/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200701.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, July 1, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 131
Headlines
ADVANCED MARKETING: Daschbach Sues Over Telemarketing Scheme
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Gorie Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Canaday Appeals W.D. Tenn. Ruling to 6th Cir.
AQ TEXTILES: Faces Adam Product Liability Suit in North Carolina
BAUDAX BIO: Class Action Against Recro Pharma Underway
BENIHANA INC: Rosales Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to N.D. Calif.
BOYCE HYDRO: 60 Residents Join Mid-Michigan Flooding Class Action
BRANCH BANKING: Quintana Appeals Consumer Suit Ruling to 4th Cir.
BURDICK PAINTING: Faces Hernandez Labor Suit Over Unpaid Wages
CALIFORNIA BAPTIST: Lopez Seeks Refund of School Fees
CANADA: RCMP Class Action Members Likely to Reach at Least 1,000
CANADIAN HOCKEY: Former Players' Class Action Settled
CASA LUIS CORP: Underpays Waiters, Barron et al. Claim
CASPER SLEEP: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
CASPER SLEEP: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
CENTRELINK: Gov't May Have to Pay Interest on Unlawful Debts
CENVEO WORLDWIDE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Summers Says
CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Order Routing Litigation Ongoing
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Chernysh Sues over 60% Drop in Share Price
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
CHICKPEA AT 14TH ST: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Pacheco
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Cantwell et al. Sue Over Deceptive Milk Labels
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
CONDUENT COMMERCIAL: Underpays Employees, Ricard-Tessier et al Say
CORVIAS GROUP: Military Members Allege Breach of Rental Agreements
CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 20 Deadline
DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Oyoque Seeks Fee Refunds Over COVID-19 Closure
EMORY UNIVERSITY: Schultz Seeks Tuition Refunds Due to COVID-19
ENDO INT'L: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of August 18 Deadline
ENDO INT'L: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 18 Deadline
ERIE INSURANCE: Pub Drops COVID-19 Loss Coverage Class Action
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces Locicero FCRA Suit in S.D. Florida
FIFTH THIRD: Early Access Cash Advance Suit Ongoing
FIRST HORIZON: Settlement Reached in GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit
FIRST RELIANCE: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agent Fees, Ratliff Says
FIRST TRANSIT: Cuellar Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
GARFIELD BEACH: Naderi Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
GRAND CANYON: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of July 13 Deadline
GULFPORT ENERGY: Faces Woodley Securities Suit in SDNY
HAM FARMS: Supplemental Consent Protective Order Entered in Lopez
HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Dahlke Sues over 18% Drop in Share Price
HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline
HORIZONS ETFS: Affleck Greene Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
HOST INT'L: Kennedy et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
I AND D GLATT 2: Underpays Assistants, Erazo et al. Say
ICU MEDICAL: 2nd Amended Suit Over IV Saline Solution Dismissed
IDEAL IMAGE: Smith Suit Moved From Circuit Ct. to E.D. Missouri
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: City of Providence Sues over Xyrem Monopoly
JONES FINANCIAL: Appeal in Anderson Suit Remains Pending
JONES FINANCIAL: Appeals Court Declines Petition for Rehearing
JONES FINANCIAL: Approval of Watson Settlement Still Pending
JONES FINANCIAL: Court Narrows Claims in Bland Suit
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline
LA GLADYS RESTAURANT: Underpays Employees, Esquivel Claims
LABORATORY CORP: Bermejo Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
LEGOLAND: Faces Class Action in California Over Unpaid Refunds
LEVY PREMIUM: Peskett Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Suite Attendants
LOS ANGELES, CA: LAPD Faces Class Action Over Protest Response
MDL 2938: Juanich v. Evenflo Co. Over Booster Seats Consolidated
MDL 2938: Naughton v. Evenflo Co. Over Booster Seats Consolidated
MGP INGREDIENTS: Suits Over Sales of Aged Whiskey Ongoing
MH SUB I: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Bindman Suit
NATIONWIDE CHILDREN'S: Morris Seeks OT Pay for Psychometricians
NAVIENT CORP: Manetta et al Allege Improper Student Loan Servicing
NEW YORK: Court Files Redacted Confidential Information in Grottano
NOIA RESIDENTIAL: Smith Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Staff Nurses
NORTH CAROLINA: Class Action Seeks Reopening of Bars
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Paid $135,000 Mootness Fee
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Seeks to Appeal Ruling in SEPTA Litigation
OSHKOSH CORP: 401(K) Plan Participant Files Class Action
PINNACLE BANK: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agent Fees, Ratliff Claims
PLAID LLC: Illegally Collects Bank Login Data, Mitchell Alleges
PROASSURANCE CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
PROASSURANCE CORP: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
PROGREXION TELESERVICES: Born & Chauhan Seek to Certify Class
PSLA LLC: Roldan and Moore Seek Proper Wage Pay for Entertainers
QWEST CORP: Sales Practices Suit v. CenturyLink Underway
RANCHO RESTAURANT: Underpays Employees, Veras Claims
RYDER SYSTEM: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 20 Deadline
SEA LEGS: Alinikoff Seeks Wages for Work Performed as Bartender
SEATTLE, WA: Violates Property Rights, Hunters Capital Claims
SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Kiddie Academy Seeks Payment for COVID Losses
SK ENERGY: Poe Valley Alleges Price-Fixing of Gasoline
SMASHBOX BEAUTY: Sued by Hockey for Misclassifying Employees
SOCIETY INSURANCE: Denies Coverage of COVID Losses, 726 West Says
T-MOBILE USA: Herrera Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
TERMINIX INT'L: Wilson Sues Over Unsolicited Phone & Email Ads
TERRY YORK: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Wayman Suit Claims
TIVITY HEALTH: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Pending
TIVITY HEALTH: Trial in Weiner Class Suit to Begin May 2021
TRUIST BANK: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agent Fees, Ratliff Alleges
TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT: 8th Circuit Appeal Filed in Pederson Suit
TRUSTMARK CORP: Investors' Appeal Remains Pending
UNITED STATES OIL: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund Suit Ongoing
USANA HEALTH: Lacasse Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
USC: Kerendian Suit Removed From Super. Court to C.D. California
USHEALTH ADVISORS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, St. Clair Claims
VALEANT PHARMA: $1.21-Bil. Deal Recommended for Final Approval
VERDE ENERGY: Abbate Sues Over Bait-and-Switch Electricity Rates
WALMART INC: McKnight-Nero Balks at Prejudiced ID of Customers
WATERS OF NORTH LITTLE: Underpays Nurses, Ellis Alleges
WLP EXECUTIVE: Court Denies Class Certification Bid
WOODBRIDGE VISTA: Thompson Rogers Issues Class Action Proceeding
WWE: Responds to Saudi Arabia Incident Class Action
ZHEJIANG HUAHAI: Employers Suit Over Illegal VCDs Moved to D.N.J.
[*] City of Lethbridge Explores Opioid Crisis Class Action
[*] Two Debt Collection Companies Avert TCPA Class Action
*********
ADVANCED MARKETING: Daschbach Sues Over Telemarketing Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD DASCHBACH and ELCINDA PERSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ADVANCED MARKETING & PROCESSING,
INC. d/b/a PROTECT MY CAR, Case No. 1:20-cv-00706 (D.N.H., June 15,
2020), alleges that PMC conducts a wide-scale telemarketing scheme
that features the placement of autodialed calls and text messages
to consumers nationwide in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
Unfortunately for consumers, PMC casts its marketing net too wide,
according to the complaint. That is, in an attempt to promote its
businesses and to generate leads for its extended auto warranty
products, the Defendant conducted (and continues to conduct) a
national telemarketing campaign that features the repeated making
of unsolicited calls to consumers' telephones, including wireless
phones, while utilizing an artificial or prerecorded voice without
consent.
PMC is an auto warranty company that claims to sell consumers
extended auto warranty plans.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
V. Richards Ward, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF V. RICHARDS WARD, JR., PLLC
39 North Main Street, Unit D-3
P.O. Box 1117
Wolfeboro, NH 03894
Telephone: (603) 569-9222
E-mail: Rick@VRWardLaw.com
- and -
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 213-0676
E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Gorie Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MADELINE GORIE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC F/K/A
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01387 (N.D.
Ohio, June 24, 2020) challenges Defendant's alleged unlawful
employment and pay practices and policies in violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant between August 2019 and
February 2020 as a warehouse worker.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
warehouse workers were classified by Defendant as
non-exempt-employees and were not provided with bona fide meal
periods. Allegedly, Defendant denied Plaintiff and other similarly
situated Warehouse Workers significant amount of overtime
compensation for meal periods during which they performed work.
Moreover, Defendant failed to make, keep and preserve accurate
records of all of the unpaid work performed by their employees,
including Plaintiff.
Amazon.com Services LLC f/k/a Amazon.com Services, Inc. operates
warehouses fulfillment centers throughout Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Blvd.
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Tel: 216-696-5000
Fax: 216-696-7005
Emails: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Canaday Appeals W.D. Tenn. Ruling to 6th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Laura Canaday filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled LAURA CANADAY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., Case No.
1:19-cv-01084, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Tennessee at Jackson.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
an employment-related class action complaint, which has been filed
against The Anthem Companies, Inc., for alleged violation of the
overtime provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Laura Canaday, who was hired as a utilization management
review nurse since approximately June 2017 to the present,
routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek without overtime
compensation, according to the complaint. In addition, Anthem has
allegedly failed to make, keep, and preserve records with respect
to each of its employees sufficient to determine their wages,
hours, and other conditions and practice of employment.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: Laura Canaday, Case No.
20-504, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner LAURA CANADAY, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:
Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
APOLLO LAW
333 Washington Avenue, N., Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 927-2969
E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com
- and -
William Benjamin Ryan, Esq.
1545 Union Avenue
Memphis, TN 38104
Telephone: (901) 278-1004
- and -
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
80 S. Eighth Street, Suite 4600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
E-mail: srey@nka.com
Defendant-Respondent THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., is represented
by:
Brett Christopher Bartlett, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW
1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 885-1500
E-mail: bbartlett@seyfarth.com
AQ TEXTILES: Faces Adam Product Liability Suit in North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AQ TEXTILES LLC, et
al. The case is captioned as ELIZABETH ADAM and REBECCA FOLEY
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AQ
TEXTILES LLC and CREATIVE TEXTILE MILLS PVT. LTD., Case No.
1:20-cv-00520-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C., June 11, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Loretta C. Biggs.
The lawsuit involves contract product liability issues.
AQ Textiles was founded in 2003. The Company's line of business
includes the wholesale distribution of home furnishings and
housewares. Creative Textile operates as a manufacturer and
supplier of textiles.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
900 west Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5003
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
E-mail: scott@wbmllp.com
BAUDAX BIO: Class Action Against Recro Pharma Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Baudax Bio, 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 against Recro Pharma,
Inc. is ongoing.
On August 2019, Recro Pharma, Inc. announced its plans to separate
its acute care business from its contract manufacturing and
development segment (CDMO) business through a pro rata distribution
of the company's common stock to shareholders of Recro. As a part
of the Separation, Recro transferred the assets, liabilities and
operations of its acute care segment to the company, pursuant to
the terms of a Separation Agreement. On November 21, 2019, the
distribution date, each Recro shareholder received one share of the
company's common stock for every two and one-half shares of Recro
common stock held of record at the close of business on November
15, 2019, the record date for the Distribution.
Prior to November 21, 2019, all of the issued and outstanding
shares of common stock of the company were owned by Recro Pharma,
Inc.
On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit, or the
Securities Litigation, was filed against Recro and certain of
Recro's officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that
purported to state a claim for alleged violations of Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, based on statements made by Recro concerning the new
drug application (NDA) for ANJESO.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and other costs.
On December 10, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that asserted the same claims and sought the same relief but
included new allegations and named additional officers as
defendants.
On February 8, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety, which the lead plaintiff opposed
on April 9, 2019. On May 9, 2019, Recro filed its response and
briefing was completed on the motion to dismiss.
In response to questions from the Judge, the parties submitted
supplemental briefs with regard to the motion to dismiss the
amended complaint during the fall of 2019.
On February 18, 2020, the motion to dismiss was granted without
prejudice. On April 25, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint.
The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss as to this
complaint.
In connection with the Separation, the Company accepted assignment
by Recro of all of Recro's obligations in connection with the
Securities Litigation and agreed to indemnify Recro for all
liabilities related to the Securities Litigation.
The Company has recorded a liability equal to the estimated fair
value of the indemnification to Recro related to this Securities
Litigation. The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit
and intends to vigorously defend against it.
Baudax said, "At this time, no assessment can be made as to its
likely outcome or whether the outcome will be material to the
Company."
Baudax Bio, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, develops and
commercializes innovative products for acute care settings. The
Company is headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania.
BENIHANA INC: Rosales Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SALVADOR ROSALES, on behalf
of himself, on behalf of others similarly situated and the general
public v. BENIHANA, INC., BENIHANA NATIONAL CORP., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-582696 (Filed Feb. 4, 2020),
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the City and 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.
3:20-cv-03903-LB to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages, and failure to provide
rest periods in violation of the California Labor Code.
Benihana, Inc., owns and licenses restaurants in the Benihana and
Benihana Grill chain of Japanese dinnerhouses.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Constance E. Norton, Esq.
Chad D. Greeson, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-1940
Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
E-mail: cnorton@littler.com
cgreeson@littler.com
BOYCE HYDRO: 60 Residents Join Mid-Michigan Flooding Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ClickOnDetroit reports that as many as 60 residents have joined a
class-action lawsuit against the owners of the dams that failed and
caused catastrophic flooding in mid-Michigan.
There's a lot of finger pointing as residents join a class-action
lawsuit against the dam owners and the state. They claim this all
could have been prevented.
Tom and Linda owned a home in Lake Wixom. They showed Local 4
what's left of their dream home.
"We moved up here because we wanted to be by the lake (where) we
grew up as kids," Tom said.
Married 31 years, it was the home they bought so grandchildren
could visit and play on the lake in the summer. They were
renovating it, but now the lake is gone and their home is ruined.
"We just took the camper out this morning, so now we are living in
there," Tom said. "It was a mess. It was heartbreaking. It was bad
to see everything floating."
They're not sure if they'll have the money to rebuild.
"We are not in a flood zone, either, so we couldn't get flood
insurance, and so banks don't want to give you a loan if you have
been flooded, so it is just a big mess," Linda said.
"They failed each of these homeowners," said attorney Bob Lantzy,
of Buckfire & Buckfire.
Lantzy's law firm is representing more than 60 families in the
class-action lawsuit against dam owner Boyce Hydro.
"For years, the defendants were aware that the Edenville and
Sanford dams were structurally unsound, yet they failed to take
action," court documents allege.
"Our biggest issue is when the state and federal government allow
private companies, you know, to operate and maintain a dam system
that could potentially harm and have such a devastating effects on
so many people," Lantzy said.
Residents have also filed a lawsuit against the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources and the Michigan Department of Environment,
Great Lakes, and Energy, claiming both "had knowledge and ample
warning of the problems with the Edenville Dam and owed the
plaintiff a duty to anticipate the failure of the dam, as well as
the consequences of such failure, and to act accordingly to avoid
subjecting plaintiffs to property damage and destruction."
"We expect that all of them are going to be responsible and take
care of business, as they should, and we see a lot of failures on
all sides, and we intend to hold those responsible accountable,"
Lantzy said.
Robert and Cindy Long stood inside what's left of Alex's Railside
Restaurant -- their business for the past 18 years in downtown
Sanford.
"We have people texting us (that) we had eight feet of water in the
restaurant," Robert Long said. "We have worked 10, 12, 14 hours a
day to survive this place, and then we found out that this was all
destroyed and gone, and the insurance company said, 'Sorry, can't
help you.'"
They said their building needs to be gutted.
"You know what, we are very fortunate this is just material,"
Robert Long said. "It can all be rebuilt. But the problem is at our
age, who starts over with a mortgage like this again?"
They worry about their 24 employees and everyone affected by the
floods.
"It just -- it could have been prevented," Cindy Long said. "It
could have been prevented not only for us, but I'm angry for the
people who have lost everything. We still have our home. We have
our health. We have our family."
"Somebody has to be responsible for this," Tom said. "I don't know
if it is Boyce or the state. I mean, there has been so much stuff,
involvement with the state and dropping the levels and raising the
levels. It is just very confusing."
Tom said they plan to rebuild if they can get enough money.
The lawsuit looks to hold Boyce Hydro negligent and liable for
damages, including medical expenses, property damage and property
value.
Local 4 reached out to Boyce Hydro for comment on the lawsuit, but
did not receive a response.
The separate lawsuit against the state seeks damages. Local 4
reached out to the DNR and EGLE. EGLE officials said they cannot
comment on pending litigation. [GN]
BRANCH BANKING: Quintana Appeals Consumer Suit Ruling to 4th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lorenzo Quintana filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in his lawsuit entitled Lorenzo Quintana v. Branch Banking
and Trust, Case No. 1:18-cv-00748-WO-JLW, in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina at Greensboro.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Lorenzo Quintana v. Branch
Banking and Trust, Case No. 20-1679, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Opening Brief and Appendix is due on July 29, 2020; and
-- Response Brief is due on August 28, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant LORENZO QUINTANA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Scott Crissman Harris, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
900 West Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
E-mail: scott@whitfieldbryson.com
Defendant-Appellee BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY is represented
by:
Brent Fancher Powell, Esq.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
1 West 4th Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Telephone: (336) 728-7023
E-mail: brent.powell@wbd-us.com
BURDICK PAINTING: Faces Hernandez Labor Suit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID HERNANDEZ, as a Representative of the State of California and
on behalf of all similarly aggrieved employees v. BURDICK PAINTING,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CV367255 (Cal. Super.,
Santa Clara Cty., June 11, 2020), alleges that the Defendants
violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay all wages,
including minimum and overtime wages, and failing provide all meal
and rest periods or provide compensation in lieu.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt hourly
painter from November 2018 to May 15, 2019.
Burdick is a painting contractor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: 562 590-5550
Facsimile: 562 590-8400
E-mail: kmahonev@mahonev-law.net
CALIFORNIA BAPTIST: Lopez Seeks Refund of School Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
BETHANY LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY, Defendant,
Case 5:20-cv-01249-CBM-SHK (C.D. Cal., June 19, 2020) alleges that
the Defendant refuses to refund tuition fees to the Plaintiff and
the Class.
According to the complaint, the Defendant closed campus and
prohibited in-person on-campus activities. Although the Defendant
offered some level of academic instruction via online classes, the
Plaintiff and members of the putative Class were deprived of the
benefits of on-campus learning as set forth more fully above. The
value of any degree issued on the basis of online classes will be
diminished for the rest of the Plaintiff's lives. To date, the
Defendant has failed and continues to fail to refund any portion of
the Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' Spring 2020
semester tuition payment.
The Defendant has failed and continues to fail to adequately and
properly refund the Plaintiff and the putative Class members' fees
for on-campus services which the Defendant is no longer providing
as previously agreed upon.
California Baptist University (Cal Baptist or CBU) is a private,
Christian university in Riverside, California. Founded in 1950 as
California Baptist College, it is affiliated with the California
Southern Baptist Convention, an organization affiliated with the
Southern Baptist Convention. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 278-2600
Facsimile: (310) 278-2640
E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com
CANADA: RCMP Class Action Members Likely to Reach at Least 1,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Blake, writing for Cabin Radio, reports that a lawyer says a
proposed $600-million class action lawsuit alleging RCMP
discrimination against Indigenous people in the North will likely
gain at least 1,000 members.
Steven Cooper -- of Cooper Regel, one of the firms behind the
proposed action -- said about 50 people have reached out as
potential class members so far.
That includes representatives in Hay River and Tuktoyaktuk in the
NWT and Gjoa Haven in Nunavut. Representative plaintiffs act on
behalf of other class members and work with lawyers to ensure their
interests are represented and pursued.
All of the potential members have shared stories claiming
harassment and inappropriate and excessive use of force at the
hands of RCMP "simply because they're not white," Cooper said.
"You've got kids walking down the street in a small northern
community being basically harassed, ultimately arrested for nothing
other than doing what they're legally entitled to do," he said.
"Can you imagine walking down the street, not doing anything wrong
-- maybe you've had a beer, maybe you haven't, maybe you stumbled,
maybe you didn't – but just going about your business and then
being harassed by the RCMP?"
Cooper Regel and Koskie Minsky LLP launched the proposed class
action against the Attorney General of Canada in December 2018,
claiming negligence, discrimination, and a violation of Charter
rights and freedoms.
Cooper said the lawsuit is currently in the pre-certification
stage. By the end of June, lawyers involved will be cross-examining
affidavits.
Joe David Nasogaluak, a teen in Tuktoyaktuk, is the lead plaintiff.
According to the statement of claim, Nasogaluak was 15 in November
2017 when he was stopped and questioned by RCMP while riding his
snowmobile with others.
Officers allegedly pushed Nasogaluak to the ground without
provocation, then beat, choked, punched, and tasered the teen, and
called him a "stupid f***ing Native" and a "Native punk kid" before
dragging him into an RCMP vehicle.
RCMP told CBC North in 2017 they were investigating the incident
but claimed a taser was never used.
The allegations outlined in the claim have not been proven in
court.
Cooper said growing up in the North and practising law as a
criminal defence lawyer for eight years, he witnessed and heard
similar stories. He moved to the NWT when he was eight years old,
in 1971, and left in 1998.
Cooper said it's not that these issues are getting worse, but that
more incidents are being recorded and brought to the public's
attention.
He pointed to an incident in Kinngait, Nunavut, caught on film
earlier this month. The video shows an apparently intoxicated man
being knocked to the ground by the open door of an RCMP truck
before five officers arrest the man. That incident is under
investigation.
'Class actions like this are about systems'
"The RCMP, a storied institution, has been flawed in its
manifestation for many years, probably from its outset," Cooper
said.
These cases point to a pattern of systemic racism, he said, and the
class action can help hold the RCMP accountable and force the
institution to reform.
"Class actions are rarely about individuals. Class actions like
this are about systems," Cooper said.
"This isn't a claim saying every RCMP officer is bad or even the
majority, but rather they're operating in a system which is bad,
which tolerates and in some cases even encourages bad behaviour."
Cooper noted this claim focuses on the North as RCMP are the only
policing authority in the territories. While RCMP also operate in
the provinces, those jurisdictions have provincial and municipal
police forces. Cooper expects to expand the claim to the south in
future.
"This is sort-of a test market," he said.
RCMP have 'so much more to do'
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said systemic racism is an issue in
police forces across Canada during a news conference in Ottawa,
following protests across the world against racism and police
brutality.
RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki issued a statement agreeing that
systemic racism exists among her employees.
"We now have the opportunity to lead positive change on this
critical issue," Lucki said in that statement.
"It is time to double down on these efforts--there is so much more
to do. There is no one answer, no single solution, no one
approach."
At a news conference in Yellowknife on June 12, Chief
Superintendent Jamie Zettler -- who leads NWT RCMP -- echoed
Lucki's observation that racism is part of every institution, RCMP
included. However, he stopped short of stating systemic racism
existed in the RCMP.
Zettler claimed the "overwhelming" majority of interactions between
RCMP officers and community members in the NWT have been positive,
but added there will be cases where "people feel that they have
been mistreated."
"Those are the ones that we need to understand and have another
lens on," he said.
"It is clear that we must continue to develop and advance those
relationships. Racism and discrimination is not acceptable in
society, or in policing."
Zettler said RCMP in the NWT are "working to combat racism and
discrimination" and have recruitment programs focused on northern
Indigenous people, alongside anti-bias and community cultural
orientation training.
He encouraged anyone with concerns about racism and discrimination
in policing to bring them forward.
"As a Northwest Territories policing jurisdiction, we are committed
to working to enhance trust between the RCMP and the communities we
serve," he said.
Those who believe they may be a class member are asked to contact
Cooper Regel at 1-800-994-7477 or info@cooperregel.ca. Phone calls
may go to voicemail as staff are working remotely during the
pandemic. [GN]
CANADIAN HOCKEY: Former Players' Class Action Settled
-----------------------------------------------------
James McCarthy, writing for NNSL, reports that there is a great
debate about whether major junior hockey players should be treated
as either student athletes or employees of their organization.
The case could be made either way but a few past junior players
decided to take the issue to court in 2014 to argue that they
should be treated as employees with an hourly wage and all the
benefits accorded under provincial law.
That court case ended up being settled last month with the Canadian
Hockey League (CHL) and its three member leagues--Western Hockey
League (WHL), Ontario Hockey League (OHL) and Quebec Major Junior
Hockey League (QMJHL)--agreeing to pay $30 million to thousands of
former players who played between 2012 and 2018. How much each
player will receive all depends on where they played, when they
played and for how long.
The settlement gives the defendants, the leagues in this case, a
full release from any further class-action suits regarding
employment status for players.
Ted Charney of Charney Lawyers in Toronto was one of the lead
attorneys in the case and said the settlement was a fair one in the
end.
"We think it was fair because the (provincial) governments capped
the claims by exempting players from employment standards
legislation," he said.
According to Charney, between 3,000 and 3,500 former players are
eligible to be part of the action with approximately 800 signed on
as of June 15.
"We do not know the amount (for each player)," he said. "It will
depend on the number who submit claims and how many seasons they
played."
It should be noted that only those players who played for Canadian
teams are eligible to take part; those who played with American
teams in the CHL such as the Portland Winterhawks in the WHL and
Flint Firebirds in the OHL are exempt from the settlement.
There are a handful of players from the NWT who got the chance to
ply their trade in the Western Hockey League over the years and who
are eligible to be part of the action, Tye Hand being among them.
Tye Hand played two seasons with the Regina Pats of the Western
Hockey League between 2012 and 2014. Under the terms of a $30
million settlement reached between the Canadian Hockey League, its
three member leagues -- which includes the Western Hockey League --
and a group of former players, Hand would be eligible to receive a
portion of it based on his time in the league. He's not joining the
action, he said. photo courtesy of Regina Pats
Tye Hand played two seasons with the Regina Pats of the Western
Hockey League between 2012 and 2014. Under the terms of a $30
million settlement reached between the Canadian Hockey League, its
three member leagues -- which includes the Western Hockey League --
and a group of former players, Hand would be eligible to receive a
portion of it based on his time in the league. He's not joining the
action, he said.
Originally drafted by the Everett Silvertips in 2010, Hand would be
traded to the Regina Pats in 2012 and went on to play two seasons
with the team. Those two seasons were sandwiched between two
seasons in the Alberta Junior Hockey League split between the
Drumheller Dragons and Calgary Canucks.
Hand said he will "absolutely not" sign on to the class-action
because as he sees it, he got everything he needed as soon as he
signed his player agreement.
"I was presented with my contract and it guaranteed me free school,
free gear – everything was paid for by the team," he said. "I
didn't pay for groceries, I didn't pay rent, the teams give you gas
money or flights to come to training camp as well as going home for
Christmas and when the season is done. I don't need any money to
make up for all I received."
The CHL provides players with post-secondary tuition if they played
in one of the leagues with the first year guaranteed once a player
signs with a team. Another year is guaranteed to a player for every
season they suit up for at least one game with a club.
There was also stipend money Hand said players received.
"I got $125 every two weeks, which was enough to fill up my car or
get whatever I needed outside of hockey," he said. "I don't agree
with the notion that junior hockey teams are making tons of money
because it's junior hockey. You go to a Calgary Hitmen game, you're
paying $25 to get in and you're sitting five rows from the glass.
You don't get rich off of that."
Sam Berg and Lukas Walter, two of the players who filed the
original suit, stated in a press release on May 15, the date the
settlement was agreed to, that they were proud of what the lawsuits
and settlement achieved and that millions of dollars will be given
to players who need it.
Hand said he doesn't doubt that there are players who could use the
money.
"I can't speak to the specific financial situation of others but
there are probably lots of people who don't have jobs right now
because of the whole Covid-19 deal," he said. "'I'm not going to
tell those who sign on that they don't deserve the money and I
won't think any less of them for doing so. All I'm saying is I got
what I wanted out of junior hockey."
He also said while his experience was a positive one, that may not
have been the case for others.
"There may have been some organizations that were different from
the ones I played with," he said. "They may have felt like objects
where they played but I was a part of two organizations where I was
treated just like the top guys, even though I wasn't a top guy. I
was treated like a person all the way through. I don't think there
was anything that they could have said to me that would have made
me change my mind (about signing on)." [GN]
CASA LUIS CORP: Underpays Waiters, Barron et al. Claim
------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRIA JANET BARRON; and SERGIO JUAREZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CASA LUIS
CORP.; JOSE LUIS ESTEVES; and DELIA ARIAS, Defendants, Case
2:20-cv-02713 (E.D.N.Y., June 18, 2020) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as waiters.
Casa Luis Corp. owned and operated the "Casa Luis" restaurant
located at New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neil H. Greenberg, Esq.
Keith E. Williams, Esq.
NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
4242 Merrick Road
Massapequa, NY11758
Telephone: (516) 228.5100
E-mail: nhglaw@nhglaw.com
keith@nhglaw.com
CASPER SLEEP: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on June 22 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Casper Sleep Inc. ("Casper" or
the "Company") (NYSE: CSPR) securities pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's initial public offering conducted on or around
February 7, 2020 (the "IPO"). Casper investors have until August
18, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
In February 2020, the Company completed its initial public offering
("IPO"), in which it sold 8.35 million shares of common stock for
$12 per share.
On April 21, 2020, Casper announced that it was decreasing the size
of its global operations and sales team, as well as completely
winding down its European operations, amounting to a loss of 21% of
its workforce. The Company also stated that Gregory Macfarlane had
resigned from his positions as Chief Financial Officer and Chief
Operating Officer.
On May 12, 2020, the Company announced its first quarter 2020
financial results, reporting a net loss of $34.5 million (a 98%
increase year over year) and an adjusted EBITDA loss of $22.9
million (a 60% increase year over year).
Since the IPO, Casper's share price has traded as low as $6.37 per
share, or about 47% below the $12 IPO price.
The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that Casper's profit margins were actually declining, rather
than growing; (2) that Casper was changing an important
distribution partner, costing it 130 basis points of gross margin
in the first quarter of 2020 alone; (3) that 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) that Casper was suffering accelerating
losses, further placing its ability to achieve positive cash flows
and profitability out of reach; (5) that 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) that
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) that as a result of
the foregoing, Casper's revenue growth rate was not sustainable and
had not positioned the Company to achieve profitability.
If you purchased Casper securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than August 18, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class 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.
If you purchased Casper securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.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
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
CASPER SLEEP: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on June 22 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Casper Sleep Inc. ("Casper" or the "Company") (NYSE: CSPR)
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial
public offering conducted on or around February 7, 2020 (the
"IPO"). Casper investors have until August 18, 2020 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their Casper investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
In February 2020, the Company completed its initial public offering
("IPO"), in which it sold 8.35 million shares of common stock for
$12 per share.
On April 21, 2020, Casper announced that it was decreasing the size
of its global operations and sales team, as well as completely
winding down its European operations, amounting to a loss of 21% of
its workforce. The Company also stated that Gregory Macfarlane had
resigned from his positions as Chief Financial Officer and Chief
Operating Officer.
On May 12, 2020, the Company announced its first quarter 2020
financial results, reporting a net loss of $34.5 million (a 98%
increase year over year) and an adjusted EBITDA loss of $22.9
million (a 60% increase year over year).
Since the IPO, Casper's share price has traded as low as $6.37 per
share, or about 47% below the $12 IPO price.
The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that Casper's profit margins were actually declining, rather
than growing; (2) that Casper was changing an important
distribution partner, costing it 130 basis points of gross margin
in the first quarter of 2020 alone; (3) that 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) that Casper was suffering accelerating
losses, further placing its ability to achieve positive cash flows
and profitability out of reach; (5) that 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) that
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) that as a result of
the foregoing, Casper's revenue growth rate was not sustainable and
had not positioned the Company to achieve profitability.
If you purchased Casper securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
CENTRELINK: Gov't May Have to Pay Interest on Unlawful Debts
------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Henriques-Gomes and Australian Associated Press reports that
the robodebt debacle's financial cost looks set to grow after a
judge suggested it was likely the federal government would have to
pay interest on unlawful debts issued to hundreds of thousands
welfare recipients over nearly five years.
And in an escalation of the class action brought by Gordon Legal,
lawyers for the firm raised the prospect of a misfeasance in public
office claim that could force ministers to front court over the
saga.
At a case management hearing, the federal court Justice Bernard
Murphy told lawyers for the government it would be "obligated to
pay interest" on the debts it agreed to repay.
"You're being sued for the debt plus interest," Murphy said while
questioning the government's lawyer Michael Hodge QC. "You're
acknowledging the debts raised illegally . . . how do you avoid
interest?"
In a massive backdown aimed at reducing the damage from the class
action, the government last month promised to issue $720m worth of
refunds to 373,000 people for 470,000 debts unlawfully raised using
the flawed "income averaging" of tax office pay data since July
2015.
But Gordon Legal has vowed to push ahead with the class action,
seeking interest and damages as part of "unjust enrichment" and
negligence claims.
The group, represented by Bernie Quinn QC, said there was also
uncertainty surrounding when refunds might be issued and a court
ruling could decide this.
Quinn also flagged plans to argue claims of misfeasance in public
office alongside arguments for damages.
Hodge said setting aside the debts and repaying the money was not
the same as admitting there had been unjust enrichment.
The government is also resisting potential arguments that debts
raised as part of the scheme but not based on income averaging --
usually because the welfare recipients provided payslips or bank
statements after they were accused of receiving an overpayment --
should also be repaid.
If that claim were successful, it would increase the scope of the
unlawful debts from 470,000 to about 600,000.
Already the government is looking at further financial pain on top
of the $720m it has agreed to refund. Guardian Australia
understands the interest payments on the refunds would cost about
$90m and the refund process -- due to run for 12 months from July
-- will cost $200m, though the government says it will be carried
out using Services Australia resources.
Murphy also ordered the government to update its defence to match
public announcements.
In its formal defence to the court, the commonwealth has only
admitted debts wholly identified through robodebt are invalid. In
public statements it admitted debts both wholly and partly
identified through robodebt were invalid.
The government has come under pressure from Labor and the Greens
after arguing it had no common law duty of care to welfare
recipients, in an attempt to avoid paying damages.
Guardian Australia has reported that the government has privately
conceded it will have to pay interest. It paid interest to a
Melbourne woman who brought a successful robodebt challenge with
the help of Victoria Legal Aid in November.
When it was settling its response to the class action in February,
Services Australia told government ministers privately that
"proactively" refunding debts would "reduce the incentive for the
applicants to persist with the class action, and minimise the
commonwealth's potential liability for interest and legal costs".
The prime minister, Scott Morrison, issued an apology in parliament
after Gordon Legal promised that it would not use the comments in
court.
The case looks set to go to trial over three weeks, starting in
September. [GN]
CENVEO WORLDWIDE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Summers Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT SUMMERS, an individual v. CENVEO WORLDWIDE LIMITED, a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV22549 (June 15, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all other similarly aggrieved employees, seeking remedies and
civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code, Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004.
The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for failure to
timely pay wages each pay period; failure to pay regular and
minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to seperately
compensate rest and recovery periods; failure to provide rest
breaks; failure to provide meal periods; and failure to reimburse
business expenses in violation of the Labor Code.
From February 4, 2019, to May 16, 2019, the Plaintiff was employed
by Cenveo and primarily worked for Cenveo in the State of
California.
Cenveo is in the business of management and distribution of print
and related offerings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen Z. Boren, Esq.
Lance M. Williams, Esq.
BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP
222 North Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 2222
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 322-2021
Facsimile: (310) 322-2228
E-mail: sboren@bollaw.com
lwilliams@bollaw.com
CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Order Routing Litigation Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab 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 company continues to defend
the Crago Order Routing Litigation.
On July 13, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of a putative class of customers executing equity orders
through CS&Co.
The lawsuit names CS&Co and the company (CSC) as defendants and
alleges that an agreement under which CS&Co routed orders to UBS
Securities LLC between July 13, 2011 and December 31, 2014 violated
CS&Co's duty to seek best execution.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, injunctive and
equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.
After a first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend,
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 14, 2017.
Defendants again moved to dismiss, and in a decision issued
December 5, 2017, the court denied the motion.
Defendants have answered the complaint to deny all allegations, and
are vigorously contesting the lawsuit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The case is captioned, ROBERT CRAGO, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO.,
INC., and THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-03938-RS (N.D. Cal.). Robert Wolfson and Frank Pino have
been appointed Lead Plaintiffs.
The Charles Schwab Corporation provides a variety of financial
services to individual investors, independent investment managers,
retirement plans, and institutions. The Company provides its
clients with securities brokerage, banking, and related financial
services through offices in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the
United Kingdom. The company is based in San Francisco, California.
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Chernysh Sues over 60% Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
SERGEY CHERNYSH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS, INC.; RICHARD L.
EBERLY; and GAIL S. PAGE, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02706
(E.D.N.Y., June 18, 2020) is a securities fraud action brought
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of a class of all persons and
entities who purchased the publicly traded common stock of Chembio
during the period April 1, 2020 through June 16, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants represented that its
Dual Path Platform (DPP) technology platform COVID-19 serological
point-of-care (POC) test for the detection of IgM and IgG
antibodies aided in determining current or past exposure to the
COVID-19 virus, that its test provides high sensitivity and
specificity, and was 100% accurate. Test sensitivity is the ability
of a test to correctly identify those with the disease (true
positive rate), whereas test specificity is the ability of the test
to correctly identify those without the disease (true negative
rate).
Based on the Defendants representations, during the Class Period
the Company's stock increased from a closing price on March 31,
2020, the day before the Class Period begins, of $5.12 per share,
to a Class Period high of $15.54 per share on April 24, 2020.
The Defendants took advantage of Chembio's inflated stock price. On
May 11, 2020, the Company reported that it closed the public
offering of approximately 2.6 million shares of Chembio stock at
$11.75 per share for gross proceeds of approximately $30.8
million.
On June 16, 2020, after the market closed, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") issued a press release disclosing that it
had revoked the Company's Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") for
the Company's DPP COVID-19 Igm/IgG System.
As a result of disclosure of the FDA letter, Chembio shares
declined from a closing price on June 16, 2020 of $9.93 per share
to close at $3.89 per share on June 17, 2020, a decline of $6.04
per share, or over 60%, on heavier than usual volume of over 25
million shares.
Chembio Diagnostics Inc develops diagnostic solutions. The Company
offers products for treatment of malaria, ebola, febrile illness,
dengue fever, and influenza, as well as provides human and
veterinary diagnostics. Chembo Diagnostics serves patients in the
United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
Jason A. Uris, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14 th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on June 22 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. ("Chembio" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:
CEMI) for violations of Section 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 April 1,
2020 and June 16, 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. Chembio's COVID-19 antibody test was
among the first to be granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by
the FDA in April. The FDA revoked the Company's EUA on June 17,
2020, based on concerns of test accuracy. According to the FDA, the
"benefits no longer outweigh its risks" and that "it is not
reasonable to believe that the test may be effective" because it
"generates a higher than expected rate of false results and higher
than that reflected in the authorized labeling for the device."
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 Chembio, 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]
CHICKPEA AT 14TH ST: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Pacheco
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gabriel Gorenstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York has conditionally certified
settlement class and approved collective action in the case, JORGE
PACHECO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHICKPEA AT 14TH STREET INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 18 Civ. 251 (GWG), (S.D. N.Y.).
The parties in the matter, consisting of named plaintiff Jorge
Pacheco and defendants Chickpea at 14th Street Inc.; Chickpea at
LIC, Inc.; Chickpea at Penn, Inc.; Chickpea International Inc.;
Chickpea on 6th Avenue Inc.; C P at William St. Inc. d/b/a
Chickpea; C P at 45th St. Inc. d/b/a Chickpea; C P at Lexington
Avenue Inc.; C P at Madison Avenue Inc. d/b/a Chickpea; Alimade LLC
d/b/a Chickpea; SANAA Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Chickpea; Akbarali
Himani; and Ronald Siegel have provided to the Court a proposed
settlement of the litigation.
On February 7, 2020, the parties submitted a joint letter to the
Court containing an amended proposed Settlement Agreement and
amended Class Notice. The Court directed the parties to further
amend the Class Notice and to provide additional information
regarding the parties' efforts to locate Class Members and the
requested administration fees. The parties submitted two letters
to the Court in response. On March 4, 2020, the Court instructed
the parties to submit an executed copy of the revised Settlement
Agreement and a revised Proposed Order, which the parties provided
on March 18, 2020.
Upon deliberation, the Court approves a collective action
consisting of the following persons on the ground that they are
similarly situated:
All hourly employees who were employed at Chickpea restaurants
located in New York City at any time from January 11, 2012 to
October 24, 2019.
The Court authorizes the proposed Class Notice to be mailed to
potential members of the FLSA collective action, notifying them of
the pendency of the FLSA claim, and of their ability to join the
lawsuit.
The Court also orders that the following class be certified for
settlement purposes only pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3):
Named Plaintiff, Opt-in Plaintiffs, and all hourly employees
who were employed at Chickpea restaurants located in New York
City at any time from January 11, 2012 to October 24, 2019.
The Court also finds that Class Notice as revised by the Court is
sufficient to give the Class Members a full and fair opportunity to
consider the parties' proposed settlement and to determine whether
to opt out.
Named Plaintiff Jorge Pacheco and Opt-In Plaintiffs Salvador
Loreto, Sorobabel Sierra, Stephanie Bere, and Shanawaj Ahmed are
appointed as representatives of the Class under Rule 23.
C.K. Lee, Esq. of Lee Litigation Group, PLLC is appointed as class
counsel for the Class ("Class Counsel").
Advanced Litigation Strategies, LLC is appointed as Claims
Administrator.
The Court schedules a fairness hearing for August 20, 2020, at 4:00
p.m. in Courtroom 6B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. At the
hearing, the Court will determine whether to grant final
certification of the Settlement Class, approval of the FLSA
collective action, and approval of the Settlement Agreement and the
Plan of Allocation.
A full-text copy of the District Court's March 30, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7ucyslt from Leagle.com.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order on the revision of the Notice
in the case is available at https://tinyurl.com/rurkdst from
Leagle.com.
Jorge Pacheco, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class, Juan Calderon, Muhamed Lanignan, Shanawaj Ahmed,
Sorobabel Sierra & Stephanie Bere, Plaintiffs, represented by C.K.
Lee , Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10016
Chickpea at 14th Street Inc., Chickpea at LIC, Inc., Chickpea at
Penn Inc., Chickpea International Inc., Chickpea on 6th Avenue
Inc., C P At Lexington Avenue Incorporated, doing business as
ChickPea, C P At Madison Avenue Incorporated, doing business as
ChickPea, Akbarali Himani, Alimade LLC, doing business as ChickPea,
C P at William St. Incorporated, doing business as ChickPea, CP at
45th St Incorporated, doing business as ChickPea, Sanaa
Enterprises, Inc., doing business as ChickPea & Ronald Siegel,
Defendants, represented by Lee Sam Nuwesra , Law Offices of Lee
Nuwesra, 60 E 42nd St Ste 1132, New York, NY 10165-1139
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Cantwell et al. Sue Over Deceptive Milk Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL CANTWELL, JAE JONES, JENNY ROSSANO, DIANA TAIT, MICHELLE
INGRODI, CINDY PETERS, DEBRA FRENCH, KAYE MALLORY, CONNIE SANDLER,
DAVID ROTHBERG, KARAI HAMILTON, ARNETTA VELEZ, CHRISTINA PARLOW,
DEMETRIOS TSIPTSIS, AND TERRI BIRT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY;
FAIRLIFE, LLC; MIKE MCCLOSKEY; SUE MCCLOSKEY; AND, SELECT MILK
PRODUCERS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03739 (N.D. Ill.,
June 25, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach
of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of state
consumer trade laws, false advertising laws, unfair trade practices
laws, and consumer protection laws in the U.S.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated consumers, allege that the Defendants are
engaged in deceptive and false marketing and advertising of milk
products under the brand name "fa!rlife." The Defendants explicitly
represent to consumers, inter alia, that animals associated with
generating the milk used in the products are treated in a more
humane, comfortable, and compassionate manner that exceeds standard
industry practices—in short, that they are given extraordinary
care. The Defendants' representations about humane animal care, the
high quality of milk produced and used, the traceability of milk
used, and the environmental sustainability of farming practices
associated with the products were material to consumers who
purchased fairlife products. But despite making these explicit
animal welfare promises, they were false, deceptive and misleading.
Defendants did not live up to those promises as several undercover
investigations revealed widespread abuse at farms that sourced
fairlife product, including at Defendants' flagship farm at Fair
Oaks. The Plaintiffs and Class members would not have purchased or
would have paid substantially less for fairlife products if they
had
known that Defendants did not live up to their promises.
The Coca-Cola Company is a multinational beverage corporation with
its principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia.
fairlife, LLC is a manufacturer and marketer of milk products with
its principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois.
Select Milk Producers, Inc. is a wholesale dairy producer
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
George V. Granade, Esq.
Maurice L. Hudson, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
ggranade@reesellp.com
mhudson@reesellp.com
- and –
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
Adam Prom, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
aprom@dicellolevitt.com
- and –
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 389-0600
E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com
jbourne@pswlaw.com
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
June 5, 2020, Judge Esther Salas of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey sustained in part a putative
class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against
an information technology services company and certain of its
current and former executives. In re Cognizant Technology Solutions
Corp. Sec. Lit., No. 16-6509 (D.N.J. June 5, 2020). Plaintiffs
alleged that the company made misrepresentations promoting the
advantages of its facilities in India by failing to disclose an
alleged scheme to bribe government officials to secure permits
necessary to operate one such facility. After portions of their
prior complaint were dismissed by the late Judge Walls without
prejudice, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and the case was
transferred to Judge Salas. Relying in part on the prior decision
as law of the case, the Court held that plaintiffs' allegations,
which were drawn primarily from a government investigation,
sufficiently alleged actionable misstatements and scienter.
With respect to alleged misstatements and omissions, the Court
rejected the company's argument that the government investigation
showed that the alleged bribes were not paid for the licensing but
instead, were for other types of permits. Deeming this a
"distinction without a difference," the Court concluded that
plaintiffs' allegations concerning permits that were "necessary for
the construction and operation of" the facility were sufficiently
broad to account for different types of licenses or permits. Slip
op. at 23. In addition, relying on the prior judge's determination
as law of the case, the Court concluded that alleged
misrepresentations that there were no incidents of corruption, as
well as regarding financial earnings releases, were actionable as
allegedly misleading because they did not mention the bribery
scheme. Id. at 25–28. Importantly, the Court held that the
complaint failed to establish, pursuant to Rule 10b-5(b), that the
company's former general counsel who signed the 8-K attaching
earnings releases was the "maker" of certain statements in the
earnings releases attached to SEC filings -- i.e., that he had
"ultimate authority over the statement, including its content and
whether and how to communicate it." Id. at 30 (citing Janus Capital
Grp., Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135, 142 (2011)).
The Court emphasized that plaintiffs did not allege that the
executive was quoted in any of the earnings releases, that his name
or contact information appeared on them, or that he was responsible
for reviewing them prior to issuance. Id. at 31–33.
Nevertheless, the Court held that allegations against the
executive, who was ultimately criminally indicted for his role in
the alleged bribery scheme, regarding the earnings releases were
sufficient to allege "scheme liability" under Rule 10b-5(a) and (c)
in this specific context of this action and his alleged role, for
which he was criminally charged, with respect to the underlying
conduct that pre-dated the releases. The Court explained that the
Supreme Court's decision in Lorenzo v. SEC, 139 S. Ct. 1094 (2019),
determined that sending emails to potential investors that the
sender knew to be false could give rise to "scheme liability," even
though the sender was not a "maker" of the statements because the
emails were authored and approved by his supervisor. Id. at
34–35. And, although Lorenzo does not require that a plaintiff
necessarily allege deceptive conduct beyond the alleged
misstatement itself, the Court rejected the company's suggestion
that Lorenzo precluded liability where the dissemination of a
misstatement is preceded by additional allegedly deceptive conduct.
Id. at 36. The Court thus explained that it "cannot simply turn a
blind eye" to allegations that the executive actually participated
in devising the bribery scheme. Id. at 36–37. Similarly, the
Court concluded that these allegations of scienter collectively
provided a strong inference that "at minimum" the executive acted
recklessly in participating in the bribery scheme and failing to
report it. Id. at 48–49.
Finally, the Court engaged in an analysis of the theory of
corporate scienter, under which -- where the concept is
accepted—scienter may be imputed to a corporate defendant based
on allegations regarding the mental state of officers or employees.
Id. at 49. The Court explained that, while the Third Circuit has
not yet taken a position on whether to allow the corporate scienter
theory or how to define it, other Circuit Courts of Appeal have
taken three differing approaches. The Court held that plaintiffs
adequately alleged corporate scienter under each of those
approaches. Id. at 52.
In particular, the company argued that plaintiffs' allegations were
insufficient to establish corporate scienter under what the Court
referred to as the "narrow approach" of the Fifth and Eleventh
Circuits, which requires allegations that establish a strong
inference of scienter as to an individual official responsible for
the misstatement, rather than general allegations going to the
collective knowledge of various officers and employees. Id. at 52.
The Court found, contrary to detailed arguments from the company,
that this standard applied not only for individuals who make or
issue a misstatement, but also for those who merely "furnish"
information for inclusion in the statement. Id. The Court concluded
that plaintiffs sufficiently established a strong inference of
scienter that could be imputed to the company, based on allegations
that one executive authorized bribe payments and falsified
documents in connection with those payments that were used to
generate the allegedly misleading earnings releases, and that two
executives provided false certifications regarding the company's
anti-corruption compliance practices that could have plausibly been
furnished in connection with the company's reporting no incidents
of corruption. Id. at 56–58.
Based on the same reasoning, the Court determined that plaintiffs'
allegations were sufficient under the "broad approach" to corporate
scienter articulated by the Second and Seventh Circuits, which
requires only "a strong inference that someone whose intent could
be imputed to the corporation acted with the requisite scienter."
Id. at 59–60. While the company argued that the allegations
amounted to "isolated misconduct" and "immaterial payments" that
were not indicative of widespread fraud, the Court observed that
allegations of widespread fraud were unnecessary where "named
senior officers are alleged to have had the requisite scienter."
Id. at 60. Moreover, the Court stated that the "collective
allegations" -- including statements by a confidential witness who
allegedly observed numerous examples of falsified records and
reported them to other managers -- "reflect a scheme which
plausibly extended beyond those named senior management." Id. at
61–64.
Similarly, the Court held that the scienter allegations were
sufficient under the "middle approach" articulated by Sixth
Circuit, which permits scienter to be imputed based on allegations
that a "high managerial agent or member of the board of directors .
. . ratified, recklessly disregarded, or tolerated the
misrepresentation after its utterance or issuance." Id. at 67. The
Court concluded that allegations that multiple top officials
participated in bribery were sufficient under the "middle
approach." Id. at 68–69. Prior to the filing of the currently
operative complaint, the late Judge Walls had certified the
question of the proper standard for corporate scienter to the Third
Circuit. Id. at 6. Once the new complaint was filed, the Third
Circuit dismissed the appeal without prejudice to interlocutory
review being sought again. Id. at 7. Judge Salas' opinion suggests
in a footnote that interlocutory review may not necessarily be
warranted to the extent the standard for corporate scienter was not
dispositive under the Court's analysis but invites defendants to
file a motion requesting certification for interlocutory review.
Id. at 52 n.15.
In re Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. Sec. Lit. [GN]
CONDUENT COMMERCIAL: Underpays Employees, Ricard-Tessier et al Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLAUS RICARD-TESSIER, JOELLE RICARD-TESSIER, DENISE VASSILATOS
and ADRIANNE WARD, and all similarly situated individuals, known
and unknown Plaintiffs, v. CONDUENT COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, a
Texas corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00354 (W.D.N.C.,
June 24, 2020) is a collective and class action brought by
Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, known and unknown, arising from Defendant's willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, state contract laws,
common law claims of unjust enrichment, as well as the state wage
and hour laws.
Defendant employed Plaintiffs as hourly at-home call center
employees, called "Remote Associates," who were responsible for
providing customer service to Defendant's clientele.
According to the complaint, one of those abuses, which is at issue
in this case, is the employer's refusal to pay for work "from the
beginning of the first principal activity of the workday to the end
of the last principal activity of the workday." Specifically,
Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and all similarly situated
employees for their time spent booting up their computers, logging
into required computer networks and software applications, and
reviewing work-related e-mails and other information prior to the
start of their shift. Defendant also failed to compensate
Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees for mid-shift,
off-the-clock work attributed to technical problems with the
computers, networks, programs/applications, and/or phones.
Conduent Commercial Solutions, LLC is a Texas-headquartered
provider of diversified business process services for businesses
and governments.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James J. Mills, Esq.
BURNS, DAY & PRESNELL, P.A.
2626 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 560
Raleigh, NC 27608
Telephone: (919) 782-1441
E-mail: jmills@bdppa.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
Elaina S. Bailey, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: crash@sommerspc.com
CORVIAS GROUP: Military Members Allege Breach of Rental Agreements
------------------------------------------------------------------
SSG. SHANE PAGE, SPC SPENSER GANSKE, and SFC CHRISTOPHER M. WILKES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. JOHN PICERNE; CORVIAS GROUP, LLC, d/b/a CORVIAS;
BRAGG COMMUNITIES, LLC; BRAGG-PICERNE PARTNERS, LLC; CORVIAS
MILITARY LIVING, LLC; CORVIAS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, LLC; CORVIAS
MANAGEMENT-ARMY, LLC; and HEATHER FULLER, Defendants, Case No.
5:20-cv-00336-D (E.D.N.C., June 24, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of implied warranty of habitability,
breach of contract, negligence, third-party beneficiary of
contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the North Carolina
Residential Rental Agreements Act, the North Carolina Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Residential Lead-Based Paint
Hazard Reduction Act.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent similarly situated members of the
United States Army who leased military housing from Corvias at Fort
Bragg, North Carolina. They allege that the Defendants breached
their rental agreements and duties to the Plaintiffs and Class
members. The Defendants' violations include, but not limited to,
failing to communicate truthful information to the Plaintiffs
regarding known defects in military housing; failing to respond
promptly, effectively, and truthfully to concerns about the
condition of the premises expressed to them by the Plaintiffs;
failing to faithfully observe and comply with all applicable
Federal, State and local laws, rules, regulations, orders,
ordinances, and other governmental standards and requirements;
failing to maintain leased houses in good order and in a decent,
safe and sanitary condition; failing to inspect houses for
suitability based on environmental, health, and safety
considerations prior to leasing; failing to provide lead
hazard-free living and working environment for residents; and
failing to exercise reasonable care for the safety of the
Plaintiffs.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' misconduct, the
Plaintiffs and Class members sustained actual damages including,
without limitation, overpayment of rent given the fact the premises
were not worth the amount the Plaintiffs paid in rent to
Defendants.
Corvias Group, LLC, d/b/a Corvias, is a company that offers
property development, construction, and management services for
military and higher education institutions, with its principal
place of business in East Greenwich, Rhode Island.
Bragg Communities, LLC is a provider of housing and other services
for military servicemen at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Its
principal place of business is located at Fort Bragg, Cumberland
County, North Carolina.
Corvias Management-Army, LLC is a property development,
construction, and management services company with its principal
place of business at Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North
Carolina.
Bragg-Picerne Partners, LLC is a provider of housing and other
services for military servicemen at Fort Bragg, North Carolina,
with its principal place of business in East Greenwich, Rhode
Island.
Corvias Military Living, LLC, formerly known as Picerne Military
Housing, LLC, is a provider of housing and other services for
military servicemen at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, with its
principal place of business in East Greenwich, Rhode Island.
Corvias Construction, LLC is a provider of housing and other
services for military servicemen at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. It
is a successor by merger to Picerne Construction/FBG, LLC, and
Corvias Military Construction, LLC. Its principal place of business
is located in East Greenwich, Rhode Island. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Anthony Penry, Esq.
Neil A. Riemann, Esq.
PENRY | RIEMANN PLLC
2245 Gateway Access Point, Suite 203
Raleigh, NC 27607
Telephone: (919) 792-3891
E-mail: andy.penry@penryriemann.com
neil.riemann@penryriemann.com
- and –
Robert S. Metro, Esq.
BAUER & METRO, PC
Post Office Box 7965
Hilton Head, SC 29938
Telephone: (843) 842-5297
E-mail: Rmetro@bauerandmetro.com
CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 20 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on June 23 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.
PRA Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/proassurance-corporation-loss-form?prid=7501&wire=1
HALL Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hallmark-financial-services-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7501&wire=1
CTMX Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cytomx-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7501&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
ProAssurance Corporation (PRA)
PRA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 26, 2019 -
May 7, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/proassurance-corporation-loss-form?prid=7501&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
ProAssurance Corporation made materially 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.
Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. (HALL)
HALL Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 5, 2019 -
March 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 6, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hallmark-financial-services-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7501&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Hallmark
Financial Services, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company lacked
effective internal controls over accounting and financial reporting
related to reserves for unpaid losses; (2) the Company improperly
accounted for reserve for unpaid losses and loss adjustment
expenses related to its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business;
(3) as a result, Hallmark Financial would be forced to report a
$63.8 million loss development for prior underwriting years; (4) as
a result, Hallmark Financial would exit from its Binding Primary
Commercial Auto business; 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.
CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. (CTMX)
CTMX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 17, 2018 -
May 13, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cytomx-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7501&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, CytomX
Therapeutics, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) CytomX had
downplayed issues with CX-072's efficacy observed in the
PROCLAIM-CX-072 clinical program; (ii) CytomX had similarly
downplayed issues with CX-2009's efficacy and safety observed in
the PROCLAIM-CX-2009 clinical program; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky -- 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]
DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Oyoque Seeks Fee Refunds Over COVID-19 Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALHIX OYOQUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DEPAUL UNIVERSITY and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF DEPAUL
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-03431 (N.D. Ill., June 11, 2020), is
brought on behalf of all people, who paid tuition and fees for the
Winter and Spring 2020 academic quarters at DePaul or the Spring
2020 academic semester at DePaul's School of Law, and who, because
of the Defendants' response to COVID-19 pandemic, lost the benefit
of the education for which they paid, and/or the services or which
their fees were paid, without having their tuition and fees
refunded to them.
On March 11, 2020, the Defendants, via DePaul President A. Gabriel
Esteban, Ph.D., announced that, because of the global COVID-19
pandemic, effective immediately, DePaul would suspend all in-person
final exams for the Winter 2020 Quarter, cancel or postpone all
University-sponsored events, and, "whenever possible," deliver all
classes remotely for the entirety of the Spring 2020 Quarter and,
for students of DePaul's School of Law, the remainder of the Spring
2020 Semester.
The Plaintiff contends that she and the putative class are entitled
to a refund of tuition and fees for in-person educational services,
facilities, access and/or opportunities that Defendants have not
provided. Even if the Defendants did not have a choice in
cancelling in-person classes, they nevertheless have improperly
retained funds for services they are not providing, the Plaintiff
insists.
Ms. Oyoque was an undergraduate student at DePaul pursuing a
bachelor's degree in Health Science. Ms. Oyoque is currently an
alumnus of DePaul, having completed her undergraduate degree
requirements and graduated at the end of the Spring 2020 Quarter.
DePaul is a private, Roman Catholic university with a total
enrollment of over 22,000 undergraduate and graduate students
across ten colleges and schools, making it the largest Catholic
university in the United States. DePaul is governed by Defendant
Board of Trustees of DePaul University. The Board has approximately
35 voting members.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com
- and -
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
ndeckant@bursor.com
- and -
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 220
Miami, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com
EMORY UNIVERSITY: Schultz Seeks Tuition Refunds Due to COVID-19
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARC SCHULTZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. EMORY UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-02661-MLB (N.D. Ga., June 24, 2020) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of all people who paid tuition
and fees for in-person undergraduate or graduate programs for the
Spring 2020 academic semester at Emory, and who have been unable to
receive the benefit of the education for which they paid, and/or
the services for which their fees were paid, due to Defendant's
response to the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19")
pandemic.
According to the complaint, Defendant has failed to apportion the
burden in an equitable manner or consistent with its obligations as
an educational institution while the effects of the COVID-19 crisis
are shared by all individuals and institutions across the country.
Defendant has retained all tuition, fees, and related payments for
the Spring 2020 semester, however, all or substantially all classes
have been exclusively held online since on or about March 23,
2020.
As a result of the closure of Defendant's facilities, Plaintiff has
not received the educational services, access to facilities, and/or
related opportunities for which Plaintiff and the putative class
contracted and paid. Defendant has nonetheless retained the full
tuition, fees and other payments made by Plaintiff and the putative
class.
The complaint further states that Defendant is not entitled, by
either contract or equitable principles, to pass the entire cost of
its COVID-19 related closure to its students and their families.
Plaintiff and the putative class are entitled to a partial refund
of the tuition, fees, and other related payments for in-person
educational services, access to facilities, and/or related
opportunities that Defendant did not provide.
Plaintiff Marc Schultz is a citizen and resident of the State of
New York. Plaintiff's child was enrolled as a full-time student for
the Spring 2020 academic semester at Defendant Emory University.
Emory University is a private educational institution that offers
undergraduate and graduate programs across twelve schools and
colleges in Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq.
WEINER & SAND LLC
800 Battery Ave. Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 205-5029
Facsimile: (866) 800-1482
E-mail: js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Edward A. Coleman, Esq.
Lewis Saul, Esq.
LEWIS SAUL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
29 Howard Street, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 376-8450
E-mail: ecoleman@lewissaul.com
lsaul@lewissaul.com
ENDO INT'L: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of August 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on June 22 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey on behalf of investors that purchased Endo
International plc (NASDAQ: ENDP) securities between August 8, 2017
and June 10, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until August
18, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in
the lawsuit.
On June 10, 2020, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo ("Governor Cuomo")
announced that the New York Department of Financial Services
("DFS") had filed administrative charges against Endo in connection
with its role in the opioid crisis, alleging that Endo fraudulently
misrepresented the safety and efficacy of its opioid drugs while
minimizing the risk of addiction and other ill effects. That same
day, DFS issued its own press release specifically announcing that
it "has filed charges and initiated administrative proceedings
against Endo . . . and its subsidiaries, [EHS], [EPI], and [PPCI]"
in connection with "DFS' ongoing investigation into the entities
that created and perpetuated the opioid crisis"; that "[t]he DFS'
statement of charges alleges that, like other opioid Manufactures,
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"; and that Endo and its
subsidiaries "[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, Endo's Ordinary share price fell $0.66 per share, or
14.63%, to close at $3.85 per share on June 10, 2020.
The complaint, filed on June 19, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (i) the full scope
of Endo's and/or its subsidiaries' contributions to the opioid
crisis, including, but not limited to, their opioid products'
disproportionately negative impact on New York, one of the most
populous states in the U.S., as well as the fraud that defendants
perpetrated on the New York insurance market; (ii) part of that
contribution to the crisis included Endo publishing and
disseminating false information to health care providers regarding
the risks and benefits of opioids; (iii) that the foregoing, once
revealed, was foreseeably likely to subject Endo and/or its
subsidiaries to increased regulatory scrutiny and enforcement, as
well as significant financial and/or reputational harm,
particularly with respect to New York; and (iv) that, as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
If you purchased Endo securities during the Class Period, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Melissa
Fortunato or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a
nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and
California. The firm represents individual and institutional
investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex
litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more
information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Easq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com [GN]
ENDO INT'L: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on June 23 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Endo International plc ("Endo" or "the Company") 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 August 8,
2017 and June 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 18, 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. Endo and its subsidiaries played a far
larger role in the opioid crisis than it represented to the market.
The Company published false information directed towards healthcare
providers about the risks and benefits of its opioid drugs. The
facts opened the Company to significant regulatory scrutiny,
particularly by the state of New York. 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 Endo, 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. [GN]
ERIE INSURANCE: Pub Drops COVID-19 Loss Coverage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daphne Zhang, writing for Law360, reports that one of
Pennsylvania's first proposed class actions filed against an
insurer seeking COVID-19 loss coverage has been dropped by a pub, a
few weeks after Erie Insurance Exchange moved the suit to federal
court.
HTR Restaurants Inc., doing business as Sieb's Pub in Ross
Township, Pennsylvania, said on June 15 that it decided to
"voluntarily dismiss" its class action lawsuit against Erie over
the insurer's wrongfully denying coverage of its property and
revenue loss from state-mandated closures amid the COVID-19
pandemic.
The class suit was originally filed in Pennsylvania state court in
April, and Erie removed the case to Pennsylvania federal court in
early June. The parties were notified that Erie would have until
June 25 to respond to Sieb's complaint.
Sieb's said in the complaint that it has suffered substantial
business loss because of possible COVID-19 contamination and the
state-mandated closure of nonessential businesses. The bar shut its
doors following Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf 's stay-at-home order in
late March.
The pub said that though some restaurants were given exceptions to
stay open for delivery and takeout services, it had to close and
furlough employees.
In the suit, Sieb's claimed that its commercial general liability
policy with Erie does not have a virus exclusion and should cover
losses from the government's coronavirus response. It argued that
the state-mandated closures trigger "civil authority" coverage in
its policy with Erie.
The pub was seeking to represent similarly situated Pennsylvania
businesses with Erie policies that had suffered losses because of
the pandemic and been denied coverage.
The bar requested a declaration from the Allegheny County Court of
Common Pleas that COVID-19-related losses were covered under their
insurance policies and asked for an injunction blocking Erie from
further denials.
An Erie spokesperson said in early June that business interruption
insurance isn't generally intended to cover events like the
coronavirus crisis, adding that the policies usually cover
financial losses when a business cannot function due to physical
damage to a commercial property.
Attorneys representing Sieb's Pub declined to comment on the
decision. Representatives from Erie did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.
Sieb's Pub is represented by Jonathan Shub and Kevin Laukaitis of
Kohn Swift & Graf PC.
Erie is represented by Tara L. Maczuzak of DiBella Geer McAllister
& Best PC.
The case is HTR Restaurants Inc. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, case
number 2:20-cv-00819, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania. [GN]
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces Locicero FCRA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GreenSky, LLC, et al.
The case is captioned as Francisca D. Locicero, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GreenSky,
LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; INTRUST Bank, N.A., a
national bank; and EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., an Ohio
corporation, Case No. 0:20-cv-61155-WPD (S.D. Fla., June 11,
2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
regarding consumer credit.
GreenSky operates as a consumer finance firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert William Murphy, Esq.
1212 SE 2nd Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 763-8660
Facsimile: 763-8607
E-mail: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com
FIFTH THIRD: Early Access Cash Advance Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp 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, In re: Fifth
Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No.
1:12-CV-00851), remains pending.
On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a
lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v.
Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% Annual Percentage Rate
(APR) that Fifth Third disclosed on its Early Access program was
misleading.
Early Access is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible
customers with checking accounts. The plaintiffs sought to
represent a nationwide class of customers who used the Early Access
program and repaid their cash advances within 30 days.
On October 31, 2012, the case was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
In 2013, four similar putative class actions were filed against
Fifth Third Bank in federal courts throughout the country (Lori and
Danielle Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third
Bank, Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v.
Fifth Third Bank).
Those four lawsuits were transferred to the Southern District of
Ohio and consolidated with the original lawsuit as In re: Fifth
Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No.
1:12-CV-00851).
On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs sought unspecified
monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive
damages, attorney's fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
On March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the
consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the Truth in Lending Act
(TILA). On January 10, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to hear the
immediate appeal of the dismissal of their breach of contract
claim.
On March 28, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion and stayed
the TILA claim pending that appeal. On April 26, 2018, plaintiffs
filed their notice of appeal for the breach of contract claim with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
On May 28, 2019, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
dismissal of plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and remanded for
further proceedings.
The plaintiffs' claimed damages for the alleged breach of contract
claim exceed $280 million. Under the Court's scheduling order, the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification is currently due April
20, 2020. No trial date has been set.
Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services
company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in
1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.
FIRST HORIZON: Settlement Reached in GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon National Corporation ("FHN") said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a settlement has been
reached in the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In
re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:19-cv-01704-JSR.
FHN was one of multiple defendants in a consolidated putative class
action suit: In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation, No.
1:19-cv-01704-JSR (U.S. District Court S.D.N.Y.).
The plaintiffs claim that defendants conspired to fix secondary
market prices of government-sponsored enterprise ("GSE") bonds from
2009 through 2015. During the third quarter of 2019, FHN reached a
class settlement with the plaintiffs, subject to court approval,
without admitting liability.
Though still subject to court approval, the settlement has been
paid and therefore is not reflected in established liabilities.
First Horizon National Corporation ("FHN") began as a community
bank chartered in 1864 and as of June 30, 2017, was one of the 40
largest publicly traded banking organizations in the United States
in terms of asset size. The company is based in Memphis,
Tennessee.
FIRST RELIANCE: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agent Fees, Ratliff Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ratliff CPA Firm, PC, a South Carolina Professional Corporation,
individually and on behalf of a class of similar situated
businesses and individuals v. First Reliance Bank and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-02208-BHH (D.S.C., June
11, 2020), alleges that First Reliance refuses to comply with the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act that requires it
to pay loan agent fees out of the compensation it received for
processing Paycheck Protection Program loans.
The lawsuit seeks compensations from First Reliance for services
the Plaintiff and a large number of other agents rendered on behalf
of recipients of Small Business Administration emergency loans.
On March 27, 2020, the United States Congress enacted the CARES
Act. A signature piece of this landmark legislation is the SBA's
PPP. The PPP was designed to be fast and straightforward, allowing
business to apply through SBA-approved lenders and await approval.
Once approved, lenders would be compensated in the form of a
generous origination fee paid by the federal government, with the
requirement that the lender would be responsible for paying the fee
owed to the loan applicant's agent.
Ratliff provides corporate and individual taxation advice to its
clients and performs financial planning and consulting for both
businesses and individuals in the local community. Ratliff meets
the criteria to be a PPP Agent under the CARES Act.
First Reliance operates as a bank. The Bank provides deposits,
loans, mortgage, debit and credit cards, and insurance
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard A. Harpootlian, Esq.
RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, P.A.
1410 Laurel Street (29201)
Post Office Box 1090
Columbia, SC 29202
Telephone: (803) 252-4848
Facsimile: (803) 252-4810
E-mail: rah@harpootlianlaw.com
- and -
Mark C. Tanenbaum, Esq.
MARK C. TANENBAUM, P.A.
1017 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Suite 101
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (803) 577-5100
Facsimile: 843-722-4688
E-mail: mark@tanenbaumlaw.com
- and -
Vincent A. Sheheen, Esq.
Michael D. Wright, Esq.
SAVAGE, ROYALL & SHEHEEN, L.L.P.
P.O. Drawer 10
Camden, SC 29021
Telephone: (803) 432-4391
Facsimile: (803) 425-4812
E-mail: mwright@thesavagefirm.com
- and -
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
FIRST TRANSIT: Cuellar Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK CUELLAR, individually
and on behalf of others persons similarly situated v. FIRST
TRANSIT, INC., an active Ohio Corporation; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01125049-CU-OE-CXC (Filed Jan. 17,
2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on June 15, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:20-cv-01075 to the proceeding.
The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for failure to
provide meal periods, failure to provide paid rest periods, failure
to pay wages, failure to timely pay wages at
termination/separation, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements in violation of the California Labor Code.
First Transit is a United States-based subsidiary of FirstGroup.
Headquartered at 600 Vine Street, in Cincinnati, Ohio, First
Transit operates over 300 locations, carrying more than 350 million
passengers annually throughout the United States in 39 states,
Puerto Rico, Panama, India and four Canadian provinces.[BN]
The Defendant First Transit is represented by:
David J. Dow, esq.
Brittany L. McCarthy, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101-3577
Telephone: 619 232 0441
Facsimile: 619 232 4302
E-mail: ddow@littler.com
blmccarthy@littler.com
GARFIELD BEACH: Naderi Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KAVEH NADERI, MAGDY SEDRA,
MERAT FEROKHINA, CHRISTINA BARTLEY, NICHOLAS SCHIRATO, ERIK
VALENZUELA, MICHAEL A. GROSENHEIDER, and SCOTT GLEASON,
individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. GARFIELD BEACH CVS, L.L.C., a California limited
liability company; LONGS DRUG STORES CALIFORNIA, L.L.C., a
California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV07772 (Filed March 16, 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-05287 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs assert claims against the Defendants for failure to
reimburse employee expenses; unfair competition; unlawful
non-payment of overtime compensation; and failure to compensate for
all hours worked in violation of the California Labor Code.
Garfield Beach is a medical retail store. Longs Drug distributes
pharmaceutical products.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq.
Joseph V. Marra III, Esq.
Megan McDonough, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Telephone: 213 612 2500
Facsimile: 213 612 2501
E-mail: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com
joseph.marra@morganlewis.com
megan.mcdonough@morganlewis.com
GRAND CANYON: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of July 13 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:
Groupon, Inc. (GRPN)
Class Period: 11/4/2019 - 2/18/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 29, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-grpn/
Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (LOPE)
Class Period: 1/5/2018 - 1/27/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: July 13, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-lope/
Enphase Energy, Inc. (ENPH)
Class Period: 2/26/2019 - 6/17/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 17, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-enph/
ProAssurance Corporation (PRA)
Class Period: 4/26/2019 - 5/7/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 17, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-pra/
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients --
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors -- in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contact:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]
GULFPORT ENERGY: Faces Woodley Securities Suit in SDNY
------------------------------------------------------
Gulfport Energy 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 company has been named as a
defendant in a securities class action suit before the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
initiated by Robert F. Woodley.
In March 2020, Robert F. Woodley, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a federal securities class action
against the company, David M. Wood, Keri Crowell and Quentin R.
Hicks in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
The complaint alleges that the company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its business and operations in
violation of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified
damages, the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and
other costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and such
other and further relief that may be deemed just and proper.
Gulfport Energy Corporation an independent natural gas-weighted
exploration and production company focused on the exploration,
acquisition and production of natural gas, crude oil and natural
gas liquids ("NGL") in the United States with primary focus in the
Appalachia and Mid-Continent basins. The company is based in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
HAM FARMS: Supplemental Consent Protective Order Entered in Lopez
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADAN LOPEZ, FRANCISCO MENDEZ, EZEQUIEL
ABURTO-HERNANDEZ, ELENA RAFAEL-PERALTA, JOSE PABLO
SANDOVAL-MONTALVO, JOSE JIMENEZ-OLIVAREZ, ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ-MENDEZ
FRANCISCO PALACIOS-HERNANDEZ, HUMBERTO DE LA LUZ ARMENTA, and
ISAIAS ESPINOSA-VAZQUEZ, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. HAM FARMS, LLC f/k/a HAM
FARMS, INC., HAM PRODUCE, LLC f/k/a HAM PRODUCE COMPANY, INC.,
ISMAEL PACHECO, PACHECO CONTRACTORS, INC., HUGO MARTINEZ, GUTIERREZ
HARVESTING, LLC, ROBERTO TORRES-LOPEZ, 5 G HARVESTING, LLC, RODRIGO
GUTIERREZ-TAPIA, SR., CIRILA GARCIA-PINEDA, BLADIMIR MORENO, and
LOS VILLATOROS HARVESTING, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No.
5:17-CV-00329-D (E.D. N.C.), Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, Western Division, has entered the Parties' Supplemental
Consent Protective Order regarding the Class Notice and the
selection of a Third Party Claims Administrator ("TPCA").
The Parties to the Supplemental Consent Protective Order -- the
Plaintiffs; Ham Farms and Ham Produce; and Gutierrez Harvesting, 5
G Harvesting, and Rodrigo Gutierrez-Tapia, Sr. -- have settled all
claims in the case through Mediated Settlement Agreements but
continue to negotiate the terms and conditions of the Class Notice
and the selection of a TPCA.
To further facilitate those negotiations, the Parties have agreed
to the entry of the Supplemental Order regarding the Class Notice
and the selection of a TPCA.
The Parties acknowledge the Consent Protective Order Regarding
Early Mediation (hereinafter "Consent Protective Order"), entered
on May 1, 2018, and the Parties agree they continue to be bound by
the provisions set forth in the Consent Protective Order, except as
otherwise stated. The Parties have agreed to the entry of the
Supplemental Order to further protect against disclosure of
documents to be exchanged or any use of the information.
On review, it appears to Judge Numbers there is good cause to enter
the Supplemental Order to protect certain documents, and
accordingly, the Judge ordered the Parties to continue to be
governed by the terms and conditions of the Consent Protective
Order, except as otherwise supplemented.
A full-text copy of the District Court's April 21, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/dECXDy from Leagle.com.
HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Dahlke Sues over 18% Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD A. DAHLKE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEBRON TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.;
ANYUAN SUN; and CHANGJUAN LIANG, Defendants, Case 1:20-cv-04746
(S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020) is a class action on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Hebron securities
between April 24, 2020 and June 3, 2020, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) many of Hebron's acquisitions, including
Beijing Hengpu and Nami Holding (Cayman) Co., Ltd., involved
undisclosed related parties; (ii) the Company's disclosure controls
regarding related party transactions was ineffective; and (iii) as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and lacked a reasonable basis.
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.
Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. develops and manufactures valves and
pipe fittings. The Company offers pipeline design, installation,
construction, and ongoing maintenance services, as well as holistic
solution services. Hebron Technology serves the pharmaceuticals,
biology, food, and beverage industries in Shanghai, Wenzhou, and
Taiwan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ, LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and -
Brian Schall, Esq.
THE SCHALL FIRM
1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310-301-3335
Facsimile: 877-590-0482
E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com
HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. (NASDAQ: HEBT)
("Hebron" or the "Company") of the August 10, 2020 deadline to seek
the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action
that has been filed against the Company.
If you invested in Hebron stock or options between April 24, 2020
and June 3, 2020 and would like to discuss your legal rights, click
here:www.faruqilaw.com/HEBT. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll freeat
877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail
torgonnello@faruqilaw.com.
CONTACT:
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all those who purchased
Hebron securities between April 24, 2020 and June 3, 2020 (the
"Class Period"). The case, Clynes v. Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. et
al., No. 1:20-cv-04420 was filed on August 10, 2020.
The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading
statements and/or failing to disclose that: (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.
On June 3, 2020, Siegfried Eggert, CEO of 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 stock price fell from $22.55 per share
on June 2, 2020 to $14.29 per share on June 3, 2020: a $8.26 or
36.63% drop. The stock declined a further $2.51 the following day,
closing at $11.78 per share on June 4, 2020.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Hebron's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.
Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner.
To view the source version of this press release, please visit
https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/58258 [GN]
HORIZONS ETFS: Affleck Greene Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Annie (Qurrat-ul-ain) Tayyab, Esq., of Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP,
in an article for Mondaq, reports that the Ontario Court of Appeal
recently held that a class action brought on behalf of investors in
risky securities discloses a sufficient cause of action to be
certified. The decision may open the gates to more securities class
actions in Ontario. It also serves as a cautionary tale for fund
developers and managers to consider when crafting disclosure
documents under the Securities Act.
Wright v Horizons ETFS Management (Canada) Inc. deals with a
proposed class action brought on behalf of investors in a complex
derivative-based exchange-traded fund (ETF) developed and managed
by Horizons. The ETF was available for retail investors to purchase
on stock exchanges through authorized brokers and dealers. The
disclosure documents stated that the ETF was "highly speculative"
and "involv[ed] a high degree of risk."
On February 5, 2018, the value of the ETF collapsed, eliminating
nearly 90% of the assets the fund had accumulated over several
years. Investors in the ETF lost almost their entire investment,
totaling tens of millions of dollars. The proposed representative
plaintiff, Mr. Wright, lost about $210,000 when he sold his units
the next day.
Mr. Wright brought an action on behalf of himself and other
investors who lost money in the crash.
In June 2019, the certification judge refused to certify the action
as a class action, holding that Mr. Wright's allegations disclosed
no reasonable cause of action (Wright v Horizons ETFS Management
(Canada) Inc., 2019 ONSC 3827). Recently, the Ontario Court of
Appeal reversed the decision and remitted the case back to the
certification judge to determine if the remaining certification
criteria are met (Wright v Horizons ETFS Management (Canada) Inc.,
2020 ONCA 337).
Mr. Wright advanced two main causes of action: the tort of
negligent performance of a service, and negligent misrepresentation
in a prospectus under the Securities Act. Both of these were risky,
as neither has been used to successfully sue on losses in
speculative investments in the past. Mr. Wright was ultimately
rewarded by the Court of Appeal, which held that both causes of
action were viable.
Common Law Claim for Negligence
Mr. Wright's first argument was that the managers of the ETF
breached their common law duty of care by designing and managing
the ETF in a way that was excessively complex and contained
fundamental design flaws.
The Court of Appeal held that this case was analogous to cases of
negligent performance of a service. And, even if it was not, a new
duty of care could reasonably be established in this case.
The main issue was the scope of Horizon's duties to investors.
Though the motion judge held that Horizons did not undertake
responsibility for any gains or losses investors might realize in
purchasing ETF units, the Court of Appeal disagreed. The Court of
Appeal held that Horizons undertook to act honestly, in good faith
and in the best interests of the investment fund, and exercise the
degree of care and diligence that a prudent person would exercise
in the circumstances as provided for in the Securities Act (see
section 116 of the Securities Act).
Mr. Wright's statement of claim alleged that the ETF was doomed to
fail, and was not suitable for any investors because there was no
disclosure of this risk. The Court of Appeal held that this could,
if proven at trial, constitute a breach of Horizons' duty of care
or its duty under the Securities Act to adequately manage the ETF.
Statutory Claim for Negligent Misrepresentation in a Prospectus
Mr. Wright's second argument was that the developers and managers
of the ETF misrepresented in the prospectus how the ETF operated
and the nature of the risks involved, constituting a breach of
section 130 of the Securities Act. That section permits investors
to start a legal action where a prospectus contains a
misrepresentation.
In this case, when investors purchased units of the ETF, they did
not know whether the particular units they were buying were new
units that had never been sold before - i.e. they were in the
primary market and section 130 of the Securities Act governed -- or
were units their broker/dealer bought from others on the stock
exchange -- i.e. they were in the secondary market and therefore a
different section, section 138.3, of the Securities Act governed.
For plaintiffs, there are clear advantages to bringing a claim for
misrepresentations in the primary market rather than the secondary
market. Under section 138.3 of the Securities Act, damages for
misrepresentations to secondary market purchasers are capped.
Further, an action for secondary market misrepresentation requires
investors to get leave (permission) of the court to move forward
with an action. The threshold to obtain leave to proceed can be a
significant hurdle: the plaintiff must show that the case has a
reasonable chance of success at trial and do so prior to any
documentary or oral discovery of the proposed defendants.
The Court of Appeal held that it was appropriate to distinguish
between the two types of units rather than continue with an action
that tries to artificially conflate the two. The Court held that
any action relating to units that had never been sold before must
be brought under section 130 of the Securities Act. Denying holders
of such units the right to proceed under section 130 would unfairly
deny them the advantages of that section of the legislation.
At the same time, investors who bought ETF units that had
previously been purchased by other investors are required to bring
an action under section 138.3 of the Securities Act, which deals
with secondary market purchasers.
Practical Considerations for Fund Developers and Managers
It is important to remember what this decision does not mean. This
was a certification motion, where the question to be answered was
whether Mr. Wright's allegations of wrongdoing are doomed to fail.
The Court of Appeal held they are not, and that Mr. Wright should
be given a chance to go to trial to try to prove his claim. This
does not mean that Horizons has been or will be held liable for a
breach of its duty of care to investors, or for a breach of the
Securities Act.
But practically speaking, many class actions never go to trial. The
risks and costs of a common issues trial are high for defendants,
and most class actions settle before a common issues trial is held.
Therefore, the practical reality is that certification is an
important litmus test for a class proceeding.
Both of the causes of action advanced by Mr. Wright were novel in
the context of high-risk securities that took a turn for the worst.
The investors' appetite for risk paid off in the context of the
litigation; they can at least now ask the court to certify the
action as a class action. This decision's impact may be
wide-ranging and include an increase in securities class actions
being brought across Canada, as well as a more conservative
approach by fund developers and managers when they create both
investment products for Canadian retail investors and the
disclosure documents accompanying those products. [GN]
HOST INT'L: Kennedy et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DUANE KENNEDY and CHELSEA KENNEDY, each individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HOST
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00747 (W.D. Tex.,
June 24, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant at Defendant's restaurants in
the San Antonio airport – Duane as a cook from November 2018
until the present and Chelsea as a server from 2013 until February
2020.
According to the complaint, Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess
of 40 hours per week, including off-the-clock work. However,
Defendant did not pay them overtime at one and one-half times their
regular rate for all the hours worked in excess of 40.
Additionally, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs a proper minimum
wage due to the unlawful kickbacks associated with parking passes,
and for hours spent doing non-tipped work.
Host International, Inc. provides prepared meals, food and
beverage, and merchandise at airports, on toll roads, restaurants
and other travel and entertainment venues. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
I AND D GLATT 2: Underpays Assistants, Erazo et al. Say
-------------------------------------------------------
VICENTE ERAZO and JOSE NERY, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. I AND D GLATT 2 INC. (D/B/A I AND
D GLATT); and DAVID YIZHAKY, Defendants, Case 0:20-cv-02748
(E.D.N.Y., June 21, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as supermarket
assistant.
I and D Glatt 2 Inc. sells beef, poultry, fish, deli meats and
prepared dishes. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12t Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
ICU MEDICAL: 2nd Amended Suit Over IV Saline Solution Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
ICU Medical, 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 U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois has granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint in the intravenous saline solutions class
action suit.
On February 3, 2017, the company completed the acquisition of the
HIS business from Pfizer. This litigation is the subject of a claim
for indemnification against us by Pfizer and a cross-claim for
indemnification against Pfizer by us under the HIS stock and asset
purchase agreement.
Beginning in November 2016, purported class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Pfizer, Inc. subsidiaries, Hospira, Inc., Hospira
Worldwide, Inc. and certain other defendants relating to the
intravenous saline solutions part of the HIS business.
Plaintiffs seek to represent classes consisting of all persons and
entities in the U.S. who directly purchased intravenous saline
solution sold by any of the defendants from January 1, 2013 until
the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceases.
Plaintiffs allege that U.S. manufacturer defendants conspired
together to restrict output and artificially fix, raise, maintain
and/or stabilize the prices of intravenous saline solution sold
throughout the U.S. in violation of federal antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs seek treble damages (for themselves and on behalf of the
putative classes) and an injunction against defendants for alleged
price overcharges for intravenous saline solution in the U.S. since
January 1, 2013.
On July 5, 2018, the District Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the operative complaint for failing to state a valid
antitrust claim, but allowed the plaintiffs to file a second
amended complaint.
On September 6, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
adding new allegations in support of their conspiracy claims and
adding ICU as a defendant.
All defendants filed a motion to dismiss this second amended
complaint and on April 3, 2020, the District Court granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The
District Court concluded that it would be futile to permit
plaintiffs to amend their complaint again, and dismissed the case
with prejudice.
The plaintiffs may file an appeal or other type of challenge to the
District Court's order.
ICU Medical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells medical devices
used in vascular therapy, critical care, and oncology applications
worldwide. ICU Medical, Inc. was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in San Clemente, California.
IDEAL IMAGE: Smith Suit Moved From Circuit Ct. to E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as AMIE SMITH, DIANE DRAUS, TINA
KRAUS, JULIE SPINDOLA, KRISTINE DESCHLER, AND SUSAN STONE v. IDEAL
IMAGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION d/b/a IDEAL IMAGE and ANGIE LANASA,
Case No. 20SL-CC02511 (Filed May 6, 2020), was removed from the
Missouri Circuit Court, St. Louis County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 12, 2020.
The Eastern District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00761 to the proceeding.
The lawsuit arose out of the Plaintiffs' and the class members'
termination of their employment from Ideal Image necessitated by
the COVID-19 public health emergency. The Plaintiffs claim Ideal
Image violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
Ideal Image provides personal care services.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Bradley W. Tharpe, Esq.
R. Lance Witcher, Esq.
Sarah J. Kuehnel, Esq.
Bradley W. Tharpe, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
7700 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 650
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: 314 802 3935
Facsimile: 314 802 3936
E-mail: lance.witcher@ogletree.com
sarah.kuehnel@ogletree.com
brad.tharpe@ogletree.com
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: City of Providence Sues over Xyrem Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS
PLC; ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC.; WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.;
HIKMA LABS INC.; HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC.; and HIKMA
PHARMACEUTICALS PLC, Defendants, Case 5:20-cv-04064 (N.D. Cal.,
June 18, 2020) is a civil antitrust action arising out of the
Defendants' anticompetitive conduct that delayed generic
competition in the U.S. and its territories for Xyrem, a
prescription drug product approved by U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") in the U.S. for treatment of cataplexy and
daytime sleepiness in patients with narcolepsy.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
anticompetitive behavior prevented, delayed, and restricted
competition in the market for Xyrem and AB-rated generic versions
("generic version") thereof in the United States. As a result, no
generic version of Xyrem has entered the market and full generic
competition will not occur until at least December 31, 2025 at the
earliest.
Jazz settled its litigation with Roxane in April 2017.
Contemporaneously with the execution of the Settlement Agreement,
Jazz and Roxane entered into a license agreement (the "License
Agreement") and an authorized generic agreement (the "AG
Agreement"), which are not available publicly.
The Roxane Settlement included a promise from Roxane not to market
its generic version of Xyrem until July 1, 2023.
In consideration for its promise to delay launching its generic
product, Roxane received, inter alia, (i) the exclusive right to
sell an authorized generic (AG) between January 1, 2023 and July 1,
2023; (ii) a license to sell its own generic as of July 1, 2023;
and (iii) a promise from Jazz not to grant additional licenses for
other generic manufacturers to market their own generic products
until December 31, 2025.
On April 18, 2016, Jazz settled its litigation with Wockhardt. As
part of the settlement, Jazz granted Wockhardt the right to
manufacture, market, and sell its generic starting December 31,
2025.
On May 9, 2016, Jazz settled its litigation with Ranbaxy. As part
of the settlement, Jazz granted Ranbaxy the right to manufacture,
market, and sell its generic starting December 31, 2025.
On January 9, 2018, Jazz settled its litigation with Par. As part
of the settlement Jazz granted Par the right to sell an AG starting
July 1, 2023, and the right to manufacture, market, and sell their
own generic starting December 31, 2025.
On March 30, 2018, Jazz settled its litigation with Watson. As part
of the settlement, Jazz granted Watson the right to manufacture,
market, and sell its generic starting December 31, 2025.
On about June 4, 2018, Jazz settled its litigation with
Mallinckrodt. As part of the settlement, Jazz granted Mallinckrodt
the right to manufacture, market, and sell its generic starting
December 31, 2025.
On June 12, 2018, Jazz settled its litigation with Lupin. As part
of the settlement Jazz granted Lupin the right to sell an AG
starting July 1, 2023, and the right to manufacture, market, and
sell their own generic starting December 31, 2025.
On October 15, 2018, Jazz settled its litigation with Amneal. As
part of the settlement Jazz granted Amneal the right to sell an AG
starting July 1, 2023, and the right to manufacture, market, and
sell their own generic starting December 31, 2025.
As a result of the Settlement Agreements, Jazz will maintain
complete control of the sodium oxybate market in the United States
until at least July 1, 2023, and full generic competition will not
occur until at least December 31, 2025.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals Public Limited Company is a specialty
biopharmaceutical company focused on improving patients' lives by
identifying, developing and commercializing innovative products
that address unmet medical needs. The Company has a diverse
portfolio of products in the areas of narcolepsy, oncology, pain
and psychiatry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
WESTERMAN LAW CORP.
16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 685
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (310) 698-7450
E-mail: jwesterman@jswlegal.com
- and -
Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
777 Third Avenue, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 577-0050
Facsimile: (212) 577-0054
E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com
mclerkin@motleyrice.com
JONES FINANCIAL: Appeal in Anderson Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2020, that the appeal in the
putative class action suit entitled, Anderson, et al. v. Edward D.
Jones & Co., L.P., et al., is still pending.
On March 30, 2018, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (Edward Jones) and
its affiliated entities and individuals were named as defendants in
a putative class action (Anderson, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co.,
L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California.
The lawsuit was brought under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act, as well as
Missouri and California law and alleges that the defendants
inappropriately transitioned client assets from commission-based
accounts to fee-based programs. The plaintiffs requested
declaratory, equitable, and exemplary relief, and compensatory
damages.
On July 9, 2019, the district court entered an order dismissing the
lawsuit in its entirety without prejudice. On July 29, 2019, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which eliminated
certain affiliated entities and individuals as defendants, withdrew
the claims under the Securities Act, added claims under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the "Investment
Advisers Act"), and certain additional state law claims, and
reasserted the remaining claims with modified allegations.
In response to the amended complaint, the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss. In the plaintiffs' opposition brief filed on September
9, 2019, the plaintiffs withdrew their Investment Advisers Act
claims.
On November 12, 2019 the district court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss the second amended complaint and entered judgment in
favor of defendants.
On December 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
district court's order dismissing the case.
Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and individuals deny the
allegations and intend to continue to vigorously defend this
lawsuit on appeal.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.
JONES FINANCIAL: Appeals Court Declines Petition for Rehearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2020, that an objector's petition
for rehearing on a court of appeals decision affirming a lower
court order approving the settlement in the consolidated class
action suit entitled, McDonald v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et
al., has been denied.
On August 19, 2016, the company (JFC), Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.
(Edward Jones) and certain other defendants were named in a
putative class action lawsuit (McDonald v. Edward D. Jones & Co.,
L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri brought under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended, by a participant in the Edward D.
Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan (the "Retirement Plan").
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Retirement Plan participants and seeks declaratory and
equitable relief and monetary damages on behalf of the Retirement
Plan.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the McDonald lawsuit which
was granted in part dismissing the claim against JFC and denied in
part as to all other defendants on January 26, 2017.
On November 11, 2016, a substantially similar lawsuit (Schultz, et
al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) was filed in the same
court. The plaintiffs consolidated the two lawsuits by adding the
Schultz plaintiffs to the McDonald case, and the Schultz action was
dismissed.
The plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated complaint on
April 28, 2017. On December 13, 2018, the court entered a
preliminary order approving a class action settlement agreement
reached among the parties.
Following a fairness hearing held on April 18, 2019, the court
entered judgment on April 22, 2019 in which it granted final
approval of the settlement, effected a full release of claims by
the settlement class in favor of the defendants, and dismissed the
consolidated lawsuit with prejudice.
On June 14, 2019, the lone objector filed an appeal to the judgment
approving the settlement. On January 31, 2020, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied the objector's appeal and
affirmed the district court's approval of the class action
settlement.
On February 6, 2020, the objector petitioned the Court of Appeals
for a rehearing, which was denied on March 3, 2020.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.
JONES FINANCIAL: Approval of Watson Settlement Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2020, that the plaintiffs in
Watson, et al. v. The Jones Financial Companies L.L.L.P., et al.,
are awaiting the court's approval of a proposed class action
settlement.
On April 25, 2019, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (Edward Jones) and
the company (JFC) were named as defendants in a putative class
action (Watson, et al. v. The Jones Financial Companies L.L.L.P.,
et al.) filed by two former financial advisors in the Superior
Court of the State of California, Sacramento County.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants did not reimburse financial
advisors and financial advisor trainees in California for certain
categories of business expenses, which plaintiffs allege violates
the California Labor Code and California Unfair Competition Law.
The lawsuit seeks damages and restitution as well as attorneys'
fees and costs and equitable and injunctive relief.
On February 19, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the
court's approval of a proposed class action settlement reached by
the parties.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.
JONES FINANCIAL: Court Narrows Claims in Bland Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2020, that the court in Bland, et
al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P, et al., dismissed seven of the
ten causes of action in an amended complaint.
On March 13, 2018, the company (JFC) and Edward D. Jones & Co.,
L.P. (Edward Jones) were named as defendants in a purported
collective and class action lawsuit (Bland, et al. v. Edward D.
Jones & Co., L.P, et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois by four former financial advisors.
The lawsuit was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
as well as Missouri and Illinois law and alleges that the
defendants unlawfully attempted to recoup training costs from
departing financial advisors and failed to pay all overtime owed to
financial advisor trainees among other claims.
The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory
and liquidated damages.
On March 19, 2019, the court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss all claims, but permitting the
plaintiffs to amend and re-file certain of their claims.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 3, 2019.
On March 30, 2020 the court partially granted the defendants'
renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint and dismissed seven
of the ten causes of action it purported to state.
The court's order eliminated from the case any claims that rely
upon the firm's contractual right to recoup training costs as well
as related claims for declaratory relief. It also dismissed various
state law claims.
JFC and Edward Jones deny the allegations in the remaining counts
and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in this
lawsuit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Kandi Technologies Group,
Inc. (NASDAQ: KNDI) between June 10, 2015 and March 13, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important August 10, 2020
lead plaintiff deadline in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Kandi investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Kandi class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1873.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) certain areas in the Company's previously issued
financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2015 and
2014, and the first three quarters for the year ended December 31,
2016 required adjustment; (2) in turn, the Company lacked effective
controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result, defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 10,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1873.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.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
LA GLADYS RESTAURANT: Underpays Employees, Esquivel Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
JERONIMO VICTORIANO ESQUIVEL, individually and on behalf of all
other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANTONIO AGUILAR,
GLADYS BARSOLAS, AYZA G. BARZOLA and LA GLADYS RESTAURANT INC.
(dba. LA GLADYS RESTAURANT) jointly and severally, Defendants, Case
No. 7:20-cv-04857 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as dishwasher and kitchen cook
for five and a half years from on or about May 2012 until 2018.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked approximately 72 hours
per week, but he was not paid lawful minimum wage throughout his
employment with Defendants.
The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to:
-- provide any wage statements, time sheets, or other
documents showing the number of hours Plaintiff worked every week;
-- provide Plaintiff a wage notice at the time of hire or at
any point thereafter; and
-- post notices explaining the minimum wage rights of
employees.
Antonio Aguilar, Gladys Barsolas, and Ayza G. Barzola were the
owners, authorized operators, managers, and agents of the Corporate
Defendant.
La Gladys Restaunrant Inc. owns and operates La Gladys Restaurant.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL PC
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: 212-203-2417
Email: LS@StillmanLegalPC.com
LABORATORY CORP: Bermejo Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE BERMEJO, as an
individual, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees v.
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, DBA LABCORP; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV15175 (Filed April 20, 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 15, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-05337 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts class claims for failure to pay all wages,
failure to keep accurate payroll records, and failure to pay wages
upon ending employment in violation of the California Labor Code.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, more commonly known as
LabCorp, is an American S&P 500 company headquartered in
Burlington, North Carolina. LabCorp operates one of the largest
clinical laboratory networks in the world, with a United States
network of 36 primary laboratories.[BN]
The Defendant Laboratory Corporation of America is represented by:
Christopher J. Kondon, Esq.
Saman M. Rejali, Esq.
Kate G. Hummel, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Eighth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310 552 5000
Facsimile: 310 552 5001
E-mail: christopher.kondon@klgates.com
saman.rejali@klgates.com
kate.hummel@klgates.com
LEGOLAND: Faces Class Action in California Over Unpaid Refunds
--------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that companies
like Legoland are facing a class action lawsuit that says they
continued to take customers' money during the coronavirus despite
not being able to offer their services.
Attorneys Robert Teel and Ronald Marron filed the lawsuit June 8
against Merlin Entertainments Group, Legoland California, Madame
Tussauds in Hollywood and San Francisco and San Francisco Dungeon
LLC.
"Closing of these venues, and cancellation of these events, should
have meant that ticketholders were promptly refunded their money --
money that in many cases was much needed for other purposes," the
lawsuit says.
"But that did not happen . . . Instead, Defendants failed to honor
and perform their duties responsibilities, and obligations under
their uniform standardized agreements with their customers thereby
breaching their contracts, but nonetheless pocketed their
customers' money and converted it for their own use."
Not refunding this money violated the defendants' own terms and
conditions, the lawsuit says. [GN]
LEVY PREMIUM: Peskett Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Suite Attendants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON PESKETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LEVY PREMIUM FOODSERVICE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
and COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-05694
(C.D. Cal., June 25, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of California Labor Code, California Business and
Professions Code, and the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
pay the Plaintiff and Class members wages for all hours worked;
failing to pay them all wages owed due to Defendants' rounding of
hours; failing to pay all wages owed at termination; failing to pay
them with appropriate paychecks; failing to indemnify them for all
necessary expenditures and losses incurred; and failing to provide
pay out tipped workers service charges that customers reasonably
believed were a gratuity.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a suite
attendant at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California.
Levy Premium Foodservice Limited Partnership is a restaurant and
hospitality company that specializing in providing food and
beverage to major entertainment and sports venues and conducts
business in California.
Compass Group USA, Inc. is a food and support services management
company located in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
Lirit A. King, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
lking@bradleygrombacher.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: LAPD Faces Class Action Over Protest Response
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Chiotakis, writing for KCRW, reports that the Los Angeles
Police Department and the LA County Sheriff's Department are at the
center of criticism for how they handled people protesting racial
injustice and police brutality.
Protesters and reporters say officers and deputies instigated
violent clashes, using unnecessary force and dangerous weapons on
peaceful protesters. Police and sheriff's officials say they were
targeted by some protesters who were throwing bottles and other
objects at them. The LAPD says it has launched more than 50
investigations into possible police misconduct.
Now the National Lawyers Guild of Los Angeles has filed a federal
class action lawsuit against the LAPD, saying the department used
excessive force and violated the civil rights of protesters. [GN]
MDL 2938: Juanich v. Evenflo Co. Over Booster Seats Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JANET JUANICH, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v.
EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., GOODBABY INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED,
Case No. 2:20-cv-03443 (Filed April 14, 2020), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston)
on June 15, 2020.
The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-11132-DJC to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff sues the Defendants for alleged reckless and/or
intentional practices of using misleading and deceptive marketing
claims and making material statements and misrepresentations
concerning the safety of their Big Kid Belt-Positioning Booster
seats. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants intentionally
designed their marketing with claims that targeted and appealed to
consumers, who were concerned with providing their children or
grandchildren with a safe and reliable belt-positioning booster
seat. However, the Defendants' labels and packaging claims were
misleading to consumers due to the reckless and/or intentional use
of statements and representations regarding the Big Kid Booster's
safety that were unsupported by their own safety tests and marketed
for use with children contrary to the recommendations by the
American Academy of Pediatrics and National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
The Juanich case is being consolidated with MDL 2938, In Re:
EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2020.
These actions share common factual questions, and that
centralization in the District of Massachusetts will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation.
In its June 2, 2020 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve discovery regarding the design, testing, and
marketing of the booster seat, as well as Evenflo's decision to
represent the booster seat as safe for children under 40 pounds.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other
issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel,
and the judiciary. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Denise J.
Casper. The lead case is Case No. 1:20-md-02938-DJC.
In April 2019, the Plaintiff purchased the Evenflo Big Kid Sport
High Back Booster Car Seat from Walmart in Santa Maria, California,
to use with her 6-year-old grandchild.
The Defendants develop, design, manufacture, label, distribute,
market, advertise, and sell baby products such as car seats,
strollers, safety gates, high chairs, and playards.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Krista K. Freier, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
rapeterson@locklaw.com
kkfreier@locklaw.com
- and -
Jon W. Borderud, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JON BORDERUD
7 West Figueroa Street, 3rd Floor
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone (310) 621-7004
E-mail: borderudlaw@cox.net
- and -
J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPELRUD & WEESE PC
5015 Grand Ridge Drive
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Telephone: (515) 223-4567
E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
Defendant Evenflo is represented by:
Linda C. Hsu, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LLP
120 Broadway, Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 576-2100
Facsimile: (310) 576-2200
E-mail: linda.hsu@bclplaw.com
MDL 2938: Naughton v. Evenflo Co. Over Booster Seats Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as EMILY NAUGHTON, individually
and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00367 (Filed March 9,
2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Boston) on June 15, 2020.
The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-11131-DJC to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's marketing of the
Booster Seat is deceptive and misleading, as the use of booster
seats by children weighing less than 40 pounds is in direct
contravention to the safety recommendations of the American Academy
of Pediatrics, to the detriment of parents and children nationwide.
He adds further that there is no federal safety standard or test
governing side impact for car seats. Given the absence of any
such standard or test, the Defendant created its own test--with no
basis in safety or science--and then proceeded to consistently give
itself a passing grade and market the Booster Seat as "side impact
tested."
The Defendant develop, design, manufacture, label, distribute,
market, advertise, and sell baby products such as car seats,
strollers, safety gates, high chairs, and playards.
The Naughton case is being consolidated with MDL 2938, In Re:
EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2020.
These actions share common factual questions, and that
centralization in the District of Massachusetts will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation.
In its June 2, 2020 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve discovery regarding the design, testing, and
marketing of the booster seat, as well as Evenflo's decision to
represent the booster seat as safe for children under 40 pounds.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other
issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel,
and the judiciary. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Denise J.
Casper. The lead case is Case No. 1:20-md-02938-DJC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric S. Johnson, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
One Court Street
Alton, IL 62002
Telephone: 618-259-2222
Facsimile: 618-259-2251
E-mail: ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Martha Geer, Esq.
Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
Harper Todd Segui, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: 919-600-5000
Facsimile: 919-600-5035
E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
martha@wbmllp.com
pat@wbmllp.com
harper@wbmllp.com
- and -
Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
First Tennessee Plaza
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: 865-247-0080
Facsimile: 865-522-0049
E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com
Defendant Evenflo is represented by:
Richard P. Cassetta, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP
One Firstar Plaza
St. Louis, MO 63101-1693
MGP INGREDIENTS: Suits Over Sales of Aged Whiskey Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
MGP Ingredients 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 putative
class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for
District of Kansas related to the Company's forecasts of sales of
aged whiskey.
In 2020, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for District of Kansas, naming the
Company and certain of its current and former executive officers as
defendants, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The plaintiffs seek to purse claims on behalf of a class consisting
of purchasers or acquirers of the Company's Common Stock during
certain specified periods (the "Class Periods").
The plaintiffs allege that, the defendant made false and/or
misleading statements regarding the Company's forecasts of sales of
aged whiskey, and that, as a result the Company's Common Stock
traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class
Periods.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and fees and costs, among
other relief, but have not specified the amount of damages being
sought in the action.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in these actions.
MGP Ingredients Inc. develops and produces natural grain-based
products in the United States. The Company is based in Atchison,
Kansas.
MH SUB I: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Bindman Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant MH Sub I, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Boris Bindman v. MH Sub I, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-02614-SI, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.
The lawsuit arises from Mr. Bindman's purchase and use of the
Defendant's online lead generation services for attorneys. Mr.
Bindman, an attorney, signed up for lead services on a
"pay-per-lead" basis. The Plaintiff alleges that soon after
submitting an initial deposit and agreeing to an auto-renewal
amount, he received unsatisfactory leads. If leads fall within
certain criteria (e.g. incorrect contact information, lead is not
within the attorney customer's subscribed legal or geographical
practice area, etc.), the lead may be deemed deficient. The
attorney customer can dispute leads and, if deemed deficient, the
attorney will receive a credit from Martindale for the deficient
lead. Plaintiff alleges he received deficient leads, timely
disputed them, and requested credit, but Martindale systematically
rejected his credit requests.
The appellate case is captioned as Boris Bindman v. MH Sub I, LLC,
Case No. 20-15079, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee BORIS BINDMAN, a California resident,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, is
represented by:
William Michael Aron, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF WILLAIM M. ARON
15 West Carrillo Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 618-1768
E-mail: bill@aronlawfirm.com
- and -
Kevin D. Gamarnik, Esq.
FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
575 Anton Blvd.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 556-1700
E-mail: kgamarnik@foleybezek.com
- and -
Robert Allen Curtis, Esq.
FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
15 West Carrillo Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 962-9495
E-mail: rcurtis@foleybezek.com
Defendant-Appellant MH SUB I, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, DBA Internet Brands, Inc., is represented by:
Ambika Kumar Doran, Esq.
Rebecca J. Francis, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 757-8030
E-mail: ambikadoran@dwt.com
- and -
Wendy Evelyn Giberti, Esq.
iGENERAL COUNSEL, PC
9595 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 300-4082
- and -
Sanjay Mohan Nangia, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 276-6577
E-mail: sanjaynangia@dwt.com
NATIONWIDE CHILDREN'S: Morris Seeks OT Pay for Psychometricians
----------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE MORRIS, et al, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONWIDE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv—3194 (S.D. Ohio, June 24, 2020) is a
collective and class action complaint brought against Defendant for
its alleged willful failure to compensate employees in violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Psychometrician from
approximately October 17, 2016.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated Psychometricians regularly worked over 40 hours within a
workweek. Consequently on approximately June 16, 2020, Defendant
admitted its liability for failing to pay Plaintiff and the
Putative Plaintiffs overtime hours and its improper classification
of Psychometrician as a non-exempt position and changed its
employment practices and policies shortly after the Department of
Labor investigation.
However, Defendant failed to calculate, as part of Plaintiff's and
the Putative Plaintiffs' workweek, the time they spent in
performing the pre-appointment and post-appointment tasks, which is
often done outside of the time scheduled shift, and for the lunch
breaks that were scheduled to perform work with different
psychologists, thereby failing to pay them overtime at one and
one-half times their regular rate.
Nationwide Children's Hospital is one of the largest and most
comprehensive pediatric hospitals and research institutes in the
U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE
WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
250 East Broad St., 10th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Tel: (614) 221-4221
Fax: (614) 744-2300
Emails: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com
NAVIENT CORP: Manetta et al Allege Improper Student Loan Servicing
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN MANETTA, SERGIO PEREIRA, ESTHER SYGAL-PEREIRA, MATTHEW
MARKOSIAN, NAIMISH BAXI, HARVEY MINANO, SYDNEY PECK, MAHMUD
IBRAHIM, and GEORGE AMORES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NAVIENT CORPORATION;
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC f/k/a NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC. f/k/a SALLIE
MAE, INC.; and SLM CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-07712
(D.N.J., June 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and New York Consumer
Protection from Deceptive Acts and Practices Law.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are engaged in deceptive
and unfair trade practices by concealing and improperly servicing
student loans. These practices include: (1) misallocating payments
disproportionately to interest rather than principal; (2) charging
inflated minimum monthly payments and applying the excess payment
to interest only; (3) applying single loan payments across multiple
loans, so as to spread a payment out over multiple loans'
principals and interests, rather than one loan's principal and
interest; (4) applying single loan payments across multiple loans,
so as to spread a payment out over loans with the lower interest
rate first, so that more debt accrues on the higher interest loans;
(5) capitalizing interest at irregular frequencies and improper
times; (6) employing an antiquated, confusing, and misleading
online payment system to provide information in order to prevent
the Plaintiffs and Subclass members from being able to understand
their loan payments and applications; (6) employing misleading
monthly billing statements with inaccurate, deceptive, and
confusing information; (7) refusing to release cosigners even when
release-eligibility criteria should have been met; (8) refusing to
provide accurate cosigner release criteria; (9) refusing to provide
accurate historical transactional information on student loans to
the Plaintiffs and Subclass members; (10) failing to provide the
Plaintiffs and Subclass members with a clear, reliable, and
consistent way to apply automated online payments and extra
payments to specific loans; and (11) promoting a rewards credit
card and program, which rewards were never allocated towards
reducing the principal due.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' deceptive acts
and practices, the Plaintiffs and Subclass members suffered an
ascertainable loss of money or property, including paying inflated
principal, interest, and costs associated with their student
loans.
Navient Corporation is a publicly-traded Delaware corporation,
trading on the NASDAQ stock exchange under ticker symbol NAVI. It
operates a servicing and debt collection business with principal
place of business located at 123 Justison Street, Suite 300,
Wilmington, Delaware.
Navient Solutions, LLC, formerly Navient Solutions, Inc., formerly
Sallie Mae, Inc., is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Navient Corporation.
SLM Corporation is the owner of student loan servicer Sallie Mae,
Inc. based in Newark, Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Xavier M. Bailliard, Esq.
James Van Splinter, Esq.
Joseph Tripodi, Esq.
KRANJAC TRIPODI & PARTNERS LLP
30 Wall Street, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (646) 216-2400
Facsimile: (646) 216-2373
E-mail: xbailliard@ktpllp.com
jvansplinter@ktpllp.com
jtripodi@ktpllp.com
NEW YORK: Court Files Redacted Confidential Information in Grottano
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Order to file a Copy of the Redacted Version
Proposed by the City on the Public Docket in the captioned DANA
GROTTANO, N.D., A.R. and D.M., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE
CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION COMMISSIONER JOSEPH
PONTE, CORRECTION OFFICER YOLANDA CAPERS, CAPTAIN ERICA MAYWEATHER,
CORRECTION OFFICER THOMASENA GRAHAM and JOHN and JANE DOE
CORRECTION OFFICERS 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-9242 (RMB),
(S.D.N.Y.).
The parties entered a Settlement Agreement in the class action
lawsuit which calls for a payout of up to $4,000 for any person who
visited or attempted to visit an inmate housed at a New York City
Department of Correction (DOC) facility and who was subject to an
invasive search, unless the visitor was arrested for possession of
contraband.
The City agreed to contribute $12,500,000 to pay the individual
awards which at the rate of $4,000 per person would be awarded to
approximately 3,000 class members. The parties estimated that
$12,500,000 would be sufficient to cover all eligible class
members. They included a proviso that the award per class member
would be reduced pro rata to compensate all eligible class
members.
Based largely upon the parties' representations and submissions at
a hearing, the Court preliminarily approved the class action
settlement. Plaintiffs' counsel informed the Court that the number
of claimants already far exceeds anything Class Counsel could have
foreseen, and there are still three months left in the claims
period. As of that date, more than 10,000 claimants had filed for
inclusion in the class. Plaintiffs' counsel stated that based on
current numbers "the payout will be less than $1,000 per claimant,"
compared to the proposed $4,000.
The Court concludes that the City's proposal more closely coincides
with any meaningful confidentiality concerns under the mediation
privilege, while not unduly restricting the public's right to know
and transparency in these judicial proceedings. At the same time,
the Court finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed redactions tend to
paint too broadly and that some of the authorities cited by
Plaintiff are readily distinguishable. For example, some of
Plaintiffs' authorities involve a third-party seeking discovery of
other parties' mediation communications or involve the Southern
District of New York's Mediation Program confidentiality rules,
which do not apply to the parties' private mediations.
In any event, the issue of mediation confidentiality in the
circumstances presented here is not of great moment. Neither party
identifies any prejudice it would face from publicly filing either
redacted version of the February 5 Letter.
The Court will file a copy of the redacted version proposed by the
City on the public docket.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/qpmkfcm from Leagle.com
Dana Grottano, N. D. & D. M., Plaintiffs, represented by Oren
Giskan - ogiskan@gslawny.com - Giskan, Solotaroff & Anderson &
Stewart, LLP, Scott Simpson , Beranbaum Menken LLP, 80 Pine Street,
33rd Floor New York, New York 10005 & Raymond Audain , NAACP Legal
Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., 40 Rector St Fl 5, New York, NY
10006-1738 2006
City Of New York & Corr. Commissioner Joseph Ponte, City of New
York Department of Correction, Defendants, represented by Angharad
Wilson , New York City Law Department, Michael Keith Gertzer , Law
Offices of Jennifer Adams, Nelson Leese , New York City Law
Department, Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III , The New York City Law
Department, Katherine Jane Weall , New York City Law Department,
Kimberly Joyce , New York City Law Department & Peter William
Brocker , NYC Law Department.
Yolanda Capers, Defendant, represented by Angharad Wilson , New
York City Law Department, Nelson Leese , New York City Law
Department, Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III , The New York City Law
Department, Katherine Jane Weall , New York City Law Department &
Kimberly Joyce , New York City Law Department.
Correction Officer Thomasena Graham, Defendant, represented by
Angharad Wilson , New York City Law Department, Cynthia Devasia ,
Koehler & Isaacs, LLP, Nelson Leese , New York City Law Department,
Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III , The New York City Law Department,
Katherine Jane Weall , New York City Law Department & Kimberly
Joyce , New York City Law Department.
Yolanda Capers & Correction Officer Thomasena Graham, Cross
Claimants, represented by Cynthia Devasia , Koehler & Isaacs, LLP.
City Of New York, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael Keith
Gertzer , Law Offices of Jennifer Adams, Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III
, The New York City Law Department & Peter William Brocker , NYC
Law Department.
Captain Erica Mayweather, Cross Claimant, represented by James G.
Frankie , Frankie & Gentile, P.C., 1527 Franklin Ave Ste 104,
Mineola, NY, 11501-4805
NOIA RESIDENTIAL: Smith Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Staff Nurses
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARY JEAN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NOIA RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1
through 50, Defendants, Case No. 20CECG01820 (Cal. Super., Fresno
Cty., June 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violating various provisions of the California Labor Code and
applicable Wage Orders. These violations include: (1) requiring
employees to do off-the-clock pre-shift work; (2) failing to
provide timely, uninterrupted meal and rest breaks; (3) failing to
pay minimum wages for all hours worked; (4) failing to properly
calculate all hours worked; (5) failing to furnish accurate wage
statements; and (6) failing to properly calculate and pay overtime
wages including productivity and/or nondiscretionary bonuses and
reimbursement of all necessary incurred business-related expenses.
The Plaintiff was employed as a direct care staff nurse at the
Defendant's facility in Fresno, California.
NOIA Residential Services, Inc. is a corporation that operates an
assisted living facility in Fresno, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Yeremian, Esq.
Jason Rothman, Esq.
DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 230-8380
Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
E-mail: David@yeremianlaw.com
Jason@yeremianlaw.com
- and –
Emil Davtyan, Esq.
DAVTYAN LAW FIRM, INC.
880 E Broadway
Glendale, CA 91205
Telephone: (818) 875-2008
Facsimile: (818) 722-3974
E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com
NORTH CAROLINA: Class Action Seeks Reopening of Bars
----------------------------------------------------
Joan C.W. Hoffmannon, writing for Encore, reports that as North
Carolina restaurants, breweries, wineries, distilleries, bottle
shops, hotel bars, and country club bars gear up for Monday
service, a clock ticks away on ncbata.org. The North Carolina Bar
and Tavern Association website has been keeping track of how long
bars operating with a DZ Mixed Beverage Private Bar license have
been closed due to the novel coronavirus. Right now as of June 16,
2020, that count is at 90 days.
On Friday, June 5, Governor Roy Cooper vetoed House Bill 536. It
would have allowed bars to open with 50% of their capacity
outdoors. "House Bill 536 would limit the ability of leaders to
respond quickly to COVID-19 and hamper the health and safety of
every North Carolinian," he said in a statement.
This refusal to compromise has enraged bar owners, including
Wilmington's own Lector Bennett and Maaike Brender À Brandis of
Cape Fear Wine and Beer. They've released official statements on
the bar's Facebook page supporting NCBATA in their decision to file
a lawsuit against Governor Cooper.
"As a part of the 15% of NC ABC permittees that cannot open, we are
appreciative of [NCBATA's] initiative to make progress," explains
Brandis. "If [other bars] can be trusted to open safely, why can't
we?"
Initially, Bennett and Brandis thought they would be granted
permission to open as part of Governor Cooper's phase two plan.
This was not the case.
"It was devastating," Bennett says. "Restaurant bars, hotel bars,
breweries, wineries, distilleries, [and] bottle shops can have
people drinking beers but we cannot! This seems crazy. We are able
to sell off-premise beers, wines, ciders and meads but now that all
the other types of drinking establishments have opened, our sales
have dropped."
Much of the bar owners' frustrations stem from the fact that every
single other type of permit holder in the state of North Carolina
has been given the green light, while 1,063 private clubs remain
dark. The governor's hemming and hawing, while costing North
Carolina residents thousands of dollars, is also bad for morale.
"We're all feeling slighted, like second-rate establishments,"
laments Brandis. "We want to be given the chance to open -- and do
it safely and cleanly -- just like everyone else."
Among other Wilmington business opposing the governor's actions is
Rocco's Cigar Bar. Despite the bar's unique business model -- which
currently allows customers to smoke but not consume alcohol in the
indoor space -- owner Steve Gimello expresses solidarity with bars
unable to open. "We have been unfairly singled out," he says. "Bar
owners can handle any guidelines the governor has set for
restaurants, breweries or distilleries."
Jason Ruth, owner of Tinyz Tavern on Gordon Road, sees only one way
forward. "While lines of communication remain open with the
Governor's office, we feel the courts are the best route for us all
to get equal treatment under the order."
The lawsuit demands a temporary restraining order from Executive
Order 141, also known as phase two, allowing bars to reopen. Zack
Medford, president of NCBATA, insists that, even though he has
requested scientific data, proving that keeping private clubs
closed is preventing the spread of COVID-19, the governor's office
has no such data. The lack of proof makes the governor's decision
seem arbitrary -- or, worse, anti-bar.
"The governor keeps saying he's based his decision on facts and
data but refuses to show any proof that drinking in a bar is
riskier than drinking at a restaurant or hotel bar," explains
Bennett. "When we are able to reopen, we plan on following the CDC
and WHO guidelines to ensure safety."
"Cape Fear Wine & Beer is very concerned about the spread of
COVID-19," Brandis confirms.
While North Carolina lawmakers continue to try to pass legislation
to ease the financial burden of novel coronavirus, the infection
rate and death toll continue to climb. NC's health secretary Mandy
Cohen warned the recent spike in cases could cause current policy
to roll backward and result in a second shutdown.
The NCBATA is pushing forward to try to get Governor Cooper to
change his mind. The organization has started a GoFundMe page, in
an attempt to raise capital for the extensive legal fees it takes
to pull off the case. As of June 15, they have raised more than
$20k of their $25k goal.
Bennett is hopeful this will be the bar's saving grace. "Other than
relocating the bar 70 miles south, this is our best chance at
prevailing." [GN]
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Paid $135,000 Mootness Fee
----------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, 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 settlement has been reached in
the case, Paul Parshall v. Carol Coughlin et. al., which resulted
in a payment by the Company of $135,000 in mootness fees to the
defendants.
In connection with the pending merger acquisition of Hamilton
Bancorp, Inc., on February 15, 2019, Orrstown filed with the SEC a
proxy statement/prospectus dated February 8, 2019. The Proxy
Statement/Prospectus is the proxy statement for Hamilton's special
meeting of stockholders to be held on March 20, 2019 to vote on the
approval of the merger, and is also Orrstown's prospectus with
respect to the shares of Orrstown's common stock to be issued to
Hamilton stockholders in the merger.
On March 5, 2019, Paul Parshall, a purported individual stockholder
of Hamilton, filed, on behalf of himself and all of Hamilton's
stockholders other than the named defendants and their affiliates,
a derivative and putative class action complaint in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned Paul Parshall v.
Carol Coughlin et. al., naming each Hamilton director, Orrstown,
and Hamilton as defendants.
The Action alleged, among other things, that Hamilton's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the Purported Class in
connection with the merger, and that the Proxy Statement/Prospectus
omitted certain material information regarding the merger.
Orrstown was alleged to have aided and abetted the Hamilton
directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.
The Action sought, among other remedies, to enjoin the merger or,
in the event the merger was completed, rescission of the merger or
rescissory damages; unspecified damages; and costs of the lawsuit,
including attorneys' and experts' fees.
A settlement was reached on the Action in March 2020 which resulted
in a payment by the Company of $135,000 in mootness fees to the
defendants in April 2020.
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. operates as the holding company
for Orrstown Bank that provides commercial banking and trust
services in the United States. The company provides its banking and
bank-related services through branches located in Berks,
Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Perry, and York counties
of Pennsylvania, as well as Washington County, Maryland. Orrstown
Financial Services, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered
in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania.
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Seeks to Appeal Ruling in SEPTA Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, 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 Defendants in a class action
initiated by The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
(SEPTA) intend to appeal a trial court ruling that granted SEPTA
leave to file a third amended complaint.
On May 25, 2012, The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority (SEPTA) filed a putative class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against
the Company, Orrstown Bank and certain current and former directors
and executive officers.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) in connection
with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated
February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23,
2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 24, 2010
through October 27, 2011, the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's lending practices and
financial results, including misleading statements concerning the
stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting
standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use
of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of
common stock.
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
seeks class certification, unspecified money damages, interest,
costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief. Under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), motions for
appointment of Lead Plaintiff in this case were due by July 24,
2012. SEPTA was the sole movant and the Court appointed SEPTA Lead
Plaintiff on August 20, 2012.
Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order,
SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended complaint
and the Orrstown Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA's opposition to the
Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss was originally due January
11, 2013.
Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case
were stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to
dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to
address discovery and the filing of a motion for class
certification.
On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for
enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in order to
permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the amended
complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims and defendants'
defenses. On October 26, 2012, the Court granted SEPTA's motion,
mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order, and requiring
SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before January 16, 2013
or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances that require a
further enlargement of time.
On January 14, 2013, the Court granted SEPTA's second unopposed
motion for enlargement of time to file an amended complaint on or
before March 22, 2013.
On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended
complaint expanded the list of defendants in the action to include
the Company's former independent registered public accounting firm,
Smith Elliott Kearns & Company, LLC ("SEK"), and the underwriters
of the Company's March 2010 public offering of common stock.
In addition, among other things, the amended complaint extends the
purported 1934 Exchange Act class period from March 15, 2010
through April 5, 2012.
Pursuant to the Court's March 28, 2013 Second Scheduling Order, on
May 28, 2013, all defendants filed their motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, and on July 22, 2013, SEPTA filed its "omnibus"
opposition to all of the defendants' motions to dismiss.
On August 23, 2013, all defendants filed reply briefs in further
support of their motions to dismiss. On December 5, 2013, the Court
ordered oral argument on the Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss
the amended complaint to be heard on February 7, 2014. Oral
argument on the pending motions to dismiss SEPTA's amended
complaint was held on April 29, 2014.
The Second Scheduling Order stayed all discovery in the case
pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informed the
parties that, if required, a telephonic conference to address
discovery and the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification
would be scheduled after the Court’s ruling on the motions to
dismiss.
On April 10, 2015, pursuant to Court order, all parties filed
supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the U.S. Supreme
Court's March 24, 2015 decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers
District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund on defendants'
motions to dismiss the amended complaint.
On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissed
without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all defendants,
finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under either the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.
The Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to
amend its amended complaint, accompanied by the proposed amendment,
or file a notice of its intention to stand on the amended
complaint.
On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under
Local Rule 15.1, and attached a copy of its proposed second amended
complaint to its motion. Many of the allegations of the proposed
second amended complaint are essentially the same or similar to the
allegations of the dismissed amended complaint.
The proposed second amended complaint also alleges that the
Orrstown Defendants did not publicly disclose certain alleged
failures of internal controls over loan underwriting, risk
management, and financial reporting during the period 2009 to 2012,
in violation of the federal securities laws. On February 8, 2016,
the Court granted SEPTA’s motion for leave to amend and SEPTA
filed its second amended complaint that same day.
On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Order
directing: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss by March
18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants’
motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to file
reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22,
2016.
Defendants timely filed their motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint and the parties filed their briefs in accordance with the
Court-ordered schedule, above.
The February 25, 2016 Order stays all discovery and other deadlines
in the case (including the filing of SEPTA's motion for class
certification) pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss.
The allegations of SEPTA's second amended complaint disclosed the
existence of a confidential, non-public, fact-finding inquiry
regarding the Company being conducted by the SEC.
As disclosed in the Company's Form 8-K filed on September 27, 2016,
on that date the Company entered into a settlement agreement with
the SEC resolving the investigation of accounting and related
matters at the Company for the periods ended June 30, 2010, to
December 31, 2011.
As part of the settlement of the SEC's administrative proceedings
and pursuant to the cease-and-desist order, without admitting or
denying the SEC's findings, the Company, its Chief Executive
Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its former Executive
Vice President and Chief Credit Officer, and its Chief Accounting
Officer, agreed to pay civil money penalties to the SEC.
The Company agreed to pay a civil money penalty of $1.0 million.
The Company had previously established a reserve for that amount
which was expensed in the second fiscal quarter of 2016. In the
settlement agreement with the SEC, the Company also agreed to cease
and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future
violations of Securities Act Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) and
Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B), and Rules
12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder.
On September 27, 2016, the Orrstown Defendants filed with the Court
a Notice of Subsequent Event in Further Support of their Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, regarding the settlement with
the SEC. The Notice attached a copy of the SEC's cease-and-desist
order and briefly described what the Company believed were the most
salient terms of the neither-admit-nor-deny settlement.
On September 29, 2016, SEPTA filed a Response to the Notice, in
which SEPTA argued that the settlement with the SEC did not support
dismissal of the second amended complaint.
On December 7, 2016, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum
granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss
SEPTA's second amended complaint. The Court granted the motions to
dismiss the Securities Act claims against all defendants, and
granted the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 claims against all defendants except Orrstown Financial
Services, Inc., Orrstown Bank, Thomas R. Quinn, Jr., Bradley S.
Everly, and Jeffrey W. Embly. The Court also denied the motions to
dismiss the Exchange Act Section 20(a) claims against Quinn,
Everly, and Embly.
On January 31, 2017, the Court entered a Case Management Order
establishing the schedule for the litigation and, on August 15,
2017, it entered a revised Order that, among other things, set the
following deadlines: all fact discovery closes on March 1, 2018,
and SEPTA's motion for class certification is due the same day;
expert merits discovery closes May 30, 2018; summary judgment
motions are due by June 26, 2018; the mandatory pretrial and
settlement conference is set for December 11, 2018; and trial is
scheduled to begin on January 7, 2019.
On December 15, 2017, the Orrstown Defendants and SEPTA exchanged
expert reports in opposition to and in support of class
certification, respectively. On January 15, 2018, the parties
exchanged expert rebuttal reports. SEPTA's motion for class
certification was due March 1, 2018, with the Orrstown Defendants'
opposition due April 2, 2018, and SEPTA's reply due April 23,
2018.
On February 9, 2018, SEPTA filed a Status Report and Request for a
Telephonic Status Conference asking the Court to convene a
conference to discuss the status of discovery in the case and
possible revisions to the case schedule.
On February 12, 2018, the Orrstown Defendants filed their status
report to provide the Court with a summary of document discovery in
the case to date. On February 27, 2018, SEPTA filed an unopposed
motion for a continuance of the existing case deadlines pending a
status conference with the Court or the issuance of a revised case
schedule. On February 28, 2018, the Court issued an Order
continuing all case management deadlines until further order of the
Court.
On March 27, 2018, the Court held a telephonic status conference
with the parties to discuss outstanding discovery issues and case
deadlines. On May 2, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report.
On May 10, 2018, the Court held a follow-up telephonic status
conference at which the parties reported on the progress of
discovery to date. Party and non-party document discovery in the
case has continued. To date, SEPTA has taken a few non-party
depositions.
On August 9, 2018, SEPTA filed a motion to compel the production of
Confidential Supervisory Information (CSI) of non-parties the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) and the
Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities, in the
possession of Orrstown and third parties.
On August 23, 2018, the Orrstown Defendants filed a response to the
motion to compel. On August 30, 2018, the FRB filed an unopposed
motion to intervene in the Action for the purpose of opposing
SEPTA’s motion to compel, and on September 27, 2018, the FRB
filed its brief in opposition to SEPTA's motion. On October 11,
2018, SEPTA filed its reply brief in support of its motion to
compel. On February 12, 2019, the Court denied SEPTA's motion to
compel the production of CSI on the ground that SEPTA had failed to
exhaust its administrative remedies.
On April 11, 2019, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to file a third
amended complaint. The proposed third amended complaint seeks to
reassert the Securities Act claims that the Court dismissed as to
all defendants on December 7, 2016, when the Court granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss SEPTA's second
amended complaint. The proposed third amended complaint also seeks
to reassert the Exchange Act claims against those defendants that
the Court dismissed from the case on December 7, 2016.
Defendants' briefs in opposition to SEPTA's motion for leave to
file a third amended complaint were filed on April 25, 2019. SEPTA
filed a reply brief in further support of its motion for leave to
file a third amended complaint on May 9, 2019.
On June 13, 2019, Orrstown filed a motion for protective order to
stay discovery pending resolution of SEPTA's motion for leave to
file a third amended complaint. On June 19, 2019, former defendants
SEK and the underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public
offering joined in Orrstown's motion for protective order. On June
25, 2019, SEPTA filed its opposition to Orrstown's motion. On July
9, 2019, Orrstown filed a reply brief in further support of its
motion. On July 17, 2019, the Court entered an Order partially
granting Orrstown's motion for protective order, ruling that all
deposition discovery in the case is stayed pending a decision on
SEPTA's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint.
On February 14, 2020, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum
granting SEPTA's motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint. The third amended complaint is now the operative
complaint. It reinstates the Orrstown Defendants, as well as SEK
and the underwriter defendants, previously dismissed from the case
on December 7, 2016. The third amended complaint also revives the
previously-dismissed 1933 Securities Act claim against the Orrstown
Defendants, SEK, and the underwriter defendants.
Under the Court-ordered briefing schedule, defendants filed their
motions to dismiss the third amended complaint on April 24, 2020.
SEPTA's oppositions were due May 29, 2020, and defendants' reply
briefs were due June 19, 2020.
On February 24, 2020, the Orrstown Defendants, and the underwriter
defendants and SEK, separately filed motions under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1292(b) asking the Court to certify its February 14, 2020
Order for interlocutory appeal to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals.
SEPTA filed its brief in opposition on April 21, 2020. Defendants'
reply briefs were due May 11, 2020.
The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's third amended
complaint are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously
against those claims. It is not possible at this time to estimate
reasonably possible losses, or even a range of reasonably possible
losses, in connection with the litigation.
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. operates as the holding company
for Orrstown Bank that provides commercial banking and trust
services in the United States. The company provides its banking and
bank-related services through branches located in Berks,
Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Perry, and York counties
of Pennsylvania, as well as Washington County, Maryland. Orrstown
Financial Services, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered
in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania.
OSHKOSH CORP: 401(K) Plan Participant Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that
Wisconsin-based industrial equipment maker Oshkosh Corp. was sued
by a participant in its 401(k) plan who says the plan charges
excessive fees and offers expensive, actively managed funds instead
of cheaper, better performing alternatives.
Oshkosh's $1.1 billion plan offers mostly high-fee mutual funds,
excludes many low-cost index funds, and overpays for record keeping
services, plan participant Andrew Albert said in a proposed class
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin. Oshkosh allowed the plan's record keeping
fees to rise by nearly 250% over a four-year period without
negotiating a better deal.
COURT: E.D. Wis.
TRACK DOCKET: No. 1:20-cv-00901
JUDGE: William C. Griesbach
COMPANY INFO: Oshkosh Corp.
[GN]
PINNACLE BANK: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agent Fees, Ratliff Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ratliff CPA Firm, PC, a South Carolina Professional Corporation,
individually and on behalf of a class of similar situated
businesses and individuals v. Pinnacle Bank and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-02225-BHH (D.S.C., June 11, 2020),
alleges that Pinnacle refuses to comply with the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security Act that requires it to pay loan
agent fees out of the compensation it received for processing
Paycheck Protection Program loans.
On March 27, 2020, the United States Congress enacted the CARES
Act. A signature piece of this landmark legislation is the SBA's
PPP which initially authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable
loans to small businesses to cover payroll and other expenses (PPP
I). After the initial funds quickly dried up, Congress added $310
billion additional dollars to the program (PPP II).
The PPP was designed to be fast and straightforward, allowing
business to apply through SBA-approved lenders and await approval.
Once approved, lenders would be compensated in the form of a
generous origination fee paid by the federal government, with the
requirement that the lender would be responsible for paying the fee
owed to the loan applicant's agent (e.g., attorney or accountant).
The lawsuit seeks compensation from Pinnacle for services the
Plaintiff and a large number of other agents rendered on behalf of
recipients of Small Business Administration emergency loans.
Ratliff provides corporate and individual taxation advice to its
clients and performs financial planning and consulting for both
businesses and individuals in the local community. Ratliff meets
the criteria to be a PPP Agent under the CARES Act.
Pinnacle Bank has been a locally owned, community bank since
1934.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard A. Harpootlian, Esq.
RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, P.A.
1410 Laurel Street (29201)
Post Office Box 1090
Columbia, SC 29202
Telephone: (803) 252-4848
Facsimile: (803) 252-4810
E-mail: rah@harpootlianlaw.com
- and -
Mark C. Tanenbaum, Esq.
MARK C. TANENBAUM, P.A.
1017 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Suite 101
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (803) 577-5100
Facsimile: 843-722-4688
E-mail: mark@tanenbaumlaw.com
- and -
Vincent A. Sheheen, Esq.
Michael D. Wright, Esq.
SAVAGE, ROYALL & SHEHEEN, L.L.P.
P.O. Drawer 10
Camden, S.C. 29021
Telephone: (803) 432-4391
Facsimile: (803) 425-4812
E-mail: mwright@thesavagefirm.com
- and -
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
PLAID LLC: Illegally Collects Bank Login Data, Mitchell Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LOGAN MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PLAID INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-04230
(N.D. Cal., June 25, 2020), arises from the Defendant's common law
invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, negligence and violations
of California Constitution, the Stored Communications Act, the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California's Comprehensive Data
Access and Fraud Act, California's Anti-Phishing Act of 2005, and
California Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent similarly situated persons in the
United States whose accounts at a financial institution were
accessed by Plaid using login credentials that Plaid obtained
through software incorporated in a web-based or mobile software
applications that enabled money transfers or payments from January
1, 2013 to the present. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant
is engaged in a deceptive scheme of collecting, storing and using
the login credentials of bank account users in the United States.
The Defendant partnered with financial technology apps and
persuaded them to allow Plaid to be the data plumbing connecting
users to their bank accounts. The Defendant violates reasonable
expectations of privacy of the users, including the Plaintiff, by:
(1) collecting, storing and using data more than what it needs to
link users' accounts to financial technology apps; (2) deceiving
users into thinking that they are entering their credentials
directly with their trusted financial institutions, when in fact
they are providing those credentials to Plaid for Plaid's permanent
retention and use; (3) failing to disclose to the users that it
profits from the collected data; and (4) failing to disclose the
scope and nature of its data practices.
The Defendant's conduct caused substantial harm to the Plaintiff
and Class Members, including by destroying their rights to
indemnification for improper withdrawals from their bank accounts,
by otherwise impairing the integrity of their data, and by damaging
their dignitary rights.
Plaid Inc. is a financial technology company, with its principal
place of business at 85 Second Street, Suite 400, San Francisco,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
2440 W El Camino Real, Suite 100
Mountain View, CA 94040
Telephone: (650) 784-4040
E-mail: mram@robinskaplan.com
asheanin@robinskaplan.com
- and –
Kellie Lerner, Esq.
Hollis Salzman, Esq.
William Reiss, Esq.
David Rochelson, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 980-7400
E-mail: klerner@robinskaplan.com
hsalzman@robinskaplan.com
wreiss@robinskaplan.com
drochelson@robinskaplan.com
PROASSURANCE CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on June 22 disclosed 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.
The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein
Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212)
779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the
State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not
guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future
matter.
Contact Information
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
PROASSURANCE CORP: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama on behalf of those who acquired
ProAssurance Corporation ("ProAssurance" or the "Company") (NYSE:
PRA) securities during the period from April 26, 2019 through May
7, 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 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; and (ii) ProAssurance failed to properly
assess a large national healthcare account that experienced losses
far exceeding the assumptions made when the account was
underwritten.
On January 22, 2020, ProAssurance disclosed a $37 million charge to
its loss reserves for the fourth quarter of 2019 due to
"deteriorating loss experience, driven by a large national
healthcare account." On this news, the price of ProAssurance shares
fell $4.18, or 11.1%, to close at $33.40 on January 23, 2020. On
February 20, 2020, ProAssurance revealed that the charge was
actually $51.5 million, not $37 million.
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. On
this news, the price of ProAssurance shares fell $4.38, or 21.5%,
to close at $15.95 on May 8, 2020.
If you acquired ProAssurance 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. Additional information about the firm
can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website: www.kmllp.com.
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]
PROGREXION TELESERVICES: Born & Chauhan Seek to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Cristin Born and Jessica
Chauhan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Progrexion Teleservices, Inc., Case No.
2:20-cv-00107-RJS-DAO (D. Utah), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order conditionally certifying a class under the Fair Labor
Standards Act. The class is defined as:
"all Hourly Call-Center Employees Who Were Employed by
Progrexion Teleservices, Inc., Anywhere in the United States,
at Any Time from February 19, 2017 Through the Final
Disposition of This Matter."
The Plaintiffs contend that because Progrexion does not allow
employees to clock in until the start up tasks have been performed,
it maintains a company-wide policy requiring employees to perform
work off-the-clock and without pay.
Progrexion provides technology and credit repair services to
hundreds of thousands of consumer clients throughout the United
States.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Clif Alexander, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 North Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone (361) 452-1279
E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com
clif@a2xlaw.com
- and -
Andrew W. Stavros, Esq.
STAVROS LAW P.C.
8915 South 700 East, Suite 202
Sandy, UT 84070
Telephone: (801) 758-7604
Facsimile: (801) 893-3573
E-mail: andy@stavroslaw.com
PSLA LLC: Roldan and Moore Seek Proper Wage Pay for Entertainers
----------------------------------------------------------------
KRYSTAL ROLDAN, an individual; DEZUANEY MOORE, an individual,
Plaintiff, vs. PSLA LLC dba PLATINUM SHOWGIRLS LA, a California
Limited Liability Corporation; MOHAN MAKKER, an individual; DOE
MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-05638 (C.D. Cal., June 24, 2020) is an action brought by
the Plaintiffs against Defendants for damages due to Defendants
evading the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and illegally absconding with
Plaintiffs' tips.
The causes of action arise from Defendants' willful actions while
Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants in the three years prior to
the filing of this Complaint. During their time being employed by
Defendants, Plaintiffs were denied minimum wage payments and denied
overtime as part of Defendants' scheme to classify Plaintiffs and
other exotic dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors."
Furthermore, Defendants' practice of failing to pay tipped
employees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 203(m), violates the FLSA's
minimum wage provision.
As a result of Defendants' violations, Plaintiffs seek to recover
all tips kept by the employer, liquidated damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA.
PSLA LLC dba Platinum Showgirls LA, a California Limited Liability
Corporation, operates an adult-oriented entertainment facility
located in Los Angeles, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
Jacob J. Ventura, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
jacob@kristensenlaw.com
QWEST CORP: Sales Practices Suit v. CenturyLink Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that CenturyLink, Inc. continues to defend itself
against a consolidated class action suit entitled, In Re:
CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation.
In June 2017, a former employee of CenturyLink filed an employment
lawsuit against CenturyLink claiming that she was wrongfully
terminated for alleging that CenturyLink charged some of its retail
customers for products and services they did not authorize.
Starting shortly thereafter and continuing since then, and based in
part on the allegations made by the former employee, several legal
proceedings have been filed.
In June 2017, McLeod v. CenturyLink, a putative consumer class
action, was filed against CenturyLink in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California alleging that it charged
some of its retail customers for products and services they did not
authorize.
Other complaints asserting similar claims have been filed in other
federal and state courts, as well.
The lawsuits assert claims including fraud, unfair competition, and
unjust enrichment.
Also, in June 2017, Craig. v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., a putative
securities investor class action, was filed in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleging that it failed to
disclose material information regarding improper sales practices,
and asserting federal securities law claims.
A number of other cases asserting similar claims have also been
filed.
Beginning June 2017, CenturyLink received several shareholder
derivative demands addressing related topics. In August 2017,
CenturyLink's Board of Directors formed a special litigation
committee of outside directors to address the allegations of
impropriety contained in the shareholder derivative demands.
In April 2018, the special litigation committee concluded its
review of the derivative demands and declined to take further
action. Since then, derivative cases were filed in Louisiana state
court in the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Ouachita and in federal court in Louisiana and Minnesota.
These cases have been brought on behalf of CenturyLink against
certain current and former officers and directors of the Company
and seek damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.
The consumer putative class actions, the securities investor
putative class actions, and the federal derivative actions have
been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings as
In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation.
Subject to confirmatory discovery and court approval, CenturyLink
agreed to settle the consumer putative class actions for payments
of $15.5 million to compensate class members and of up to $3.5
million for administrative costs.
In the second quarter of 2019, CenturyLink accrued for these
obligations, and a portion of the administrative costs has been
expended in 2020.
Certain class members may elect to opt out of the class settlement
and pursue the resolution of their individual claims against us on
these issues through various dispute resolution processes,
including individual arbitration. One law firm claims to represent
more than 22,000 potential class members.
To the extent that a substantial number of class members, including
many of the law firm's alleged clients, meet the contractual
requirements to arbitrate, elect to opt out of the settlement (or
otherwise successfully exclude their individual claims), and
actually pursue arbitrations, CenturyLink and the company could
incur a material amount of filing and other arbitrations fees in
relation to the administration of those claims.
In July 2017, the Minnesota state attorney general filed State of
Minnesota v. CenturyTel Broadband Services LLC, et al. in the Anoka
County Minnesota District Court, alleging claims of fraud and
deceptive trade practices relating to improper consumer sales
practices.
Qwest said, "CenturyLink has engaged in discussions regarding
potential resolutions of these claims with a number of state
attorneys general, and have entered into agreements settling the
Minnesota suit and certain of the consumer practices claims
asserted by state attorneys general. While CenturyLink does not
agree with allegations raised in these matters, it has been willing
to consider reasonable settlements where appropriate."
Qwest Corporation, an integrated communications company, provides
communications services to business and residential customers in
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was incorporated in 1911 and is based in
Monroe, Louisiana. Qwest Corporation operates as a subsidiary of
CenturyLink, Inc.
RANCHO RESTAURANT: Underpays Employees, Veras Claims
----------------------------------------------------
GREGORIO VERAS, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FERMIN SALAZAR BATISTA, ROBIN
SALAZAR NUNEZ, LENY SALAZAR NUNEZEZ and RANCHO RESTAURANT CORP (DBA
EL RANCHO DOMINICANO) jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-02815 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged wrongful
withholding of their employees' lawfully earned wages in violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a dishwasher and helper
from November 2018 until the present time.
Plaintiff claims that he was never paid by Defendant a lawful
minimum wage and overtime throughout his employment with Defendants
despite working an average of 54 hours per week prior to the
Covid-19 outbreak.
The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to:
-- provide Plaintiff with any wage statements, time sheets, or
other documents showing the number of hours he worked every week;
-- provide Plaintiff with a wage notice at the time of hire or
at any point thereafter; and
-- post notices that explain the minimum wage rights of their
employees.
Fermin Salazar Batista, Robin Salazar Nunez, and Leny Salazar
Nunezez were the owners, authorized operators, managers, and agents
of the Corporate Defendant.
Rancho Restaurant Corp (dba El Rancho Dominicano) operates a
restaurant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL PC
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: 212-203-2417
Email: LS@StillmanLegalPC.com
RYDER SYSTEM: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on June 24 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.
WORX Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/scworx-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=7516&wire=1
R Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ryder-system-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7516&wire=1
WFC Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wells-fargo-company-loss-submission-form?prid=7516&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
SCWorx Corp. (WORX)
WORX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 13, 2020 -
April 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 29, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/scworx-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=7516&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, SCWorx
Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) SCWorx's supplier for COVID-19 tests
had previously misrepresented its operations; (2) SCWorx's buyer
was a small company that was unlikely to adequately support the
purported volume of orders for COVID-19 tests; (3) as a result, the
Company's purchase order for COVID-19 tests had been overstated or
entirely fabricated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE:R)
R Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased July 23, 2015 -
February 13, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ryder-system-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7516&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Ryder
System, Inc. 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.
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=7516&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.
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]
SEA LEGS: Alinikoff Seeks Wages for Work Performed as Bartender
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB ALINIKOFF, on behalf of himself and on behalf of the general
public as private attorneys general v. SEA LEGS WINE BAR, INC., a
California corporation; JACKMONT HOSPITALITY, an unknown entity;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV22544 (Cal.
Super., June 15, 2020), seeks civil penalties under the California
Labor Code, Private Attorneys General Act.
The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, restitution and
compensation for work performed and monies due to him and similarly
situated employees/staff.
The Plaintiff became employed by the Defendants in June 2014 as a
bartender, non-exempt and/or hourly employee.
Sea Legs is a restaurants company based out of Huntington Beach,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
Ali M. Sachani, Esq.
Claudette H. Villicana, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GARY R. CARLIN, APC
301 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1550
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 432-8933
Facsimile: (562)435-1656
E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
ali@carlinbuchsbaum.com
claudette@carlinbuchsbaum.com
SEATTLE, WA: Violates Property Rights, Hunters Capital Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, HUNTERS CAPITAL, LLC; NORTHWEST LIQUOR AND WINE LLC; SRJ
ENTERPRISES, d/b/a CAR TENDER; THE RICHMARK COMPANY d/b/a RICHMARK
LABEL; SAGE PHYSICAL THERAPY PLLC; KATHLEEN CAPLES; ONYX HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION; WADE BILLER; MADRONA REAL ESTATE SERVICES LLC; MADRONA
REAL ESTATE INVESTORS IV LLC; MADRONA REAL ESTATE INVESTORS VI LLC;
12TH AND PIKE ASSOCIATES LLC; REDSIDE PARTNERS LLC; MAGDALENA SKY;
OLIVE ST APARTMENTS LLC; and BERGMAN'S LOCK AND KEY SERVICES LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY
OF SEATTLE, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00983 (W.D. Wash., June 24,
2020), arises from the Defendant's violation of procedural due
process, nuisance, substantive due process, unlawful gift pursuant
to Article VIII, Section 7 of Washington State Constitution, and
unlawful taking.
The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated individuals and residents in the State of Washington,
allege that the City of Seattle violated their constitutionally
protected property rights by: (1) creating, assisting, endorsing,
and encouraging an indefinite, unpermitted occupation and blockade
of the public streets, sidewalks, and parks in and around Capitol
Hill Organized Protest (CHOP), thereby denying Plaintiffs access to
their properties, and (2) creating, assisting, endorsing, and
encouraging the pervasive vandalism and trespasses against
Plaintiffs' properties, thereby denying Plaintiffs the ability to
use their properties and exclude others from them. The City
provided Plaintiffs with no notice or opportunity to be heard
before or after denying the Plaintiffs of their rights to access
their properties, use their properties, and exclude others from
their properties.
In addition to blocking public rights-of-way, the City's actions
have created and maintained a series of unlawful and/or
unreasonable conditions throughout the CHOP area including
excessive noise, public safety hazards, vandalism, and poor health
and sanitation conditions. The City also violated Article VIII,
Section 7 of Washington State Constitution by giving away an
interest in public property without consideration and with donative
intent to CHOP participants. The City has granted CHOP participants
the right to occupy and use these public properties without
interference and to the exclusion of others.
As a result of the Defendant's actions, the Plaintiffs and Class
members have been harmed, including deprivation of their use of
public property in Capitol Hill, limitation on access to their
private property, vandalism and trespass to their private property
by CHOP participants, loss of revenue, loss of property value,
damages to property, and other damages.
Hunters Capital LLC is a real-estate development, investment, and
management company with its principal place of business in King
County, Washington.
SRJ Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Car Tender, is an automotive repair
business with its principal place of business in King County,
Washington.
The Richmark Company, d/b/a Richmark Label, is a family-owned label
printing and manufacturing business with its principal place of
business in King County, Washington.
Northwest Liquor and Wine LLC is a specialty liquor, beer, and wine
store operator with its principal place of business in King County,
Washington.
Physical Therapy PLLC is a provider of rehabilitative and
therapeutic physical therapy with its principal place of business
in King County, Washington.
The Onyx Homeowners Association is a registered homeowners
association in King County, Washington.
Madrona Real Estate Services LLC is a real-estate development and
full-service real-estate management company with its principal
place of business in King County, Washington.
Madrona Real Estate Investors IV LLC is a real-estate investment
company with its principal place of business in King County,
Washington.
Madrona Real Estate Investors VI LLC is a real-estate investment
company with its principal place of business in King County,
Washington.
12th and Pike Associates LLC is a real-estate investment company
with its principal place of business in King County, Washington.
Redside Partners LLC is a real-estate investment and management
company with its principal place of business in King County,
Washington.
Olive ST Apartments LLC is an owner and operator of apartment
complexes with its principal place of business in King County,
Washington.
Bergman's Lock and Key Services LLC is a provider of lock and key
services for residential and commercial properties, with its
principal place of business in King County, Washington.
The City of Seattle is a municipality incorporated in the State of
Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patty A. Eakes, Esq.
Angelo J. Calfo, Esq.
CALFO EAKES LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 407-2200
Facsimile: (206) 407-2224
E-mail: pattye@calfoeakes.com
angeloc@calfoeakes.com
SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Kiddie Academy Seeks Payment for COVID Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------
QUAKERBRIDGE EARLY LEARNING LLC d/b/a KIDDIE ACADEMY OF HAMILTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW ENGLAND and
SELECTIVE INSURANCE GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-07798-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., June 25, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of their insurance policy.
According to the complaint, the Defendants rejected the Plaintiff's
business loss and business interruption claims and other claims
pursuant to insurance policy, contending, inter alia, that the
Plaintiff did not suffer physical damage to its property directly
and therefore not entitled to coverage for the losses and damages
incurred. The Plaintiff alleges that the insurance policy that it
bought from the Defendants is an all-risk policy, which includes
business interruption coverage for closure by Order of Civil
Authority, along with coverage for extended expenses. The Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated child care centers purchased the
Defendants' policy with an expectation that they were purchasing a
policy that would provide coverage in the event of business
interruption and extended expenses, such as that suffered by the
Plaintiff as a result of COVID-19. At no time had Defendants, or
their agents, notified the Plaintiff and Class members that the
coverage that they had purchased pursuant to an all-risk policy
that included business interruption coverage had exclusions and
provisions that purportedly undermined the very purpose of the
coverage, of providing benefits in the occurrence of business
interruption and incurring extended expenses.
Quakerbridge Early Learning LLC, d/b/a Kiddie Academy of Hamilton,
is a daycare center which operates at 3848 Quakerbridge Road,
Hamilton Township, New Jersey.
Selective Insurance Company of New England is an insurance company
whose headquarters and principal place of business are in New
Jersey.
Selective Insurance Group, Inc. is an insurance company whose
headquarters and principal place of business are in New Jersey.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arnold Levin, Esq.
Laurence S. Berman, Esq.
Frederick Longer, Esq.
Daniel Levin, Esq.
Michael M. Weinkowitz, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, L.L.P.
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com
lberman@lfsblaw.com
flonger@lfsblaw.com
dlevin@lfsblaw.com
mweinkowitz@lfsblaw.com
- and –
Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 985-9177
Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
- and –
W. Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
Rachel N. Boyd, Esq.
Paul W. Evans, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
P.O. Box 4160
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
SK ENERGY: Poe Valley Alleges Price-Fixing of Gasoline
------------------------------------------------------
POE VALLEY LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SK ENERGY AMERICAS, INC.; SK TRADING
INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD; and VITOL INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-04228 (N.D. Cal., June 25, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for violation of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act,
the Cartwright Act, and Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated consumers, alleges that the Defendants are engaged in
anticompetitive scheme in order to manipulate and raise the spot
market price for gasoline in California. The Defendants took
advantage of an explosion incident at a gasoline refinery complex
located in Torrance, California in February 2015 to restrain
competition in the spot market for gasoline and gasoline components
and to artificially inflate their prices. The Defendants'
coordinated trading activities include: (1) engaging in sham
transactions to obfuscate the true nature of the supply and demand
dynamic in California's gasoline market; (2) trading with each
other with the purpose and effect of creating spikes in the spot
market price; and (3) entering into prearranged, unreported buy and
sell transactions with each other to share profits from the scheme.
As a result of the Defendants' unlawful business conduct, the
Plaintiff and the members of the Class suffered financial damages
as they paid more for gasoline than they would have paid in a
competitive market.
SK Energy Americas, Inc. is a petroleum and petroleum products
company located in Houston, Texas and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
SK Energy International.
SK Trading International Co. Ltd. is a South Korean corporation
that operates as an oil broking agency, with its head office at 26
Jongno, Jongno-gu, Seoul, South Korea.
Vitol Inc. is an energy and commodities company, with business
office located at 2925 Richmond Avenue 11th Floor Houston, Texas.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Derek G. Howard, Esq.
DEREK G. HOWARD LAW FIRM, INC.
42 Miller Avenue
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Telephone: (415) 432-7192
E-mail: Derek@derekhowardlaw.com
- and –
Daniel J. Mulligan, Esq.
JENKINS MULLIGAN & GABRIEL LLP
10085 Carroll Canyon Rd., Ste. 210
San Diego, CA 92131
Telephone: (858) 527-1792
E-mail: dan@jmglawoffices.com
SMASHBOX BEAUTY: Sued by Hockey for Misclassifying Employees
------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE HOCKEY, an individual, and REBECCA QUINN, an individual,
and other aggrieved employees v. SMASHBOX BEAUTY COSMETICS, INC., a
California corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
20SMCV00803 (June 12, 2020), seeks civil penalties under the
Private Attorney General Act of 2004, California Labor Code.
The action is brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of all non-exempt
aggrieved employees in California and challenges the Defendants'
employment practices with respect to payment of wages. The action
is also brought over the Defendants' knowing and intentional
policies and practices of misclassifying the Plaintiffs as
independent contractors and failing to timely pay the Plaintiffs'
earned wages upon discharge in violation of the Labor Code.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as non-exempt employees
out of the Defendants' studios in Culver City, California.
The Defendants are in the business of manufacture and retail sales
of makeup and cosmetic products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Low IV, Esq.
THE LAW FIRM OF JOSEPH H. LOW IV
100 Oceangate, 12th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 901-0840
Facsimile: (562) 901-0841
- and -
Roger Y. Muse, Esq.
John R. Matheny, Esq.
EXCELSIOR LAW
9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 205-3981
Facsimile: (310) 205-0594
SOCIETY INSURANCE: Denies Coverage of COVID Losses, 726 West Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
726 WEST GRAND LLC, 4301 NORTH WESTERN AVENUE, 6334 N CLARK
CORPORATION, AA SPORTS CONNECTION INC., BUTTERFLY SOCIAL CLUB,
GASTHAUS ZUM LOEWEN INC., MATSUI-JONES CORPORATION, NUMBERUNO LLC,
IRVING SACRAMENTO, INC., DIGGER'S PUB INC., ZRD LLC, and ZUKU LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SOCIETY INSURANCE, Case No. 1:20-cv-03432 (N.D. Ill., June 11,
2020), alleges that Society Insurance has routinely and uniformly
refused to pay its insureds under its Business Income, Civil
Authority, Contamination, and Extra Expense coverages for losses
suffered due to COVID-19 crisis.
The Plaintiffs contend that as a result of the outbreak of a virus
popularly known as SARS in 2003, many business owners' policies
contain an exclusion for losses caused by viruses. However, they
note, Society Insurance's Special Property Coverage Form does not
contain any exclusion for losses caused by viruses. The Plaintiffs
say they were forced to suspend or reduce their restaurant and
tavern business by a new type of SARS virus, known as COVID-19, and
the related orders issued by the Governor of Illinois and Mayor of
Chicago mandating the closure of businesses like the Plaintiffs'
for on-site services.
The Plaintiffs aver that they operate consistently profitable
restaurants and taverns throughout the Chicagoland area. They
purchased insurance coverage from Society Insurance to protect
those businesses from sudden, unanticipated suspensions of their
business activities. The insurance they purchased from Society
Insurance includes the special property coverage set forth in
Society Insurance's Businessowner's Special Property Coverage Form,
entitled "Special Property Coverage Form."
Society Insurance is a mutual insurance company organized under the
laws of Wisconsin, with its principal place of business in Fond du
Lac, Wisconsin. Society Insurance is authorized to write, sell, and
issue insurance policies providing property and business income
coverage.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nyran Rose Rasche, Esq.
Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
150 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
E-mail: afata@caffertyclobes.com
nrasche@caffertyclobes.com
ctourek@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
205 North Monroe
Media, PA 19063
Telephone: (215) 864-2800
E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Blake T. Hannafan, Esq.
HANNAFAN & HANNAFAN, LTD.
180 N. LaSalle St., Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 527-0055
E-mail: bth@hannafanlaw.com
T-MOBILE USA: Herrera Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO HERRERA, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. T-MOBILE, USA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 20STCV12815 (Filed April 1, 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 15, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-05325 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's complaint asserts claims for violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act; failure to make proper disclosures; failure
to pay minimum wages; failure to accurately pay wages; and failure
to provide lawful meal periods.
T-Mobile is an American wireless network operator. T-Mobile's
largest shareholder is the German telecommunications company
Deutsche Telekom with a 43% share, with Japanese conglomerate
holding company SoftBank Group partially owning the company as well
at a 24% share.[BN]
Defendant T-Mobile is represented by:
Keith A. Jacoby, Esq.
Lauren Schwartz, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
Telephone: 310 553 0308
Facsimile: 310 553 5583
E-mail: kjacoby@littler.com
lschwartz@littler.com
- and -
Gregory G. Iskander, Esq.
Littler MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Telephone: 925 932 2468
Facsimile: 925 946 9809
E-mail: giskander@littler.com
TERMINIX INT'L: Wilson Sues Over Unsolicited Phone & Email Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DAVID L. WILSON, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY,
L.P., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00812 (E.D. Mo., June 22, 2020)
arises from Defendants' alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff contacted Defendant first on
or around May 5, 2020 to obtain a price quote for Defendant's
services, and then informed Defendant that he was not interested in
Defendant's services after receiving a price quote. However,
Plaintiff began receiving numerous calls to his cellular phone
(417) XXX-2923 from Defendant's phone number (417) 841-5459 despite
being told that he was not interested in its services.
Moreover, Defendant sent Plaintiff an email on or around June 12,
2020 in an attempt to market its different services.
Terminix International Company is a pest control company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan C. Volheim, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630) 568-3056
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com
TERRY YORK: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Wayman Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSALIE WAYMAN, as an individual and on behalf of all other
aggrieved employees v. TERRY YORK MOTOR CARS, LTD, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV22528
(June 15, 2020), seeks civil penalties pursuant to the California
Labor Code, Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.
The Plaintiff contends that during her employment with the
Defendants, she and aggrieved employees were paid on a commission
basis, whereby, they were paid a commission per vehicle sold or
leased. While paid on a commission basis, they were not separately
compensated for time spent working on tasks, which were not
compensated on a commission basis, including, for example, hours
spent waiting for customers and attending sales meetings (i.e.,
non-productive time), according to the complaint. As a result, they
were not paid at least the minimum wage for all hours worked.
The Plaintiff also alleges that she and other aggrieved employees
routinely worked in excess of 8 hours per workday and/or 40 hours
per workweek, but did not receive overtime compensation equal to
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for working
overtime hours.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants since June 2019.
The Defendants own and operate the Land Rover Encino car dealership
in Encino, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen Z. Boren, Esq.
Lance M. Williams, Esq.
BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP
222 North Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 2222
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 322-2021
Facsimile: (310) 322-2228
E-mail: sboren@bollaw.com
lwilliams@bollaw.com
TIVITY HEALTH: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tivity Health, 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 seeking to be appointed lead
plaintiff and counsel in the class action suit initiated by Robert
Strougo is pending.
On February 25, 2020, Robert Strougo, claiming to be a stockholder
of the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who
purchased the Company's Common Stock between March 8, 2019 and
February 19, 2020 (the "Strougo Lawsuit").
The Strougo Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming the
Company, the Company's chief financial officer and former chief
executive officer as defendants.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the
Exchange Act in making false and misleading statements and
omissions related to the performance of the Nutrisystem business
that the Company acquired on March 8, 2019.
The complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported
class.
Three parties have filed a motion seeking to be appointed lead
plaintiff and counsel, but the Court has not ruled on those
motions.
Tivity said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation and the
preliminary stage of the case, we are currently not able to predict
the probable outcome of the matter or to reasonably estimate a
range of potential loss, if any. We intend to vigorously defend
ourselves against this complaint."
Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement
programs in the United States. The company was formerly known as
Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in
January 2017. Tivity Health, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.
TIVITY HEALTH: Trial in Weiner Class Suit to Begin May 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tivity Health, 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 initiated by Eric Weiner
is currently set for trial on May 18, 2021.
On November 20, 2017, Eric Weiner, claiming to be a stockholder of
the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who
purchased the Company's Common Stock between February 24, 2017 and
November 3, 2017 ("Weiner Lawsuit").
The Weiner Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming as defendants
the Company, the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial
officer and a former executive who served as both chief accounting
officer and interim chief financial officer.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act in making false and
misleading statements and omissions related to the United Press
Release.
The complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported
class.
On April 3, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing the
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead
plaintiff, designated counsel for the lead plaintiff, and
established certain deadlines for the case.
On June 4, 2018, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.
The Court denied the Company's Motion to Dismiss on March 18, 2019
and the Company's Motion to Reconsider on May 22, 2019.
On January 29, 2020, the Court granted lead plaintiff's motion to
certify the class. The Company has appealed the Order certifying
the class to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.
The case is currently set for trial on May 18, 2021.
* * *
In a June 11, 2020 order, Magistrate Judge Alistair Newbern granted
the Joint Motion for Limited Extension of Schedule filed by
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System. The Court
held that the deadline to conclude fact discovery and file any
related motions is extended to October 2, 2020. All other deadlines
remain as previously set.
Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement
programs in the United States. The company was formerly known as
Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in
January 2017. Tivity Health, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.
TRUIST BANK: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agent Fees, Ratliff Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ratliff CPA Firm, PC, a South Carolina Professional Corporation,
individually and on behalf of a class of similar situated
businesses and individuals v. Truist Bank and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-02207-BHH (D.S.C., June 11, 2020),
alleges that Truist refuses to comply with the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security Act that requires it to pay loan
agent fees out of the compensation it received for processing
Paycheck Protection Program loans.
On March 27, 2020, the United States Congress enacted the CARES
Act. A signature piece of this landmark legislation is the SBA's
PPP, which initially authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable
loans to small businesses to cover payroll and other expenses (PPP
I). After the initial funds quickly dried up, Congress added $310
billion additional dollars to the program (PPP II).
The PPP was designed to be fast and straightforward, allowing
business to apply through SBA-approved lenders and await approval.
Once approved, lenders would be compensated in the form of a
generous origination fee paid by the federal government, with the
requirement that the lender would be responsible for paying the fee
owed to the loan applicant's agent (e.g., attorney or accountant).
The lawsuit seeks compensation from Truist for services the
Plaintiff and a large number of other agents rendered on behalf of
recipients of Small Business Administration emergency loans.
Ratliff provides corporate and individual taxation advice to its
clients and performs financial planning and consulting for both
businesses and individuals in the local community. Ratliff meets
the criteria to be a PPP Agent under the CARES Act.
Truist Bank offers housing loans, lines of credit, and credit
cards.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard A. Harpootlian, Esq.
RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, P.A.
1410 Laurel Street (29201)
Post Office Box 1090
Columbia, SC 29202
Telephone: (803) 252-4848
Facsimile: (803) 252-4810
E-mail: rah@harpootlianlaw.com
- and -
Mark C. Tanenbaum, Esq.
MARK C. TANENBAUM, P.A.
1017 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Suite 101
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (803) 577-5100
Facsimile: 843-722-4688
E-mail: mark@tanenbaumlaw.com
- and -
Vincent A. Sheheen, Esq.
Michael D. Wright, Esq.
SAVAGE, ROYALL & SHEHEEN, L.L.P.
P.O. Drawer 10
Camden, S.C. 29021
Telephone: (803) 432-4391
Facsimile: (803) 425-4812
E-mail: mwright@thesavagefirm.com
- and -
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT: 8th Circuit Appeal Filed in Pederson Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., filed an appeal from
the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on June
8, 2020, in the lawsuit styled Dan Pederson, et al v. Donald J.
Trump for President, Inc., Case No. 0:19-cv-02735-JRT, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the
organization, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., in negligently,
and/or willfully contacting Plaintiffs through text messages on
Plaintiffs' cellular telephones, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiffs' privacy.
Trump For President is the official candidate committee that
facilitates and financially supports Mr. Trump's campaign for
office. Trump For President is registered with the Federal
Elections Commission. Trump For President routinely sends text
messages to wireless telephones with automatic telephone dialing
equipment without the wireless users prior express consent.
The appellate case is captioned as Dan Pederson, et al. v. Donald
J. Trump for President, Inc., Case No. 20-2239, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees Dan Pederson, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Connor Olson, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, and Shell Wheeler, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Kas Gallucci, Esq.
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF RON A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
E-mail: kas@consuneradvocates.com
ron@consumersadvocates.com
alexis@consumeradvocates.com
- and -
Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Esq.
CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A.
367 Commerce Street
Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Telephone: (651) 770-9707
E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com
Defendant-Appellant Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., a
principal campaign committee, is represented by:
Benjamin L. Ellison, Esq.
JONES DAY
90 S. Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 217-8800
E-mail: bellison@jonesday.com
- and -
Kaytlin Roholt, Esq.
Brett A. Shumate, Esq.
JONES DAY
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001-2113
Telephone: (202) 879-3939
E-mail: kroholtlane@jonesday.com
bshumate@jonesday.com
TRUSTMARK CORP: Investors' Appeal Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Trustmark 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 appeal by certain individual investors and
entities from their court-dismissed motion to intervene in a class
action lawsuit against Trustmark National Bank (TNB) remains
pending.
On August 23, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain,
Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis
Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano (collectively, Class
Plaintiffs), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, naming TNB and four other financial institutions and one
individual, each of which are unaffiliated with Trustmark, as
defendants.
The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent transfers
from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and other monies
received by each defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen
Stanford (collectively, the Stanford Financial Group) and (ii)
damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or
more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit
fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds that
defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group
was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme. Class Plaintiffs
have demanded a jury trial. Class Plaintiffs did not quantify
damages.
In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings. In May 2010, all
defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit.
In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the formation of
an Official Stanford Investors Committee (OSIC) to represent the
interests of Stanford investors and, under certain circumstances,
to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford investors. In
December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this action.
In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a
magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial
issues. In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's motion to
intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint against one
of the other defendant financial institutions.
In February 2013, the OSIC filed a second Intervenor Complaint that
asserts claims against TNB and the remaining defendant financial
institutions.
The OSIC seeks to recover: (i) alleged fraudulent transfers in the
amount of the fees each of the defendants allegedly received from
Stanford Financial Group, the profits each of the defendants
allegedly made from Stanford Financial Group deposits, and other
monies each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford
Financial Group; (ii) damages attributable to alleged conspiracies
by each of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to
commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud and conversion on the
asserted grounds that the defendants knew or should have known the
Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent
scheme; and (iii) punitive damages. The OSIC did not quantify
damages.
In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the OSIC's claims. In March 2015, the court entered an
order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery regarding class
certification, staying all other discovery and setting a deadline
for the parties to complete briefing on class certification issues.
In April 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' claims and the
OSIC's claims. The court dismissed all of the Class Plaintiffs'
fraudulent transfer claims and dismissed certain of the OSIC's
claims.
The court denied the motions by TNB and the other financial
institution defendants to dismiss the OSIC's constructive
fraudulent transfer claims.
On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), which asserted new
claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for (i)
aiding, abetting and participating in a fraudulent scheme, (ii)
aiding, abetting and participating in violations of the Texas
Securities Act, (iii) aiding, abetting and participating in
breaches of fiduciary duty, (iv) aiding, abetting and participating
in conversion and (v) conspiracy.
On July 14, 2015, the defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the SAC and to reconsider the court's prior denial to
dismiss the OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims against
TNB and the other financial institutions that are defendants in the
action.
On July 27, 2016, the court denied the motion by TNB and the other
financial institution defendants to dismiss the SAC and also denied
the motion by TNB and the other financial institution defendants to
reconsider the court's prior denial to dismiss the OSIC's
constructive fraudulent transfer claims. On August 24, 2016, TNB
filed its answer to the SAC.
On October 20, 2017, the OSIC filed a motion seeking an order
lifting the discovery stay and establishing a trial schedule. On
November 4, 2016, the OSIC filed a First Amended Intervenor
Complaint, which added claims for (i) aiding, abetting or
participation in violations of the Texas Securities Act and (ii)
aiding, abetting or participation in the breach of fiduciary duty.
On November 7, 2017, the court denied the Class Plaintiffs' motion
seeking class certification and designation of class
representatives and counsel, finding that common issues of fact did
not predominate.
The court granted the OSIC's motion to lift the discovery stay that
it had previously ordered.
On May 3, 2019, individual investors and entities filed motions to
intervene in the action. On September 18, 2019, the court denied
the motions to intervene.
On October 14, 2019, certain of the proposed intervenors filed a
notice of appeal.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Trustmark Corporation operates as the bank holding company for
Trustmark National Bank that provides banking and other financial
solutions to individuals and corporate institutions in the United
States. Trustmark Corporation was founded in 1889 and is
headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi.
UNITED STATES OIL: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on June 22
disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of
shareholders of United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO" or the "Company")
(NYSE:USO). The class action is on behalf of shareholders who
purchased USO securities between March 19, 2020 and April 28, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff in this class action, you must move the Court no later
than August 18, 2020.
USO is an exchange-traded fund ("ETF") supposedly designed to track
the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of West
Texas Intermediate ("WTI") light, sweet crude oil delivered to
Cushing, Oklahoma.
The lawsuit 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. Due to
extraordinary market conditions in early 2020, USO's purported
investment objective and strategy became unfeasible. According to
the complaint, 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.
If you are interested in learning more about the case, please
contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If you
email, please include your phone number.
About Johnson Fistel, LLP
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes.
Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, 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
lawsuit entitled, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et. al. v.
Universal Health Services, Inc. et. al. (Case No.
2:17-CV-02817-LS).
In December 2016 a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the company (UHS) and certain UHS officers alleging
violations of the federal securities laws. The case was originally
filed as Heed v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et. al. (Case No.
2:16-CV-09499-PSG-JC).
The court subsequently appointed Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund
and Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiffs.
The case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the style of the case has been
changed to Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et. al. v. Universal
Health Services, Inc. et. al. (Case No. 2:17-CV-02817-LS).
In September 2017, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund filed an
amended complaint. The amended class action complaint alleges
violations of federal securities laws relating to disclosures made
in public filings associated with alleged practices and operations
at the company's behavioral health facilities.
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for shareholders during the
defined class period as a result of the decrease in share price
following various public disclosures or reports.
In December 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. In August 2019, the court granted the company's motion
to dismiss. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion with the court
seeking leave to file a second amended complaint.
In April 2020, the court denied Plaintiffs' motion to file a second
amended complaint.
Universal Health said, "We deny liability and intend to defend
ourselves vigorously. At this time, we are uncertain as to
potential liability or financial exposure, if any, which may be
associated with this matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Universal Health Services, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates acute care hospitals, outpatient facilities, and
behavioral health care facilities. The company operates through
Acute Care Hospital Services, Behavioral Health Care Services, and
Other segments. Universal Health Services, Inc. founded in 1978 and
is headquartered in King Of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
USANA HEALTH: Lacasse Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MEGAN LACASSE, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated v. USANA HEALTH SCIENCES, INC., a Utah corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-00278413, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California on June 15, 2020.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-01186-KJM-AC to the proceeding.
In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated the California Labor Code arising from their failure to
pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay minimum wage, and failure to reimburse
business expenses.
USANA, is a Utah-based multi-level marketing company that produces
various nutritional products, dietary supplements and skincare
products.[BN]
The Defendant USANA is represented by:
Gregory M. Saylin, Esq.
David R. Williams, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART LLP
222 South Main Street, Suite 2200
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Telephone: (801) 799-5800
Facsimile: (801) 799-5700
E-mail: gmsaylin@hollandhart.com
drwilliams@hollandhart.com
USC: Kerendian Suit Removed From Super. Court to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN KERENDIAN, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all members of the putative
class, v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV17388 (Filed May 6, 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 11, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-05190-AB-SK to the proceeding.
The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract; unjust
enrichment; conversion; and violation of California Business and
Professions Code.
USC is a private research university in Los Angeles, California.
Founded in 1880, it is the oldest private research university in
California.[BN]
Defendant University of Southern California is represented by:
Michelle C. Doolin, Esq.
Leo P. Norton, Esq.
Alexandra R. Mayhugh, Esq.
Michael N. Sheetz, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
4401 Eastgate Mall
San Diego, CA 92121-1909
Telephone: 858 550 6000
Facsimile: 858 550 6420
E-mail: mdoolin@cooley.com
lnorton@cooley.com
amayhugh@cooley.com
msheetz@cooley.com
USHEALTH ADVISORS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, St. Clair Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANUEL ST. CLAIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. USHEALTH ADVISORS, LLC, Defendant, Case
0:20-cv-61206-RKA (S.D. Fla., June 18, 2020) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
USHEALTH Group, Inc. provides insurance services. The Company
offers life, specified disease, sickness, accident, and disability
insurance solutions for self-employed individuals, families, small
business owners, and employees. USHEALTH Group serves its clients
in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
VALEANT PHARMA: $1.21-Bil. Deal Recommended for Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-07658, Special Master Judge
Dennis M. Cavanaugh, U.S.D.J. (ret), has recommended the approval
of the Lead Plaintiff's motions for (1) Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement and Plan of Allocation, and (2) An Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Awards to Plaintiffs Pursuant to
15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(4).
The Special Master issued his Report and Recommendation on June 15,
2020.
The Report and Recommendation has not yet been adopted by the
District Court, said Ted Pintar, Esq., at Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, the Plaintiffs' lead counsel.
The Settlement, if approved, will result in the creation of a cash
settlement fund of $1,210,000,000. This fund, plus accrued
interest and minus costs associated with notices, administration of
the Settlement, any taxes and tax expenses, as well as attorneys'
fees and expenses, and any award to Plaintiffs in connection with
their representation of the Class, as approved by the Court -- Net
Settlement Fund -- will be distributed to eligible Class Members
pursuant to a Plan of Allocation.
The Litigation is currently pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey before the Hon. Michael A.
Shipp.
Valeant, now known as Bausch Health Companies 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 October
2015, four putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company
and certain current or former officers and directors.
The allegations related to, among other things, allegedly false and
misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about
the Company's business and prospects, including relating to drug
pricing, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies, and the
Company's relationship with Philidor Rx Services, LLC.
On May 31, 2016, the court entered an order consolidating the four
actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-07658.
On June 24, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the Company, and certain current or former officers and
directors, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against the
Company, certain current or former officers and directors, and
certain other parties.
The lead plaintiff seeks to bring these claims on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased the Company's equity
securities and senior notes in the United States between January 4,
2013 and March 15, 2016, including all those who purchased the
Company's securities in the United States in the Company's debt and
stock offerings between July 2013 to March 2015.
On September 13, 2016, the Company and the other defendants moved
to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
On April 28, 2017, the court dismissed certain claims arising out
of the Company's private placement offerings and otherwise denied
the motions to dismiss.
On September 20, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
adding claims against ValueAct Capital Management L.P. and
affiliated entities ("ValueAct"). On October 31, 2018, a
third-party defendant, ValueAct, filed a motion to dismiss. On June
30, 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.
On December 16, 2019, the Company, the current or former officers
and directors, ValueAct, and the underwriters announced that they
agreed to resolve the securities action, subject to final court
approval.
Once approved by the court, the settlement will resolve and
discharge all claims against the Company in the class action. As
part of the settlement, the Company and the other settling
defendants admitted no liability as to the claims against it and
deny all allegations of wrongdoing.
On January 27, 2020 the court preliminarily approved the settlement
and scheduled the final settlement approval hearing for May 27,
2020.
In order to qualify for a settlement payment all persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company
securities during the class period must have submitted a proof of
claim and release form by May 6, 2020. The settlement payment is
being paid in accordance with the payment schedule outlined in the
settlement agreement. Opt-out litigations remain ongoing.
No Modifications
The Special Master recommended approval of the settlement without
modification, including a fee award of 13%, or roughly $157 million
of the fund, to the class' lead counsel, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP. He also recommended approval of $1.67 million for
costs.
Holly Barker, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that applying the
factors described by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit in Girsh v. Jepson, Cavanaugh said the circumstances
overwhelmingly supported approval. Claims under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act are, by design, difficult to
litigate. And the case presented unique substantive challenges
given Valeant's assertion that it was the victim of a rogue
employee convicted in 2018 of defrauding the company, potentially
undermining one of the plaintiffs' key theories.
In recommending final approval, Cavanaugh relied heavily on
Valeant's uncertain financial condition and inability to pay a
larger judgment.
"The Settlement in this case is nearly 150% of Valeant's cash on
hand, requiring Valeant to issue additional debt to fund the
Settlement, which makes it a particularly good result in light of
the risks of ongoing litigation," Cavanaugh wrote.
With respect to attorneys' fees, Cavanaugh concluded a 13% award
was reasonable for what he called an "excellent result" in
complicated, high-risk litigation.
The lodestar, or fees based on hours worked, multiplied by a
reasonable hourly rate, would have been about $42 million, meaning
the award is the equivalent of 3.6 times the estimated billing.
"The Settlement is the ninth largest PSLRA class action settlement
ever, the largest against a pharmaceutical manufacturer, and the
largest in this District in almost two decades," Cavanaugh said.
There were only two objections to the fee award, notwithstanding
the well over 400,000 notices sent to potential class members, and
Cavanaugh found neither persuasive, concluding the fee award was
within the normal range and justified by the over 75,000 hours of
work performed by class counsel to litigate and finally settle the
claims.
Lead plaintiffs, the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of
America, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and
the City of Tuscon, were awarded $66,495, $3,002.75, and $3,275,
respectively.
Settlement Objections
The Special Master also recommended that two objections to the deal
-- by Jaskirat Lakhat and Timber Hill, LLC -- must be overruled.
Lakhat said as he does not believe the Settlement is equitable as
he lost over $100,000 due to the alleged fraudulent and negligible
action of Defendants. Lakhat objects and requests a variance or
deviation of $45.00 per share as an equitable settlement.
According to the Special Master, Lakhat's suggestion of an
equitable settlement would equate to a classwide settlement of
about $25 billion, which Defendants have not agreed to nor is it
clear they could fund.
Timber Hill argued that the deal gives preferential treatment to
Valeant Common Stock and specified Valeant Debt Investors at the
expense of Valeant Option Investors, and prevents Valeant Option
Investors from sharing in the Net Settlement Fund based on their
insider trading claims under Section 20A of the Exchange Act.
Timber Hill said the Plan of Allocation allows the Valeant Common
Stock and Valeant Debt Investors to share in the Net Settlement
Fund on a pro rata basis, while the recovery of Valeant Option
Investors is limited to a separate, arbitrarily-allocated and
capped fund.
Under the proposed Plan of Allocation, 95% of the Net Settlement
Fund will be allocated to Valeant common stock and specified
Valeant debt securities, with no more than 5% of the Net Settlement
Fund allocated to options on Valeant common stock. Timber Hill
argued that the Valeant Options Investors should be permitted to
share in the recovery on a pro rata basis, that the 5% allocation
is arbitrary and represents only about half of the Valeant Options
Investors' pro rata share of the overall recovery, and that the
putative allocation has a "cap" and clawback feature that returns
any unpaid portion of the 5% allocation back into the pro rata pool
shared by Valeant Common Stock and Valeant Debt Investors.
Timber Hill said the Settlement should be denied final approval or
otherwise modified to permit Valeant Option Investors to share in
the Net Settlement Fundo on a pro rata basis and to receive the
same Section 20A "enhancement" as Valeant Common Stock Investors.
Lead Plaintiff argued that Timber Hill already advocated for a
5.35% options cap prior to preliminary approval of the settlement
and should not be permitted to nearly double its proposed options
cap after being advised that the Plan of Allocation already
provided for a 5% cap.
Lead Plaintiff said that when the Settlement was publicly
announced, counsel for Timber Hill contacted Lead Counsel proposing
an allocation for the derivatives investors, based on its own
expert analysis, in the "5.35% range[.]" Lead Counsel responded
that the Plan of Allocation already provided for an allocation of
up to 5% for option claimants.
Then, after the Special Master entered the Preliminary Approval
Order, Timber Hill and its expert increased their proposed
allocation to 9.5% and objected to the Preliminary Approval Order.
Lead Plaintiff said Timber Hill's counsel and its expert have
previously supported and agreed to allocations of less than 5%.
The Special Master held that the treatment of options in the Plan
of Allocation is a generally accepted and widely used methodology
for equitably allocating a settlement fund in light of the
differentiating factors affecting options damages. According to
the Special Master, Timber Hill has failed to cite to any case law
or controlling precedent to the contrary.
The Special Master noted that Professor Steven P. Feinstein, Ph.D.,
who assisted Lead Counsel in developing the Plan of Allocation of
the Net Settlement Fund, has indicated the Recognized Loss for
Valeant Option Investors under the Plan of Allocation is computed
equal to the investment loss, while the Recognized Loss for Valeant
Common Stock and Valeant Note Investors is computed as the lesser
of the investment loss and the inflation loss. Thus, Valeant
Option Investors have larger computed Recognized Losses relative to
Valeant common stock and note investors. That, in conjunction with
the economic bases for limits on the aggregate recovery of options
class members, as recognized by Timber Hill's expert -- such as
option values naturally diminish overtime and the complex option
price dynamics makes it difficult to differentiate between fraud-
and non-fraud-based factors -- serves as the basis for the
allocation and cap on the Valeant Option Investors' recovery under
the Plan of Allocation.
With respect to Timber Hill's argument that the Plan of Allocation
improperly permits only the Common Stock Investors to recover for
Section 20A claims, Dr. Feinstein notes that the Plan of Allocation
only permits affected stock transactions to recognize a "market
loss" instead of an "inflation-adjusted loss," and Valeant Option
Investors are already permitted to recognize market loss under the
Section 10(b) portion of the Plan of Allocation. Timber Hill
claims that permitting Common Stock Investors to recognize a
"market loss" is itself an "enhancement" that is not likewise
extended to the Valeant Option Investors. Timber Hill cites no
case law or binding authority to
support this claim and the Special Master found the argument
unpersuasive.
* * *
The Defendants are Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
(n/k/a Bausch Health Companies Inc.), J. Michael Pearson, Howard B.
Schiller, Robert L. Rosiello, Deborah Jorn, Ari S. Kellen, Tanya
Carro, Jeffrey W. Ubben, Robert A. Ingram, Ronald H. Farmer,
Colleen Goggins, Anders Lonner, Theo Melas-Kyriazi, Robert N.
Power, Norma Provencio, Katharine B. Stevenson, Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., MUFG Securities
Americas Inc. f/k/a Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA) Inc., DNB
Markets, Inc., Barclays Capital Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, RBC
Capital Markets, LLC, Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., ValueAct
Capital Management, L.P., VA Partners I, LLC, ValueAct Holdings,
L.P., ValueAct Capital Master Fund, L.P., ValueAct Co-Invest Master
Fund, L.P.
Defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is not part of the deal.
Litigation against PwC is ongoing.
Additional information on the settlement is available at:
http://www.valeantsecuritiessettlement.com/
Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.
VERDE ENERGY: Abbate Sues Over Bait-and-Switch Electricity Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL ABBATE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VERDE ENERGY USA OHIO, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-03196-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, June 24, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated consumers in Ohio, alleges that the Defendant is engaged
in deceptive practice of luring consumers to switch to its
electricity supply services by offering, for a limited period of
time, teaser rates that are initially lower than the local Electric
Distribution Companies' (EDC's) rates and other competing Certified
Retail Electric Suppliers' (CRESs) rates for electricity. Once the
initial rate expires, the Defendant automatically switches its
customers over to its variable rate, which is higher than the rates
of its competitors. Verde's rates remain at an extraordinarily high
premium rate for electricity regardless of fluctuations in the
underlying market price.
As a result of the Defendant's unfair and deceptive scheme, the
Plaintiff and Class members paid and continue to pay for higher and
above-market electricity rates that do not correlate with market
conditions.
Verde Energy USA Ohio, LLC is a certified retail electric supplier
with principal place of business located at 12140 Wickchester Lane,
Suite 100, Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8297
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and –
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM, LLC
134 Kings Hwy. E., 2nd Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 772-7200
E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
- and –
Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
First Tennessee Plaza
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0090
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
Lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and –
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Harper T. Segui, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON, LLP
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
E-mail: Dan@whitfieldbryson.com
harper@whitfieldbryson.com
WALMART INC: McKnight-Nero Balks at Prejudiced ID of Customers
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHEKETA MCKNIGHT-NERO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WALMART, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01541-APM (D.
Colo., June 11, 2020), alleges that Walmart's policy of requiring
door security officers to arbitrarily identify which shoppers are,
"Customers with Compromised Health," is implemented in a
discriminatory manner.
The Plaintiff contends that Walmart's arbitrary policy of allowing
contracted security guards to identify people, whom they perceive
as disabled or not, and to control entry, is a violation of the
D.C. Human Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
On May 12, 2020, Ms. McKnight-Nero arrived at the Georgia Avenue
location at approximately 6:20 a.m. Upon arriving to the entrance
of the store, she was prohibited from entering the store by a
contracted security guard from Brosnan Security Solutions. Ms.
McKnight has Polycythemia Vera, anemic, high blood pressure and has
endured several strokes in her life. Consequently, she is
considered "immunocompromised," or someone with a compromised
health condition, says the complaint.
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ikechukwu Emejuru, Esq.
EMEJURU LAW L.L.C.
8403 Colesville Road, Suite 1100
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (240) 638-2786
Facsimile: 1-800-250-7923
E-mail: iemejuru@emejurulaw.com
- and -
Andrew Nyombi, Esq.
KNA Pearl L.L.C.
8701 Georgia Avenue, Suite 606
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 585-1568
Facsimile: 1-800-250-7923
E-mail: anyombi@knapearl.com
WATERS OF NORTH LITTLE: Underpays Nurses, Ellis Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA ELLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE WATERS OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK, LLC, Case
No. 4:20-cv-00767-LPR (E.D. Ark., June 19, 2020) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.
The Plaintiff Ellis was employed by the Defendant as nurse.
The Waters of North Little Rock, LLC, is a nursing home provider
located at Little Rock, Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
Little Rock, AK 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
WLP EXECUTIVE: Court Denies Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MICHAEL BIRD, DARRIUS
WILLIAMS, and DONTAE TRAVIER, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated employees v. WLP EXECUTIVE PROTECTION GROUP,
LLC, RON WARE, JAMES PITTS, and JEFFREY LILLARD, Case No.
1:19-cv-00442-GJQ-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Gordon J. Qquist
entered an order:
1. granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and
2. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification; and
3. dismissing with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims against
the Defendants.[CC]
WOODBRIDGE VISTA: Thompson Rogers Issues Class Action Proceeding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Edwards, writing for The Post Millennial, reports that a class
action proceeding has been issued by Thompson Rogers claiming
damages of $15 million on behalf of families and residents of a
Woodbridge long-term care home. The home -- Woodbridge Vista Care
Community -- owned by Sienna Senior Living and it lost dozens of
residents to coronavirus-related deaths for what plaintiffs say was
neglect, reports the REMI Network.
Thompson Rogers issued a press release on June 15, 2020 stating
that Joanne Dykeman, Sienna's Executive Vice President of
Operations made "disparaging and mocking comments" towards the
home's residents and families during an online meeting on June 3.
She was dismissed from her position as a result of the incident.
William Osler Health System's was appointed as interim manager by
the Ontario government on June 5—replacing Sienna. The Canadian
Armed Forces around June 7, were deployed to the long-term care
home to help with the provision of care. On June 12, Sienna
president and CEO, Louis Cormack resigned.
"This is the second action Thomson Rogers has advanced on behalf of
residents at a Sienna Senior Living facility," noted Stephen
Birman, a partner involved in the class actions. "The reported
conditions at Woodbridge Vista and the Altamont Care facilities are
appalling. As a community we trust these facilities to take care of
our loved ones with an expectation that the needs of our most
vulnerable are looked after."
Thompson Rogers has also contacted Prime Minister Trudeau's office
along with the office of Premier Doug Ford, requesting that the
cost of the Canadian Armed Forces deployment and the involvement of
William Osler Health System's does not fall on taxpayers.
"These costs should be fully reimbursed by Sienna and not
shouldered by the taxpayers of Ontario and Canada," Birman noted.
Thomson Rogers says plaintiffs involved in the class action suit
seek compensation for the deaths of their loved ones and they
support the idea of an independent commission for the long-term
care system in Ontario. [GN]
WWE: Responds to Saudi Arabia Incident Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Matt Boone, writing for EWrestling, reports that WWE is currently
dealing with multiple class action lawsuits against it and one
filed by Firefighters Pension of System of the City of Kansas City
Missouri Trust ended up featuring anonymous testimony from a
wrestler who was among the April cuts who detailed an alleged
"hostage situation" last November when WWE visited Saudi Arabia for
their twice annual event.
The wrestler, who apparently worked for WWE from 2012 until this
year, also indicated that WWE abused their power and threatened
careers when addressing any talent who didn't want to travel to
Saudi Arabia to wrestle.
WWE, through its third party attorney Jerry McDevitt at K&L Gates
law firm, responded to the accusations with the following
statements to Forbes:
"These false allegations were originally made in two suits filed by
two different law firms. After the Court appointed a third firm to
be lead counsel, WWE provided all three law firms with specific
detailed facts from the persons with actual knowledge of the
situation, including the phony allegation about the plane. The
first two law firms then dropped their lawsuits to avoid sanction
motions, but the third firm chose to ignore the specific facts they
had been provided, and instead cited an unnamed disgruntled former
wrestler with no knowledge of the facts. WWE is preparing its
response to the lawsuit and will be moving to have it dismissed."
Other accusations against WWE in the suit include "wildly
unreasonable expectations of the revenue it expected from a
potential broadcast partner" and for the company misleading
investors by blaming live event declines on talent injuries and
absences. [GN]
ZHEJIANG HUAHAI: Employers Suit Over Illegal VCDs Moved to D.N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as EMPLOYERS AND LABORERS LOCALS
100 AND 397 HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND and STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 439,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ZHEJIANG HUAHAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-00125(Filed Jan. 1, 2020), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden) on June 15,
2020.
The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-07285 to the proceeding.
The lawsuit seeks to recover for the economic harm caused by the
Defendants as a result of the Plaintiffs' and other Class members'
reimbursements for the Defendants' alleged adulterated, misbranded,
and/or unapproved valsartan and valsartan-containing drugs (VCDs)
illegally manufactured, sold, labeled, marketed and distributed in
the United States as Food and Drug Administration-approved generic
versions of Diovan, Diovan HCT, Exforge, and Exforge HCT.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and Class members'
beneficiaries who ingested VCDs manufactured, distributed, and sold
by Defendants were exposed to N-nitrosodimethylamine, a probable
human carcinogen, N-nitrosodiethylamine, a suspected human
carcinogen, and potentially other unsafe, non-FDA-approved
ingredients. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants knew or had
reason to know that their VCDs were adulterated, misbranded, not
FDA-approved, and would increase the risk of cancer to users.
Valsartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker used to treat high
blood pressure and heart failure. Valsartan and VCDs are generic
versions of the branded registered listed drugs (RLDs) Diovan,
Diovan HCT, Exforge, and/or Exforge HCT.
The Plaintiffs and Class members are third-party payors private
health insurance companies, third-party administrators, health
maintenance organizations, municipalities or governmental entities
health and welfare funds that make payments from their own funds
and other health benefit providers and entities with self-funded
plans that contract with health insurers or administrators to
administer prescription drug benefits.
The Defendants are pharmaceutical companies engaged in the
manufacturing, sale, and distribution of VCDs in the United States.
The Defendants include HUAHAI US INC.; PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL INC.
d/b/a SOLCO HEALTHCARE LLC; SOLCO HEALTHCARE US, LLC; HETERO LABS,
LTD.; HETERO DRUGS, LIMITED; HETERO USA INC.; CAMBER
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; MYLAN LABORATORIES, LTD.; MYLAN N.V.; MYLAN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; AUROBINDO PHARMA, LTD.; AUROBINDO PHARMA
USA, INC.; AUROLIFE PHARMA, LLC; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; ARROW PHARM MALTA LTD.; ACTAVIS PHARMA,
INC.; ACTAVIS, LLC; TORRENT PRIVATE LIMITED; TORRENT
PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.; TORRENT PHARMA, INC.; "JOHN DOE"
WHOLESALERS; A-S MEDICATION SOLUTIONS, LLC; BRYANT RANCH PREPACK,
INC.; H J HARKINS CO., INC. d/b/a PHARMA PAC; MAJOR
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; REMEDYREPACK, INC.; NORTHWIND
PHARMACEUTICALS; NUCARE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; PREFERRED
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; AVKARE, INC.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE,
INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; WALMART INC.; RITE AID CORPORATION;
THE KROGER, CO.; MEDICINE SHOPPE INTERNATIONAL, INC.; EXPRESS
SCRIPTS, INC.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY; PRAXIS SPECIALTY
PHARMACY, LLC; and "JOHN DOE" PHARMACIES.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Cates, Esq.
CATES MAHONEY, LLC
216 W Pointe Drive, Suite A
Swansea, IL 62226
Telephone: (618) 277-3644
Facsimile: (618) 277-7882
E-mail: DCates@cateslaw.com
- and -
Charles J. Baricevic, Esq.
CHATHAM & BARICEVIC
107 West Main Street
Belleville, IL 62220
Telephone: (618) 233-2200
Facsimile: (618) 233-1589
E-mail: cj@chathamlaw.org
- and -
Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: DLevin@lfsblaw.com
CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com
Nelia@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
- and -
Aaron Rihn, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
707 Grant Street, Suite 125
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-7229
Facsimile: (412) 281-4229
E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com
[*] City of Lethbridge Explores Opioid Crisis Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Lethbridge News Now reports that Mayor Chris Spearman introduced a
motion on June 15 to formally give support to the City of Grande
Prairie's $10-billion class action lawsuit against more than 40
pharmaceutical companies for their alleged role in the opioid
crisis, saying "I don't believe there's a city in Alberta that's
been more significantly impacted than Lethbridge."
"These opioids were manufactured. Manufacturers encouraged doctors
to prescribe them, and then what happened was, as people could no
longer renew their prescriptions, they looked for illicit sources,"
explained Spearman. "The drug problem we have today basically
originated in over-prescription and encouragement of the use of
opioids, which are highly addictive."
The lawsuit claims that these companies falsely and fraudulently
marketed opioids as safe and non-addictive, failed to properly
perform long-term studies on the effects of the drugs, and created
a false perception of safety and value of opioids in the medical
community.
It is also alleged that distributors of the opioids failed to
report suspicious orders, which are required by law, and that they
dispensed, supplied, and sold prescription opioids without proper
safeguards in place.
As it stands, every municipality in Canada is a member of the
lawsuit unless they opt-out.
Council agreed to participate in the lawsuit on a contingency-fee
basis, "which means that our costs would be paid out of any
subsequent award."
According to Spearman, there would be no cost to the taxpayers of
Lethbridge for being a member.
The mayor, however, suggested taking the city's involvement one
step further.
Like Grande Prairie, he proposed becoming a representative
plaintiff in the case. A motion to explore the ramifications of
doing so was approved 8-1 with only Councillor Joe Mauro voting in
opposition.
Representative plaintiffs would have the ability to share their
experiences in court as a means of showing the impacts that the
opioid crisis has had locally.
The analogy used in council was whether we want to ride the bus or
drive it.
"The City of Lethbridge has an experience to offer which is unique
-- here's what happens on a smaller-sized city. We're a city of
100,000 people and this is probably the most significant health
crisis that we have faced in more than 100 years. The impact on the
city, the cost to the residents, the cost to taxpayers, the cost to
businesses has been significant."
According to the latest Alberta Opioid Response Surveillance
Report, 16 people in Lethbridge died as a result of accidental
deaths related to fentanyl in 2019, while another four succumbed to
opioids other than fentanyl.
Between January 2016 and the end of 2019, there was 1,629 times
where people sought emergency care at Chinook Regional Hospital due
to opioid and other drug use.
Spearman says he has spoken to the mayors of Grande Prairie,
Edmonton, Red Deer, and Calgary about the lawsuit and hopes to
continue to do so in the near future.
It should be noted that the lawsuit is in the very early stages.
City Solicitor Brian Loewen has been tasked with looking further
into what becoming a representative plaintiff would entail,
including responsibilities, liabilities, and any potential cost
implications.
A recommendation to council will be made in the near future. [GN]
[*] Two Debt Collection Companies Avert TCPA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Dailey, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that two debt
collection companies convinced an Indiana federal judge to toss a
Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action claiming they sent
more than 6,500 text messages to people who had already replied
"stop," based on the Seventh Circuit's recent autodialer ruling.
The evidence shows the companies used an autodialing system that
sent texts to specific phone numbers gleaned from stored customer
lists, similar to the one that the Seventh Circuit held isn't an
"automatic telephone dialing system" under the TCPA, Judge Jane
Magnus-Stinson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana said on June 15. [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 ***