more than 40 hours or more in any single week between July 2019 and October 2019 (Campaign Worker); and 2. requiring the Defendants to disclose contact information for these Campaign Workers, and to toll the statutes of limitations on the Fair Labor Standards Act claim. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants misclassified Campaign Workers as Independent Contractors, and systematically failed to pay Campaign Workers for work-related travel time when traveling to other Campaign offices between shifts on the same calendar day, during weeks when Campaign Workers worked 40 hours or more, resulting in unpaid overtime in violation of the FLSA's overtime compensation requirements. The Campaign Workers were engaged to work on the political campaign for Yes on C, a voter measure placed on San Francisco's November 2019 general election ballot. Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company which spun off from Pax Labs in 2017. Coalition for Reasonable Vaping Regulation is a Juul-backed organization established in May to fight the e-cigarette sale ban.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron Kaufmann, Esq. Giselle Olmedo, Esq. LEONARD CARDER, LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2700 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 272-0169 Facsimile: (510) 272-0174 E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com golmedo@leonardcarder.com - and - Carole Vigne, Esq. George A. Warner, Esq. LEGAL AID AT WORK 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 864-8848 Facsimile: (415) 593-0096 E-mail: cvigne@legalaidatwork.org gwarner@legalaidatwork.org KENTUCKY: Court Dismisses T. Jackson's Inmates Complaint -------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Southern Division, London issued an Order dismissing the case captioned TERRENCE JACKSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. J. GILLEY, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 6:20-120-WOB. (E.D. Ky.). Defendant John Gilley is the warden of Federal Correctional Institution of Manchester, Kentucky. Terrence Jackson is an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Manchester, Kentucky. Proceeding without an attorney, Jackson and three other inmates have filed a civil rights action pursuant to the doctrine announced in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The complaint seeks money damages and injunctive relief due to the defendants' alleged failure to provide certain religious items to the plaintiffs, all members of the Nation of Islam. Before filing a lawsuit regarding prison conditions, a prisoner must complete all steps of the prison's grievance process. However, here, the complaint does contain information about exhaustion and in fact makes clear that the plaintiffs have only partially completed the administrative remedy process, the Court notes. Thus, their federal case is premature, the Court opines. Until the plaintiffs have fully completed each step of the administrative remedy process, their action is premature in the Court. Because it is clear from the face of the complaint that this matter is not yet fully exhausted, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 18, 2020 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7empvfe from Leagle.com. LOCAL CPAP NEW YORK: Sosa Files ADA Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------- Local CPAP New York, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on Behalf of Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Local CPAP New York, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04860 (S.D. N.Y., June 24, 2020). Local CPAP New York, LLC is a Medical equipment supplier in New York City, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com LYFT INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suits ----------------------------------------------------- Lyft, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend two consolidated putative class action suits related to its Initial Public Offering (IPO) Registration Statement. Beginning in April 2019, several putative class actions were filed in California state and federal court against the Company, its directors, certain of its officers, and certain of the underwriters named in the initial public offering (IPO) Registration Statement alleging violation of securities laws in connection with the IPO. These cases have been consolidated into two putative class actions, one in California state court and the other in federal court. The Company filed its demurrer to the consolidated complaint in California state court on December 30, 2019. The hearing on the Company's demurrer has been postponed due to the public health crisis caused by COVID-19. On April 16, 2020, plaintiffs in the federal court case filed a consolidated complaint. The Company's motion to dismiss that consolidated complaint was due May 14, 2020. Lyft said, "The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. The Company's chances of success on the merits are still uncertain and any possible loss or range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated." Lyft, Inc. provides online ridesharing services. The Company offers ride booking, payment processing, and car transportation services. Lyft serves customers in the United States. The company is based in San Francisco California. MATTERPORT INC: Stemmelin Files Suit in California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matterport, Inc. The case is styled as John Stemmelin, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Matterport, Inc., a Delaware corporation, RJ Pittman, Dave Gausebeck, Matt Bell, Carlos Kokron, Peter Hebert, Jason Krikorian and Mike Gustafson, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-04168 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other filed pursuant to Diversity-(Citizenship). Matterport is the world leader in immersive 3D technology, offering a platform for prosumers and professionals to easily capture, edit and share 3D models of physical spaces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Jason Hill, Esq. Cohelan Khoury & Singer 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 595-3001 Fax: (619) 595-3000 Email: jhill@ckslaw.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Oleson Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DIANNA OLESON and ANN ZARCZYNSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00753-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiffs' claims by tendering the plaintiffs' individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order to certify class, appoint themselves as the class representative, and appoint their attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "the parties did not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com MINTED INC: Faces CCPA Class Action in Calif. Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Natalie A. Prescott, Esq. -- NPrescott@mintz.com -- and Cynthia J. Larose, Esq. -- CJLarose@mintz.com -- of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, report that online stationery and craft company Minted Inc. has been hit with a CCPA class action lawsuit, stemming from a massive data breach the company disclosed in late May. The proposed class action lawsuit, filed in a California federal court, claims that Minted Inc. failed to implement "reasonable security measures" and to properly encrypt certain personal information. See Atkinson v. Minted, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-03869 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2020). As a result, the hackers allegedly accessed the company's database that contained customers' names and login credentials, including unredacted and unencrypted account information. Some 73.2 million records were allegedly stolen and included passwords, names, and other information. The Minted Inc. lawsuit is predicated on the California Consumer Privacy Act. It also asserts other causes of action, such as California's Unfair Competition Law, negligence, breach of contract, and breach of implied contract. The putative class seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, and penalties. The plaintiffs asked the court to certify two classes: (1) a California class predicated on the CCPA and the UCL and (2) a nationwide class, which includes those consumers to whom the CCPA and the UCL do not apply. As a reminder, the CCPA applies to many companies doing business in California, if they meet certain thresholds, which we previously discussed here. If the company subject to the CCPA fails to implement "reasonable security measures," and a data breach subsequently results, the victims of the data breach that are California residents can file a class action and seek significant statutory penalties, ranging from $100 to $750 per every single violation. In a breach involving 73.2 million records, these penalties quickly escalate to "bet the company" damages, if a large percentage of the putative class plaintiffs reside in California and can claim CCPA penalties. Additionally, California Attorney General can seek even higher penalties through a regulatory enforcement action, although it is presently unclear how the AG intends to enforce the CCPA, and the draft regulations only became final late last month, as we discussed here. "Reasonable security" is a particularly thorny topic and one that has not been defined in the CCPA, or by the courts to any degree. We discussed the "reasonable security" threshold in a recent webinar with recommendations as to how to develop a reasonable, sustainable, and defensible information security program. The CCPA is gaining significant traction in California. We previously reported here on the very first CCPA class action complaint, which was filed earlier this year—Fuentes v. Sunshine Behavioral Health Group, LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-00487 (C.D. Cal. March 10, 2020). Similarly to the Minted Inc. lawsuit, it stemmed from a data breach, which allegedly exposed highly sensitive personal and medical information of thousands of patients. We also wrote here about the first-of-its kind California class action, Barnes v. Hanna Andersson, LLC, which relied on the CCPA to form a basis for a claim under another California statute but did not expressly assert a CCPA cause of action. We anticipate a steady increase in the number of CCPA data breach class actions that will be filed this year. [GN] MITOUSHI SUSHI: Rotari Class Suit Gets Partial Prelim Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EVGHENIA ROTARI and ZIN ZHI LOU On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MITOUSHI SUSHI, INC. d/b/a MITOUSHI ASIAN FUSION, ATLANTIC MITOUSHI SUSHI INC. d/b/a MITOUSHI, KINDACHI INC. d/b/a MITOUSHI JAPANESE FUSION, FUCIAANA, INC. d/b/a MITOUSHI ASIAN FUSION, HAI LOON "ALLEN" MAK, JASMINE LAW, KIMBERLY LAW, LAY CHOO KOAY, and SIEW KHIM KOAY, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-5182 (BMC) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Brian M. Cogan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary certification of the collective action. The Plaintiffs commenced the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), seeking to represent a collective and a class of similarly situated employees. They allege that the Defendants own and operate four sushi restaurants at the following locations: 1714 Sheepshead Bay Road, Brooklyn, NY 11235; 1221 Quentin Road, Brooklyn, NY 11229; 2478 Coney Island Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11223; and 177 Atlantic Ave., Brooklyn, NY 1120. Each restaurant is a separate domestic business corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New York. The only Defendants to have appeared in this case are Mitoushi Sushi (the Sheepshead Bay restaurant), Hai Loon "Allen" Mak (its owner), and his wife, Jasmine Law ("non-defaulting Defendants"). The remaining corporate and individual Defendants have failed to appear, despite being properly served, and thus the Clerk of the Court has noted the default as to these Defendants. The Plaintiffs are former servers from the Sheepshead Bay and King's Highway locations and seek conditional certification of their claims under a single collective, which would include servers who worked at the four restaurants within the three years prior from the date they actually file a consent to join the action. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the FLSA (and corresponding state laws) by, inter alia, failing to pay minimum wages and denying them overtime compensation. The Plaintiffs have moved for conditional certification of a collective under Section 216(b) of the FLSA. Like most FLSA motions for a collective, the case one depends primarily on averments in the Plaintiffs' affidavits describing how the Defendants operated the restaurants and treated other employees. The Defendants contend that the Court should give "no weight to the Rotari declaration" because her FLSA claims are time-barred under the three-year statute of limitations applicable to willful FLSA violations. Even assuming Rotari's claims are time-barred, her affidavit (as an affidavit of any witness) may be considered at the first stage of the collective action motion. Given the substantial overlap of employees and managers and similar modus operandi between the King's Highway and Sheepshead Bay locations as both the Plaintiffs' affidavits describe, Judge Cogan holds there is no reason to believe that the former suddenly changed its compensation policies after Rotari's departure in May 2016. The Plaintiffs aver that employees at two other restaurants also experienced the same policy of undercompensation and unpaid overtime. The Defendants contend that the Court should not include these two locations in the collective action because the Plaintiffs lack personal knowledge as to these locations' practices. Judge Cogan finds sufficient detail in the Plaintiffs' affidavits to justify including servers from the Coney Island location in the conditional collective action. The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs have also shown enough to suggest that there was a common ownership among the four locations. Based on Luo's affidavit, Rotari's specific corroboration, and the substantial overlap of employees, the Judge agrees that there appears to have been a common ownership interest among the four locations. The Plaintiffs have asked the Court to equitably toll the statute of limitations until notice is sent to the members of the collective. Although articulated in an entirely different legal context, the Supreme Court has instructed that equitable tolling is not a "cure-all for an entirely common state of affairs." If the Congress wanted to toll the statute of limitations for opt-in plaintiffs under the FLSA as a means of avoiding the very scenario that the Plaintiff argues warrants equitable tolling in the case, the Congress would have included such a provision in the statute. It did not, and the Plaintiffs have not shown why their case is any different from a regular, run-of-the-mill FLSA collective action. Their motion for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations is denied. Mak avers that he currently neither owns nor has any responsibilities over the other three restaurants. However, in his affidavit, Mak avoids definitively denying that there was ever any common ownership or management among the four locations during the relevant time period. The Court resolves the problem as follows: The non-defaulting Defendants will produce, without delay, any and all non-privileged documents and electronically stored information within their possession, custody, or control that refer to the other three locations and corporate entities. Without delay, the corporate Defendant for the Sheepshead Bay restaurant, "Mama Mito Inc." or "Mitoushi," will identify and make available to the Plaintiffs a witness for deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). The witness will be prepared to testify as to all the current and past principals of Mama Mito since its inception and whether its principals have or the corporate entity has ever held a property interest in the other three restaurants. The witness should also be able to articulate the entity's relationship with the other three locations, including as to why its employees were regularly shared with the other locations. It does not mean that the Judge has determined that the Plaintiffs' allegations of common management other than for purposes of the first step of the collective motion analysis. But the non-defaulting Defendants are on notice that whatever relationships exist or existed between them, if any, the Plaintiff is going to obtain complete disclosure about them, and quickly. The Plaintiffs seek expedited disclosure of contact information for members of the collective, but they do not explain what they mean by "expedited." The Judge orders the non-defaulting Defendants, within 14 days of the Order, to disclose the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses for all employees who worked as a server (or any other similar title) at the Sheepshead Bay location, and to the extent it is within their custody, possession, or control, similar contact information for servers from the other three locations. The production of contact information need only cover servers employed by defendants within three years of the Order. The Plaintiffs also request to post the notice, along with consent forms, in a conspicuous location at all four locations. The Judge adopts the Plaintiffs' proposed notice and it will be posted at the Sheepshead Bay location, along with sufficient consent forms, in a conspicuous location within 7 days of the Order. The posting of the notice and consent forms at the remaining three locations will be stayed until the completion of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Finally, after a notice is sent, the Plaintiffs seek to send a reminder notice to the potential opt-in Plaintiffs before the deadline for opting in, to which the Defendants object. The Judge permits one reminder. The reminder notice may be mailed and e-mailed to the potential opt-in Plaintiffs 14 days before the opt-in deadline. In light of the foregoing, Judge Cogan granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification as a FLSA collective action, and for court-authorized notice, in accordance with the guidelines he set forth. Within 7 days of the Order, any and all documents and ESI within the non-defaulting Defendants' possession, custody, or control which refer to the other three locations or corporate entities will be produced to the Plaintiffs. Within 10 days of the Order, the non-defaulting Defendants will make available for deposition a Rule 30(b)(6) witness. They are reminded that Rule 30(b)(6) requires that the witness be properly prepared for his deposition. Within 7 days of the Order, the non-defaulting Defendants will post the notice, along with sufficient consent forms, in a conspicuous location at the Sheepshead Bay location. Furthermore, they are directed to disclose to the Plaintiffs, within 14 days of the Order, the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of its servers as set forth. The Plaintiffs who wish to participate in the FLSA collective action must opt in by May 30, 2020. Upon completion of the deposition of the Rule 30(b)(6) witness, the Plaintiff will request a status conference with the Court. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 17, 2020 Memorandum Decision & Order is available at https://is.gd/pq6VpE from Leagle.com. Evghenia Rotari, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Quincy Davis -- cdavis@workingsolutionsnyc.com -- The Law Office of Christopher Q. Davis, PLLC, Mariyam Hussain -- mhussain@workingsolutionsnyc.com -- The Law Office of Christopher Q. Davis PLLC & Rachel Meredith Haskell -- rhaskell@workingsolutionsnyc.com -- The Law Office of Christopher Q. Davis PLLC. Xin Zhi Luo, Plaintiff, represented by Rachel Meredith Haskell, The Law Office of Christopher Q. Davis PLLC. Hai Loon Mak, Defendant, represented by Perry Burkett & Stephen Harry Marcus -- smarcus@gblaw.net -- Law Offices of Stephen K. Seung. Jasmine Law, Defendant, represented by Perry Burkett. Mamamito Inc, d/b/a Mitoushi Asian Fusion, Defendant, represented by Stephen Harry Marcus, Law Offices of Stephen K. Seung. MOTT & BOW INC: Slade Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Mott & Bow, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Mott & Bow, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04840 (S.D. N.Y., June 24, 2020). Mott & Bow is a premium clothing brand.[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 MUDRICK CAPITAL: Hycroft Warrant Holder's Bid to Dismiss Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mudrick Capital Acquisition Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the purported class action suit initiated by a purported holder of warrants of Hycroft Mining Corporation is pending. On February 7, 2020, a purported class action complaint was filed by a purported holder of warrants of Hycroft Mining Corporation (Hycroft) in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and Hycroft. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the transactions contemplated under the Purchase Agreement constitute a "Fundamental Change" under the terms of the Hycroft warrant agreement and thereby requiring that the Hycroft warrants be assumed by the Company as part of the Hycroft Business Combination, in addition to asserting claims for (i) breach or anticipatory breach of contract against Hycroft, (ii) breach or anticipatory breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Hycroft, and (iii) tortious interference with contractual relations against the Company. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and also seeks an injunction enjoining Hycroft and the Company from consummating the Hycroft Business Combination. On February 26, 2020, the Company and Hycroft entered into an Amendment to the Purchase Agreement whereby Hycroft's liabilities and obligations under the Hycroft warrant agreement shall be included as a Parent Assumed Liability under the Purchase Agreement. On March 27, 2020, the Company and Hycroft filed motions to dismiss the complaint. Mudrick Capital Acquisition Corporation is a blank check company formed as a Delaware corporation for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses, which the company refers to throughout this Report as its initial business combination. The company is based in New York, New York. NANTHEALTH INC: Awaits Final Approval of $16.5MM Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the case, Atul Singh Deora v. NantHealth, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01825 (C.D. Cal.), are awaiting Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr.'s decision on the motion for final approval of class settlement and for award of attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and compensatory award. In a June 5 order, Judge Hatter said the motion "is appropriate for decision without oral argument." Accordingly, the motion was taken under submission and the July 15 hearing to consider approval of the deal was vacated. NantHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that in March 2017, a number of putative class action securities complaints were filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its current or former executive officers and directors. These complaints have been consolidated with the lead case captioned Deora v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-cv-01825. ("Deora") In June 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, which generally alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by making material misrepresentations in NantHealth's Initial Public Offering (IPO) registration statement and in subsequent public statements. In particular, the complaint refers to various third-party articles in alleging that defendants misrepresented NantHealth's business with the University of Utah, donations to the university by non-profit entities associated with the Company's founder Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, and orders for GPS Cancer. The lead plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or acquired NantHealth securities in the IPO or on the open market from June 1, 2016 through May 1, 2017. In March 2018, the court largely denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On July 30, 2019, the court certified the case as a class action. On October 23, 2019, the parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in principle to resolve the action on a classwide basis in the amount of $16,500,000, which was included in accrued and other current liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2019. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on January 31, 2020, and a hearing for final approval of the settlement was scheduled for June 15, 2020. The $16,500,000 settlement was paid into a settlement fund prior to the payment deadline of March 2, 2020. The majority of the settlement amount was funded by the Company's insurance carriers, and a portion was funded by the Company. NantHealth said, "The settlement is contingent upon certain matters, including final approval by the court. Also, the parties have the right to terminate the settlement in certain circumstances." Additional information on the settlement is available at: https://www.nanthealthsecuritieslitigation.com/ NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a healthcare technology company in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Culver City, California. NantHealth, Inc. is as a subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC. NATERA INC: TCPA Class Suit Ongoing in California Court -------------------------------------------------------- Natera, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a purported class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). On March 15, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the plaintiff received an unauthorized text message to her cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Among other relief, the complaint seeks statutory and other damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and costs. On June 18, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied. An amended complaint was filed on April 23, 2020. Natera, Inc., a diagnostics company, provides preconception and prenatal genetic testing services. The company was formerly known as Gene Security Network, Inc. and changed its name to Natera, Inc. in 2012. Natera, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in San Carlos, California. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Another Antitrust Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Darren Heitner, writing for Above the Law, reports that the NCAA and, more recently, the Power Five conferences have begged Congress for an antitrust exemption based on numerous prior lawsuits that have allegedly served to drain their resources. A new 95-page complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California may add fuel to their fire, even though legislators like Representative Anthony Gonzalez have made it clear that they are not in favor of providing the NCAA the type of blanket relief requested. The action was brought by Arizona State swimming and diving team member Grant House and Oregon women's basketball player Sedona Price, who are represented by law firm Hagens Berman. They claim that the NCAA and Power Five conferences have violated federal antitrust laws by prohibiting college athletes from receiving any consideration in exchange for the use of their names, images, and likenesses (NIL). On June 12, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law a bill that will allow college athletes in Florida to have those very rights beginning on July 1, 2021, irrespective of whether the NCAA or the Power Five conferences change their current restrictions. However, that is just one state and does not do anything to alter the current landscape, which has prevented college athletes from partaking in an economic system where everyone is earning money except for them. The lawsuit brought by House and Price begins with a focus on current NBA player Zion Williamson, who was a star during his one year at Duke University. Yet, Williamson was unable to capitalize off of his athletic prowess while Duke was earning millions of dollars from its sponsorship contract with Nike. The relief requested by the plaintiff is in the form of an injunction that will remove NCAA rules that currently prohibit college athletes from earning compensation from the use of their names, images, and likenesses, as well as monetary damages based on the monies that they should have received in the past for the use of their images on social media and through television rights deals. "[I]n a system where billions of dollars are generated primarily off the backs (literally, when sponsor[s] pay to outfit student-athletes with branded equipment and apparel) and athletic successes of student-athletes, the restrictions on NIL compensation do not prevent exploitation -- they are exploitative . . . The unfairness in this arrangement grows exponentially with each new multi-million (or multi-billion) dollar television and sponsorship deal, coaching contract, and facility construction, while the selective and blanket restrictions on student-athletes are maintained," states the complaint. One industry that would likely engage many college athletes in endorsement deals is composed of shoe and apparel companies such as Nike, Adidas, and Under Armour. The complaint says that, as of 2019, those companies had exclusive rights to outfit 97% of all Division I football and basketball programs, earning schools and coaches millions of dollars annually in income and noncash benefits. Meanwhile, college athletes cannot currently take advantage of similar economic relationships. The complaint was filed with the intention of being converted into a class action, which seeks to include current or former college athletes who were active for any period since June 15, 2016. [GN] NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Torres Filed in Gulino Bias Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from District Court's judgment entered on October 17, 2019, 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 of Education, Case No. 19-3860, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Elsie Torres 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. INTERIM CORPORATION COUNSEL NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-356-2400 NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Willoughby Filed in Gulino Bias Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment entered on October 22, 2019, 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 of Education, Case No. 19-3902, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Denise Willoughby 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. INTERIM CORPORATION COUNSEL NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-356-2400 NEW YORK: NYPD Sued for Violating Bail Reform Laws on DUIs ---------------------------------------------------------- Rob Abruzzese, writing for Brooklyn Daily Eagle, reports that a class action lawsuit was filed in the Brooklyn Supreme Court against the City of New York, NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea, and a series of individual police officers for allegedly violating a bail reform law. The law firm of Barket Epstein is taking the case, and will represent a group of New Yorkers who were allegedly wrongfully detained following a DUI. According to the suit, New York City, through the NYPD, violates a bail reform law by falsely imprisoning people charged with driving under the influence of alcohol with blood alcohol levels below 0.08. Under the current law, people who blow less than 0.08 are supposed to be given a desk appearance ticket and immediately released, the suit claims. "This is yet another example of the over prosecution of New York City residents charged with DWI based simply on the crime charged and with reckless disregard for the circumstances surrounding each person's case," said Steven Epstein, a founding partner at Barket Epstein and head of the firm's DWI and Vehicular Crimes group. "Unfortunately, while bail reform was passed to ensure that people are not unnecessarily jailed, a large population has nevertheless been arrested and imprisoned in precincts and jails across the five boroughs by the NYPD," said attorney Alexander Klein. "This practice of false imprisonment violates express statutory law of New York State, as well as the due process rights of its victims." Klein added that since March, this dangerous alleged practice by the NYPD further puts people in danger by exposing them to COVID-19 in prisons. "The majority of men and women represented in this class action lawsuit are first-time offenders," Klein said. "The experience of spending days or even nights locked in precincts, or worse, in notorious jails like Bronx Central Booking or Manhattan's 'Tombs,' has been frightening for the victims and their families." Lawyers from Barket Epstein explained that they have had clients detained until arraignment, and have claimed that this practice violates their clients' state and federal rights to due process. "Defendant Shea has been grossly negligent in supervising subordinates who have continued effectuating these detentions, which is how this illegal practice has become so widespread," Klein wrote in the summons and complaint. Among their requests, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages and they're seeking a permanent injunction to bar the NYPD from detaining people unlawfully. [GN] NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal v. Buie Filed in Gulino Bias Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from District Court's judgment entered on October 31, 2019, 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 of Education, Case No. 19-3996, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Cheryl Buie 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. INTERIM CORPORATION COUNSEL NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-356-2400 NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Masri Files FDCPA Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location Services, LLC. The case is styled as Moshe Masri, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02795 (E.D. N.Y., June 23, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar Companies, provides receivables debt collection services. The Company offers first and third party debt collections, customer care programs, and location services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal O'NEILL WETSUITS: Cota Files Suit in California Under ADA --------------------------------------------------------- O'Neill Wetsuits, L.L.C. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. O'Neill Wetsuits, L.L.C., a California corporation and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01142-BEN-DEB (S.D. Cal., June 23, 2020). O'Neill was originally a Californian surf wear and surfboard brand that started in 1952 by Jack O'Neill. It moved down the coast from San Francisco to Santa Cruz by the end of the decade. Jack is credited to have invented the wetsuit, his son Pat the leash on the surfboard. The company logo symbolizes a breaking surf wave.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Wilshire Law Firm 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 381-9988 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Dismissal of Courtright Suit Partly Reversed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, REBECCA COURTRIGHT, ET AL., Appellants, v. O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, Respondent, Case No. WD82684 (Mo. App.), the U.S. Court of Appeals of Missouri for the Western District reversed in part and affirmed in part the Jackson County circuit court's judgment granting O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc.; CSK Auto, Inc.; and O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC's motion to dismiss. Prospective employees Rebecca Courtright; Anthony Bradley; Raphael Saye; and Juan Estrada, appeal a Jackson county circuit court judgment granting a motion to dismiss in an action brought against the Defendants, the Respondents, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") arising from their revocation of conditional job offers due to consumer reports before disclosing the reports. Ms. Courtright applied to work at an O'Reilly Auto Parts store in January 2014. She was given disclosure and authorization forms and authorized O'Reilly to procure her background report. She was extended an employment offer conditioned on satisfactorily completing a criminal-background check. Ms. Courtright though, had two felony identity-theft convictions that appeared on her background report. Ms. Courtright did not challenge the background report's contents or the two felony convictions. Due to Ms. Courtright's felony convictions, O'Reilly revoked the conditional employment offer. She testified that the harm she suffered from the adverse action before disclosure was that she did not get the job and, thereafter, did not have the means to pay for a place to live. Mr. Bradley applied to work for O'Reilly in March 2016. Mr. Bradley was given disclosure and authorization forms, and he authorized O'Reilly to procure his background report. He was extended an employment offer conditioned on satisfactorily completing a criminal-background check. O'Reilly requested Mr. Bradley's background report through a third-party vendor, General Information Services ("GIS"). GIS' background report erroneously indicated that Mr. Bradley had been found guilty of stealing leased or rented property and had been sentenced to 30-day's confinement, with a suspended execution of sentence. O'Reilly informed Mr. Bradley that he would not be extended the employment offer based on information in his background report. It also informed Mr. Bradley he could dispute the report's accuracy directly with GIS. O'Reilly did not furnish the report to Mr. Bradley, but he requested and received the erroneous report from GIS. Mr. Bradley disputed the errors in writing to GIS. GIS corrected the errors and passed along the correction to O'Reilly, which in turn, contacted Mr. Bradley with an employment offer in May 2016. Mr. Bradley accepted the offer and worked for O'Reilly until June 2016, when he voluntarily left. He testified that the harm he suffered was that he was "without a paycheck" for a period of time, that his name was tarnished, and that he was made to look like a "liar." Mr. Saye applied to work for O'Reilly in July 2013. Mr. Saye digitally completed and signed an employment application that gave notice of the background check, and he authorized O'Reilly to procure his background report. His background report revealed a burglary charge and a scheduled court date for September 2013. Mr. Saye's attorney sent a letter to O'Reilly stating that the burglary charge had been dismissed on Sept. 5, 2013, as part of a diversionary program, but that Mr. Saye was to return to court a year later, where he would be "sentenced to an infraction." Mr. Saye was not hired because of the burglary charge. Mr. Saye testified that the harm he suffered was that he did not obtain a job he expected and "slight harm" to his ego. Mr. Estrada applied several times for employment with O'Reilly and was given disclosure and authorization forms, and he authorized O'Reilly to procure his background report. Mr. Estrada testified that he was aware that there was a disclosure in the employment-application process. He was hired by and worked for O'Reilly. His employment was later terminated because he violated a company policy regarding drinks in company vehicles. He testified that the harm he suffered from O'Reilly's report requests was that his credit score was negatively affected. Mr. Estrada also testified that he did not know if his credit score had actually been negatively affected. Ms. Courtright initially filed her complaint in March 2014 as a putative class action against only O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc., in the Jackson County Circuit Court. O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc., removed the action in April 2014 to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. While in federal court, Mr. Saye joined Ms. Courtright as a Plaintiff, and together they filed a first-amended complaint. The federal court consolidated Ms. Courtright's and Mr. Saye's action in March 2015 with Mr. Estrada's separate action. Ms. Courtright, Mr. Saye, and Mr. Estrada moved to remand the case to the Jackson County Circuit Court and, in September 2017, the federal court granted the motion. The federal court did not reach the merits of O'Reilly's summary-judgment motion, but instead declared it moot in light of the remand. O'Reilly moved for dismissal of the first-amended complaint for lack of standing, and the Appellants moved for leave to file a second-amended complaint. The circuit court granted leave to do so in April 2018 and added Mr. Bradley as a Plaintiff to the putative class action. The Appellants' second-amended complaint contains four counts. As applicable to the individually named Plaintiff's, Count I is an adverse-action claim which alleges that O'Reilly violated the FCRA by obtaining a background report and taking adverse employment action based on the contents of such report without first providing Ms. Courtright, Mr. Bradley, and Mr. Saye an opportunity to "cure any inaccuracies" within the report. Count II is a disclosure claim and alleges that O'Reilly violated the FCRA by failing to properly disclose to Mr. Saye and Mr. Estrada that O'Reilly was procuring a background report. Count II also alleges that the requisite disclosure form "was buried in a hyperlink in the application process" and that it was possible to complete the application process without clicking on the hyperlink. Count IV is an authorization claim and alleges that O'Reilly violated the FCRA by procuring background reports without proper authorization from Mr. Saye and Mr. Estrada. Count V, brought by Mr. Saye, alleges that O'Reilly violated California's Unfair Competition Law. Count V is a derivative claim from Counts I, II, and IV, alleging that O'Reilly violated California's Unfair Competition Law by violating the FCRA.2 O'Reilly filed a "motion to dismiss" in November 2018, attaching and relying on several exhibits that were outside the pleadings. It also included a statement of facts in numbered paragraphs. The Appellants opposed O'Reilly's motion by attaching and relying on several exhibits, also outside the pleadings. They responded to each of the numbered paragraphs in O'Reilly's statement of facts as either "controverted," "controverted in part," or "uncontroverted." They also included their own additional statement of facts in response to O'Reilly's motion. The circuit court held oral argument in February 2019 on the motion to dismiss and granted it for lack of standing. The Appellants timely appealed. They allege that the trial court erred in dismissing the claims in the second-amended complaint for lack of standing to bring the alleged FCRA violations because Appellant's allegations are sufficient to establish a concrete harm. The Appellate Court holds that the trial court erred in determining that Mr. Bradley did not have standing to present the adverse-action claim. The Appellate Court finds that it is undisputed that Mr. Bradley's assertion of the report's inaccuracy was not vague but definite, and once those disputed inaccuracies were corrected, O'Reilly did in fact offer employment to Mr. Bradley. Had Mr. Bradley been afforded the opportunity to dispute the inaccuracies pre-adverse action, then his asserted harm, i.e, that he was "without a paycheck" for a period of time, would not have occurred. Point one is granted as to Mr. Bradley's claim for adverse action. The Appellate Court also finds that the Appellants only presented evidence that applicants would not have been provided with a disclosure or given an authorization from January 2013 through March 2014 unless they clicked the hyperlink within the Respondents' employment application. The Appellants failed to dispute the material fact of whether Mr. Saye and Mr. Estrada received the requisite disclosure or authorization forms by clicking or not clicking the link. In contrast, Mr. Saye completed an employment application and signed with a digital signature that gave notice of the background check and Mr. Estrada testified that he was aware of the disclosure during the employment application process. Further, the Appellant's counsel conceded during oral argument that Mr. Saye and Mr. Estrada did receive notice of the background check during the application process. Point two is denied. In the third point, the Appellants argue that the circuit court erred in dismissing count III and count V of the second-amended complaint, which alleged California state law claims derivative of the FCRA for adverse action, and disclosure and authorization. This point, like point II, is multifarious. The Appellate Court notes that Count V alleges violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The Appellants argue that if Mr. Saye has standing under the FCRA or ICRAA, their derivative claims under the UCL should also survive. The Appellate Court does not find that Mr. Saye had standing under the FCRA, and standing under the ICRAA was not preserved. This point is denied. The Appellate Court concludes that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on all other counts of the second-amended complaint. For these reasons, the Appellate Court remanded for further proceedings consistent with his Opinion. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's March 17, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/lVR5bU from Leagle.com. Charles Brown, Gower, MO, Counsel for Appellants. Jayson Watkins -- watkins@brownandwatkins.com -- Gower, MO, Co-Counsel for Appellants. William Martucci -- wmartucci@shb.com -- Kansas City, MO Counsel for Respondent. Kristen Page -- kpage@shb.com -- Kansas City, MO Co-Counsel for Respondent. ORGANIFI LLC: Liou Suit Removed From Super. Court to S.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as GLENN LIOU, a Natural Person, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and for the benefit of the general public v. ORGANIFI, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, ANDREW CANOLE, a Natural Person, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 37-2019-00045968-CU-BT-CTL (Filed Aug. 30, 2019), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on June 12, 2020. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01077-CAB-AGS to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a class of similarly-situated consumers, including all persons, who have purchased Organifi's Green Juice within the past four years other than for purposes of resale or distribution.[BN] Organifi provides health and wellness products, such as Green Juice products.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David A. Shimkin, Esq. Brett N. Taylor, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: 213 892 7900 Facsimile: 213 892 7999 E-mail: dshimkin@cozen.com btaylor@cozen.com ORLANS PC: Wins Dismissal of Suit Over Debt Collection Protocol ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as FREDDIE GARLAND, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ORLANS PC, LINDA ORLANS, and ALISON ORLANS, Case No. 2:18-cv-11561-DPH-RSW (E.D. Mich., Filed May 17, 2018), the Hon. Judge Denise Page Hood entered an order: 1. granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss; 2. denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the motion to dismiss;; 3. denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Portions of the Defendants' Supplemental Brief; 4. denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion to certify class; 5. dismissing the Plaintiff's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim with prejudice and the Plaintiff's Regulation of Collection Practices Act claim without prejudice; 6. warning the Defendants about filing bad faith arguments or failing to comply with Court Orders; and 7. awarding the Plaintiff $1,000.00 for having to file the Motion to strike portions of the Defendants' Supplemental Brief. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the FDCPA and RCPA, when the Defendant Orlans PC mailed one or more similar letters to him and others. The Defendants are Michigan’s second-largest foreclosure law firm.[CC] PARTSBASE INC: Cond. Cert. of FLSA Collective Sought in Sullivan ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as SEAN SULLIVAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PARTSBASE, INC. d/b/a CERTIFIED LUXURY WATCHES, ROBERT A. HAMMOND, and SIGRID M. HUBER, Case No. 9:20-cv-80630-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action for the putative class of similarly situated: "all persons employed by or performing work for PARTSBASE, INC. d/b/a CERTIFIED LUXURY WATCHES, as Inside Sales Representatives (ISR) under the title of Sales Representative and any other job titles previously used to describe persons working as inside sales representatives at any time within the three years preceding this lawsuit to the day of trial"; 2. requiring the Defendants to produce the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of each putative class member; and 3. authorizing notice of this action be sent to all currently or formerly employed ISR that were employed by Defendants within the preceding three years. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants willfully failed to pay Inside Sales Representatives overtime compensation and willfully failed to properly track and record their work hours in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. PartsBase operates the world's largest B2B online parts locator service for the aviation, aerospace and defense industries.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 6940 W. Linebaugh Ave, No. 101 Tampa, FL 33625 Telephone: 813 639-9366 Facsimile: 813 639-9376 E-mail: mlf@feldmanlegal.us lschindler@feldmanlegal.us PAT MCGRATH COSMETICS: Sosa Asserts Breach of ADA in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Pat McGrath Cosmetics LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on Behalf of Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Pat McGrath Cosmetics LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04863 (S.D. N.Y., June 24, 2020). Pat McGrath Cosmetics LLC offers cosmetic products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com PENNSYLVANIA DOH: Gill's Bid to Certify Class Denied ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JODI GILL, as representative and next friend of GLENN OSCAR GILL, a Long Term Care Facility Resident, on his behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated, et al., v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF HEALTH, Case No. 2:20-cv-02038-CFK (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Chad F. Kenney has denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class without prejudice to re-file after the Defendant has the opportunity to plead to the amended complaint and the Court has the opportunity to issue a Scheduling Order after the parties have met and conferred. Pennsylvania Department of Health provides programs, services and health related information for adults, business owners, and caregivers.[CC] PROASSURANCE CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of ProAssurance Corporation ("ProAssurance" or the "Company") (NYSE: PRA) between April 26, 2019 and May 7, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased ProAssurance securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit ProAssurance Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) ProAssurance lacked adequate underwriting process and risk management controls necessary to set appropriate loss reserves in its Specialty P&C segment; (ii) ProAssurance failed to properly assess a large national healthcare account that experienced losses far exceeding the assumptions made when the account was underwritten; and (iii) as a result, ProAssurance was subject to materially heightened risk of financial loss and reserve charges. On January 22, 2020 ProAssurance announced that because of a deteriorating loss experience related mainly to one large healthcare account the Company was estimating a $37 million adverse development in its specialty P&C loss reserves for the fourth quarter of 2019. In response to this disclosure ProAssurance's stock price fell $4.18 per share or 11% to close at $33.40 per share on January 23, 2020. Then, on May 8, 2020, ProAssurance announced that the large healthcare client would likely not renew its policy and instead would likely exercise an option for tail coverage that would result in an additional $50 million in losses in the second quarter of 2020. In response to this disclosure, ProAssurance's stock price fell $4.38 per share, or 22% to close at $15.95 per share on May 8, 2020. 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. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased ProAssurance securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/proassurancecorporation-pra-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-278/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact: Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com Tel: (877) 779-1414 E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] PROASSURANCE CORP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 22 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of ProAssurance Corporation (NYSE: PRA) between April 26, 2019 and May 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for ProAssurance investors under the federal securities laws. To join the ProAssurance class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1879.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, throughout the Class Period, defendants misrepresented the Company's underwriting and reserve standards and failed to adequately reserve for losses. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) ProAssurance lacked adequate underwriting process and risk management controls necessary to set appropriate loss reserves in its Specialty Property and Casualty segment; (2) ProAssurance failed to properly assess a large national healthcare account that experienced losses far exceeding the assumptions made when the account was underwritten; and (3) as a result, ProAssurance was subject to materially heightened risk of financial loss and reserve charges. 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-1879.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] PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Morgan Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as JONATHAN MORGAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE CO., Case No. 0:18-cv-61844-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying this action as a class action on behalf of: "all individuals (1) who have made a claim under the Policy for collision or comprehensive coverage on a vehicle covered under the Policy; (2) Defendant settled the claim paying what Defendant considered "actual cash value" for the covered vehicle; (3) Defendant obtained transfer of title to the vehicle; and (4) Defendant on its own or through a vendor or affiliate, sold the damaged vehicle at auction or for parts"; 2. certifying subclass: "individuals meeting the criteria of the Class when the covered vehicles according to Defendant’s records were stolen and recovered" 3. appointing the class counsel under Rule 23(g); and 4. appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative. The Defendant is a Florida-authorized insurer that issues the Policies at issue in Florida that provide coverage for damage to motor vehicles.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward H. Zebersky, Esq. Mark S. Fistos, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone.: (954) 989-6333 Facsimile: (954) 989-7781 E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com; mfistos@zpllp.com; ndiaz@zpllp.com - and - Alec Schultz, Esq. Carly A. Kligler, Esq. LEON COSGROVE, LLP 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 740-1975 Facsimile: (305) 437-8158 E-mail: aschultz@leoncosgrove.com ckligler@leoncosgrove.com eperez@leoncosgrove.com cmanzano@leoncosgrove.com PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH: Gregg Medicare Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA GREGG; and CHARLENE DAVIDSON; Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v. PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH HEALTH; PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES; ST. JOSEPH HEALTH; ST. JOSEPH HEALTH Complaint Filed March 26, 2020 SYSTEM; ST. JOSEPH HEALTH NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, LLC; QUEEN OF THE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER; SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; SRM ALLIANCE HOSPITAL SERVICES D/B/A PETALUMA VALLEY HOSPITAL; ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL OF EUREKA; REDWOOD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF FORTUNA; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-583964 (Filed March 16, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 12, 2020. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-03880-KAW to the proceeding. The allegations in the complaint rely on federal Medicare requirements, directed to the Plaintiff Davidson seeking payment for Providence's healthcare services by the Medicare program rather than by the third party responsible for the injuries that necessitated her seeking medical treatment. Providence St. Joseph Health is a not-for-profit health care system operating in seven states and serves as the parent organization for 100,000 caregivers.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John R. Tate, Esq. Kathleen H. Drummy, Esq. Anna R. Buono, Esq. John D. Freed, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 Facsimile: (213) 633-6899 E-mail: johntate@dwt.com kathleendrummy@dwt.com annabuono@dwt.com jakefreed@dwt.com PUMA NORTH AMERICA: Cota Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act ----------------------------------------------------------- Puma North America, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Puma North America, Inc., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01143-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal., June 23, 2020). Puma North America Inc. provides apparel goods. The Company offers wholesale distribution of men and boys apparel and furnishings. Puma North America serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Wilshire Law Firm 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 381-9988 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com REA.DEEMING BEAUTY: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA ---------------------------------------------------- Rea.Deeming Beauty Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rea.Deeming Beauty Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04827 (S.D. N.Y., June 23, 2020). Rea.Deeming Beauty Inc. is a Beauty products wholesaler in Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal RESURGENT CAPITAL: Moncada Files Suit for Breach of FDCPA --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital Services L.P. The case is styled as Alejandro Moncada, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Resurgent Capital Services L.P., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00451 (M.D. Fla., June 24, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Resurgent Capital Services, LP provides financial services. The Company manages debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers. Resurgent Capital Services operates in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yosef Steinmetz, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi, LLP 300 Cadman Plaza W., 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Email: yosef@cml.legal RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Miller Class Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Ribbon Communications Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the class action suit initiated by Ron Miller is still pending. On November 8, 2018, Ron Miller, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a Class Action Complaint (the "Miller Complaint") in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Massachusetts District Court") against the Company and three of its former officers (collectively, the "Defendants"), claiming to represent a class of purchasers of Sonus Networks, Inc.'s (Sonus) common stock during the period from January 8, 2015 through March 24, 2015 and alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Similar to a previous complaint entitled Sousa et al. vs. Sonus Networks, Inc. et al., which was dismissed with prejudice by an order dated June 6, 2017, the Miller Complaint claims that the Defendants made misleading forward-looking statements concerning Sonus' expected fiscal first quarter of 2015 financial performance, which statements were also the subject of an August 7, 2018 Securities and Exchange Commission Cease and Desist Order, whose findings the Company neither admitted nor denied. The Miller plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages. After the Miller Complaint was filed, several parties filed and briefed motions seeking to be selected by the Massachusetts District Court to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the action. On June 21, 2019, the Massachusetts District Court appointed a group as Lead Plaintiffs and the Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 19, 2019. On August 30, 2019, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Miller Complaint and, on October 4, 2019, the Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. There was an oral argument on the motion to dismiss on February 12, 2020. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Ribbon Communications Inc. provides networked solutions in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Japan, other Asia Pacific, and internationally. The company was formerly known as Sonus Networks, Inc. and changed its name to Ribbon Communications Inc. in November 2017. Ribbon Communications Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Westford, Massachusetts. ROLYN STUDIO LLC: Cruz Asserts Breach of ADA in New York -------------------------------------------------------- Rolyn Studio LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rolyn Studio LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04824 (S.D. N.Y., June 23, 2020). Rolyn Studio LLC (trade name Nylora) is in the Women's Sportswear business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal RUSHMORE LOAN: Maryland Dist. Narrows Claims in Flournoy FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KEVIN FLOURNOY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 8:19-cv-00407-PX (D. Md.), Judge Paula Xinis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify questions of law and separately to certify a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint, and (iii) denied Defendants' motion to seal a document. The case revolves around the issue of whether fees and costs associated with two mortgages sold in the secondary mortgage market violate federal and state fair debt collection laws. Named Plaintiffs Kevin and Jeimy Flournoy and Tinaee Crowder bring a number of claims both individually and on behalf of three putative classes for which they now seek certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. According to the Plaintiffs, public records as well as Rushmore's own testimony in separate foreclosure cases demonstrate that Rushmore has imposed unlawful inspection fees on hundreds of mortgagees. Additionally, Rushmore's records of correspondence with mortgagees as well as certain standard forms reflect systemic imposition of such property inspection fees. Together, say the Plaintiffs, these materials sufficiently demonstrate the propriety of certifying three subclasses based on the same liability theories pertinent to theirs. On Feb. 11, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed suit against Rushmore, RMAC Trust, Series 2016-CTT ("RMAC"), and MTGLQ Investors LP ("MTGLQ"). After the Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on May 17, 2019, and at the same time, moved to certify a question of law to the Maryland Court of Appeals and separately to certify three classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Amended Complaint presents a tangle of averred facts, legal argument, and statutory and common law claims. Often, multiple legal theories are alleged in one enumerated "count." First, the lion's share of the Plaintiffs' claims are premised on the theory that the Defendants are "lenders" as defined by the Maryland Usury Statute and as such, are prohibited from collecting property inspection fees pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Com. Law Section 12-121(b). In Count I, the Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief because, as lenders, the Defendants may not impose property inspection fees under Section 12-121(b). Count II, a common law unjust enrichment claim, turns on Rushmore's collection of property inspection fees, made "unlawful" if Rushmore is considered a "lender." Count III avers that Rushmore violated the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act ("MCDCA) and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA") by virtue of unlawfully collecting fees prohibited by Section 12-121. Count IV seeks statutory penalties for Rushmore's violations of the Maryland Usury Statute. Count V, alleging violations of Maryland Mortgage Fraud Protection Act ("MMFPA"), avers that by collecting improper inspection fees as lenders, Rushmore committed "mortgage fraud" under Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. Section 7-401(d). Similarly, the Fair Debt Collection Act ("FDCPA") claim (Count VI) is premised on Rushmore's imposition of inspection fees as lenders as amounting to a "false representation of the character and amount of fees due." Second, the Plaintiffs base their claims under the MMFPA (Count V) and FDCPA (Count VI), MDCPA (Count VII) on the alternative theory that Rushmore engaged in deceptive collection of unreasonable attorneys' fees in a manner independent of its status as putative "lender" under the Usury Statute. Relatedly, as to the Flournoys only, Plaintiffs allege in Count VII that Rushmore engaged in "unfair or deceptive trade practices" in violation of the MCPA by failing to disclose the identity of corporate advances. Third, and perhaps most inscrutably, the Plaintiffs allege in Count III that Defendants violated the MCPA by improperly implying to the Plaintiffs that the government authorized the Defendants' collection efforts via foreclosure proceedings. The Plaintiffs have moved for class certification and the Defendants have moved to dismiss almost the entirety of the Amended Complaint. The Defendants also move to seal one related exhibit. Rushmore contends that the Court should seal its "property preservations-conventional procedures" manual -- which consists of a one-sentence policy statement regarding property inspection costs -- on the ground that it contains Rushmore's confidential and proprietary company policy. Because Rushmore has failed to establish that the need to seal outweighs the public's right to access court filings, Judge Xinis denied the request. The Defendants lodge three primary attacks as to the sufficiency of the Amended Complaint. First, the Defendants contend that they are not, as a matter of law, "lenders" as defined by the Maryland Usury Statute, and thus all claims dependent on this liability theory must be dismissed. Second, they press that the Plaintiffs fail to allege plausibly that they levied unreasonable or deceptive attorneys' fees or that, under the MCPA, they otherwise engaged in deceptive trade practices. Third, they maintain the Plaintiffs have pleaded insufficiently their MCPA claim as to implicit. Judge Xinis finds that the Defendants are not "lenders" subject to the strictures of the Usury Statute. All Counts dependent on this preliminary finding as to the propriety of charging property inspection fees thus fail as a matter of law. Counts I through VI are dismissed on this liability theory. Judge Xinis next turn to the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees claims. The Defendants seek dismissal of the FDCPA (Count V) MPCA (Count VII) and MCDCA (Count VII) claims to the extent that they depend on alleged unlawful practices in charging attorneys' fees. Because the Complaint plausibly avers that the Defendants disguised attorneys' fees as generic "corporate advances," the MCPA claim survives. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied, the Judge rules. The Plaintiffs' MCDCA claim turns on the theory that Rushmore sought to collect unreasonable attorneys' fees to which they had no legal right. At the pleading stage, the Court must view the Plaintiffs' allegations as true and most favorably to them. Given this presumption, Judge Xinis finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a claim under the MCDCA, even applying the more exacting pleading standard of Rule 9(b). The Defendants motion to dismiss Count VII with respect to imposition of attorneys' fees is denied. The Court lastly turns to the Plaintiffs' allegation that Defendants improperly implied that the government had authorized their efforts to collect inspection fees. Judge Xinis finds that the Amended Complaint provides no basis to infer that any aspect of the foreclosure proceedings resulted in judicial or governmental authorization of unlawful fees. Simply because the imposition of supposedly unlawful fees led to foreclosure does not make the foreclosure court a co-conspirator in such alleged illegality. The claim fails to meet even minimal pleading standards and must be dismissed without prejudice. To the extent the Plaintiffs can articulate a plausible theory of relief after targeted discovery, the Court will entertain a motion to amend the Complaint as to this liability theory. Turning to Plaintiffs' motions, they first ask the Court to certify the following questions to the Maryland Court of Appeals: (i) Does a mortgage assignee and/or its mortgage servicer qualify as a lender subject to the property inspection fee bar stated in Com. Law Section12-121 and Taylor v. Friedman, 344 Md. 572, 689 A.2d 59 (1997)?; and (ii) In applying the property inspection fee bar stated in Com. Law Section 12-121 and Taylor v. Friedman, 344 Md. 572, 689 A.2d 59 (1997) to a mortgage assignee and/or its mortgage servicer, what weight should be given, if any, to the administrative agency position(s) that a Maryland licensed mortgage servicer may not collect or attempt to collect property inspection fees from mortgage borrowers? The Plaintiffs emphasize that no binding decision has addressed its two questions of law as grounds for certification. While the Judge agrees that the Court of Appeals has not yet spoken on this point, certification is not warranted. At bottom, the Usury Statute is clear and unambiguous and other courts presented with this identical question have similarly held that secondary mortgage holders are not lenders. Because it can reach a reasoned and principled conclusion without resort to certification, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion. The Plaintiffs next move to certify three potential classes brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The classes are defined as follows: 1. Those persons in the State of Maryland for whom Rushmore has acted as a mortgage servicer on behalf of another, including RMAC and MTGLQ, within the three years before the commencement of this action, and has charged their mortgage accounts with property inspection fees and costs; 2. Those persons in the State of Maryland whom Rushmore (on its behalf and on behalf of RMAC, MTGLQ, and others) (i) acquired the mortgage servicing when the loan was in default and (ii) provided a Payoff Statement which sought to collect directly or indirectly property inspection fees in the one year before the commencement of the action; 3. Those persons in the State of Maryland (i) for whom Rushmore has (i) acted as a mortgage servicer on its behalf and on behalf of RMAC, MTGLQ, and others and others, and (ii) has charged their mortgage loan accounts with property inspection fees and costs and (iii) the mortgage loan accounts had not been satisfied more than six months before the commencement of the action. Each requested class is defined by the type of alleged wrongful property fees imposed. However, the Court has determined as a matter of law that each liability theory fails with respect to the named Plaintiffs. Dismissal of the named Plaintiffs' claims extinguishes any possible class wide relief. To the extent the Plaintiffs intended to bring class claims based on legal theories that survived challenge as to the named Plaintiffs, they certainly have not defined a class accordingly, and the Court cannot redefine the Plaintiffs' class for them. The Motion for certification is thus denied, Judge Xinis ruled. In sum, Judge Xinis (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify questions of law and separately to certify a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; (ii) granted in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss; and (iii) denied the Defendants' motion to seal. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 17, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/uZEiYd from Leagle.com. Jeimy Flournoy, on their behalf and on behalf of three classes of similarly situated persons, Kevin Flournoy, On their behalf and on behalf of three classes of similarly situated persons & Tinaee Crowder, Plaintiffs, represented by Ingmar Bancroft Goldson, The Goldson Law Office & Phillip R. Robinson , Consumer Law Center LLC. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC, U.S. Bank National Association As Trustee For RMAC Trust, Series 2016-CTT & MTGLQ Investors LP, Defendants, represented by John Curtis Lynch -- john.lynch@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP. SAGINAW, MA: Judge Dismisses 'Taylor' Parking Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Cole Waterman, writing for mLive, reports that a federal judge has again dismissed a lawsuit arguing municipalities' chalking of tires for parking enforcement is unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Thomas L. Ludington, based out of the federal courthouse in Bay City, on June 9 issued his order dismissing the lawsuit of Alison P. Taylor against the City of Saginaw and parking official Tabitha Hoskins. Taylor, through attorneys Philip L. Ellison and Matthew E. Gronda, had filed her suit in April 2017, alleging that since 2014, Hoskins had issued her 14 parking tickets -- some for $15, others for $30 -- for exceeding the 2-hour limit on a parking spot in Old Town Saginaw, where she worked. Hoskins was able to tell that Taylor's vehicles had surpassed the time limit by marking her tires with chalk, the suit alleged. "Our local federal court was previously reversed a year ago for incorrectly dismissing this case," Ellison said on June 17. "We are expecting a similar reversal by the same higher court once again." In June 2017, attorney Brett Meyer, representing Saginaw, filed a motion to dismiss. In it, Meyer argued that chalking tires does not amount to a search under the Fourth Amendment and, even if it did, the search is reasonable and therefore not a constitutional violation. Ludington granted the dismissal and Ellison appealed the judge's decision. On April 22, 2019, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed Ludington's dismissal and ruled chalking of tires violates the Fourth Amendment's clause banning unreasonable searches and seizures. Three days later, the judges issued an amended ruling stating they still held chalking of tires is a search under the Fourth Amendment, though it does not mean such action violates the amendment. The case was then reopened and Taylor sought class-action certification on behalf of a numerous people who had paid 4,820 tickets. Attorneys for Saginaw later filed a motion for summary judgment, which Ludington granted, rendering moot Taylor's motion for class-action certification. In his more recent dismissal order, Ludington wrote that Saginaw's "method of regulating parking does not violate the Fourth Amendment" and that the chalking of tires falls within an administrative search exception. "The Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit have permitted searches for administrative purposes when the searches are appropriately limited," Ludington wrote. "Determining whether the exception applies requires the 'weighing of the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty.'" The judge further wrote that parking enforcement falls within the purview of a municipality's police powers, though those powers must be reasonable. "The City's use of chalk is reasonable because it is in the public interest and the 'severity of the interference with individual liberty' is minimal," Ludington wrote. "A discrete chalk mark on a tire does not substantially interfere with a party's individual liberty." Taylor's attorneys have filed an appeal regarding Ludington's dismissal. Taylor works for MLive Media Group in Saginaw, though the company is not a party to the lawsuit. [GN] SAMS WHOLESALE: Granada Insurance Co Files Suit in Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sams Wholesale Cars Inc. The case is styled as Granada Insurance Company, Plaintiff v. Sams Wholesale Cars Inc. and Keeley Michael Williams, all others similarly situated, Defendants, Case No. 2020CA002708NC (Fla. Cty. Ct., June 23, 2020). The case type of the lawsuit is stated as Insurance Claim. Sams Wholesale Cars Inc operates in the Automobiles and Other Motor Vehicles industry in Sarasota, FL.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Bond Atkinson, Esq. Atkinson, P.A. 1 S.E. Third Avenue, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 376-8840 Fax: (305) 376-8841 SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Class Settlement Gets Prelim. OK in Romero ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maeve Allsup, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that class of inmates, attorneys alleged unlawfully recorded calls who say their calls were illegally recorded by an inmate communication provider gained preliminary approval of their proposed class action settlement from a California district court. The settlement includes only injunctive relief, and no monetary relief, to the class members, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California said on June 16. Under the proposed settlement, Securus Technologies Inc. will institute a private call option and make customers aware of the fact that calls to non-approved numbers may be recorded, among other changes to its business practices. The company will pay each named plaintiff a service award of $20,000 and attorneys' fees and costs of up to $840,000, Judge Jeffrey T. Miler wrote for the court. The class, which alleged Securus unlawfully recorded calls between inmates and their attorneys at California correctional facilities, sued the company in 2016, asserting causes of action for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the California Business and Professions Code, among others. The district court certified the class for the CIPA claim only, but denied the class' motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether their CIPA claim required proof of intent. The parties appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted review of Securus' position - whether the court could certify class claims without evidence the company had a class-wide intention about recording, and whether class litigation was superior. The Ninth Circuit appointed a mediator, before dismissing the appeal for approval of the agreed upon settlement by the district court. Foley & Lardner LLP, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron and Law Office of Robert L. Teel represent the class. Squire Patton Boggs LLP represents Securus. The case is Romero v. Securus Techs. Inc., 2020 BL 222200, S.D. Cal., No. 3:16-cv-01283, 6/16/20. [GN] SHEIN FASHION: Conner Alleges Violation under ADA ------------------------------------------------- Shein Fashion Group, Inc. 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. Shein Fashion Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02805 (E.D. N.Y., June 24, 2020). Shein Fashion Group, Inc. is located in City of Industry, California. This organization primarily operates in the Styling of Fashions, Apparel and Furniture.[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 SILVERSTREAK SOLUTIONS: Hensley Files TCPA Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Silverstreak Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Dustin Hensley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Silverstreak Solutions, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01263-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal., June 24, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Silverstreak Solutions Inc is in the Drug Stores and Proprietary Stores industry in Sacramento, CA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Edelsberg Law, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Tel: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com SIROB IMPORTS: Ruling on Final Settlement Approval Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as GUEVARA, ET AL. v. SIROB IMPORTS, INC., ET AL., Case No. CV-15-2895-ST (E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione, in an order dated June 5, 2020, entered an order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class and Motion for Settlement Approval. The case is dismissed. The Court held a fairness hearing on May 18, 2020. Judge Tiscione previously held that the Court must review the attorney billing records before issuing final approval of the class certification and settlement. The Court granted a consent motion for leave to electronically file document under seal. The Plaintiffs' counsel was required to submit an ex parte declaration attaching the attorney billing records for the court's review by May 25, 2020. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sirob is in the business of importing, manufacturing, distributing and exporting a large line of fine food products.[CC] SOLAR TURBINES: Diaz Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE DIAZ, individually, and as a representative of other aggrieved employees v. SOLAR TURBINES, INC., a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV16985 (Filed April 30, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 12, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-05279 to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and Class members accurate overtime compensation for the hours they have worked in excess of the maximum hours permissible by law as required by California Labor Code. Solar Turbines, a wholly owned subsidiary of Caterpillar Inc., designs and manufactures industrial gas turbines for onshore and offshore electrical power generation, for marine propulsion and for producing, processing and transporting natural gas and oil.[BN] Defendant Solar Turbines is represented by: Rebecca Aragon, Esq. Helen Braginsky, Esq LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213 443 4300 Facsimile: 213 443 4299 E-mail: raragon@littler.com hbraginsky@littler.com STANWELL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Abuse of Market Power ------------------------------------------------------------ Ashleigh Stevenson, writing for ABC, reports that a billion-dollar class action is set to be launched against two Queensland state-owned electricity generators, alleging they drove up power prices for their own profit. The proposed lawsuit by firm Piper Alderman will allege Stanwell Corporation and CS Energy engaged in "bidding games" or trade strategies designed to artificially create scarcity of supply of electricity and spike energy prices. Piper Alderman partner Greg Whyte told ABC Radio Brisbane, the action will seek to recover compensation for customers between 2014 and 2019. "The claim is about abuse of market power," Mr. Whyte said. "Stanwell Corporations and CS Energy control around 70 per cent of the electricity that's dispatched into the Queensland region. "They've been able to use that enormous market power to manipulate the wholesale cost of electricity. "It's had a devastating effect on the economy." Mr Whyte said his firm is seeking registrations for the lawsuit with a statement of claim expected to be lodged in August. "Damages will be the inflationary effect on all Queenslander's electricity bills. Aggregating that loss across the whole market is likely to exceed a billion dollars." "Both sides of politics were in power over the course of conduct and we're not making any allegation that the Government was complicit," Mr Whyte said. "These albeit government-owned but separate legal corporations, they have their own boards, their own policies, their own executives." 'Manipulating the market' The lawsuit will allege that Stanwell and CS Energy manipulated the bidding system in the National Energy Market by bidding late in the settlement process, to artificially create scarcity of supply and spike energy prices. "What they're able to do, merely through their market power, is spike the wholesale price of electricity in five minute periods from the average price, which might have been $70 a megawatt hour, to the market cap price, which at the relevant time, was $13,500 a megawatt hour," Mr Whyte said. "They're able to do that despite the fact there's no change in the supply or demand balance. "It's just strategic bidding." The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has previously raised concerns about a lack of competition in Queensland's electricity market. Energy Minister Anthony Lynham said Queensland had the lowest energy prices on the eastern seaboard, reliable supply and a plan to transition to a renewable future. "We met our commitment to Queenslanders to act on competition by directing Stanwell in 2017 to alter its bidding strategies to help put as much downward pressure as possible on wholesale prices," Mr Lynham said. "We have established the third generator -- CleanCo -- as recommended by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. "And we have delivered on our commitment to put downward pressure on electricity prices. "Wholesale prices have almost halved since 2016-17 from around $93 a megawatt hour to around $54 a megawatt/hour in 2019-20." Generators refute allegations CS Energy said they operate in strict accordance with, and take very seriously, regulations around bidding in the National Energy Market (NEM). "These allegations have previously been investigated by the Australian Energy Regulator and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and found that elevated prices were not the result of identifiable uses or abuses of market power," a spokesperson said in a statement. Stanwell similarly said it operates within the rules, adding that the NEM is one of the most scrutinised and regulated competitive markets in Australia. "The Australian Energy Regulator reports have confirmed that high wholesale prices which have occurred in Queensland at various times over the past five years were the result of high demand resulting from extreme temperatures, and network limitations and not the rebidding strategies of generators." [GN] SUBARU OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of Powell Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Emmariah Holcomb, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that Subaru of America Inc. (Subaru) filed a reply brief to further support the company's motions to dismiss an ongoing class action lawsuit, originally filed by Christine Powell against the auto manufacturer for allegedly defective windshields. The suit also added 15 new plaintiffs in February 2020. According to Subaru's reply brief, the company "shall move before the United States District Court for an order dismissing the complaint of plaintiffs . . . pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" on July 6, 2020. "Subaru will rely on its supplemental brief, and, by agreement of the parties, the incorporated-by-reference papers filed in support of the Subaru Defendants' motion to dismiss the master amended complaint," a portion of Subaru's reply brief reads. In March 2020, Subaru filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction. In its most recent motion, Subaru notes several "errors" the plaintiffs have made. "Plaintiffs make several errors of law and mischaracterize certain Subaru and Subaru Corporation arguments in opposing the Subaru defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint and the Zaback complaint. Indeed, once those errors and mischaracterizations are corrected, much of the plaintiffs' opposition rests on little more than a recapitulation of the vague and unsupported allegations in the complaints," a portion of Subaru's dismissal brief reads. Neither of the complaints allege that the defective vehicles contain the same types of windshields; that the same suppliers provide the windshields; nor do they allege the windshields are positioned in the different model year vehicles in the same manner, according to Subaru's reply brief. Subaru also notes the plaintiffs have failed to make allegations regarding the alleged windshield defect with a degree of specificity that would enable anyone else to believe the alleged problem is shared across differing model-year vehicles. "As previously noted, that similarities exist between different model-year vehicles cannot confer standing upon plaintiffs who have never owned those vehicles," a portion of Subaru's reply brief reads. Background The suit alleges Subaru was "manufacturing, marketing and selling new vehicles with defective and dangerous windshields that were spontaneously and/or unreasonably cracking, chipping and otherwise breaking." According to Subaru's dismissal brief, the drivers can't sue over models they didn't drive. The plaintiffs, according to court documents, have stated the auto manufacturer failed to inform them of the alleged dangerous defect and refused to cover the replacement cost. Subaru however has stated the claims "fail as a matter of law due in part to the overly broad class." According to the plaintiffs consolidated complaint, the vehicles represented in the case include 2017-2020 Subaru Forester, 2017-2020 Subaru Outback, 2017-2020 Subaru Crosstrek, 2017-2020 Subaru Legacy and 2017-2020 Subaru Impreza vehicles (collectively known as class vehicles). The plaintiffs are seeking replacement windshields and reimbursements for their repair costs, or for Subaru to buy their cars back, according to the consolidated complaint. According to court documents, Subaru stated no plaintiff has ever purchased, leased, or owned a: Legacy of any model year; any 2017 Crosstrek, Forester, or Impreza; any 2019 Impreza; or any 2020 Crosstrek, Forester, or Impreza. The plaintiffs have not responded to Subaru's latest dismissal brief. [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: James Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CHRISTOPHER JAMES and SPENCER VERHINES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-06462-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on July 23, 2020, for an order certifying a class consisting of: "drivers who have driven for Uber in California any time since February 28, 2019, and who opted out of Uber's arbitration agreement." The Plaintiffs contend that Uber has misclassified its drivers as independent contractors rather than employees and has thereby violated various provisions of the California Labor Code. In particular, Uber has failed to reimburse drivers for their necessary operating expenses pursuant, has failed to pay minimum wage, and has failed to pay them overtime in violation of the Labor Code, the lawsuit says. Uber, commonly known as Uber, is an American multinational ride-hailing company offering services that include peer-to-peer ridesharing, ride service hailing, food delivery, and a micromobility system with electric bikes and scooters.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Anne Kramer, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com akramer@llrlaw.com UNITED STATES OIL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 22 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of United States Oil Fund, LP (NYSEArca: USO) between March 19, 2020 and April 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for USO investors under the federal securities laws. To join the USO class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1865.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 stated that USO would achieve its investment objective by investing substantially all of its portfolio assets in the near month WTI futures contract. However, unbeknownst to investors, extraordinary market conditions in early 2020 made USO's purported investment objective and strategy unfeasible. Rather than disclose the known impacts and risks to the fund, USO held an offering of billions of dollars of USO shares in March 2020. Ultimately, the fund suffered billions of dollars in losses and was forced to abandon its investment strategy. It was not until late April and May 2020, that defendants acknowledged the extreme threats and adverse impacts that the fund had been experiencing at the time of the March offering, but which they failed to disclose to investors. 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 18, 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-1865.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 [GN] UNITED STATES: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Ms. JP Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Ms. J.P. et al. v. Jefferson B. Sessions, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of: "all adult parents nationwide who (1) were, are or will be detained in immigration custody by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and (2) have a minor child who has been, is or will be separated from the them by DHS and detained in DHS or Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) custody or foster care, absent a demonstration in a hearing that the parents in unfit or presents a danger to the child." The appellate case is captioned as Ms. J.P., et al. v. William Barr, et al., Case No. 19-56400, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellee MS. J.P., MS. J.O. and MS. R.M., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, are represented by: Sean Ashley Commons, Esq. Bridget S. Johnsen, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West 5th Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: 213-896-6010 E-mail: scommons@sidley.com - and - Kevin Michael Fee, Jr., Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: 312-853-7000 E-mail: kfee@sidley.com - and - Amy Pesapane Lally, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310-595-9500 E-mail: alally@sidley.com - and - Carter Glasgow Phillips, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: 202-736-8270 E-mail: cphillips@sidley.com - and - Luis Cortes Romero, Esq. Alma David, Esq. IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY & LITIGATION CENTER, PLLC 19309 68th Ave. South, R-102 Kent, WA 98032 Telephone: 253-872-4730 - and - Mark E. Haddad, Esq. USC GOULD SCHOOL OF LAW 699 Exposition Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90089 Telephone: 213-675-5957 E-mail: mhaddad@law.usc.edu - and - Alisa Hartz, Esq. Talia Inlender, Esq. Judy London, Esq. Mark Rosenbaum, Esq. PUBLIC COUNSEL 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 Telephone: 213-385-2977 E-mail: tinlender@publiccounsel.org jlondon@publiccounsel.org mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org Defendants-Appellants WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General; CHAD F. WOLF, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, and its Subordinate Entities; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, and its Subordinate Entities; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; ALEX M. AZAR II, Secretary of Health and Human Services; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; JONATHAN H. HAYES, Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement; OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT; DAVID MARIN; LISA VON NORDHEIM, Warden; MARC J. MOORE, Seattle Field Office Director; and LOWELL CLARK, Warden, are represented by: Nicole N. Murley, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 878 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 616-0473 E-mail: Nicole.Murley@usdoj.gov UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Dixon Files Suit in Florida ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of Miami. The case is styled as Adelaide Dixon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. University of Miami, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-22594-RNS (S.D. Fla., June 23, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other filed pursuant to Diversity-Contract Dispute. The University of Miami (informally referred to as UM, UMiami, U of M or The U) is a private research university in Coral Gables, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric M. Poulin, Esq. Anastopoulo Law Firm 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Tel: (843) 614-8888 Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com - and - Roy T. Willey , IV, Esq. Anastopoulo Law Firm 32 Ann Street Unit B Charleston, SC 29403 Tel: (843) 614-8888 Email: roy@akimlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher Michael Yannuzzi, Esq. Isicoff Ragatz 601 Brickell Key Drive, Suite 750 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 373-3232 Fax: (305) 373-3233 Email: yannuzzi@irlaw.com - and - Eric David Isicoff, Esq. Isicoff Ragatz 601 Brickell Key Drive, Suite 750 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 373-3232 Fax: (305) 373-3233 Email: Isicoff@irlaw.com - and - Teresa Ragatz, Esq. Isicoff Ragatz 601 Brickell Key Drive, Suite 750 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 373-3232 Fax: (305) 373-3233 Email: Ragatz@irlaw.com - and - Robert H. Brunson, Esq. Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP 151 Meeting Street Sixth Floor P.O. Box 1806 Charleston, SC 29401-2239 Tel: (843) 853-5200 VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Gordon Class Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Gordon v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., is pending. In February 2019, a securities class action, Gordon v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York naming the company and certain of its officers as defendants. An amended complaint was filed in July 2019. The amended complaint, filed on behalf of a purported stockholder, asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased our publicly traded securities between November 4, 2015 and February 11, 2019, for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding Fanapt(R), HETLIOZ(R) and the company's interactions with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding tradipitant between November 3, 2015 and February 11, 2019. On March 23, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff is expected to file its reply by May 7, 2020. Vanda said, "We believe that it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. We do not anticipate that this litigation will have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. However, this lawsuit is subject to inherent uncertainties, the actual cost may be significant, and we may not prevail. We believe we are entitled to coverage under our relevant insurance policies, subject to a retention, but coverage could be denied or prove to be insufficient." Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., incorporated on November 13, 2002, is a biopharmaceutical company. The Company is focused on the development and commercialization of therapies to address unmet medical needs. The company is based in Washington, D.C. VIVINT SOLAR: $975,000 Settlement in TCPA Suit Wins Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Trevor N. McFadden of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered an order dated June 2, 2020, granting final approval to the settlement reached in the case, Darrell Rogers, et al. v. Vivint Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01567 (D.D.C.). Defendants have made available $975,000 as Settlement Fund that will be used to make class member claimant payments, and pay notice and administration costs, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and an incentive award to the named plaintiff. As the parties agreed in the Settlement Agreement, each member of the Settlement Class who submitted a timely and valid Claim Form shall be paid a pro rata distribution of all amounts remaining in the Settlement Fund, after the deduction of fees and costs. The Court approved Class Counsel's attorneys' fees in the total amount of $325,000, an amount equivalent to 1/3 of the Settlement Fund, and their out-of-pocket expenses ($27,445.70). The Count found the amount of Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses to be reasonable under the circumstances of this case. This amount shall be paid exclusively from the Settlement Fund pursuant to the Parties' Agreement. The Court approved a $20,000.00 incentive award to Plaintiff for serving as the Class Representative. This amount shall be paid exclusively from the Settlement Fund pursuant to the Parties' Agreement. Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that in July 2018, an individual filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, purportedly on behalf of himself and other persons who received certain telephone calls. The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and some of its implementing regulations. The complaint seeks statutory penalties for each alleged violation. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint, has retained counsel and intends to vigorously defend itself in the litigation. In August 2019, the Company reached a settlement in principle to resolve the class action on a nationwide basis for a payment of approximately $1.0 million (including plaintiff's attorneys’ fees), which was accrued by the Company in general and administrative expense in the third quarter of 2019. On November 8, 2019, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The final settlement approval hearing was scheduled for May 12, 2020. Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to residential customers in the United States. It owns and installs solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The company was formerly known as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Lehi, Utah. WELLS FARGO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 3 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on June 22 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. DNK Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/phoenix-tree-holdings-limited-loss-form?prid=7457&wire=1 WFC Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wells-fargo-company-loss-submission-form?prid=7457&wire=1 ENPH Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/enphase-energy-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7457&wire=1 * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW * 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=7457&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. Wells Fargo & Company (WFC) WFC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 5, 2020 - May 5, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 3, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wells-fargo-company-loss-submission-form?prid=7457&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Wells Fargo & Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Wells Fargo planned to, and did, improperly allocate government-backed loans under the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"), and/or had inadequate controls in place to prevent such misallocation; (ii) the foregoing foreseeably increased the Company's litigation risk with respect to PPP allocation, as well as increased regulatory scrutiny and/or potential enforcement actions; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Enphase Energy, Inc. (ENPH) ENPH Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 26, 2019 - June 17, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/enphase-energy-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7457&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Enphase Energy, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) its revenues, both U.S. and international, were inflated; (2) the Company engaged in improper deferred revenue accounting practices; (3) the Company's reported base points expansion in gross margins were overstated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky -- 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] WESLEY FINANCIAL: Class Certification Bid in Burgess Case Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as VALERIE JEAN BURGESS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WESLEY FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, CHUCK MCDOWELL, CARLES W. MCDOWELL IV, and JON BROWNING, Case No. 3:16-cv- 01655 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Eli Richardson denied Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Wesley Financial is a consumer advocate who specializes in timeshare cancellation and timeshare debt elimination to individuals and families.[CC] WESTERN DIGITAL: Hattis & Lukacs Amends SMR Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Brandy Betz, writing for Seeking Alpha, reports that law firm Hattis & Lukacs amends its class-action suit against Western Digital, adding five additional plaintiffs in five states and fleshing out the technical details. The suit relates to Western Digital's use of Shingled Magnetic Recording or SMR tech in its WD Red line of Network Attached Storage drives. Originally filed with one plaintiff, the suit alleges that WDC violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Protection Statute. The suit says all plaintiffs should be able to sue under California law because that's where Western Digital is headquartered. The suit is seeking a permanent injunction blocking Western Digital from advertising SMR as appropriate for NAS or RAID drives. The plaintiffs only want to be reimbursed. In a separate class-action lawsuit, the plaintiff says WDC didn't disclose using SMR in its WD Blue and Black drives. The plaintiff, who requests a jury trial, wants to recover damages and restitution for violations of New York General Business Law. [GN] WIRECARD AG: Hagens Berman Appointed Lead Counsel in Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman, who on May 6, 2019 was appointed Lead Counsel in a pending securities class action against Wirecard and certain of its senior executives before Hon. Fernando M. Olguin, DelPoggetto v. Wirecard AG et al., 2:19-cv-00986-FMO-SK (C.D. Cal.), notifies investors in Wirecard (WCAGY; WRCDF; WDI), that it will be filing an amended complaint on Aug. 14, 2020, as directed by the court. The amended complaint will expand the alleged fraudulent period to recover losses suffered by Wirecard investors due to recent events, including the Company's June 18, 2020 disclosure that Wirecard's auditor Ernst & Young refused to sign off on Wirecard's 2019 financial statements because it could not confirm the existence of 1.9 billion euros ($2.1 billion) in cash on Wirecard's balance sheet. Hagens Berman urges Wirecard investors who have suffered losses and persons with knowledge of the alleged fraud or who could otherwise further assist with the investigation to contact the firm: WRCDF@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Wirecard (WCAGY; WRCDF; WDI) Securities Fraud Class Action: The case concerns Defendants' deliberate use of improper accounting designed to inflate sales and profits. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly affirmed the effectiveness of Wirecard's internal controls and processes for financial reporting. In truth, Defendants were fabricating financial results by reporting: (i) significant debts that "transactional parties" purportedly owed to Wirecard businesses when, in fact, these entities were phantom companies; and (ii) improperly recognizing receivables from an under-capitalized firm. The truth emerged through a series of expose articles published by the Financial Times beginning on Jan. 30, 2019, revealing an elaborate accounting fraud orchestrated at the highest levels of WireCard. On May 6, 2019, the Court appointed an individual Wirecard investor Lead Plaintiff for the Class and Hagens Berman as Lead Counsel. On Feb. 14, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a first amended class action complaint. Since this time, revelations about the full extent of the alleged accounting fraud continued and became worse. On June 18, 2020, Wirecard disclosed that its external auditor was unable to confirm the existence of $2.1 billion in cash balances on trust accounts, representing about 25% of the company's balance sheet. Moreover, Wirecard reportedly warned that a failure to provide certified annual and consolidated financial statements by June 19, 2020 would allow approximately 2 billion euro loans to be terminated. This news sent the price of Wirecard securities crashing over 60% lower. The court has granted Lead Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint on Aug. 14, 2020, which will expand the alleged fraudulent period to cover recent stock drops caused by the revelation of Wirecard's financial fraud, including the company's June 18 disclosure. "Wirecard has long lied about its finances and almost fooled investors that information to the contrary was false. We are focusing our investigation on who knew what and when, including their accountants," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein. For more information about the case visit: https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/WRCDF Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Wirecard should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email to WRCDF@hbsslaw.com Hagens Berman is a national investor-rights law firm headquartered in Seattle, Washington with 78 attorneys in 9 offices across the country. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. Contact: Reed Kathrein Tel: 510-725-3000 Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP [GN] XPO LOGISTICS: Aug. 31 Hearing on Alvarez, et al. Class Cert. Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ANGEL OMAR ALVAREZ, ALBERTO RIVERA, FERNANDO RAMIREZ, JUAN ROMERO, and JOSE PAZ, individually and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. XPO LOGISTICS CARTAGE, LLC dba XPO LOGISTICS, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-03736-RGK-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on August 31, 2020, for an order granting their renewed motion for class certification. The Defendants include XPO CARTAGE, INC. dba XPO LOGISTICS, a Delaware corporation; XPO LOGISTICS, INC. dba XPO LOGISTICS, a Delaware corporation; XPO LOGISTICS, LLC dba XPO LOGISTICS, a Delaware limited liability company; XPO INTERMODAL SOLUTIONS, INC. dba XPO LOGISTICS, an Ohio corporation; XPO INTERMODAL SERVICES, LLC dba XPO LOGISTICS, a Delaware limited liability company; JEFFREY TRAUNER, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. XPO is a global logistics provider.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq. Karl P. Evangelista, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF C. JOE SAYAS, JR. 500 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 980 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 291-0088 Facsimile: (818) 240-9955 - and - Ira L. Gottlieb, Esq. Julie Gutman Dickinson, Esq. Hector De Haro, Esq. Estephanie Villalpando, Esq. BUSH GOTTLIEB, ALC 801 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 950 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 973-3200 Facsimile: (818) 973-3201 - and - Daniel osborn, Esq. OSBORN LAW P.C. 43 West 43rd Street, Suite 131 New York, NY 10036-7424 Telephone: (212) 725-9800 Facsimile: (212) 500-5115 - and - D. Briana Rivera, Esq. Patricia A. Shackelford, Esq. RIVERA | SHACKELFORD 4901 Morena Blvd., Suite 111 San Diego, CA 92117 Telephone: (858) 412-5303 Facsimile: (619) 858-2308 - and - Solomon E. Gresen, Esq. Jack Risemberg, Esq. RG LAWYERS, LLP 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1610 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 815-2727 Facsimile: (818) 815-2737 XPRESSION OF AWARENESS: Dhesi Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DR. SARBJIT DHESI and DR. LONNA DENNY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. XPRESSION OF AWARENESS, INC., d/b/a "RETHINK CBD," a/k/a "CBD RETHINK," LOUIS WING, YESSENIA GARCIA, and HAMID MCHATET, Case No. 4:19-cv-04210-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons and entities whose name or fax number appears in column A or B respectively of the "Chiropractor_Email_List" tab of the "Chiropractor_Fax_6- 20-2019.xlsx" file produced by the Defendant Xpression of Awareness, Inc. in this litigation on January 18, 2020"; 2. appointing themselves representatives of the class; and 3. appointing their undersigned counsel as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon B. Fougner, Esq. 600 California Street, 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 577-5829 Facsimile: (206) 338-0783 E-mail: jon@fougnerlaw.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Andrew W. Heidarpour, Esq. HEIDARPOUR LAW FIRM, PLLC 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 190-318 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 234-2727 E-mail: aheidarpour@hlfirm.com [*] Australia Announces Inquiry Into Class Action Industry ---------------------------------------------------------- Sophy Woodward, Esq. -- sophy.woodward@hfw.com -- of HFW, in an article for Lexology, reports that class actions financed by litigation funders loom large in the Australian legal landscape. On 5 March 2020, the Morrison government announced a wide-ranging inquiry into the regulation of class actions and the litigation funding industry. The terms of reference were specifically expanded on 13 May 2020 to include "the potential impact of Australia's current class action industry on vulnerable Australian business already suffering the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic." Against this backdrop, greater regulation of litigation funders appears inevitable and, indeed, has already occurred. On 22 May 2020, the Federal Treasurer announced that litigation funders will be subject to greater regulatory oversight by requiring them to hold an Australian Financial Services License (AFSL) and to comply with the managed investment scheme regime in the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act). Litigation funders will have three months to obtain an AFSL. So what will these changes mean for the litigation funding industry? For the litigation funders who already hold an AFSL these changes will do no more than level the playing field. For other funders, the additional requirements are likely to have a significant impact and may even produce a consolidation of the litigation funding market in Australia. To the extent that the changes increase the transparency of litigation funding arrangements and ensure that funders are able to meet their funding commitments, they should be welcomed. Parliamentary inquiry into class actions The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services has been given broad terms of reference to examine all aspects of the class action system, including whether further regulation of litigation funders is needed to improve justice outcomes. The terms of reference also include the consequences of allowing Australian lawyers to enter into contingency fee arrangements, on the back of a bill that has been introduced by the Victorian government which will allow contingency fees to be paid to plaintiff law firms in class action proceedings. Submissions to the inquiry are due on 11 June 2020, hearings will be held in July, and the Committee is due to report on 7 December 2020. Requirement to hold an AFSL and comply with the managed investment scheme regime The regulatory changes will be achieved by amending the Corporations Regulations 2001 (the Regulations). While little detail has been provided regarding the proposed amendments, it is likely that the existing exemption for litigation funding schemes from the definition of a managed investment scheme and from the requirement to hold an AFSL in certain circumstances in the Regulations will be removed. Those exemptions were inserted into the Regulations following the Full Federal Court decision in Brookfield Multiplex Ltd v International Litigation funding Partners Pte Ltd [2009] FCAFC 147 where the Court held that the litigation funding arrangements between the funder and group members constituted a managed investment scheme and the scheme was not registered but should have been. As a holder of an AFSL, litigation funders will be subject to such requirements as: -- Ensuring that the financial services covered by their licenses are provided efficiently, honestly and fairly; -- Having available adequate resources to provide the services covered by their license; and -- Maintaining an appropriate level of competence to provide financial services. Litigation funders are already required to have in place adequate arrangements for the management of conflicts of interest. Further, where interests in litigation funding schemes are offered to retail clients, it will generally be the case that managed investment schemes will need to be registered under Chapter 5C of the Act. Operators of a registered managed investment scheme in Australia as holders of an AFSL are subject to various solvency requirements and must audit compliance with these requirements annually or when ASIC requests. They must also be operated by a responsible entity which is an Australian public company registered with ASIC. Finally, offshore funders (of which there are many operating in Australia) will need to consider the foreign financial services licensing regime. Take-aways It's too soon to tell what broader measures will emerge from the parliamentary inquiry on class actions and litigation funding. However, the related announcement that litigation funders will be required to hold an AFSL and be subject to the managed investment scheme regime in the Corporations may prove to be a positive development. There is a level of distrust of litigation funders by corporates and insurers in Australia as a result of years of escalating numbers of class actions and rising directors' and officers' insurance premiums. Greater regulation of litigation funders has the potential to go some way towards remedying this distrust. At the very least, it will increase the transparency of litigation funding arrangements and will also ensure that unscrupulous operators are not allowed to muddy the waters for those litigation funders who are doing the right thing. [GN] [*] Companies Face "Piggyback" Class Action Risk Amid COVID-19 -------------------------------------------------------------- J. Maxwell Heckendorn, Esq. -- mheckendorn@schiffhardin.com -- and Jeffrey Skinner, Esq. -- jskinner@schiffhardin.com -- of Schiff Hardin LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that as part of their ongoing effort to combat misinformation about COVID-19, federal agencies have issued warning letters to more than 150 companies. While companies know that a warning letter is serious and requires immediate attention, perhaps the greater challenge is what often follows: the so-called "piggyback" class action lawsuit. And recently, plaintiffs' attorneys have gone one step further: they have been filing "piggyback" class actions not against the company that received the warning letter but against competitors that make similar products. Because warning letters are publicly available and posted prominently on various agency websites, consumers can view the warning letter and then file a "piggyback" class action against the recipient of the warning letter. Indeed, oftentimes these "piggyback" class actions merely recast the government agency's allegations as claims for violations of various state consumer protection statutes. For example, in November 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent a genetic testing company a warning letter ordering it to stop selling and marketing one of its genome tests because the company had failed to show that the test actually worked. Five days later, the company was hit with a proposed class action for allegedly violating several California consumer protection laws. Dozens of other companies--from hotel chains to cereal manufacturers--have also been hit with piggyback class actions based on warning letters. But things have changed recently. Consumers have targeted companies that never received a warning letter. These proposed class actions are based largely -- sometimes entirely -- on the allegations in a warning letter directed to another company. In these cases, the plaintiffs' theory is that, because the products are similar, the substance of the warning letter "applies equally" to the similar products. This trend has continued in the COVID-19 era. On January 17, 2020, a week before the first reported case of COVID-19 in the United States, the FDA sent a leading hand sanitizer manufacturer a warning letter telling the company to stop advertising its product as one that can prevent an array of diseases, including Ebola, MRSA, and the flu. The FDA explicitly challenged the product's claim that it "kills 99.99% of most common germs" because the claim allegedly lacked adequate scientific support. On the heels of FDA's warning letter, at least six class actions were filed against the manufacturer. Although the claims differ slightly, all of the lawsuits are premised on the same basic theory articulated in the FDA warning letter -- which all of the complaints cite. Then came the copycat piggyback lawsuits. The manufacturer of a competing hand sanitizer was sued in February and March 2020. In one of the complaints, the plaintiff alleged that because both products have the same active ingredient, the FDA's allegations about labeling apply to both products. Separately, a plaintiff sued a large retailer in a class action making similar claims about its generic hand sanitizer. In that case, the plaintiff argued that the retailer's labeling was also misleading because it had the same active ingredient as the brand name and implied that its product was as effective as the brand name. So what should companies do? Here are proactive steps to protect against these lawsuits. Review labels and advertisements. To protect against "piggyback" class actions, companies should ensure that they have reliable scientific evidence to support their products' stated claims and alleged benefits, particularly if a competing product that makes similar claims has received a warning letter. Additionally, if a company compares its product to competing products, companies should check to see whether those competing products have ever been the subject of a warning letter. Monitor guidance from relevant governmental agencies. Companies should also actively monitor guidance from relevant federal or state agencies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, agencies have issued and amended guidance more often than they typically do. For example, in March 2020 the FDA issued guidance temporarily relaxing regulatory requirements for production of certain hand sanitizer products. The FDA then revised that guidance on March 28, and again on April 15, 2020. Companies should stay abreast of the most recent guidance to ensure that they are complying with laws and regulations. Monitor warning letters and enforcement actions against competitors. Of course, a company that receives a warning letter should seek legal advice to determine how to respond. But even if a company does not itself receive a warning letter, companies might learn about federal agencies' warning letters and enforcement actions against other companies, particularly competitors or companies that make similar products. Where the products are similar, enterprising plaintiffs' attorneys could repurpose a warning or enforcement action against one company's product into the basis for a class action against its competitors. If a competitor has received a warning letter or been the target of an agency enforcement action, legal counsel may help assess their situation compared to the company's. Conclusion It is a challenging time for companies in so many ways. These lawsuits might be the beginning of a trend of class actions filed both against companies whose products appear on the radar of governmental agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic and against companies that make similar products. The plaintiffs' bar is closely monitoring agency warning letters. Companies should take that into consideration. [GN] [*] Consumer Class Actions Target Dietary Supplement Industry ------------------------------------------------------------- Rend Al-Mondhiry, JD, and Jennifer M. Adams, JD, in an article for RAPS, provide an overview of class action lawsuits targeting the dietary supplement industry. Recent trends indicate that companies should look beyond regulatory compliance and consider how a "reasonable consumer" would interpret claims in labeling, even claims that comply with FDA requirements. There are also important steps companies can take to prevent these lawsuits, as well as defenses that courts seem increasingly willing to accept. By staying aware of the class action landscape and taking a proactive, holistic approach to labeling, dietary supplement companies will be well prepared and well positioned to fight back. Consumer class actions continue to be a significant risk facing the dietary supplement industry. And as companies try to adapt labeling and marketing practices to stay ahead of that risk, plaintiffs similarly evolve and are quick to come up with novel theories. With labels becoming more streamlined and avoiding obvious "red flag" terms such as "natural," plaintiffs have started digging deeper for claims that are potentially false or misleading. An interesting theme has emerged from that practice -- many allegations are moving into the enforcement space historically occupied by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Although these theories have existed in some shape for a few years, cases in the last year or so indicate they may be moving to center stage. Fortunately, many of these allegations can be avoided by careful attention to FDA regulations and proactive compliance, which includes looking beyond technical compliance and considering how a "reasonable consumer" would view label claims. In addition, courts have been more receptive to a number of legal defenses when a case involves nuanced questions of FDA compliance. FDA compliance and the 'reasonable consumer' standard All 50 states in the US have their own consumer protection laws that prohibit various unfair business and sales practices, including false advertising. Although the laws' scope and language vary from state to state, the intent is universal: companies cannot use misleading or deceptive advertising or business practices to sell their products. These laws serve as the primary basis for consumer class actions, and nearly all dietary supplement lawsuits today allege a product is somehow advertised in a misleading or deceptive way. A traditional case alleges that a consumer saw an advertising claim, relied on that claim when deciding to purchase a product, and ultimately was injured because the claim was somehow deceptive or misleading. A claim's meaning is often subjective and can vary from person to person. To cope with this ambiguity, nearly all states use the "reasonable consumer" standard. In California, which is the most frequent forum for dietary supplement class action lawsuits, a claim is likely to deceive when "it is probable that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled." New York is another frequent forum, and its courts consider a claim to be misleading "if a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances would likely be misled." Importantly, the reasonable consumer standard is an objective standard and does not hinge on whether or not the consumer bringing the lawsuit was misled. This assessment is based on what the average consumer would likely take away from a claim, and not "more than a mere possibility that the advertisement might conceivably be misunderstood by some few customers viewing it in an unreasonable manner." It is also important to note that advertisers are responsible for all express and reasonably implied claims. Most dietary supplement class action lawsuits focus solely on whether the "reasonable consumer" is deceived by a claim. And FDA compliance has usually played only a small role, if any, in examining what a reasonable consumer understood a claim to mean. But, as consumer class action theories evolve with changing claims, allegations more frequently intentionally (and sometimes unintentionally) implicate regulatory requirements and policy. Consequently, regulatory compliance is increasingly vital with both defending class actions and proactively managing risk. In some cases, compliance can be a complete bar to a false advertising allegation -- there are legal preemption rules that prevent courts from reaching conclusions that contradict FDA requirements or add requirements to FDA's rules. But recent trends have shown courts may be more willing to examine whether otherwise technically compliant products and claims could nevertheless potentially deceive a reasonable consumer. This can arise in situations in which the context surrounding the claim may change its meaning, or a consumer understands a claim to mean something different than what FDA does. As the line between potentially false advertising class actions and regulatory compliance blurs even further, it is becoming more imperative not only to examine all claims for FDA compliance, but also to consider their context and consumers' understanding of the claims. State law claims involving FD&C Act violations Another important trend in these class actions includes those that directly attack compliance violations. Historically, most consumer class actions have been premised solely on deception, and compliance has worked in the background as an argument, or even as a complete defense, that the claim is not deceptive. But now allegations have started delving into the realm of policing violations traditionally left to the FDA. Thus, where noncompliance risk assessments may previously have concerned only FDA enforcement risk, it is now, more than ever, crucial to consider class action risk as well. At first glance, many might assume it is not feasible for class actions to target nuanced regulatory compliance issues. It is well settled that consumers cannot privately enforce Food Drug and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act violations.4 Congress gave FDA sole authority to police FD&C Act violations, and consumers have no right to step into FDA's shoes and bring lawsuits based solely on FD&C Act violations. In addition, FDA compliance provisions can be so detailed and complex it seems highly improbable the average consumer would know enough to understand there is a violation. But in some instances, it is possible for cases to bypass the "reasonable consumer" test and pursue class action lawsuits for technical FDA violations. Some states have unfair competition laws that can be premised on statutory violations, rather than a false or misleading advertising claim. For example, California's Unfair Competition Law provides consumers a cause of action for almost any regulatory violation, even if the regulation does not expressly permit consumer enforcement. Recently, plaintiffs' attorneys have begun to take advantage of those types of laws (commonly called "hooking" statutes), as they allow consumers to "hook" a regulatory violation from one law into becoming an "unlawful" practice they can sue over, even if the underlying violation does not provide them the ability to directly enforce the violation. Importantly, these hooking laws are not carte blanche rights to pursue every regulatory violation. Because the FD&C Act does not authorize private enforcement, courts have almost universally rejected attempts to use a FD&C Act violation as the "unlawful" conduct hook. Instead, consumer class actions point to state-based food and drug laws as the regulatory violation, because nearly all states have their own "mini" FD&C Acts that include many of the same prohibitions as federal law. Consequently, plaintiffs have asserted their cases are based on the state food and drug law violations, rather than federal law, and some courts have permitted those cases to proceed. Although that may seem like splitting hairs to some, legally, it makes quite the difference. Thus, consumers can frequently pursue class actions against companies for technical FDA noncompliance, without fear of grappling with how "reasonable consumers" are somehow deceived by a nuanced statutory violation. However, consumers have faced a tougher battle when their theories are based on interpretations of FDA rules and policy. When there is not a clear statutory violation based on state law, there may be stronger arguments that a claim is private enforcement of the FD&C Act and therefore nonactionable. And even if a claim is deemed to not be private enforcement, when it directly implicates FD&C Act compliance, it is often more susceptible to other defenses, such as preemption and/or primary jurisdiction. Generally, preemption exists when a consumer class action is seeking to enforce a standard different than, or in addition to, FD&C Act requirements. Relatedly, primary jurisdiction is a policy doctrine that exists when FDA, rather than the court, is in the best position to make a compliance determination. Preemption stops a suit from proceeding further, whereas primary jurisdiction may only pause a suit while the court awaits FDA guidance. As consumer class action lawsuits foray deeper and deeper into FDA regulation, defenses such as private enforcement, preemption, and primary jurisdiction have become more critical. And to be sure, there are also still numerous other procedural defenses available, such as lack of standing and reliance. It is telling that, in recent years, courts have been more willing to side with companies on these arguments -- which stands in stark contrast to the dietary supplement litigation landscape a few years ago. Recent class actions implicating FD&C Act compliance Although FDA compliance analyses have certainly factored in some way in most dietary supplement class actions, recent trends show compliance questions are becoming more fundamental to a case's viability, defense, and potential outcome. Below are overviews of four traditional FDA compliance areas that have seen spikes in litigation. Although some involve areas in which conventional food products are typically the target, dietary supplements are also vulnerable to these lawsuits -- especially as suits against the supplement industry continue to rise. Nutrient content claims The nuanced realm of nutrient content claims is one area of FDA regulation that has provided frequent fodder for consumer class actions. These suits can be particularly vexing because there are often few arguments surrounding compliance -- a claim either does, or does not, comply with FDA regulations. Common targets include claims that fail to meet FDA requirements for bearing the claim, use of undefined nutrient content claims, such as "loaded" or "low carb," and omission of mandatory disclosures or warnings. It is sometimes confusing how these noncompliant acts somehow deceive reasonable consumers. Arguably, the average person in the grocery aisle is unaware that an "excellent source" of vitamin C requires at least 20% daily value. This is where the hooking statutes, discussed above, play a crucial role. Because there is a supposed statutory violation, the lawsuits technically have a basis to proceed without examining whether a reasonable consumer is actually deceived by the claim. However, those allegations can be riddled with other procedural issues that have an impact on their viability. To bring a class action lawsuit, plaintiffs must also satisfy numerous procedural standards, for example, that they actually relied on the claim at issue. This can be tricky with compliance issues, particularly when the allegation involves a disclaimer that was omitted. For example, a recent case challenged the claim "no added sugar" because it lacked the mandatory disclosure that it was not a low-calorie food. While that might have been true, the court still dismissed the action because the plaintiff did not adequately allege how the calorie content influenced her purchasing decision. But even if a claim is technically compliant with FDA requirements, it is still vital to assess whether it is otherwise somehow not truthful or is misleading. This came to a head in a recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case concerning the claim "0g Trans Fat per serving." In that case, the product may have had a small amount of trans fat, but under FDA's rounding rules, the Nutrition Facts listing was required to declare "0g Trans Fat." Even though the regulations required the declaration elsewhere on the label to match the Nutrition Facts, the court found the challenge to "0g Trans Fat per serving" was not preempted. A key part of the court's reasoning was that, although FDA required the Trans Fat declaration in the Nutrition Facts, it did not require a "0g" claim anywhere else on the label. Thus, it seems that voluntary use of nutrition claims, even if they are technically compliant, must still be independently examined under consumer deception standards to assess whether there is a potentially deceptive claim. Anecdotally, these technical lawsuits seem to be on the rise. However, the trend is difficult to track because most cases start with private, pre-suit demand letters. And although there are numerous filed lawsuits with these types of allegations, the majority never see their day in court. The issue around whether a nutrient content claim meets FDA requirements is usually cut-and-dried, and although there are procedural defenses available, for the most part, they are case and fact specific. Litigation can be costly, and many companies opt to settle claims confidentially before a suit is filed publicly to avoid the time, expense, and headache. The good news is that these types of suits can be easily avoided by diligent reviews for regulatory compliance. Flavor and coloring claims One of the fastest growing areas of litigation surrounds "flavor" designations. In the last year alone, dozens upon dozens of lawsuits were filed alleging that the absence of flavor language is deceptive to consumers. The regulations specify that when a product does not contain enough of a commonly expected ingredient to independently characterize the flavor, and instead uses natural and/or artificial flavors, certain qualifying language is required by the flavor designation such as "flavored," "naturally flavored," or "artificially flavored," among others, to signal there are additional flavor ingredients in the product. The correct flavor language qualifier is often a lengthy and head-spinning analysis, and arguably well beyond the average consumer's understanding and best left to the FDA. But what is perhaps more easily understood by consumers is simply whether the word "flavored" is there at all. Therefore, these lawsuits have targeted products that lack an expected characterizing ingredient and simply have natural and/or artificial flavors, but do not include any flavor qualifying language. For example, the most common targets are products described as "vanilla" without any qualifying flavor language, but do not actually contain any vanilla beans.14 Most of those cases are in their infancy, and it is therefore not clear whether courts will leave that technical compliance issue to the FDA or permit the class actions to proceed. Given that the focus is not necessarily technical compliance, and more on the absence of a supposedly expected ingredient, it does seem likely courts may find consumers could be deceived and permit the cases to move forward. Similarly, there have been cases targeting claims such as "natural flavors" and "no artificial flavors." Perhaps, unsurprisingly, these claims are allegedly deceptive owing to the presence of an artificial or nonnatural flavor. The challenges tend to target "synthetic" ingredients that may impart a taste or flavor. Companies have generally responded that an ingredient's intended function is not for flavor and that labeling it as such contradicts FDA regulations. A frequent example is malic acid, which can impart a tart taste but can also be used for preservative purposes.15 Courts have generally let those cases proceed to determine what the true purpose of the ingredient is and whether it affects taste. A related claim that is starting to face scrutiny is "no artificial colors." Although the court cases are sparse, pre-suit demand letters have challenged the claim. FDA policy is that any ingredient -- regardless of source -- results in an artificially colored product. Plaintiffs' attorneys have used this policy to argue the claim is deceptive when any color ingredient is used, even if it derived from a plant or natural source, such as beet juice. Fortunately, FDA has stated in the rulemaking history that it does not believe some plant-based or spice-derived colors are "per se" artificial. A quick internet search shows consumers seem to readily understand "artificial colors" to refer to FD&C colors, meaning they could reasonably expect a product with that claim to simply have no FD&C colors. As such, although these cases are starting to crop up, they may not be as frequent as the flavor challenge cases, because there are more robust defenses available. And, although the targets of these flavor and coloring lawsuits have traditionally been conventional food products, companies that make protein powders and nutrition bars -- or other supplements with flavor or coloring added -- may find themselves facing similar actions. Ingredient permissibility Other class action targets include the use of ingredients that are subject to ongoing FDA review. A timely example is FDA's current position on cannabidiol (CBD) and the recent wave of lawsuits alleging CBD products are illegally labeled and marketed as dietary supplements or food. Although FDA's current position is that CBD is not a permissible dietary supplement or food ingredient, a growing number of cases have been dismissed or stayed based on primary jurisdiction and preemption arguments given the agency's ongoing and active review of this ingredient. FDA's position on CBD has been widely publicized in various agency statements and cited in numerous Warning Letters. However, these are not final agency actions pursuant to its own internal guidance, and, further, FDA's statements have made clear that the agency is actively reviewing use of CBD in dietary supplements and food. That has led at least one court to stay a lawsuit pursuant to the primary jurisdiction doctrine, because the plaintiffs' claims regarding falsely labeled CBD products implicate the agency's expertise with respect to a regulated product, as well as the need for uniform, consistent guidance from the agency. In addition, although plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege violations of state consumer deceptive and unlawful practices acts, the claims are arguably private enforcement of the FD&C Act because FDA's position is based on statutory provisions found only in the Act. And, as discussed above, plaintiffs cannot sidestep FDA's exclusive authority to enforce the FD&C Act. In an older but notable case, a California class action premised on alleged noncompliance with FDA's new dietary ingredient notification requirement was dismissed after the court found that private citizens have no legal right to allege such a violation. The plaintiff had attempted to link the claim to state consumer protection and adulteration statutes, rather than to the FD&C Act. However, the court found those arguments unpersuasive and determined that the plaintiff was alleging only a violation of the FD&C Act, because the alleged failure to submit a notification did not violate any state law. The court therefore dismissed the claim because it constituted private enforcement of the FD&C Act. Structure/function claims Numerous recent false advertising claims have encroached, perhaps unintentionally, on FDA regulation of permissible structure/function claims. Although it is not new that these claims are challenged as false or misleading, recent cases have more clearly delineated that consumers must have actual evidence of falsity to pursue such claims. For example, a plaintiff must demonstrate there is scientific evidence showing the product does not provide the claimed structure/function benefit. In one such case, the Ninth Circuit dismissed a class action alleging that a dietary supplement marketer falsely advertised the weight-management, energy, and wellness benefits of its supplement products. The court found that "anecdotal evidence" based on the plaintiffs' own experience with the products was "insufficient to create an inference for falsity." The court likewise rejected a study offered by the plaintiffs, finding it was irrelevant both to the plaintiffs' circumstances and the products at issue in the case. As plaintiffs work to meet the threshold for falsity, the allegations have implicated FDA's standard in the FD&C Act for substantiating structure/function claims, leading courts to determine that such allegations are preempted. In a somewhat recent case, hailed as a victory for the dietary supplement industry, the Ninth Circuit struck down a plaintiff's attempt to impose a higher evidentiary standard for structure/function claims under California law. The plaintiff alleged that the claims "support cardiovascular health," "promote heart health," and other, similar statements violated California's false advertising laws because the supplements do not prevent cardiovascular disease -- in other words, the plaintiff essentially asked the court to require drug-level evidence to support the claims. In this case, the plaintiff sought to impose a level of substantiation under state law that was not identical to the standard under Section 403(r)(6) of the FD&C Act. However, the court recognized that the Act expressly preempts any state law for food labeling that is not identical to its requirements. The plaintiff, as the court succinctly stated, "disagrees with the federal statutory scheme for dietary supplements, but we cannot accept his invitation to upend it."29 This decision follows a nearly identical holding a few years earlier in the First Circuit Court of Appeals.30 It is extremely promising to see two appellate courts reach the same conclusion and it bodes well to dissuade future allegations based on similar theories. Conclusion Fortunately, there are a number of steps that can help shield dietary supplement companies from these types of lawsuits. Beyond ensuring compliance with relevant FDA regulations, the "reasonable consumer" standard will continue to serve an important function by preventing lawsuits that defy plausibility. Companies should review product label and marketing materials from the vantage point of this "reasonable consumer" and look beyond regulatory compliance to determine the overall message of claims in labeling. It is imperative to determine whether there are any implied claims or message that, if challenged, could not be substantiated even if the claim is technically compliant with FDA requirements. In summary, companies must approach compliance from both an FDA enforcement perspective and a consumer class action perspective and they should consider all possible interpretations of the product labeling as a whole. For challenges involving matters on which FDA has not made a final determination, such as ingredients under review by FDA or those for which the FD&C Act has clear standards in place, companies may be able to fight back and successfully use primary jurisdiction and preemption arguments. [GN] [*] Gross Law Announces Shareholder Class Actions ------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (LOPE) Investors Affected: January 5, 2018 - January 27, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Grand Canyon Education, Inc. According to a filed complaint, statements made by Defendants were false and/or misleading because following Grand Canyon's spin-off of its educational assets as Grand Canyon University ("GCU"): (i) GCU would not be a proper non-profit organization as it would remain under the control of Grand Canyon, and (ii) Grand Canyon would not be a third-party service provider to GCU but rather would continue to effectively operate the entity, and (iii) Grand Canyon employees served as executives of GCU and (iv) GCU functioned as an off-balance-sheet entity to which Grand Canyon would be able to funnel expenses and costs in exchange for a disproportionate amount of revenue, thereby inflating Grand Canyon's financial results. Conn's, Inc. (CONN) Investors Affected: September 3, 2019 - December 9, 2019 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Conn's, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Conn's was experiencing an increase in first payment defaults and 60-plus day delinquencies; (2) as a result, Conn's was reasonably likely to record an increase to its provision for bad debts; (3) the Company made certain underwriting adjustments, including tightening its standards for new customers and online applicants; (4) as a result, the Company's same-store sales would be adversely impacted; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE:R) Investors Affected: July 23, 2015 - February 13, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Ryder System, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Ryder's financial results were inflated as a result of the Company's practice of overstating the residual values of the vehicles in its fleet; (2) there was no reasonable basis to believe that Ryder would sell its used vehicles for the amounts that it had assigned to them; (3) Ryder's residual values for its fleet of vehicles exceeded the expected future values that would be realized upon the sale of those vehicles; 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. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (212) 537-9430 Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN] ********* 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 ***