/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 ***