/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200707.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 7, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 135 Headlines ABBVIE: Plaintiffs Must Decide on Whether to Continue Class Suit ABC PHONES: Duplechain Class Certification Bid Shelved ADVANCED CALL CENTER: Gutierrez Claims Pay for Off-the-Clock Work AMERICAN MEDICAL: Mendell Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass AUTOZONE STORES: Akin Gump Discusses 9th Cir. Ruling in Brady Suit BANC & JACK: Exotic Dancers' Suit Can Proceed as Class BANK OF AMERICA: Jette Files Suit Over Interest Charges BARBEQUE INTEGRATED: Conditional Class Certification Bid Denied BERG'S YACHT: Refinishers Sue to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BIMBO BAKERIES: Camp Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers BIMBO BAKERIES: Underpays Employees, Oddo et al Claim BROOKDALE SENIOR: Posey Sues Over 15% Decline in Share Price C & L WU: Williams Sues Over Aggressive Hotel Check Out Policy CAPITAL ONE NA: Fensterer Sues Over Shelved Trip Refund CASPER SLEEP: Frank R. Cruz Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline CHAD WOLF: Court Denies Motion to Certify Class in C.G.B. Suit CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline CONAGRA BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Made with Real Milk Claim COVERT MANUFACTURING: Underpays Employees, Plaster Claims CREDIT BUREAU: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Zurakov Suit DCM SERVICES: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Brusewitz Suit DISKAL INC: Luis Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages DOBBERSTEIN LAW: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Coffey Suit DONALD TRUMP: Gomez Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Immigrants DYNASTY CONTRACTING: Mendoza Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL ENPHASE ENERGY: Barbuto & Johansson Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline ENPHASE ENERGY: Barbuto & Johansson Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline EOG RESOURCES: Underpays Drilling Supervisors, Cason Suit Says EVENTPRO SERVICES: George Slams Misclassification, Claims Benefits FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE: Aboah Seeks Overtime Pay, Breaks, Pay Slips FANSIDED INC: Underpays Site Expert, Carusillo Alleges FIRST HAWAIIAN: Aloha Accounting Seeks to Recover Agent Fees FIRST TRANSIT: Pendleton Seeks to Certify FLSA Employee Class FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Klein Law Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline GANNETT PUBLISHING: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification GEICO INDEMNITY: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Partially Granted GOLDMAN SACHS: To Seek Review of Abacus CDO Class Action Ruling GOOGLE INC: May Face Class Action Over Pixel 3 Issues GOOGLE LLC: Devaney et al. Sue over Ad Monopoly GRAND CANYON: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of July 13 Deadline HAMILTON BEACH: Block & Leviton Reminds of July 21 Motion Deadline HARBOR FREIGHT: Thomas Sues Over Defective Vehicle Jackstands HEALTH ENROLLMENT: Ketayi Alleges Sham Health Insurance Plans HERSHEY: Patterson Belknap Scores Appellate Win in Class Action HIGHER PATH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Baker Suit Alleges HKS CONSTRUCTION: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages HOMELAND HEALTH: Caballero-Tablada Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages IANTHUS CAPITAL: Cedeno Hits Share Drop Over Defaulted Payments INFINITY ENERGY: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action JPMORGAN CHASE: Rigged Treasury Futures, Breakwater Trading Says KAUFF'S INC: Court Certifies Class of Tow Truck Drivers KPC HEALTHCARE: Gamino Sues Over Shady Selloff Deal LA PLAZA LLC: Flores Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay LALAJA INC: Cond. Certification of FLSA Collective Sought LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA: Class Action Seeks Hotel, Park Refunds LOAN DEPOT: Faces Winters Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls LOUISIANA: J.H. Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Confined Children LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: $4.75 Million Paid in Krammer Settlement LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Ongoing in Mason Class Suit LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Steele Class Action Still Ongoing in Canada MAMMOTH MEDIA: Burns Sues Over Data Breach MARY JANE'S: Faces Keller Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages MASON COMPANIES: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Gibeau Suit MAYO CLINIC: Kuhr Seeks to Certify Class of Florida Residents MIDLAND CREDIT: Schultz Suit Granted Class Status MILLENNIUM STEEL: Charles-Pierre Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Nguyen Sues Over Unpaid Escrow Fund Interest NCAA: Disregards Concussion Effects to Footballers, Manning Claims NCB MANAGEMENT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Otzelberger" NES GLOBAL: Alvarez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages NEW JERSEY EDUC: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Filed NTHRIVE SOLUTIONS: Mearidy Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class OTAY MESA: Court Denies Alvarez Class Certification Bid as Moot PENN CREDIT: Gurzi Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification PETROCHOICE LLC: Gravely Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective PHILADELPHIA: Adeshigbin Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action PINNACLE CLINICAL: Perez Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class PIONEER NATURAL: Kennedy Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class PNC BANK: Bookmyer Seeks to Recover Agent Fees PRUCO LIFE: Settlement of Behfarin Suit Wins Final Approval PURA VIDA: Ruiz Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA RED ROBIN: Settles Rest Break Class Action for $8.5 Million RELIABLE PCA: Badon Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action RELIANCE OILFIELD: Baird Suit Seeks to Certify Class RELIANCE OILFIELD: Court Certifies Collective in Baird Suit RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Lead Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Class RSI ENTERPRISES: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Jance Suit RYDER SYSTEM: Klein Law Reminds of July 20 Motion Deadline SALEM PLACE: Fails to Pay Lawful Overtime Wages, Parker Suit Says SANDHILLS EMERGENCY: Dennis Suit Seeks to Certify APP Class SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Jackson Residents' Water Bill Class Suit Nixed SOUTH HOUSTON MOTORCARS: Jackson Slams Illegal Telemarketing Calls TICKETMASTER: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Related Refunds TO-RISE LLC: Settlement of Lora et al. Case Wins Final Approval TOYOTA MOTOR: Murphy Sues Over Defective Highlander Transmissions U.S. XPRESS: Neely Alleges Unfair Wage Deductions for Truck Drivers U.S.A.: Cole Seeks to Certify Class of Student Loan Borrowers UBER EATS: Delivery Driver Files IC Misclassification Lawsuit UNILEVER: Summary Judgment Upheld in St. Ives Class Action UNITED STATES: Class Action Pending vs ICE Over Mesa Verde Facility UNITED STATES: Detainees Sue Over Denied Right to Contact Counsel UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Gold Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund USA TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal from Decision to Stay Suit Underway USA TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in PA Suit Wins Preliminary Approval VAIL CORP: Bellafatto Sues Over Cancelled Ski Passes, Seeks Refund VAIL CORP: Connolly Wants Ski Pass Refunded Amid COVID-19 Closure VMSB LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Gonzales Claims VOLKSWAGEN: Judge Dismisses Salepeople's Dieselgate Class Action WALMART INC: Gabertan Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts WASTE PRO: Tweedie Suit Seeks to Certify Background Check Class WHITE COUNTY, IN: Hines Seeks to Certify Confined Persons Class XTO ENERGY: Shortchanges Oil/Gas Royalty Payments, Brusamonti Says YOUTUBE: Black Users File Race Discrimination Class Action [*] AUSTRALIA: Restaurant Owners Urged to Seek Class Action [*] Court Hears Meatpacker Cos.' Motion to Dismiss Class Action [*] COVID-19 Class Actions Target Hospitality, Leisure Industry [*] COVID-19 Employment Class Actions May Face Some Obstacles [*] EU Countries, Lawmakers Strike Deal on Class Action Lawsuits [*] Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss Cannabis TCPA Class Actions [*] Victorian Gov't. Allows Contingency Fees for Class Actions ********* ABBVIE: Plaintiffs Must Decide on Whether to Continue Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allison Inserro, writing for The Center for Biosimilars, reports that plaintiffs in a novel class-action lawsuit against AbbVie had until the end of June to try again to pursue their claims that the maker of the blockbuster originator adalimumab (Humira) had created a patent thicket of invalid and unenforceable patents as well as conspired in so-called "pay-for-delay" schemes with competitors to delay market entry. The judge in the case, while noting that the patents have made it nearly impossible for rivals to gain a foothold, said the suit did not constitute a valid antitrust claim. In its motion for the dismissal, filed last fall, AbbVie said that the suit seeks to "upend the well-settled balance between the patent and antitrust laws," that the complaint would end international early-entry patent settlements that do not have the same global market entry date, and that it would "chill medical and therapeutic innovation." In his ruling, US Northern District Court Judge Manish Shah dismissed the consolidated class action suit filed by unions and local governments without prejudice and gave the plaintiffs until June 29 to file a statement as to whether they wish to file an amended complaint or ask that the dismissal convert to a dismissal with prejudice so they can seek appellate review. AbbVie has more than 100 patents on Humira, which the plaintiffs tried to assert was anticompetitive. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that the agreements AbbVie reached with Samsung Bioepis, Mylan, Sandoz, Fresnius Kabi, Momenta, Pfizer, Amgen, and Coherus to prevent competition in the United States, while allowing entry in Europe, constituted illegal market allocation based on geography. The judge wrote that AbbVie may have acted aggressively to protect the Humira patents, but wrote that the suit does not meet the standard for competitive harm that falls under antitrust law. In his dismissal, the judge said the company is immunized from antitrust liability by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which holds that there is immunity for defendants' efforts to petition the government for relief that allegedly has anticompetitive effects. Shah would have had to find that the firm's petitions (patent applications, patent dance exchanges, and resulting lawsuits) are "objectively baseless." With a success rate of 53.4% of AbbVie's patent applications resulting in patents, "it compels the conclusion" that they are not objectively baseless, the court wrote. As well, the company had a high rate of success during inter partes review proceedings. The judge did find that not all of AbbVie's conduct was protected by Noerr-Pennington during the patent dance, but said that the "plaintiffs' theory depends on all the components of AbbVie's conduct as the means to suppress competition." He also did not find a basis for the assertion that the "European entry dates are the quid pro quo for the U.S. market entry dates, and for the period that falls between the two, AbbVie effectively allocated to itself the U.S. market while allocating to the other defendants the European market." These arrangements were not illegal and did not meet the Supreme Court's standard to be considered an anticompetitive "reverse payment." Furthermore, the court found that plaintiffs failed to plead antitrust injury, as the existence of even "one valid and infringed patent" would have precluded biosimilar manufacturers from entering the US market prior to 2023. In addition, the judge said the plaintiffs were not successful in pleading antitrust injury because they did not allege that all of AbbVie's asserted patents were invalid or unenforceable. Some observers think the case is not yet over, calling it an area of unsettled law, but for now, it appears to give an advantage to originator firms looking to defend themselves against aggressive patent portfolios and to settle cases with rivals under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act. A request for comment from the plaintiffs' attorneys was not immediately returned. [GN] ABC PHONES: Duplechain Class Certification Bid Shelved ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as KRISTI DUPLECHAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABC PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC and RICHARD BALOT, Case No. 3:20-cv-00287-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Class: "Individuals who, within the three-year period preceding the date of the Court's Order, were employed as Sales Consultants for ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc., and who's overtime compensation did not include earned commissions and who's hours were reduced for lunch breaks"; 2. authorizing notice to allow potential members of the FLSA Collective Class to opt in to preserve their rights. 3. directing the Defendants to produce to the plaintiff's counsel within 14 days a computer-readable database that includes the names of all potential members of the FLSA Collective Class along with their last known mailing address and telephone number; and 4. approving the proposed notice and consent form. The Plaintiff asserted claims on behalf of a collective class for overtime wages wrongfully not paid to them by ABC Phones. * * * The Conditional Class Certification bid has been set aside pending the Defendant's motion to transfer venue of the case to the Western Division of the Eastern District of North Carolina. In a June 23 Order, Judge John W. deGravelles gave the Plaintiff more time to respond to the Motion to Transfer Venue. Plaintiff's deadline has been extended to August 5 and ABC's deadline to reply to August 19. The Court granted ABC's motion to suspend the deadline to respond to the Motion for Conditional Certification until after the Court rules on ABC's pending Motion to Transfer Venue, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, and Motion to Compel Arbitration. Judge deGravelles held that, if the Motion for Conditional Certification is pending in the Court after the Court rules on these motions, the Court will then issue a Notice of Briefing Schedule on the Motion for Conditional Certification. ABC Phones is doing business in Consumer Electronics & Appliances Stores Industry.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Bullman, Esq. Brian F. Blackwell, Esq. BLACKWELL & BULLMAN, LLC 8322 One Calais Ave., Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: 225 769-2462 Facsimile: 225 769-2463 E-mail: james@blackwell-bullman.com ADVANCED CALL CENTER: Gutierrez Claims Pay for Off-the-Clock Work ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fidel Gutierrez, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01088, (D. Ariz., June 3, 2020) seeks to recover an award of unpaid overtime premiums, liquidated damages, penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and any other remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Arizona Wage Act. Advanced Call Center Technologies provides CRM outsourcing programs for customer service, sales support, fraud & dispute management, claims processing and other programs and custom solutions, with locations all over Arizona where Gutierrez worked as a Customer Service Representative. He claims that he was denied overtime wages for all hours worked before his shift started, booting up, logging in to the programs and/or servers and logging into their phone systems. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen I. Leshner, Esq. STEPHEN I. LESHNER, P.C. 1440 East Missouri Avenue, Suite 265 Phoenix, AZ 85014 Fax: (602) 266-9134 Tel. (602) 266-9000 Email: steve@steveleshner.com AMERICAN MEDICAL: Mendell Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MICHAEL MENDELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-01227-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a statutory damage class and subclass as follows: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Confidential Communication Class: "all persons in California, that never called Defendant, whose first call from Defendant was recorded without their consent by Defendant and/or its agent/s from July 1, 2018 through July 31, 2019 (the date when AMR modified its practice to notify callers of recording at the outset of the call"; and Cellular Phone Communication Sub-Class: "all persons in California, that never called Defendant, whose first call from Defendant to their cellular phone was recorded without their consent by Defendant and/or its agent/s from July 1, 2018 through July 31, 2019 (the date when AMR modified its practice to notify callers of recording at the outset of the call"; 2. appointing himself as Class Representative; and 3. appointing Joshua B. Swigart of Swigart Law Group and Daniel G. Shay of the Law Office of Daniel G. Shay as counsel for the class. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the two classes that enjoins the Defendant from recording future telephone conversations without first advising the other party to those conversations at the outset of the call and before recording commences that such calls are being recorded. American Medical is a medical transportation company in the United States that provides and manages community-based medical transportation services, including emergency, non-emergency and managed transportation, fixed-wing air ambulance and disaster response.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Haley G. Christenson, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: 866-219-3343 Facsimile: 866-219-8344 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com Haley@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 2221 Camino del Rio S. Ste. 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: 619 222-7429s Facsimile: 866 431-3292 E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.comss AUTOZONE STORES: Akin Gump Discusses 9th Cir. Ruling in Brady Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Neal R. Marder, Esq. -- nmarder@akingump.com -- Michael Stortz, Esq. -- mstortz@akingump.com -- Rex Heinke, Esq. -- rheinke@akingump.com -- Marshall L. Baker, Esq. -- mbaker@akingump.com -- and Shelly Kim, Esq., of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, in an article for Mondaq, discusses the premise that the Ninth Circuit limits settling Plaintiffs' ability to appeal orders denying certification. Key Points * The 9th Circuit has held that settlement of a plaintiff's individual claims moots the appeal of an order denying class certification, unless the settlement agreement specifically preserves the plaintiff's personal stake in the outcome on appeal. * The decision makes it clear that if plaintiffs wish to appeal the denial of class certification after settling their individual claims, they must retain a concrete, financial stake in the outcome of the putative class claims. * The decision underscores the importance to defendants of challenging a named plaintiff's individual claims throughout the case, including through trial, rather than settling on terms that authorize the plaintiff to appeal the denial of class certification. A key inflection point in class actions arises after the trial court has denied class certification, but not yet addressed the plaintiff's individual claims on the merits. While a plaintiff may wish to immediately appeal an order denying class certification, such orders are interlocutory and, absent a successful petition under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f), can only be appealed after entry of final judgment - and thus after trial or settlement of the plaintiff's individual claims. Rather than face the risks of trial, most would-be class representatives elect to settle individual claims and then appeal the denial of certification. In Brady v. AutoZone Stores, Inc., No. 19-35122, 2020 WL 2893709 (9th Cir. June 3, 2020), the 9th Circuit limited the ability of such plaintiffs to do this without running afoul of Article III. The Underlying Suit and Settlement Agreement In 2013, plaintiff Michael Brady filed a putative class action in federal court for alleged violation of Washington's meal break laws. After the district court twice rejected Brady's attempts to certify a class, he entered into a settlement agreement that resolved his individual claims along with his "claims to costs or attorneys' fees." Id. Although the settlement agreement expressly did not extend to Brady's class claims (i.e., "was not intended to settle or resolve Brady's Class Claims"), it otherwise provided Brady no entitlement to any financial reward if the class claims ultimately succeeded. Id. After the parties finalized their settlement agreement, and pursuant to their stipulation, the district court entered final judgment. Brady appealed, seeking review of the orders denying class certification. Because defendants had agreed not to challenge Brady's right to appeal, neither party raised any mootness arguments on appeal. The Appeal At oral argument, however, the 9th Circuit asked whether Brady's personal stake in the resolution of the appeal had been mooted as a result of the settlement of his individual claims. Its recent opinion holds it is mooted. The court explained that to preserve the viability of putative class claims, the settlement agreement must leave the settling plaintiff with some sort of "concrete" and "financial" interest in those claims. Id. at *2. For example, the settlement agreement may preserve the plaintiff's ability to seek an "award enhancement fee" or attorneys' fees and costs, if a class were ultimately certified after reversal of an order denying certification. Id. In these scenarios, "the class representative maintain[s] 'a continued financial interest in the advancement of the class claims' such that the case [is] not moot." Id. (citation omitted). By contrast, a putative class representative cannot retain a personal stake in the action by merely failing to address the class claims in the settlement agreement. Instead, the settlement agreement must affirmatively preserve the plaintiff's concrete, financial stake in the resolution of the class claims. The 9th Circuit held that the parties' settlement agreement did not expressly provide Brady with such an ongoing personal stake in the outcome on appeal, and therefore dismissed the appeal as moot. Brady would not "receive any additional compensation for the class claims," had no "possibility of an award of attorney's fees[,]" and although he "expressly did not resolve the class claims, he did not retain a financial stake in them." Id. The court declined to reach Brady's argument that his purported obligation to repay his lawyers for advanced litigation costs would provide the requisite personal stake, noting that Brady had provided no evidence to support the factual premise of this argument. Id. at *3. The Takeaways Brady has changed the calculus for plaintiffs after the trial court denies class certification. Faced with the risks and expense of trying individual claims that are often of questionable merit, plaintiffs and their counsel look for an exit from the trial court that allows them to appeal the denial of certification. After the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702 (2017), would-be class representatives can no longer dismiss their individual claims while preserving that right. While such plaintiffs can still settle their individual claims, Brady now requires that they negotiate a settlement agreement that preserves their financial stake in the putative class claims or try their individual claims. Brady also changes the calculus for defendants who have prevailed at class certification, because they are more likely to be presented with settlement terms that allow plaintiffs to recover incentive awards, fees, or costs by plaintiffs who believe these terms are required to preserve their right to appeal. Such terms -- along with the risks of appellate reversal of the order denying certification -- may well be unacceptable to defendants. Defendants therefore should be prepared both for class certification and then trial of the plaintiff's individual claims, because a win on certification may not sound the death knell for the action. Given that a named plaintiff's individual claims are too often lawyer-driven and manufactured for purposes of leveraging the threat of aggregate class liability, defendants would do well to prepare aggressively for trial of those claims, just as they aggressively oppose class certification. [GN] BANC & JACK: Exotic Dancers' Suit Can Proceed as Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as JANE DOE 1, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. BANC, JACK & JOE, LLC dba TITILLATIONS GO-GO BAR, BANC PERO, JOSEPH CARERI, JACK PERO, ABC COMPANIES 1-10 AND JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:17-cv-03843-KSH-CLW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Katharine S. Hayden entered an order: 1. conditionally certifying the collective action on behalf of: "all current and former exotic dancers who worked for the Defendants at any time between May 31, 2014 to the present"; 2. directing the Defendants within 14 days of the date of this order, to produce to the plaintiff's counsel in Excel format, a mailing list containing the names, most recent known addresses and phone numbers, and email addresses of the collective, so that mailing and emailing of the notice may be timely accomplished; 3. directing the defendants to post copies of the approved Fair Labor Standards Act notice and consent to sue form on 11.0 x 17.0 inch paper in the dressing room/back room of Titillations; and 4. authorizing the plaintiff to mail a copy of the approved FLSA notice and consent to sue form to all members potential members of the collective. Titillations Go-Go Bar is a dance and Night Club in Bloomfield, New Jersey.[CC] BANK OF AMERICA: Jette Files Suit Over Interest Charges ------------------------------------------------------- Michael Jette, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-04186 (D. N.J., June 3, 2020) seeks monetary and/or equitable relief, statutory, treble, punitive or exemplary damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, including costs of notice, administration and expert fees and such other legal or equitable relief, including injunctive or declaratory relief in violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, North Carolina Debt Collection Act Bank of America, N.A. is a national bank headquartered in North Carolina. Jette opened a Bank of America credit card in December 2019 which is connected to his personal bank account and authorize automatic monthly payments of the full balance owed, such that the card is paid in full each month and no balance carries over. Jette set up automatic payments through Bank of America's website, authorizing the latter to withdraw monthly payments from his deposit account at Chase. His selection, "Amount Due," was intended to cause Bank of America to withdraw the balance reflected on his last statement each month by the due date, thus avoiding interest charges under the Card Agreement. However, Bank of America only withdrew the minimum amount due from his checking account, thus incurring interest charges. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. James C. Shah, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 475 White Horse Pike Collingswood, NJ 08107 Tel: (856) 858-1770 Fax: (866) 300-7367 Email: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com jshah@sfmslaw.com - and - Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Tel.: (202) 973-0900 Fax: (202) 973-0950 Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com kaizpuru@tzlegal.com BARBEQUE INTEGRATED: Conditional Class Certification Bid Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as BRIGIDA ELLIOTT v. BARBEQUE INTEGRATED, INC., Case No. 0:19-cv-62426-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act: "all Managers who worked at any of the 68 Smokey Bones locations across the country within the three-year statute of limitations (September 30, 2016 through September 30, 2019)"; and 2. denying as moot the Defendant Barbeque Integrated, Inc.'s motion to exclude declarations submitted by the Plaintiff in support of her motion for conditional certification. The Court concludes that conditional certification of a nationwide class of Managers is not warranted in this case. While Plaintiff has produced evidence of nationwide Smokey Bones' job descriptions for Managers, the Plaintiff fails to indicate those job descriptions required the performance of non-exempt work by exempt employees. Instead, the Plaintiff references just two Smokey Bones locations, in Massachusetts, where she was the employed Manager. The Plaintiff claims she and other similarly-situated persons are wrongfully classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and consequently have not been paid overtime. Barbeque Integrated is an American casual dining restaurant chain.[CC] BERG'S YACHT: Refinishers Sue to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Ochoa, Jose Rolando Ochoa Lainez, Ivan Gabriel Ochoa, Venancio Emilio Gil Alvarado, Elvin Julian Ma Tute Hernandez and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Berg's Yacht Refinishings, Inc. and Jeffery Berg, Defendants, Case No. CACE-20-007554 (Fla. Cir., May 5, 2020), requests double damages and reasonable attorney fees, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing along with court costs, interest and any other relief. Plaintiff worked for Berg's as yacht refinishers. They claim that they worked in excess of 40 hours weekly without being paid overtime wages for work performed. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: zabogado@aol.com BIMBO BAKERIES: Camp Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DAVID CAMP and KEITH HADMACK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC. and, BIMBO FOODS BAKERIES DISTRIBUTION, LLC, Case No. 18-CV-00378 (D.N.H.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class consisting of: "all individuals who, either individually or through a corporate entity, personally deliver or have delivered the Defendants' products pursuant to a Distributor Agreement from a warehouse located in New Hampshire from May 8, 2015 to the present"; The Plaintiffs alleges that they and other drivers are misclassified as independent contractors for purposes of the New Hampshire wage laws and that they are employees under N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. section 275:42. Bimbo manufactures, sells, and delivers breads and baked goods to grocery stores and other outlets, including in New Hampshire, under brand names such as Sara Lee and Nature's.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harold Lichten, Esq. Matthew Thomson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com mthomson@llrlaw.com - and - Christopher B. Coughlin, Esq. COUGHLIN LAW GROUP, PC 35 India Street Suite 3 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: 617-758-8888 E-mail: cbc@coughlinlawgroup.com BIMBO BAKERIES: Underpays Employees, Oddo et al Claim ----------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER ODDO and MICHAEL LENNON, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BIMBO BAKERIES U.S.A. INC., Defendant, Case No. HUD-L-002309-20 (N.J. Sup. Ct., June 25, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged failure to pay overtime in violation of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as non-exempt hourly paid Route Sales Representatives – Oddo was from in or around 1993 through the present, while Lennon was from on or about January 28, 1986 until on or around August 16, 2017. Plaintiffs claim that they regularly worked over 40 hours per workweek, but Defendant failed to pay them at least one and one-half times their regular rates for all hours worked more than 40 in a workweek. Moreover, Defendant failed to implement a system to track the number of hours worked each workweek by Plaintiffs and Class Plaintiffs. Bimbo Bakeries U.S.A. Inc. is a baking company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew D. Miller, Esq. Joshua S. Boyette, Esq. Justin L. Swidler, Esq. Richard S. Swartz, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Highway N., Ste. 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Tel: (856) 685-7420 Fax: (856) 685-7417 Email: mmiller@swartz-legal.com BROOKDALE SENIOR: Posey Sues Over 15% Decline in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL POSEY, SR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING INC., LUCINDA M. BAIER, T. ANDREW SMITH, and STEVEN E. SWAIN, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00543 (M.D. Tenn., June 25, 2020) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Brookdale securities between August 10, 2016 and April 29, 2020, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint asserts that 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 that: (i) Brookdale's financial performance was sustained by, among other things, the Company's purposeful understaffing of its senior living communities; (ii) the foregoing conduct subjected Brookdale to an increased risk of litigation and, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial results and reputation; (iii) as a result, the Company's financial results were unsustainable; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 30, 2020, Nashville Business Journal reported that a proposed class action lawsuit had been filed against Brookdale, which accused the Company of, among other things, purposeful "chronically insufficient staffing" at its facilities in an effort to meet financial benchmarks since at least April 24, 2016. According to the lawsuit, Brookdale misled residents and their families when it promised to provide basic care and daily living services. The lawsuit also claims that the proposed class of plaintiffs "have not received the care and services they paid for." The lawsuit asks for damages and for Brookdale to "stop the unlawful and fraudulent practices." On this news, Brookdale's stock price fell $0.56 per share, or 15.22%, over two trading sessions, closing at $3.12 per share on May 1, 2020. Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages as a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. Brookdale Senior Living Inc. is a Brentwood, Tennessee-based senior-living community operator.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq. Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq. BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES P. O. BOX 150734 Nashville, TN 37215-0734 Telephone: (615) 248-2828 Facsimile: (866) 816-4116 E-mail: PKNASHLAW@aol.com Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com C & L WU: Williams Sues Over Aggressive Hotel Check Out Policy -------------------------------------------------------------- DRAKE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C & L WU, LLC, CHIN CHU CHU, LEI TIFFANY WU and DOES 1 THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. RG20065852 (Cal. Sup. Ct., June 25, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged unlawful business practice and policy in violations of Civil Code Sections 1940.1 and 52.1 and the Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, Defendant applied a "28 Day Shuffle" policy to ensure that the occupants, including Plaintiffs and other persons who rented rooms at the Mission Peak Lodge, would maintain "transient occupancy status" by routinely requiring them to check out every 28 days, forcefully locking them out of their rooms on the 28th day of continuous occupancy, and re-register for another 28 days after two days if they want to keep using the same room when they returned the next day. The complaint asserts that Plaintiffs and the class members experienced one or more form of threats, intimidation or coercion to deprive them of their statutory rights. Chin Chu Chu and Lei Tiffany Wu are the owner and operators of the Mission Peak Lodge hotel. C & L WU owns and operates the Mission Peak Lodge hotel in Freemont City, Alameda County, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Spencer, Esq. SPENCER LAW FIRM 2 Venture, Suite 220 Irvine, CA 92618 Tel: (949) 240-8595 Fax: (949) 377-3727 Email: jps@spencerlaw.net - and - Jeffrey Wilens, Esq. LAKESHORE LAW CENTER 18340 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 107-610 Yorba Linda, CA 92886 Tel: (714) 854-7205 Fax: (714) 854-7206 Email: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org CAPITAL ONE NA: Fensterer Sues Over Shelved Trip Refund ------------------------------------------------------- Ellen Fensterer, an individual; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Capital One, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05558, (D. N.J., May 5, 2020), seeks redress for unjust enrichment, conversion, fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of contract under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Fensterer purchased tickets for herself and her family to travel and visit her child studying abroad and the flight was cancelled a result of government-mandated restrictions on travel in response to the COVID19 pandemic. The tickets were secured using Capital One Venture Card travel services. They cost her approximately $5,000 in cash and additional consideration in rewards points to secure them. She alleged that Capital One offered only travel voucher for the trip cancellation and not actual cash refunds. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy L.B. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 30 East Butler Pike Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (215) 540-8888 Email: teamkimmel@creditlaw.com CASPER SLEEP: Frank R. Cruz Law Firm 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] CHAD WOLF: Court Denies Motion to Certify Class in C.G.B. Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as C.G.B., et al. v. CHAD WOLF, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01072-CRC (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Christopher R. Cooper entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order, the plaintiffs' motion to certify class, and the plaintiffs' motion for joinder of additional parties; and 2. directing the government to provide the court with updated declarations which shall include the most recent status of the following information for each facility where a named plaintiff is detained: -- the number of positive cases of COVID-19 among detainees and staff, and the number of detainees who have been tested; -- the number of detainees at each facility and the facility's total capacity, including the number of detainees in each unit where a named Plaintiff is being held and that unit's total capacity; -- a description of the sleeping arrangements used by each named Plaintiff, if changed; -- a description of the dining quarters for each named Plaintiff, if changed; -- a description of the personal protective equipment provided to staff and detainees; -- a description of the hand cleansing and cleaning materials provided to staff and detainees; -- a description of detainees' access to medical care, including whether K.M. and K.S. are being provided with their antiretroviral medication at a consistent time; and -- clarification regarding the extent to which the detainees have been considered for release under the Fraihat injunction.[CC] CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 23 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CEMI) between March 12, 2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Chembio investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Chembio class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1883.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. The complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented that the Company's Dual Path Platform ("DPP") COVID-19 serological point-of-care test for the detection of IgM and IgG antibodies aided in determining current or past exposure to the COVID-19 virus, that its test provided high sensitivity and specificity, and that it was 100% accurate. The Complaint further alleges that on May 11, 2020, defendants took advantage of Chembio's inflated stock price, closing a public offering of approximately 2.6 million shares of Chembio stock at $11.75 per share for gross proceeds of approximately $30.8 million. Then, on June 16, 2020, after the market closed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a press release disclosing that it had revoked the Company's Emergency Use Authorization for the Company's DPP COVID-19 IgM/IgG System "due to performance concerns with the accuracy of the test" and because "data submitted by Chembio as well as an independent evaluation of the Chembio test at NCI showed that this test generates a higher than expected rate of false results and higher than that reflected in the authorized labeling for the device." The complaint alleges, as a result of disclosure by the FDA letter Chembio shares declined precipitously. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 17, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1883.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] CONAGRA BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Made with Real Milk Claim ----------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the lawyer who questioned the existence of vanilla in ice cream and other products is now suing the maker of a popular pudding over its "Made with real milk" claim. Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates sued Conagra Brands on June 12 in federal court, alleging its Snack Pack, alleging what appears to be a trademark sign after the "Made with real milk" claim on its packaging is actually an asterisk, when viewed under a microscope. And after finding nonfat milk in the ingredients list, Sheehan filed suit. He says what Conagra is using doesn't meet the Food and Drug Administration's definition of milk because it doesn't contain enough milkfat. Snack Pack Chocolate Fudge Pudding instead gets its fat from palm oil. "Palm oil is only fat and lacks any vitamins (such as Vitamin A), minerals or protein," the complaint says. "Since Vitamin A is present in milkfat, which is removed from the nonfat milk in the product, it has negligible Vitamin A compared to the expected 2% daily value that ‘real milk' would have provided." Sheehan is known for his dozens of lawsuits that say companies misled consumers into thinking their products contained real vanilla when they actually were made of vanilla flavoring. [GN] COVERT MANUFACTURING: Underpays Employees, Plaster Claims --------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER PLASTER, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COVERT MANUFACTURING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01403-DAP (N.D. Ohio, June 25, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged unlawful pay practices and policies in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a CNC machinist between April 2017 and January 2019. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees were classified by Defendant as hourly, non-exempt employees. Allegedly, Defendant only paid them for work performed between their scheduled start and stop times, and were not paid for the work performed before and after their scheduled start and stop time. The complaint asserts these claims: -- Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees for all time worked and overtime at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all the hours they worked over 40 each workweek; and -- Defendant failed to keep records of all the hours worked each workday and the total hours worked each workweek by Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees. Covert Manufacturing, Inc. manufactures pattern tools and CNC machined products for its customers in the diesel engine, heavy truck, agricultural and hydraulic industries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. THE LAZZARO LA FIRM, LLC The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boullevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Tel: 216-696-5000 Fax: 216-696-7005 Emails: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com CREDIT BUREAU: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Zurakov Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CINDY ZURAKOV, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CREDIT BUREAU COLLECTION SERVICES, INC., d/b/a CBCS, Case No. 2:20-cv-00830-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiffs' claims by tendering the plaintiffs' individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint herself as the class representative, and appoint her attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "the parties did not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: meldridge@ademilaw.com DCM SERVICES: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Brusewitz Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MARGARET BRUSEWITZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DCM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 20-cv-854 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff's individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint herself as the class representative, and appoint her attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "the parties did not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: meldridge@ademilaw.com DISKAL INC: Luis Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tobias Luis, Santiago Hernandez, and Efrain Campoverde, Individually and on Behalf of the Putative Class Members v. DISKAL INC. d/b/a GEORGIA DINER, Case No. 708875/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., June 30, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime premium pay owed to the Plaintiffs pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs did not receive overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a given workweek, at times did not receive the statutory minimum wage, did not receive spread-of-hours premiums when they worked in excess of 10 hours per day, and did not receive accurate wage statements or wage notices, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are former employees, who worked as dishwashers, line cooks and food prep employees at the Defendant's diner. Diskal Inc. operated Georgia Diner from 1976 to March 25, 2018, in its location at 86-55 Queens Blvd., in Elmhurst, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 Email: pelton@peltongraham.com graham@peltongraham.com DOBBERSTEIN LAW: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Coffey Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DIANNA COFFEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DOBBERSTEIN LAW FIRM, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00826-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiffs' claims by tendering the plaintiffs' individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint herself as the class representative, and appoint her attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "the parties did not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: meldridge@ademilaw.com DONALD TRUMP: Gomez Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Immigrants ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, a Lawful Permanent Resident of the U.S.; MIRNA S., a Lawful Permanent Resident of the U.S.; and VICENTA S., a U.S. Citizen, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01419-APM (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all individual immigrant sponsors with approved immigrant visa petitions for a child, including for derivative child relatives in applicable preference categories, with a "current" priority date while Presidential Proclamation 10014 is in effect; and whose sponsored child or sponsored derivative child relative is subject to the Proclamation and will, as a result of the Proclamation, age out of his or her current visa preference category by turning 21 years old while the Proclamation remains in effect"; 2. appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives; and 3. appointing their counsel as class counsel. On April 23, 2020, the Defendants, in their official capacities, temporarily suspended immigration into the United States for the ostensible purpose of addressing "the impact of foreign workers on the United States labor market" in light of the toll that the COVID-19 pandemic has taken on the U.S. economy. The Defendants did so through the issuance and implementation of a new Proclamation, titled the "Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who Represent Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak," which took effect approximately 30 hours after it was issued and signed. The Plaintiffs contend that the Proclamation violates the statutory and constitutional rights of U.S. visa petitioners and exceeds the scope of Defendants' authority under the U.S. Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order preventing the Defendants from enforcing and implementing the Proclamation against Plaintiffs and similarly situated U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who have sponsored children or derivative child relatives who will turn 21 while the Proclamation is in effect.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jesse M. Bless, Esq. AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION 1301 G Street NW, Ste. 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (781) 704-3897 E-mail: jbless@aila.org - and - Karen C. Tumlin, Esq. Esther H. Sung, Esq. JUSTICE ACTION CENTER P.O. Box 27280 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 316-0944 E-mail: karen.tumlin@justiceactioncenter.org esther.sung@justiceactioncenter.org - and - Stephen Manning, Esq. Nadia Dahab, Esq. Tess Hellgren, Esq. INNOVATION LAW LAB 333 SW Fifth Avenue No. 200 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 241-0035 E-mail: stephen@innovationlawlab.org nadia@innovationlawlab.org tess@innovationlawlab.org - and - Laboni A. Hoq, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LABONI A. HOQ JAC Cooperating Attorney P.O. Box 753 South Pasadena, CA 91030 E-mail: labonihoq@gmail.com DYNASTY CONTRACTING: Mendoza Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wilson Mendoza, Bonerge Pacheco, Raul Mendoza, Jose Alberto Carias Salinas, Roger Mendoza, and Jorge Mendoza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DYNASTY CONTRACTING LLC, and ERIC LI, as an individual, Case No. 2:20-cv-02898 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to recover damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Although the Plaintiffs worked for 58-69 hours or more per week during their employment by the Defendants, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as excavator operators, laborers, rebar ad concrete workers. DYNASTY CONTRACTING LLC is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive office located in Flushing, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 ENPHASE ENERGY: Barbuto & Johansson Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. ("BARJO" or the "Firm") and Of Counsel, Neil Rothstein, Esq. (with over 30 years of Securities Class Action experience, including cases against ENRON and HALLIBURTON), remind investors that they have until August 17, 2020 to file lead plaintiff applications in the securities class action lawsuit filed against Enphase Energy, Inc. (Nasdaq: ENPH). Shareholders with significant losses are encouraged to contact the Firm to discuss their options. On June 17, 2020, Prescience Point Capital Management ("Prescience Point"), a private investment manager that focuses on investigations of public companies, published a negative research report on Enphase Energy, Inc. supporting its short position. According to Prescience Point, its research suggests that at least 39%, or $205 million, of US revenue reported by the company is potentially fabricated, as is a significant portion of the company's international revenue. Eiad Asbahi, Founder and Portfolio Manager of Prescience Point said, "The explosive growth that Enphase has reported to investors over the last two years is nothing but a sham which has lined the pockets of those at the top of the company… We believe the evidence presented in our report will result in multiple government investigations, a major accounting restatement, shareholder lawsuits and a delisting of ENPH shares from the NASDAQ." On this news, the Company's share price fell nearly 26%. A lawsuit, Gregory A. Hurst v. Enphase Energy, Inc., et al., Case No.: 5:20-cv-04036, has now been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between February 26, 2019 and June 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges that Enphase and certain of its executives failed to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges, in part, that the Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors that Enphase's revenues were inflated, that Enphase engaged in improper deferred revenue accounting practices, and the Company's reported base points expansion in gross margins were overstated. If you purchased shares of Enphase and would like to discuss the case and your options as a class member and serving as a lead plaintiff, you may, without obligation or cost, contact attorney Anthony Barbuto, at (888) 715-2520, or via email at anthony@barjolaw.com; and/or Neil Rothstein via email at neil@barjolaw.com. BARJO believes strongly that the choice of a qualified lead plaintiff can have a significant impact on the successful outcome of a case. Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. Anthony Barbuto, Esq. 1-888-715-2520 12773 Forest Hill Blvd., 101 Wellington, FL 33414 www.barjolaw.com [GN] ENPHASE ENERGY: Barbuto & Johansson Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. ("BARJO" or the "Firm") and Of Counsel, Neil Rothstein, Esq. (with over 30 years of Securities Class Action experience, including cases against ENRON and HALLIBURTON), remind investors that they have until August 17, 2020 to file lead plaintiff applications in the securities class action lawsuit filed against Enphase Energy, Inc. (NasdaqGS: ENPH). Shareholders with losses exceeding $200,000 are encouraged to contact the Firm to discuss their options. The case, Gregory A. Hurst v. Enphase Energy, Inc., et al., Case No.: 5:20-cv-04036, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between February 26, 2019 and June 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges that Enphase and certain of its executives failed to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges, in part, that the Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors that Enphase's revenues were inflated, that Enphase engaged in improper deferred revenue accounting practices, and the Company's reported base points expansion in gross margins were overstated. On June 17, 2020, analyst Prescience Point Capital Management published a report in which it wrote, ". . . we believe the Company's financial statements filed with the SEC are fiction. Based on our research, we estimate that at least $205.3m of its reported US revenue in FY 2019 was fabricated. Based on statements provided by former employees and other solar industry participants, it appears that the Company inflated its international revenue significantly as well." The report further stated, "Meanwhile, ENPH executives and board members, as well as its previous largest shareholder, appear to have learned of the existence of our private investigation and are desperately trying to unload their shares before the ship sinks. In the span of just four days from June 1, 2020 to June 4, 2020, ENPH executives sold an unprecedented 254,097 shares worth a whopping $13.7m in open market dispositions, which significantly exceeds the 187,508 or $3.9m worth of shares ENPH executives had sold in the almost 2.5 years prior." On this news, the stock plummeted approximately 26%. If you purchased shares of Enphase and would like to discuss the case and your options as a class member and serving as a lead plaintiff, you may, without obligation or cost, contact attorney Anthony Barbuto, at (888) 715-2520, or via email at anthony@barjolaw.com, or Neil Rothstein via email at neil@barjolaw.com. BARJO believes strongly that the choice of a qualified lead plaintiff can have a significant impact on the successful outcome of a case. Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. Anthony Barbuto, Esq. 1-888-715-2520 12773 Forest Hill Blvd., 101 Wellington, FL 33414 www.barjolaw.com [GN] EOG RESOURCES: Underpays Drilling Supervisors, Cason Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS D. CASON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EOG RESOURCES, INC., Defendant, Case 4:20-cv-02189 (S.D. Tex., June 22, 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 was employed by the Defendant as drilling supervisor. EOG Resources, Inc. explores, develops, produces, and markets natural gas and crude oil. The Company operates in major producing basins in the United States, Canada, Trinidad, the United Kingdom North Sea, China, and from time to time select other international areas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com EVENTPRO SERVICES: George Slams Misclassification, Claims Benefits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Josephine George, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Eventpro Services, LLC, The Madison Companies, LLC, Virgin Fest, LLC and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 37-2020-00018421 (Cal. Super., June 3, 2020), seeks actual and/or compensatory damages, civil penalties, restitution, equitable relief, costs and expenses of litigation, including attorneys' fees, and all additional and further relief for violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, including declaratory relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. Defendants produce music, comedy, art and culinary festivals and concerts where George worked as a "Street Team Member" who claims to be improperly classified as an independent contractor rather than an employee in violation of California labor laws. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Veronica Cruz, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com veronica@kazlg.com FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE: Aboah Seeks Overtime Pay, Breaks, Pay Slips ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gwendoline Aboah, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Fairfield Healthcare Services, Inc. and Peter R. Moore, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00763 (D. Conn., June 2, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, redress for missed breaks and failure to provide wage statements and all applicable statutory penalties for violations of the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. Fairfield Healthcare Services operates as BrightStar Care of Fairfield and Southbury where Aboah worked as a Home Health Aide July 19, 2018 to December 8, 2019. She claims she was paid a flat daily rate for her work and was not paid overtime premiums. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103-3007 Tel: (860) 249-7180 Fax: (860) 408-1471 Email: NEgbarin@aol.com FANSIDED INC: Underpays Site Expert, Carusillo Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ BRANDON CARUSILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FANSIDED, INC. d/b/a FANSIDED, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04766 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Carusillo was employed by the Defendant as site expert. Fansided, Inc. is an independent network of fandom-focused sports, entertainment, and lifestyle sites on the Internet. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Goodley, Esq. JENNINGS SIGMOND, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 351-0613 FIRST HAWAIIAN: Aloha Accounting Seeks to Recover Agent Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Aloha Accounting and Tax LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. First Hawaiian Bank, Bank of Hawaii, Central Pacific Bank, Hawaiian Electric, Inc. and Kabbage, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00254 (S.D. N.Y., May 29, 2020), seeks compensation for processing PPP loans, for services rendered on behalf of recipients of Small Business Administration. The lawsuit asserts violation of the CARES Act, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and conversion. On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. This legislation included $377 billion in federally-funded loans to small businesses and a $500 billion governmental lending program, administered by the United States Department of Treasury to provide support to entrepreneurs and small businesses. Part of the CARES Act is the "Paycheck Protection Program" (PPP) that provides small businesses with loans to provide small businesses with eight weeks of cash-flow assistance to fund payrolls. Said loans are administered by Treasury, backed by the Federal Government, but funded by private lenders, including the Defendants. Aloha is an accounting practice from Kahului, Hawaii. It sought to obtain PPP loans through the Defendants on behalf of its clients and expected to be paid agent fees from First Hawaiian Bank, Bank of Hawaii, Central Pacific Bank, Hawaiian Electric, Inc. and Kabbage, Inc. upon funding of its clients' loans under the PPP. However, it was denied these fees after the loans were released, asserts the complaint. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William L. Shipley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM L. SHIPLEY PO Box 1555 Kailua, HI 96734 Tel: (808) 228-1341 Email: 808Shipleylaw@gmail.com - and - Mark J. Geragos, Esq. Ben J. Meiselas, Esq. Matthew M. Hoesly, Esq. 644 S. Figueroa St. Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411 Telephone: (213) 625-3900 Facsimile: (213) 232-3255 Email: mark@geragos.com ben@geragos.com mhoesly@geragos.com - and - Michael E. Adler, Esq. GRAYLAW GROUP, INC. 26500 Agoura Rd., Ste. 102-127 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 532-2833 Facsimile: (818) 532-2834 Email: meadler@graylawinc.com - and - Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq. Nitoj P. Singh, Esq. 177 Post St., Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 433-1700 Facsimile: (415) 520-6593 FIRST TRANSIT: Pendleton Seeks to Certify FLSA Employee Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as STEVEN PENDLETON, for himself and all others similarly situated v. FIRST TRANSIT, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01985-PD (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional certification of Fair Labor Standards Act Employee Class: "all people who have worked as a Paratransit Driver in the First Transit depots in Redding, CA, Santa Cruz, CA, DuPage, IL, Hunterdon, N.J., Cuba, N.Y., Durham, N.C., Xenia, OH, Bethel Park, PA, Frankstown, PA, Conshohocken, PA, Philadelphia, PA, Pike Street, PA and Fort Bend, TX"; and 2. authorizing the Plaintiff to disseminate notice of this lawsuit to the FLSA Employee Class. First Transit filed its Answer to Complaint on June 25. On July , Plaintiff filed a second motion for protective order to quash "third party subpoenas on cell phone provider." First Transit designs, implements, and manages transportation systems.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Cohen, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP 604 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Klein Law Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm on June 22 disclosed that class action complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Forescout Technologies Inc. There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Forescout Technologies, Inc. (FSCT) Class Period: February 6, 2020 - May 15, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 10, 2020 During the class period, Forescout Technologies, Inc. allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Forescout was experiencing a significant and disproportionate decline in its financial performance; (2) the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on Forescout's planned acquisition by Advent International Corp.; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about its business and operations were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Learn about your recoverable losses in FSCT: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/forescout-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form-2?id=7446&from=1 Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages provided. J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: J. Klein, Esq. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 jk@kleinstocklaw.com Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN] FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Forescout Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSCT) between February 6, 2020 and May 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important August 10, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Forescout investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Forescout class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1875.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) Forescout was experiencing a significant and disproportionate decline in its financial performance; (2) the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on Forescout's planned acquisition by Advent International Corp.; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about its business and operations were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 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-1875.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] GANNETT PUBLISHING: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Vicky Aronson v. Gannett Publishing Services, LLC, et al., Case No. EDCV 19-996-PSG-JEMx (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; 2. denying the Plaintiff's motions to strike; and 3. mooting the Defendant's motion to strike certification of the Plaintiff's claims. The Court said, "the Defendants have also moved for the Court to deny class certification on Plaintiff's California Labor Code violations. The Court need not reach the issue of whether common questions predominate as to the substantive labor code violations. To recover for substantive labor code violations, Plaintiff must first establish that the Class Members are employees. To establish that they are employees, Plaintiff must prevail on the misclassification claim. As the Court explained above, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that common issues predominate as to the misclassification claim. Therefore, regardless of how the Court answers the predominance question in the context of the wage-and-hour claims, individualized issues will invariably exist as to the Plaintiff's threshold misclassification claim, rendering the entire case unsuitable for class certification." Gannett Publishing provides printing and publishing services. The company offers imaging, ad productions, internal and external printing and packaging, consumer sales, customer service, internal and external distribution, and direct marketing services.[CC] GEICO INDEMNITY: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Partially Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that GEICO Indemnity Co. has blocked some, but not all claims in a lawsuit alleging the insurer's practices with respect to adjudicating and paying auto-injury claims violate Montana laws, according to a federal court ruling in the state. The order, issued on June 19 by the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, adopted Magistrate Judge Kathleen DeSoto's report and recommendations in full, dismissing entirely plaintiff Brendan L. Moe's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. The court also partially granted GEICO's motion to dismiss Moe's claims under Montana's Unfair Trade Practices Act. [GN] GOLDMAN SACHS: To Seek Review of Abacus CDO Class Action Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that Goldman Sachs signaled on June 19 that it will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding certification of a class of investors who contend the bank lied about putting clients' interests ahead of its own in advance of revelations about Goldman's controversial Abacus CDO offering. The hint came in the form of a motion asking the 2nd Circuit to stay the case in advance of Goldman's petition for Supreme Court review. I sincerely doubt the 2nd Circuit will grant the stay. As I'll explain, the court has twice agreed to Goldman's interlocutory requests to review class certification rulings by the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty of Manhattan. And after the 2nd Circuit's ruling in April, the bank asked for a rehearing, mustering considerable amicus support from the business lobby. The 2nd Circuit denied that request on June 15. The new stay motion, in other words, isn't telling the 2nd Circuit anything it hasn't already heard from Goldman and its supporters. [GN] GOOGLE INC: May Face Class Action Over Pixel 3 Issues ----------------------------------------------------- Kerry Wan, writing for Android Police, reports that law firm Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP (CSK&D) just made it public that it's beginning to investigate for a potential class action lawsuit against Google. With a consistent outcry from Pixel 3 users concerning battery drain issues, poor photo and video quality, and app crashes all around, CSK&D is now looking into whether these defects are hardware-related ⁠-- which would warrant a lawsuit. This wouldn't be the first time Google has been taken to court over one of its phones. The company has a track record of devices going defective or broken, dating back to the Nexus 6P. The original Google Pixel suffered from microphone failures even after defects were RMA'd, costing the company $7,250,000. In those cases, CSK&D and Google were able to come to resolutions with owners of faulty devices being compensated up to $500. In addition to a mountain of complaints of sudden battery drain, CSK&D is looking into reports that the Pixel 3's "camera app shakes and vibrates, resulting in poor quality videos and photos" or crashes altogether. The firm is trying to pin down whether the problems are caused by hardware defects. While Google hasn't responded to the investigation, there are many Pixel 3 users venting on public forums about the issues mentioned. If you own a Google Pixel 3 or 3 XL (not 3a) and are experiencing hardware issues, you can file a form on the firm's website to contact the attorneys handling the investigation. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Devaney et al. Sue over Ad Monopoly ----------------------------------------------- MICHAEL DEVANEY; NICHOLAS ARRIETA; and SARA YBERRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC; and ALPHABET INC., Defendants, Case 5:20-cv-04130 (N.D. Cal., June 22, 2020) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, when consumers run Google searches, Google collects and retains data related to the searches. Demand side platforms (DSP) and advertisers use this information to craft more effective advertising campaigns. Google, however, withholds this information from rival DSPs and advertisers using rival service providers. The result of this policy is that, in order to gain access to the search data over which Google has monopoly control, an advertiser must agree to use Google's products in the separate display advertising services market. Google similarly uses its dominance in the video-ad publishing market segment to coerce advertisers to use Google's display advertising services. Google-owned YouTube runs up to 50% of all video display ads not appearing on Facebook and Amazon. After Google purchased YouTube, it initially made YouTube's inventory of display advertisements available to any advertising service provider. But in 2015, Google prevented non-Google advertising service providers from purchasing advertising space on YouTube. As a result, if an advertiser wants to purchase any of the valuable advertising space on YouTube, it must use Google's advertising services and cannot use any of Google's rivals' advertising services. Google LLC is a global technology company specializes in internet-related services and products. The Company is primarily focused on web-based search and display advertising tools, search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Christopher E. Stiner AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 GRAND CANYON: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of July 13 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on June 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Grand Canyon Education Corporation ("Grand Canyon" or the "Company")(NASDAQ: LOPE) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the District of Delaware, and indexed under 20-cv-0XXXXX, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired Grand Canyon securities between January 5, 2018, and January 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The claims asserted herein are alleged against Grand Canyon and certain of the Company's senior executives (collectively, "Defendants"), and arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the rules promulgated thereunder, including SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. If you are a shareholder who purchased Grand Canyon securities during the class period, you have until July 13, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Grand Canyon is an education services company incorporated in the State of Delaware. This case concerns the Company's July 2018 spin-off of its education assets through a sale to a purported non-profit entity, Grand Canyon University ("GCU"). Before the spin-off, Grand Canyon had owned and operated a for-profit university with a physical campus and through online programs. After the spin-off, Grand Canyon would purportedly become a third-party provider of education services to GCU and potentially other universities, and GCU would operate as a separate, non-profit entity no longer owned or operated by Grand Canyon. The Class Period begins with Grand Canyon's January 5, 2018, announcement that it had applied to regional accreditation body the Higher Learning Commission ("HLC") for recognition of GCU as a non-profit institution. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Grand Canyon told investors that GCU would be "independent" from Grand Canyon, that the relationship between the two entities would "no longer be as owner and operator, but as a third party contract party," and that GCU was "not a related party" to Grand Canyon. Following the spin-off, Grand Canyon consistently reported growth in net income and adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA"), and touted the success of its transition into the role of a third-party services provider. In reality, GCU functioned as an off-balance-sheet entity to which Grand Canyon was able to funnel expenses and costs in exchange for a disproportionate amount of revenue, thereby inflating Grand Canyon's financial results. In addition, GCU was not a proper non-profit organization but rather remained under the control of Grand Canyon through the Master Services Agreement ("MSA") and by virtue of Grand Canyon's employees serving as the executives who managed GCU. The truth was revealed in a series of corrective disclosures. First, on September 9, 2019, short-seller Citron Research ("Citron") published a report examining Grand Canyon's financials and concluding that the Company "is stuffing GCU with expenses to inflate its profitability and as a result bankrupting GCU." In response to this disclosure, the price of Grand Canyon stock declined approximately 5% intraday on September 9, 2019, to a low of $104.20 per share, and closed at $109.62 per share on September 10, 2019. Then, after the close of the market on November 6, 2019, Grand Canyon announced that it had received a letter from the U.S. Department of Education ("DOE") denying its application for designation of GCU as a non-profit. In response to this disclosure, the price of Grand Canyon stock declined approximately 4% to close at $88.08 per share on November 7, 2019. On January 28, 2020, Citron published a second report expanding on the DOE's findings based on hundreds of pages of supporting documentation from Grand Canyon, which Citron obtained through a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request. Citron concluded that Grand Canyon was the "educational Enron," using a "captive non-reporting subsidiary" to "dump expenses and liabilities while receiving a disproportionate amount of revenue at inflated margins in order to artificially inflate the stock price." Following this disclosure, Grand Canyon shares declined approximately 8% to close at $84.07 per share on January 28, 2020. With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] HAMILTON BEACH: Block & Leviton Reminds of July 21 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockesq.com), a national securities litigation firm, on June 22 disclosed that securities class action have been filed against Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company (NYSE: HBB). Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed below to move the court. Further details about the cases are described below. There is no cost or obligation to you. Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company (NYSE: HBB) - Lead Plaintiff Deadline of July 21, 2020 On May 11, 2020, Hamilton Beach Brands disclosed that it could not timely file its first quarter 2020 quarterly financial report due to "certain accounting irregularities with respect to the timing of recognition of selling and marketing expenses and the classification of certain expenditures within the statement of operations at its Mexican subsidiary." In addition, the Company stated that its "Audit Review Committee has commenced an internal investigation, with the assistance of outside counsel and other third party experts," concerning "the realizability of certain assets of the Mexican subsidiary." On this news, shares of Hamilton Beach Brands common stock fell by approximately 9%, or $1.03 per share, to close at just $10.43 per share on unusually heavy trading volume. If you purchased or acquired shares of HBB and have questions about your legal rights or possess information relevant to these matters, please contact Block & Leviton attorneys at (617) 398-5600, via email at cases@blockesq.com, or via the links provided above. Block & Leviton LLP is a firm dedicated to representing investors and maintaining the integrity of the country's financial markets. The firm represents many of the nation's largest institutional investors as well as individual investors in securities litigation throughout the United States. The firm's lawyers have recovered billions of dollars for its clients. This notice may constitute attorney advertising. CONTACT: BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin St., Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 398-5600 Email: cases@blockesq.com www.blockesq.com [GN] HARBOR FREIGHT: Thomas Sues Over Defective Vehicle Jackstands ------------------------------------------------------------- Duane Thomas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-05898 (C.D. Cal., June 30, 2020), is brought to recover the cost and property damage associated with the purchase of defective vehicle jackstands from the Defendant. The Plaintiff also asserts claims for Strict Products Liability, Negligence and Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability for the sale of these defective jackstands. Harbor Freight sells automotive jackstands under the in-house brand name "Pittsburgh Automotive" that are manufactured by Harbor Freight in China. Jackstands are meant to secure automobiles in an elevated position while a worker makes repairs to the underside of an automobile and is wholly or partly positioned underneath the automobile. The "Pittsburgh Automotive" jackstands are defective, hazardous and unsafe due to inconsistencies in the manufacturing, the Plaintiff alleges. He explains that the ratchet teeth are manufactured to an insufficient depth, which does not allow the proper security to the locking pawl, causing the jackstand to fail under load. He asserts that Harbor Freight has represented that while under load, and with a shift in weight, the pawl will disengage from the extension lifting post, allowing the stand to drop suddenly. Although the Defendant has issued a recall for jackstands sold with three identified product ID numbers, jackstands with similar defects, with at least three different product ID numbers, including the Plaintiff's, have not been recalled, putting other consumers at risk of personal injury, property damage, and worthless purchases, according to the complaint. The Defendant knew about the latent defect as consumers had reported these failures before the Plaintiff purchased his jack stand; yet Harbor Freight failed to disclose this knowledge to the Plaintiff and other potential members of this class. Had this defect been properly disclosed, it would have made the jack stands virtually worthless, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff purchased a Pittsburgh Automotive three ton aluminum jackstand with product ID 61627 at the Harbor Freight store on Farmington Drive in Greensboro, North Carolina, to use the jackstand on his personal vehicles. Harbor Freight is a retail discount tool seller and distributor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Kevin Fisher, Esq. FISHER & KREKORIAN P.O. Box 890 Santa Monica, CA 90406 Phone: (310) 862-1220 Facsimile: (310) 388-0805 Email: rkf@fkslaw.net - and - Andrew J. Schwaba, Esq. SCHWABA LAW FIRM 212 North Tryon Street, Suite 1725 Charlotte, NC 28281 Phone: (704) 370-0220 Fax: (704) 370-0210 Email: aschwaba@schwabalaw.com HEALTH ENROLLMENT: Ketayi Alleges Sham Health Insurance Plans ------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC KETAYI and MIRYAM KETAYI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HEALTH ENROLLMENT GROUP; ADMINISTRATIVE CONCEPTS, INC.; AXIS, d/b/a AXIS INSURANCE COMPANY; AXIS SPECIALTY U.S. SERVICES, INC.; ALLIANCE FOR CONSUMERS USA; LIBERTY HEALTH; HEALTH PLAN INTERMEDIARIES HOLDINGS, LLC; HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS HOLDINGS, INC.; FIRST HEALTH GROUP, CORP.; MARC MUNOZ; KEVIN ROMERO; and JUANITA NICOLUCCI, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01198-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal., June 26, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for conspiracy, fraud and deceit, false and misleading advertising, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in fraudulent and deceptive advertising, marketing and sale of sham health insurance by making uniform misrepresentations and omissions of material fact regarding their limited benefit plans and medical discount plans. The Defendants deceive consumers, including the Plaintiffs, into believing that the limited benefit plans and medical discount plans that they offer are comprehensive Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) health insurance even though they are not. In addition, the Defendants do not have the licenses required by California law to market health insurance plans. The Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered damages as a result of the wrongful acts and practices of the Defendants as they have either been duped into paying higher rates than required by law, pay the same or more money for lesser coverage, or enter into transactions with the Defendants that were illegal under the law for the Defendants to inter into. Health Enrollment Group is a health brokerage firm with its principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Alliance for Consumers USA (ACUSA) is a corporation that offers limited health and medical discount memberships, with its principal place of business in Plano, Texas. Liberty Health is an unregistered or entirely fictitious entity with a mailing address in Plainview, New York. It provides limited benefit plans and medical discount memberships. AXIS, d/b/a AXIS Insurance Company, is an insurance company with its headquarters in Bermuda. AXIS Specialty U.S. Services, Inc. is a company that provides insurance services with principal place of business in Alpharetta, Georgia. Administrative Concepts, Inc. is a claims administrator of health insurance plans with its principal place of business in Wayne, Pennsylvania. Health Plan Intermediaries Holdings, LLC is a Delaware corporation that offers health plans with its principal place of business in Tampa, Florida. Health Insurance Innovations Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that offers health plans with its principal place of business in Tampa, Florida. First Health Group Corp. is a full-service national health benefits company with its principal place of business in Rockville, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David A. Fox, Esq. Joanna L. Fox, Esq. Russell A. Gold, Esq. Michael F. Gosling, Esq. FOX LAW, APC 225 W. Plaza Street, Suite 102 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Telephone: (858) 256-7616 Facsimile: (858) 256-7618 E-mail: dave@foxlawapc.com joanna@foxlawapc.com russ@foxlawapc.com mike@foxlawapc.com - and – Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP OF CALIFORNIA 16870 W. Bernardo Drive, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (619) 308-5034 E-mail: alan@clgca.com HERSHEY: Patterson Belknap Scores Appellate Win in Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Ambrogio Visconti, writing for Global Legal Chronicle, reports that Patterson Belknap scored an appellate win for The Hershey Company in a Class Action Lawsuit. The class action concerned the labeling of Hershey's chocolates. The plaintiff alleged that Hershey's product labeling violated Massachusetts consumer protection laws because it did not disclose that some cocoa may be indirectly sourced from regions in West Africa where child labor is used. The plaintiff asserted, in effect, that a manufacturer must disclose on product labeling every fact that might affect a reasonable consumer's purchase decision—even facts unrelated to the safety or core functionality of the product. Last year, a federal district court held that Massachusetts law did not impose this sweeping disclosure obligation and dismissed the case with prejudice. On June 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously affirmed in a precedential decision. It agreed with the argument that product labels need not disclose everything a consumer might wish to know, holding that "[n]o single advertisement could possibly include every fact relevant to the purchasing decision; nor is such comprehensiveness required." The court also recognized Hershey's "commitment to eliminating forced child labor in the cocoa supply chain" and found no "basis . . . to conclude that [it] ha[d] tricked consumers or taken advantage of their assumptions [about child labor] for capital gain." Patterson Belknap advised The Hershey Company with a team included Steven A. Zalesin (Picture) and Jonah M. Knobler. Involved fees earner: Jonah Knobler - Patterson Belknap; Steven Zalesin - Patterson Belknap Law Firms: Patterson Belknap Clients: The Hershey Company [GN] HIGHER PATH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Baker Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- TYLER BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HIGHER PATH, LLC, Defendant, Case 2:20-cv-01252-KJM-DMC (E.D. Cal., June 22, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The Higher Path, LLC is a cannabis dispensary located in the Sherman Oaks, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Yana Hart, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: yana@kazlg.com HKS CONSTRUCTION: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Enrique Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HKS CONSTRUCTION CORP. (D/B/A HKS SCAFFOLDING), KAMALJIT SINGH, and HAPPI SINGH, Case No. 1:20-cv-05005 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2020), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked, according to the complaint. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring him to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. The Plaintiff was employed as a construction materials dispatcher at a construction site. The Defendants own, operate, or control a scaffolding company, located in Bronx, New York, under the name "HKS Scaffolding."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 HOMELAND HEALTH: Caballero-Tablada Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Caballero-Tablada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Homeland Health Solutions., Inc., Betsy Moreno and Jose E. Hernandez, individually, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-22288 (S.D. Fla., June 2, 2020), seeks damages excluding attorneys' fees or costs for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate as Carecross Medical Center where Tablada regularly worked between 50–60 hours per work week, often working from home after office hours and on the weekends. He says that he was not paid at the proper overtime rate for hours worked in excess of forty each week. He also claims to be fired for complaining. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Juan J. Perez, Esq. Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. PEREGONZA LAW GROUP, PLLC 1414 NW 107th Ave, Suite 302 Doral, FL 33172 Tel. (786) 650-0202 Fax. (786) 650-0200 Email: nathaly@peregonza.com juan@peregonza.com IANTHUS CAPITAL: Cedeno Hits Share Drop Over Defaulted Payments --------------------------------------------------------------- Peter L. Cedeno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc., Gotham Green Partners, Hadley C. Ford, Julius John Kalcevich And Jason Adler, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03513 (S.D. N.Y., April May 5, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On April 6, 2020, iAnthus announced that it had defaulted on $4.4 million in interest payments to private equity firm, Gotham Green Partners. It failed to disclose to its shareholders that they were unable to utilize escrowed funds to make necessary interest payments under debenture agreements. On news of the default, iAnthus' stock price fell $0.29 per share, or nearly 62%, to close at $0.179 per share on April 6, 2020. iAnthus is a holding company that owns licensed cannabis cultivators, processors and dispensaries throughout the United States. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Gustavo F. Bruckner, 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 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com gfbruckner@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com INFINITY ENERGY: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The San Diego labor law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Infinity Energy Inc., alleging the company failed to pay accurate wages, failed to provide required meal and rest breaks, and failed to indemnify employees for business expenses. The Infinity Energy Inc. lawsuit, Case No. 37-2020-00017124-CU-OE-CTL, is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court for the State of California. The lawsuit filed against Infinity Energy Inc. alleges "DEFENDANT intentionally and knowingly failed to reimburse and indemnify PLAINTIFF and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for required business expenses incurred by the PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members in direct consequence of discharging their duties on behalf of DEFENDANT." Under California Labor Code Section 2802, employers are required to indemnify employees for all expenses incurred in the course and scope of their employment. Additionally, the complaint further alleges Infinity Energy Inc., committed acts of unfair competition in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the "UCL"), by engaging in a company-wide policy and procedure which failed to accurately calculate and record all missed meal and rest periods by PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. As a result of DEFENDANT's intentional disregard of the obligation to meet this burden, DEFENDANT allegedly failed to properly calculate and/or pay all required compensation for work performed by the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS and violated the California Labor Code. For more information about the class action lawsuit against Infinity Energy Inc. or if you would like to know if you qualify to make a claim, please contact attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw today by calling (800) 568-8020. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is a labor law firm with law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los Angeles County, Orange County, Sacramento County, and San Francisco County. The firm has a statewide practice of representing employees on a contingency basis for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and other types of illegal workplace conduct. [GN] JPMORGAN CHASE: Rigged Treasury Futures, Breakwater Trading Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Breakwater Trading LLC, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Clearing Corp., JPMorgan Securities LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03515 (S.D. N.Y., May 5, 2020), seeks damages and declaratory relief under Section 22 of the Commodity Exchange Act for unlawful and intentional manipulation of U.S. Treasury futures contracts. Defendants allegedly manipulated the prices of Treasury Futures by "spoofing," or bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the bid or offer before execution including submitting or canceling bids or offers with intent to create artificial price movements upwards or downwards. This artificially creates demand, and correspondingly, futures prices were artificially suppressed or inflated accordingly. Breakwater Trading is a liquidity provider for Treasuries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Christopher B. Sanchez, Esq. Marc E. Foto, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Fl. New York, NY 10036 Tel: (917) 438-9189 Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com bcohen@nussbaumpc.com csanchez@nussbaumpc.com mfoto@nussbaumpc.com - and - Michael E. Criden, Esq. Kevin B. Love, Esq. Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515 South Miami, FL 33143 Tel: (305) 357-9000 Email: mcriden@cridenlove.com klove@cridenlove.com lgrossman@cridenlove.com KAUFF'S INC: Court Certifies Class of Tow Truck Drivers ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as YOSBREY CONCHADO, individually, and on Behalf of all others Similarly Situated v. KAUFF'S, INC., et al., Case No. (Filed ), the Hon. Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks entered an order: 1. partly granting the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify action on behalf of: "all current and former tow truck drivers employed by Defendants throughout the state of Florida not properly paid overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of 40, and employed for any length of time since February 2017."). Specifically, it is granted to the extent it seeks conditional certification. It is otherwise denied without prejudice.; 2. directing the Parties to confer regarding the contents of the proposed notice and how prospective class members should receive such notice by June 18, 2020; and 3. directing the Parties to file a status report regarding whether they have resolved all notice related issues at their conferral by June 22, 2020. In the event any issue remains, the Court will set a briefing schedule to address the disputed issues. The Court said, "the Defendants' summary regarding why no similarly situated employee exists supports the opposite conclusion. All class members had the same job title (a tow truck driver); they all work in the same geographic location -- Florida; the temporal scope would be the same for all drivers -- failure to pay overtime within the last three years; the Defendant devised a single policy -- requiring and/or allowing tow truck drivers to work in excess of 40 hours per week without paying them overtime; and in order to prevail, all class members would put on evidence that they worked over 40 hours per week without receiving overtime pay. In light of the lenient standard applicable at this notice stage, such allegations sufficiently establish that similarly situated employees exist." The Plaintiff seeks damages for the Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. He was previously employed by the Defendants as a tow truck driver. Kauff's offers towing services.[CC] KPC HEALTHCARE: Gamino Sues Over Shady Selloff Deal --------------------------------------------------- Danielle Gamino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KPC Healthcare Holdings, Inc., KPC Healthcare, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan Committee, Alerus Financial, N.A., Kali Pradip Chaudhuri, Kali Priyo Chaudhuri, Amelia Hippert, William E. Thomas, Lori Van Arsdale, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00962 (C.D. Cal., May 26, 2020), requests that breaching fiduciaries be ordered to pay the losses to the Plan, to disgorge any profits, as well as other remedial and equitable relief for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. On August 28, 2015, Kali Pradip Chaudhuri sold 100% of the stock of KPC Healthcare Holdings, Inc. to the Employee Stock Ownership Plan which was in excess of fair market value, almost 400% greater than the price that he had been willing to pay for and at which he likely acquired the company just two years earlier, asserts the complaint. Gamino was employed as a medical coder by KPC Healthcare from May 29, 2008 through December 17, 2016 at the Orange County Global Medical Center in Santa Ana, California. She is a participant of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Donahoo, Esq. Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq. William E. Donahoo, Esq. DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, PC. 440 W. First Street, Suite 101. Tustin, CA 92780 Tel: (714) 953-1010 Email: rdonahoo@donahoo.com skokonas@donahoo.com wdonahoo@donahoo.com - and - R. Joseph Barton, Esq. Colin M. Downes, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 1735 20th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20009 Tel: (202) 734-7046 Fax: (617) 507-6020 Email: joe@blockesq.com colin@blockesq.com - and - Major Khan, Esq. MKLLC LAW 1120 Avenue of the Americas, 4th Fl. New York, NY 10036 Tel: (646) 546-5664 Email: mk@mk-llc.com LA PLAZA LLC: Flores Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Flores, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. La Plaza LLC and Armando Merino, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04186 (S.D. N.Y., June 1, 2020) seeks unpaid minimum wages and overtime wage pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, New York Labor Law, NY Wage Theft Prevention Act and the "spread-of-hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commission of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. La Plaza LLC operates as Carniceria La Plaza, a Mexican-style Deli located at 266 New Main Street, Yonkers where Flores worked as a Deli worker. He usually works in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of their hours worked and failed to pay Flores the required "spread-of-hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL PC 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 203-2417 Website: www.FightForUrRights.com LALAJA INC: Cond. Certification of FLSA Collective Sought --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JOSE VAZQUEZ-AGUILAR, JUSTA HERNANDEZ-ROJO, JOSAFAT JUAREZ-CHAVEZ, SANDRA CATALINA-TORRES, and SUSANA MENDOZA-BUSTILLO, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons v. ARTURO GASCA, MARIA D. GASCA, and LALAJA, INC., d/b/a EL CERRO GRANDE MEXICAN RESTAURANT, Case No. 4:19-CV-171-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying this action as a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action for the following three groups of workers who were employed by one or more of the the Defendants in the El Cerro Grande Mexican Restaurant located at 2503 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, New Bern, North Carolina 28562 at any time in the time period from November 29, 2016 through March 19, 2019. The proposed classes are: a. Tipped Worker Class consisting of: "all tipped employees of the Defendants who were not paid cash wages of at least $2.13 per hour and the minimum and overtime rates required by 29 U.S.C. sections 203(m), 206(a)(1), and 207(a)(1), and 29 C.F.R. sections 531.50(a)(1), 531.60, and 780.107"; b. Salary Worker Class consisting of: "all cooks and dishwashers who were paid a flat weekly wage as employees of the Defendants"; c. Straight Time Worker Class consisting of: "taco chip servers and other non-exempt employees who were paid a straight hourly wage for all hours worked even when they worked more than 40 hours in the same workweek"; 2. approving the sending or delivery of the collective action Notice by the Plaintiffs' counsel within 30 days from the date on which the Court conditionally certifies any FLSA claim in this action as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), to each putative member of the conditional collective action certified by the Court: a. By U.S. Mail, first class delivery, postage prepaid; b. By inclusion by Lalaja, Inc. with the next weekly Wage Statement that defendant Lalaja, Inc. delivers to each putative member of any conditional collective action that the Court may certify in response to this Motion; and/or c. By text to the cellphone number or WhatsApp number provided by the Defendants; and 3. directing the Defendants, within 14 days of entry of this Order and to the extent not already provided, to provide Plaintiff's counsel (in computer-readable electronic format) the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone number, cellphone number, WhatsApp number, dates of employment, birth dates, and last four digits of the social security number of all persons who are, have been, or will be employed by the Defendant as Tipped Employees, Cooks, Dishwashers, Taco Chip Servers, or other employees who were paid an hourly wage at the Defendants' restaurant in New Bern, North Carolina at any time from November 29, 2016, to March 19, 2019. The Defendants operate a Mexican restaurant.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert J. Willis, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A. P.O. Box 1828 Pittsboro, NC 27312 Telephone: (919) 821-9031 Facsimile: (919) 821-1764 488 Thompson Street Pittsboro, NC 27312 E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com The Defendants are represented by: Julian H. Wright, Jr., Esq. Brendan P. Biffany, Esq. ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 101 N. Tryon Street, Suite 1900 Charlotte, NC 28246 E-mail: jwright@robinsonbradshaw.com Bbiffany@robinsonbradshaw.com LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA: Class Action Seeks Hotel, Park Refunds ----------------------------------------------------------- Sophia McCullough, writing for NBC 7, reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against Legoland California and its parent company for allegedly refusing to refund prepaying guests as the Carlsbad park shut down during the coronavirus pandemic. Jessica Bautista of Los Angeles County reserved a two-night hotel package for her family at the Legoland Castle Hotel on March 6, according to the suit. The package included four 3-day park tickets and she bought a birthday package, for a total of $1,900. Legoland, along with other theme parks and attractions, shuttered its doors in March as a result of the pandemic. Legoland California and its onsite hotels have remained closed to the public. "Immediately following the (Public Health) Order issued by Governor Newsom, Ms. Bautista contacted Legoland to cancel her upcoming hotel reservation and requested a refund due to the extenuating circumstances," the suit said. The suit alleged that on March 27, Legoland responded and said she could not receive a refund for her scheduled reservation. Legoland, after numerous correspondences, offered to "reschedule" Bautista's trip, the suit said. Given the fluid nature of the pandemic, Bautista again requested a refund. The class-action suit claimed Legoland "exploited" Bautista and other customers during the pandemic to "simply to enrich themselves." It alleged Legoland engaged in "unlawful, unfair and fraudulent" business practices. The suit seeks full refunds for those who reserved a hotel stay or park tickets for dates that Legoland remained closed, as well as attorney's fees and costs. Another class-action suit was filed in early June. Bautista also requested a trial by jury. Bautista is represented by the Kazerouni Law Group, APC in Costa Mesa. NBC 7 reached out to Legoland for comment and has not yet heard back. Merlin Entertainments, Legoland's parent company, is also listed as a defendant. [GN] LOAN DEPOT: Faces Winters Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Winters, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Loan Depot, LLC,, Case No. 2:20-cv-01290-SPL (D. Ariz., June 30, 2020), seeks damages and other remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby, invading the Plaintiff's privacy. According to the complaint, the Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant did not possess the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system on his cellular telephone. Further, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number has been on the National Do-Not-Call Registry since at 30 days prior to receiving such calls. The Defendant continued to call the Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA. The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Mesa, Arizona. The Defendant is a company engaged in the mortgage loan industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2633 E. Indian School Road, Suite 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: 800-400-6808 Fax: 800-520-5523 Email: david@kazlg.com ryan@kazlg.com LOUISIANA: J.H. Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Confined Children ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as J.H., by and through his mother and next friend, N.H.; I.B., by and through his parents and next friends, A.B. and I.B., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA; THE LOUISIANA OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE; EDWARD DUSTIN BICKHAM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS INTERIM DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE LOUISIANA OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE; JAMES WOODS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE ACADIANA CENTER FOR YOUTH; SHANNON MATTHEWS, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE BRIDGE CITY CENTER FOR YOUTH; SHAWN HERBERT, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE SWANSON CENTER FOR YOUTH AT MONROE; and RODNEY WARD, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE SWANSON CENTER FOR YOUTH AT COLUMBIA, Case No. 3:20-cv-00293-JWD-EWD (M.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a proposed Plaintiff Class defined as: "all children who are, or will in the future be, confined at Acadiana Center for Youth in Bunkie; Bridge City Center for Youth; Swanson Center for Youth at Columbia; and Swanson Center for Youth Monroe"; and 2. appointing their counsel as Class counsel. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants are creating and maintaining conditions that put the Class at imminent risk of contracting COVID-19, and they have "acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class." Louisiana is a state in the Deep South region of the South Central United States.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mercedes Montagnes, Esq. Nishi Kumar, Esq. Rebecca Ramaswamy, Esq. THE PROMISE OF JUSTICE INITIATIVE 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue New Orleans, LA 70117 Telephone: (504) 529-5955 Facsimile: (504) 595-8006 E-mail: mmontagnes@defendla.org - and - Stuart Sarnoff, Esq. Lisa Pensabene, Esq. Laura Aronsson, Esq. Mariam Kamran, Esq. David Lash, Esq. Brandon Amash, Esq. Benjamin Singer, Esq. Jason Yan, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 E-mail: ssarnoff@omm.com dlash@omm.com bamash@omm.com bsinger@omm.com - and - John Adcock, Esq. ADCOCK LAW LLC 3110 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 233-3125 E-mail: jnadcock@gmail.com - and - Marsha Levick, Esq. Jessica Feierman, Esq. Karen U. Lindell, Esq. JUVENILE LAW CENTER 1800 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1900A Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 625-0551 Email: mlevick@jlc.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: $4.75 Million Paid in Krammer Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that $4.75 million has been paid to the settlement administrator for distribution to class members in the lawsuit initiated by Robert J. Kramer. In November 2017, Kramer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento on behalf of all current and former store managers, all others with similar job functions and/or titles and all current and former employees classified as non-exempt or incorrectly classified as exempt and who worked for the Company in the State of California alleging violation of the California Labor Code including, among other items, failure to pay wages and overtime and engaging in unfair business practices. The Company reached settlement for this matter in the third quarter of 2019. As of March 31, 2020, the remaining accrual related to this matter is $4.75 million, which is included on the condensed consolidated balance sheet within the caption "Accrual for Legal Matters and Settlements- Current." Payment of $4.75 million was made to the settlement administrator on April 6, 2020, for distribution to class members. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories. The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs, and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Ongoing in Mason Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the class action suit initiated by Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll and Osagie Ehigie. In August 2017, Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll and Osagie Ehigie filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all current and former store managers, store managers in training, installation sales managers and similarly situated current and former employees (collectively, the "Mason Putative Class Employees") alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA) and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by classifying the Mason Putative Class Employees as exempt. The alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime work. The plaintiffs sought certification of the Mason Putative Class Employees for (i) a collective action covering the period beginning three years prior to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling period) through the disposition of this action for the Mason Putative Class Employees nationwide in connection with FLSA and (ii) a class action covering the period beginning six years prior to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling period) through the disposition of this action for members of the Mason Putative Class Employees who currently are or were employed in New York in connection with NYLL. The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified amounts for unpaid wages and overtime wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other damages. In November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting conditional certification for all store managers and store managers in training who worked within the federal statute of limitations period. In May 2019, the magistrate judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification. The litigation is in the discovery stage, which was extended by the Court from May 2020 to December 18, 2020. The Company disputes the Mason Putative Class Employees' claims and continues to defend the matter vigorously. Lumber Liquidators said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this action and therefore no accrual has been made related to this. Any such losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the Company's results of operations, financial condition and liquidity." Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories. The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs, and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Steele Class Action Still Ongoing in Canada --------------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action lawsuit in Canada initiated by Sarah Steele. On or about April 1, 2015, Sarah Steele filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Ontario, Canada Superior Court of Justice against the Company. In the complaint, Steele's allegations include strict liability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud by concealment, civil negligence, negligent misrepresentation and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Steele did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint, but seeks compensatory damages, punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages, statutory remedies, attorneys' fees and costs. Lumber Liquidators said, "While the Company believes that a loss associated with the Steele litigation is possible, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible loss." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories. The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs, and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia. MAMMOTH MEDIA: Burns Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------ Connor Burns, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Mammoth Media, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-04855 (C.D. Cal., June 1, 2020), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics, statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Mammoth Media developed the mobile application, "Wishbone," a social polling app where users compare anything from favorite artists, TV shows, fashion and beauty trends, politics, etc. and create and vote in side-by-side poll cards. Connor had a Wishbone account since 2016, when he was just 14 years old where he was required to provide his personal information. On May 23, 2020, Connor received an email from Mammoth saying that Wishbone was hacked and resulted in compromised data included usernames, emails, phone numbers, time-zone/region, full name, bio, gender, hashed passwords and profile pictures. He alleges that Mammoth failed to implement and maintain reasonable safeguards and failed to comply with industry-standard data security practices, contrary to the representations made in Mammoth's privacy statements. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Mark A. Clifford, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Tel.: (202) 973-0900 Fax: (202) 973-0950 Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com mclifford@tzlegal.com - and - Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 Email: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com - and - Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 Facsimile: (612) 389-0610 Email: jbourne@pswlaw.com MARY JANE'S: Faces Keller Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- SHELLI KELLER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), vs. MARY JANE’S CBD DISPENSARY, INC., d/b/a MARY JANE’S CBD DISPENSARY, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:20-cv-01207-RFB-DJA (D. Nev., June 25, 2020) alleges that Defendant negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully placed unsolicited automated text messages to Plaintiff's cellular phone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal law that was designed to curtail abusive telemarketing practices. According to the complaint, Defendant has violated TCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to bombard consumers' mobile phones with non-emergency advertising and marketing text messages without prior express written consent. The complaint further states that the text message Defendant sent to Plaintiff consisted of pre-written templates of impersonal text and was identical to text messages Defendant sent to other consumers. Mary Jane's CBD Dispensary is a cannabidiol products provider organized under the laws of the State of Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gustavo Ponce, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 6069 S. Fort Apache Rd., Ste 100 Las Vegas, NV 89148 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: gustavo@kazlg.com MASON COMPANIES: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Gibeau Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as KRISTINA GIBEAU, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MASON COMPANIES INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00822 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiffs' claims by tendering the plaintiffs' individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint herself as the class representative, and appoint her attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "the parties did not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: meldridge@ademilaw.com MAYO CLINIC: Kuhr Seeks to Certify Class of Florida Residents ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as NATALIE KUHR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MAYO CLINIC JACKSONVILLE, a Florida not for profit corporation and PROFESSIONAL SERVICE BUREAU, INC., a Foreign corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-00453-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a class action, for settlement purposes only, defined as: "all Florida Residents who, according to readily accessible data and other electronic records of MAYO and PSB, at any time during the applicable Class Period, were charged medical-related fees in excess of the amount allowed under section 627.736(5)(a)(4), Fla. Stat. By Defendant MAYO and/or PSB acting on MAYO's behalf, and includes all members of the Mayo Class and FDCPA Subclass as defined in the Complaint, and as set forth in this Agreement." Excluded from this proposed Settlement Class are any: (i) individuals who are or were, during the proposed Class Period, officers or directors of the Defendant or any of their respective affiliates; (ii) any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States or any State, their spouses, and persons within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouses of such persons; and (iii) all borrowers who file a timely and proper request to be excluded from the Settlement Class in accordance with Section 2.07 of the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Class Period runs from January 9, 2017 through June 1, 2020 or the date of execution of the Settlement Agreement, whichever is later.; 2. preliminarily approving the Parties' proposed Settlement Agreement; 3. appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative and Plaintiffs counsel as Class Counsel for settlement purposes; 4. establishing a schedule to complete the tasks necessary to effectuate the proposed settlement; and 5. providing that if the Settlement Agreement is not finally approved (or terminates for any reason) all parties shall retain, without prejudice, all objections, arguments, and defenses with respect to class certification. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement the Total Settlement Amount is $1,000,402.58, broken down as follows: $515,502.58 in Refunds and Waivers. Settlement Class Members who were charged amounts in excess of the amount allowed under section 627. 736(5)(a)(4), Fla. Stat, receive 100% of those funds refunded or waived. In other words, each Settlement Class Member will receive 100 cents on the dollar for actual damages sustained. In addition to a refund of any actual damages, Settlement Class Members will automatically receive a pro-rata portion of a $500,000 Statutory Damage Fund. Ms. Kuhr alleges that the Defendant Mayo collected and/or attempted to collect medical bills that were in excess of the amount permitted by Florida law, and that Defendant PSB assisted Mayo in doing so. Mayo Clinic is a comprehensive medical center belonging to the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: The Defendant is represented by: Jordan E. Shaw, Esq. Kimberly A. Slaven, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP 110 Southeast 6th Street, Suite 2150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 989-6333 Facsimile: (954) 989-7781 E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com kslaven@zpllp.com mperez@zpllp.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Schultz Suit Granted Class Status ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ROBERT A. SCHULTZ, JR., et al. v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-04415-MCA-ESK (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; all natural persons with addresses within the state of New Jersey, to whom, beginning July 20, 2015 through and including April 25, 2016, Midland Credit Management, Inc., sent a Section 1692g initial communication or "LT1Y" letter in an attempt to collect a consumer debt with an original creditor of Capital One, and a current balance of less than $600 at the time the letter was sent, which contained the statement: "We will report forgiveness of debt as required by IRS regulations. Reporting is not required every time a debt is canceled or settled, and might not be required in your case"; 2. appointing Flitter Milz, P.C., and the Kim Law Firm LLC as counsel for the class; 3. appointing Robert and Donna Schultz as class representatives; 4. certifying claim for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act on behalf of the class. Midland is specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions.[CC] MILLENNIUM STEEL: Charles-Pierre Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------ JACQUES CHARLES-PIERRE, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MILLENNIUM STEEL, INC. a Florida corporation, and RICARDO WRIGHT, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:20-cv-61248-RKA (S.D. Fla., June 25, 2020) brings this complaint against Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an Iron Worker. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly worked over 40 hours a week. But, Defendant paid them the same regular rate for the overtime hours they worked instead of paying them at one and one-half times their regular rate pursuant to the FLSA. Ricardo Wright owns and operates Millennium Steel, Inc. Millennium Steel, Inc. is a construction company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Camar R. Jones, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Tel: 561-447-8888 Fax: 561-447-8831 Emails: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com cjones@shavitzlaw.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Nguyen Sues Over Unpaid Escrow Fund Interest ----------------------------------------------------------------- Trung Q. Nguyen and Sally H. Nguyen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, d/b/a MR. COOPER, Case No. 3:20-cv-01227-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal., June 30, 2020), alleges that the Defendant has a uniform, unlawful policy of not paying interest to borrowers, including the Plaintiffs, as required under California law. The Defendant fails to pay interest on borrower funds held by it in escrow, according to the complaint. The Defendant's nonpayment of interest on these escrowed sums violates California law requiring mortgage lenders to pay a borrower a minimum of 2% in simple interest for money received in advance from the borrower to satisfy tax and insurance obligations. Mortgage lenders and servicers often require borrowers to pay funds into escrow to cover property taxes, insurance premiums, and other property-related expenses. The Plaintiffs, the Nguyens, purchased a single-family home located in San Marcos, California, and simultaneously entered into a mortgage loan to finance their purchase. They contend that the Defendant violated, and continues to violate, California law by not paying interest to them on funds that it has held in escrow for them at various times since 2018. Nationstar Mortgage LLC is one of the largest servicers of residential mortgages in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Jordan Elias, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 Email: dgirard@girardsharp.com jelias@girardsharp.com apolk@girardsharp.com NCAA: Disregards Concussion Effects to Footballers, Manning Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH MANNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01727-JPH-MPB (S.D. Ind., June 25, 2020) is a class action complaint and demand for jury trial brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against the Defendant to obtain redress for concussion-related injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Southern University and A&M College student-football players. According to the complaint, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect Plaintiff and other Southern University football players from the long-term dangers associated with them, despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries like those Plaintiff experienced, to save the profitable business of amateur college football. As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and countless former Southern University football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. The National Collegiate Athletic Association serves as the governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees 23 college sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics across the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554-9099 Facsimile: (713) 554-9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: 312.589.6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 Facsimile: (415) 373-9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com NCB MANAGEMENT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Otzelberger" ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as DIANA OTZELBERGER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NCB MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00831-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiffs' claims by tendering the plaintiffs' individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint herself as the class representative, and appoint her attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "the parties did not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: meldridge@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com NES GLOBAL: Alvarez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Loyda Alvarez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NES Global, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01933 (S.D. Tex., June 2, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. NES is a staffing company that provides recruitment services to the oil and gas industry. NES assigned Alvarez to XTO Energy in Carlsbad, New Mexico and Midland, Texas as a Project Scheduler from September 2019 until April 2020. She claims to be paid a day-rate basis without paid overtime for the hours she worked in excess of 40 hours each week. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Carl A. Fitz, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com cfitz@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com NEW JERSEY EDUC: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Filed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as C.P., individually and on behalf of F.P., a minor child; D.O. individually and on behalf of M.O., a minor child; S.B.C., individually and on behalf of C.C., a minor child; A.S., individually and on behalf of A.A.S., a minor child; John and Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of their minor child, James Doe; Y.H.S. and H.Y., individually and on behalf of their minor child, C.H.S.; J.M. and E.M. on behalf of their minor children, C.M. and E.M.; M.M., individually and on behalf of K.M.; Roberta Roe, on behalf of her minor child Robin Roe; E.P., individually and on behalf of her minor child, Ea.P.; and on behalf of ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; LAMONT REPOLLET, Acting Commissioner of Education, Case No. 1:19-cv-12807-NLH-KMW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. granting the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification; and 2. appointing John Rue & Associates as class counsel. The New Jersey Department of Education administers state and federal aid programs affecting more than 1.4 million public and non-public elementary and secondary school children in the state of New Jersey.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John D. Rue, Esq. JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES 694 Route 15 South, Ste 206 Lake Hopatcong, NJ 07849 Telephone: (862) 283-3155 E-mail: john@johnruelaw.com NTHRIVE SOLUTIONS: Mearidy Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CLORINDA MEARIDY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NTHRIVE SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00387 (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying this action and for court- authorized notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act; 2. approving the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the consent form; 3. producing names, last known mailing addresses, last-known cell phone numbers, email addresses, work locations, and dates of employment of all putative plaintiffs within 15 days of the Order; and 4. distributing the Notice and Opt-in Form via first class mail, email, and/or text message to all putative plaintiffs of the conditionally certified collective, with a reminder mailing to be sent 45-days after the initial mailing to all non-responding putative plaintiffs. The Defendant helps hospitals and health care providers with a combination of revenue cycle services, technology, education, analytics and advisory services.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Charlotte C. Smith, Esq. Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130 Cary, NC 27513 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Facsimile: (919) 869-1853 E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com rtucci@gildahernandezlaw.com OTAY MESA: Court Denies Alvarez Class Certification Bid as Moot ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JACINTO VICTOR ALVAREZ, JOSEPH BRODERICK, MARLENE CANO, JOSE CRESPO-VENEGAS, NOE GONZALEZ-SOTO, VICTOR LARA-SOTO, RACQUEL RAMCHARAN, GEORGE RIDLEY, MICHAEL JAMIL SMITH, LEOPOLDO SZURGOT, JANE DOE, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00782-DMS-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dana M. Sabraw entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction; and 2. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for certification of the following class: "all people detained pretrial or post-conviction by the United States Marshal Service at Otay Mesa who are aged 45 or older or who have medical conditions that place them at heightened risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19." The Court said, "The Plaintiffs are requesting the Court to impose a reduction of the prison population at OMDC as the first step in addressing the facility's COVID-19 outbreak. The Court, however, cannot order such relief without first following the PLRA's requirements. The Plaintiffs, therefore, have failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim."[CC] PENN CREDIT: Gurzi Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ANGELA GURZI, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PENN CREDIT, CORPORATION, Case No. 6:19-cv-00823-GAP-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff has filed placeholder motion for class certification. Penn Credit is a nationwide accounts receivables management firm.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander H. Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 909 Davis St., Suite 500 Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 Facsimile: (312) 729-5289 E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com - and - Larry P. Smith, Esq. David Marco, Esq. SMITH MARCO, P.C. 55 W Monroe St., Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (888) 822-1777 E-mail: lsmith@smithmarco.com dmarco@smithmarco.com PETROCHOICE LLC: Gravely Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as TAMARA GRAVELY, et al. v. PETROCHOICE, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-05409-CDJ (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective, defined as: "all persons presently or formerly employed by the Defendant during the past three years in the position of Administrative Assistant, Billing Specialist and/or Account Billing Specialist, and/or Accounts Payable, or in positions with substantially similar job duties who were paid on an hourly basis and subject to the Defendant's unpaid meal break policy." The Defendant is a lubricant distributor.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 267-273-1054 Facsimile: 215-525-0210 E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com PHILADELPHIA: Adeshigbin Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ADRIANE ADESHIGBIN, and all those similarly situated v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 2:19-cv-06079-JMY (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff files a motion for court-authorized Fair Labor Standards Act notice of collective action. The Plaintiff is seeking to have FLSA lawsuit be conditionally certified by the Court as Plaintiff and the proposed collective members are similarly situated. By conditionally certifying this matter, the Plaintiff will mail and email approved notices and consent forms to those employees who are part of the Collective. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania's largest city, is notable for its rich history, on display at the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall and other American Revolutionary sites.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael S. Weinert, Esq. Edward T. Kang, Esq. KANG HAGGERTY & FETBROYT LLC 123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1670 Philadelphia, PA 19109 Telephone: 215-525-5850 Facsimile: 215-525-5860 E-mail: ekang@KHFlaw.com mweinert@KHFlaw.com PINNACLE CLINICAL: Perez Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JOSE PEREZ and SAMANTHA GALLEY, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PINNACLE CLINICAL RESEARCH, PLLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-112-OLG (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a class of: "all hourly employees who received a bonus at any time since January 30, 2017"; 2. directing the Defendant to produce the contact information of the putative collective members no later than one week after the date of the entry of the Order granting the current motion; 3. approving the Notice and Consent to join; 4. approving the distribution of the Notice and Consent; 5. approving the distribution of Postcards; 6. approving the notice through U.S. Mail and email; and 7. granting Plaintiffs' counsel a period of 90 days from the date the Defendant fully and completely releases the potential collective members' contact information, to distribute the Notice and file Consent forms. The Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Pinnacle Clinical conducts late phase clinical trials in the areas of Hepatology and Gastroenterology.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael Holland, Esq. Inez McBride, Esq. Holland & Holland, LLC North Frost Center San Antonio, TX 78209 Telephone: 210-824-8282 Facsimile: 210-824-8585 E-mail: mholland@hollandfirm.com imcbride@hollandfirm.com PIONEER NATURAL: Kennedy Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class --------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT KENNEDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES, Case No. 7:20-cv-00086-DC (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting conditional certification for the following Fair Labor Standards class: "all Construction Managers, Project Managers, Drilling Consultants, and Completions Consultants employed by, or working on behalf of, Pioneer who were classified as independent contractors and paid a day-rate during the past 3 years." The Plaintiff alleges that Pioneer did not pay its construction management and wellsite contractor workforce overtime as required by the FLSA. Instead, Pioneer misclassifies these workers as independent contractors and pays them a set daily rate with no overtime pay. Pioneer's pay practice violates this FLSA because these workers should have received overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a week. Pioneer is a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration in the Cline Shale, which is part of the Spraberry Trend of the Permian Basin, where the company is the largest acreage holder.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Carl A. Fitz, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com cfitz@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com PNC BANK: Bookmyer Seeks to Recover Agent Fees ---------------------------------------------- William Bookmyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PNC Bank, N.A., The Huntington National Bank, N.A., Fifth Third Bank, N.A., CME Federal Credit Union and ABC Banks 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02284 (S.D. Ohio, May 5, 2020), seeks damages and declaratory relief resulting from unjust enrichment, conversion and violation of the CARES Act. On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. This legislation included $377 billion in federally-funded loans to small businesses and a $500 billion governmental lending program, administered by the United States Department of Treasury to provide support to entrepreneurs and small businesses. Part of the CARES Act is the "Paycheck Protection Program" (PPP) that provides small businesses with loans to provide small businesses with eight weeks of cash-flow assistance to fund payrolls. Said loans are administered by Treasury, backed by the Federal Government, but funded by private lenders, including the Defendants. Bookmyer is a certified public accountant from Powell, Ohio. It sought to obtain PPP loans through the Defendants on behalf of its clients and expected to be paid agent fees from the Lenders upon funding of its clients' loans under the PPP. However, he was either denied or would be paid only fifty percent of the mandated fees. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Arnold, Esq. Damion M. Clifford, Esq. Gerhardt A. Gosnell II, Esq. Tiffany L. Carwile, Esq. ARNOLD & CLIFFORD LLP 115 W. Main St., 4th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Tel: (614) 460-1600 Email: jarnold@arnlaw.com dclifford@arnlaw.com ggosnell@arnlaw.com tcarwile@arnlaw.com PRUCO LIFE: Settlement of Behfarin Suit Wins Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Richard Behfarin v. Pruco Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:17-cv-05290-MWF-FFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald entered an order granting the settlement motion and the fee motion. The Court awards Class Counsel $3,500,000 in fees and $500,000 in litigation costs, to be paid by the Defendants. The Court also awards the Named Plaintiff an incentive award of $25,000. Upon completion of administration of the Settlement, the parties shall file a declaration that includes: -- the total number of claims submitted (broken out by group and by requested relief); -- the total number of claims approved (broken out by group and by requested relief); and -- a summary and amount of the settlement relief granted (broken out by group and requested relief). The Court finds that a $50,000 award to the Plaintiff would be excessive given that this action only lasted several years and did not proceed to trial. Nonetheless, the Plaintiff's declaration demonstrates that he expended significant time and effort in this action and provided expertise throughout the litigation process. Therefore, the Court finds the award of $25,000 appropriate. Pruco offers individual life insurance, variable life insurance, term life insurance, and individual variable annuities.[CC] PURA VIDA: Ruiz Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Roberto Ruiz and other similarly situated individuals v. PURA VIDA MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-22700-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2020), is brought to recover damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked 60 hours every week. However, he was paid for hours. Sometimes, the Plaintiff was paid for some overtime hours, but there is a substantial number of overtime hours that were not paid to him at any rate, not even at the minimum wage rate, as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff clocked in and out for a few months, and then he didn't, but the Defendant always was in complete control of the Plaintiff's working hours, and it was able to keep track of the hours worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals, says the complaint. Therefore, the Defendant willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked over 40, in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt local driver. PURA VIDA MEDICAL CENTER is a medical center that provides a complete range of medical services, including transportation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com RED ROBIN: Settles Rest Break Class Action for $8.5 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that Red Robin has agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle a class action accusing the restaurant chain of violating California law by failing to provide breaks and failing to pay thousands of workers for time spent laundering uniforms. [GN] RELIABLE PCA: Badon Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as STACEY BADON on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated v. RELIABLE PCA AND SIL AGENCY, LLC AND QUENTINA DAWSON, Case No. 2:19-cv-12503-EEF-DMD (E.D. La.), the Court entered an order: 1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and facilitate notice; 2. approving proposed Notice and Opt-In Forms; and 3. directing the Defendants to provide a list of all the last former known addresses and telephone numbers of all current or former employees who may be members of the collective class to counsel to the Plaintiff within 14 days of the date of this Order. Reliable PCA is a licensed home and community based services.[CC] RELIANCE OILFIELD: Baird Suit Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as COLBY BAIRD and BYRUM KETRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RELIANCE OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00191-F (W.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a putative collective of and facilitate notice to: "all current and former workers who were employed as hourly-paid, non-exempt Operators (or similar hourly, non- exempt field personnel) by the Defendant in the three years preceding the Complaint filing, and who received a job bonus in one or more workweeks working as an Operator (or similar hourly, non-exempt field personnel)"; 2. directing the Defendant within 30 days after the entry of an Order granting this motion, to produce to Plaintiff's counsel the names, last known home addresses, email addresses to the extent they are known to Defendant, and employment dates (Employee Information) of the Putative Collective Members"; 3. directing the Defendant to provide the Employee Information in a native Excel spreadsheet format; 4. giving the Plaintiff's counsel of 21 one days from the date of receipt of the Employee information to distribute a Notice of Collective Action and Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff form to the Putative Collective Members; and 5. directing the Parties to promptly meet and confer about an appropriate discovery plan within seven days following the close of the Opt-In Period, after the identity of the opt- in plaintiffs is known. Reliance Oilfield provides oilfield services. The company offers high-pressure control tools, drilling solutions, well testing, and wireline services.[CC] The Plaintiff are represented by: Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq. THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC 3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (281) 572-0727 E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com - and - Jack Siegel, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC www.siegellawgroup.biz 4925 Greenville, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 790-4454 - and - Noble K. McIntyre, Esq. Oklahoma Bar No. 16359 MCINTYRE LAW, P.C. 8601 S. Western Avenue Olkahoma City, OK 73139 Telephone: (405) 917-5250 Facsimile: (405) 917-5405s E-mail: noble@mcintyrelaw.com RELIANCE OILFIELD: Court Certifies Collective in Baird Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as COLBY BAIRD and BYRUM KETRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RELIANCE OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00191-F (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Stephen P. Friot entered an order: 1. conditionally certifying a defined putative collective: "all current and former workers who were employed as hourly-paid, non-exempt Operators (or similar hourly, non-exempt field personnel) by the Defendant in the three years preceding the Complaint filing, and who received a job bonus in one or more workweeks working as an Operator (or similar hourly, non-exempt field personnel)"; 2. directing the Defendant within 30 days after the date of this Order, to produce to the Plaintiffs' counsel the names, last known home addresses, email addresses to the extent they are known to Defendant, and employment dates (Employee Information) of the Putative Collective Members; 3. directing the Defendant to provide the Employee Information in a native Excel spreadsheet format; 4. approving the Notice and Consent Form. The Plaintiffs' counsel will have 21 days from the date of receipt of the Employee Information to distribute the Notice to the Putative Class Members in accordance with the below- provided procedure; 5. directing the Plaintiff's counsel to send the Notice and the Consent Form with a self-addressed, postage paid return envelope for U.S. postal mailing; 6. providing the Putative Class Members of 60 days after the date the Notice and Consent are initially mailed to file a Consent form opting into this litigation; and 7. directing the Parties to promptly meet and confer about an appropriate discovery plan within seven days following the close of the Opt-In Period. Reliance offers high-pressure control tools, drilling solutions, well testing, and wireline services.[CC] RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Lead Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------------- IN RE: RESTORATION ROBOTICS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Lead Plaintiff Edgardo Guerrini will move the Court on October 8, 2020, for an order: 1. certifying case as class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; 2. appointing himself as Class Representative; and 3. appointing Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as class counsel. This is a federal securities action against the Defendants Restoration Robotics, Inc.; the Individual Defendants; the Venture Capital Defendants; and the Underwriter Defendants for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, stemming from the initial public offering of Restoration's common stock that commenced on October 12, 2017 and closed on October 16, 2017. Restoration Robotics is a medical device company developing and commercializing the ARTAS (TM) and ARTAS iX (TM) Robotic Hair Restoration System.[CC] The Lead Plaintiff is represented by: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 388 Market Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 373-1671 Facsimile: (415) 484-1294 E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com - and - Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com stornatore@zlk.com RSI ENTERPRISES: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Jance Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as SHPRESA JANCE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RSI ENTERPRISES, INC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00847-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff's individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint herself as the class representative, and appoint her attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "the parties did not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: meldridge@ademilaw.com RYDER SYSTEM: Klein Law Reminds of July 20 Motion Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm on June 22, 2020 disclosed that class action complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Ryder System Inc. There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE:R) Class Period: July 23, 2015 - February 13, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020 The R lawsuit alleges Ryder System, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose during the class period 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. Learn about your recoverable losses in R: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/ryder-system-inc-loss-submission-form?id=7446&from=1 Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages provided. J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: J. Klein, Esq. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 jk@kleinstocklaw.com Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN] SALEM PLACE: Fails to Pay Lawful Overtime Wages, Parker Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cynthia Parker, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SALEM PLACE NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00799-JM (E.D. Ark., June 30, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The lawsuit also seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay lawful overtime compensation under the FLSA and the AMWA. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and others were paid one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 48 hours per week. The Defendant, however, did not pay the Plaintiff and others an overtime premium of one and one half times their regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid licensed practical nurse from June 2018 until June 2020. The Defendant owns and operates a nursing home in Faulkner County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Odom, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: thoma@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com SANDHILLS EMERGENCY: Dennis Suit Seeks to Certify APP Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as KENNETH DENNIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SANDHILLS EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, P.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-00273 (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional certification of this collective action and authorization to send an initial and a reminder Court-supervised Notice to: "all individuals who currently work, or have worked, for the Defendant as an Advance Practice Provider (i.e., Nurse Practitioner or Physician Assistant) at any time with the proceeding three years from the date of filing the complaint (Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs)"; 2. certifying a class of: "all similarly situated Advance Practice Providers (APP) for a North Carolina state law wage claim (NCWHA) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) (Putative Class Members)"; 3. directing the Defendant to produce a computer-readable data file containing the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, and dates of employment for all Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs within seven days of the Court's Order; 4. authorizing notice under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) to Potential Opt-in Plaintiffs; 5. certifying his North Carolina state law wage claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3); 6. appointing his Counsel as Class Counsel; 7. approving the proposed Notice forms; 8. authorizing the Plaintiff to send initial and reminder Notice forms, at his expense, by First Class U.S. Mail and e-mail to all Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs to inform them of their rights and options regarding this lawsuit; 9. directing the posting of the Notice forms by the Defendant at a location in each of the Defendant's local offices where Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members are likely to view it; and 10. providing Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs with 60 days after the date Notice forms are mailed to return a Consent to Join form opting-in to this litigation and/or for Putative Class Members to notify Class Counsel of the decision to opt-out of the North Carolina state law class, unless the Parties agree to permit late filings or good cause can be shown as to why the form and/or opt-out notification was not returned prior to the deadline. The Plaintiff seeks payment of unpaid regular and overtime wages owed to him and other similarly situated employees due to the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. Sandhills Emergency Physicians is an independent and democratic group of emergency medicine specialists whose physician members are all board-eligible or board-certified by the American Board of Emergency Medicine or the American Osteopathic Board of Emergency Medicine.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq. Craig L. Leis, Esq. GIBBONS LEIS, PLLC 14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Suite 325 Charlotte, NC 28277 Telephone: 704-612-0038 E-mail: phil@gibbonsleis.com craig@gibbonsleis.com SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Jackson Residents' Water Bill Class Suit Nixed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Vicory, writing for Mississippi Clarion Ledger, reports that bill that would provide relief for Jackson water bill ratepayers has passed both houses of the Legislature with unanimous support and now awaits the governor's signature. Senate Bill 2856, authored by Sen. John Horhn, would allow the city of Jackson to establish a flexible payment plan for water and sewer bills to help residents who need more time to bring their accounts current. The bill would also give the city more clarity on what water bill cases can be considered for review and possible debt forgiveness. Water billing fight: Judge rejects Jackson residents' class-action lawsuit against Siemens Those cases include residents who have been affected by natural disasters -- such as the Pearl River flood, faulty water and sewer line equipment or those considered "disproportionately impoverished or needy." The bill applies to any municipality in the state with a population of 150,000 residents or more, making it specific to Jackson, the state's largest city. Water collection challenges in Jackson The inability to collect on water revenue has been the city's greatest financial challenge, resulting in multi-million dollar shortages to its bottom line each year. It has also affected the city's bond rating since the city has been forced to borrow from its general fund to cover the shortfalls. The bill -- if signed by the governor -- would also address the bond issue. It would allow the city to shuffle existing debt into a separate "uncollectible" account so its bond rating would not be negatively affected. The better the bond ratings the more money a city can borrow at lower interest rates to fix infrastructure. Bill meant to 'incentivize' payments Many residents in the city have complained of high water bills, while some others still say they aren't receiving a bill at all. The poverty rate in Jackson, close to 30%, means many residents struggle to pay those bills. When they finally receive a bill, it can be in the thousands of dollars. Horhn said the bill is a way to "incentivize" Jackson residents to pay their water bill. He proposed the city could forgive some debt for qualifying residents who make consecutive "good faith" payments. "Let's say you have a resident who consecutively pays their bill for seven months. On the eighth month, the city could put that monthly payment into an uncollectible account," he said. Recent water billing lawsuits A recent class action lawsuit brought by several Jackson residents to hold Siemens Industry, LLC accountable for the water bills was recently dismissed in federal court. The company was brought on by the city in 2012 to fix its billing and water system. It led to widespread billing issues that persist to this day. The city of Jackson filed its own lawsuit against Siemens last summer and recently settled for the full amount of the $89.8 million contract, which was the largest in city history. That led to an improvement in the city's bond rating, but officials recognize more measures are needed. The bill passed the House on June 17 by a 118-0 vote. It passed the Senate March 5 by a vote of 51-0. Gov. Tate Reeves has 14 days from June 17 to sign the bill. Horhn said he will reach out to the governor to "ease any heartburn" the governor might have with the bill. He proposed the city could forgive some debt for qualifying residents who make consecutive "good faith" payments. "Let's say you have a resident who consecutively pays their bill for seven months. On the eighth month, the city could put that monthly payment into an uncollectible account," he said. Recent water billing lawsuits A recent class action lawsuit brought by several Jackson residents to hold Siemens Industry, LLC accountable for the water bills was recently dismissed in federal court. The company was brought on by the city in 2012 to fix its billing and water system. It led to widespread billing issues that persist to this day. The city of Jackson filed its own lawsuit against Siemens last summer and recently settled for the full amount of the $89.8 million contract, which was the largest in city history. That led to an improvement in the city's bond rating, but officials recognize more measures are needed. [GN] SOUTH HOUSTON MOTORCARS: Jackson Slams Illegal Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tasha Jackson, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. South Houston Motorcars, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01955 (S.D. Tex., June 3, 2020), seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. South Houston Motorcars operates as South Houston Nissan, a Nissan dealership in Houston. It utilizes prerecorded messages to place calls to unsuspecting consumers on their cellular telephones for the purpose of selling its goods and services. At no point in time did Alvarez provide them with his express written consent to be contacted using an automated dialer, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Ignacio Hiraldo IJH LAW 1200 Brickell Ave. Suite 1950 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 496-4469 Email: IJHiraldo@IJHLaw.com - and - Angelica Gentile, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 Email: agentile@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com TICKETMASTER: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Related Refunds -------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse Pagan, writing for WSYX/WTTE, reports that a class-action lawsuit filed against Ticketmaster is looking to force the company to refund tickets for events postponed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Over the months, some of you have said you've been left in limbo with money tied in tickets. "They're holding back $157 of my money on me that I could really use right now," Brian Baumberger told us in April. He says he still has not received a refund, as his event is technically still "postponed." The complaint, filed in California's Northern District, claims several people "have not been provided refunds for the ticket purchase price, including fees and costs for postponed or rescheduled events . . . " It also says Ticketmaster "sought to retroactively change their policies for refunds . . ." and "quietly force their buyers to endure the financial losses." We reached out to the attorneys on the case, but have not heard back. On their website, Ticketmaster says "in many cases, event organizers will provide you the option to request a refund or a credit . . ." However, if your event is specifically postponed, your tickets are still technically valid and the money could be tied up until the organizer cancels. Ticketmaster would not comment on the lawsuit because it is still pending. [GN] TO-RISE LLC: Settlement of Lora et al. Case Wins Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as EILEEK LORA, JEFFREY GOMEZ, SERGIO MOSCOSO, BERNARDO MENDOZA, NICHOLAS MITRANO, KEVIN MANCO, and WILMER MARIN GARCIA, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. TO-RISE, LLC AND JORGE SALCEDO A/K/A JORGE E. SALCEDO JR., Case No. 16-CV-3604-SJB (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sanket J. Bulsara entered an order: 1. granting motion for final approval of New York Labor Law class and Fair Labor Standards Act collective on behalf of: "all former and current non-exempt persons employed by Defendants at any time between June 29, 2013,” and September 15, 2017"; 2. giving the Plaintiffs' counsel an award of $209,166.67 in attorney's fees and $25,000 for the Settlement Administrator's Fee; and 3. giving all Named Plaintiffs, except Eileek Lora, a service awards of $10,000 each, and giving Eileek Lora a service award of $15,000. This action is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. By operation of the entry of this Order and Final Judgment, all Released Class and Authorized Claimant Claims, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, are fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged pursuant to the terms of the release set forth in the Settlement Agreement as to all Collective Members who became Authorized Claimants by filing a Claim Form and all Class Members, the Court says.[CC] TOYOTA MOTOR: Murphy Sues Over Defective Highlander Transmissions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis and Deborah Murphy, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California corporation, TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California corporation, and TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, a Japanese Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-05892 (C.D. Cal., June 30, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to disclose material facts and safety concern to consumers that certain vehicles have defective 8-speed transmission. The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants on behalf of all persons in the United States, who purchased any 2017 to present Toyota Highlander or 2017 to present Toyota Sienna vehicles ("Class Vehicles") equipped with the defective 8-speed transmission. The Defendants manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold the Class Vehicles without disclosing that the Class Vehicles' transmissions were defective, according to the complaint. The Plaintiffs allege that the Class Vehicles' Direct Shift-8AT Transmission is defective in its design and/or manufacture in that, among other problems, it causes harsh or delayed shifting and engagement, delayed acceleration, hesitation, jerking, unintended acceleration, lurching, excessive revving before upshifting (also known as excessively high RPM shift points), and lack of power when needed (such as from a stop) (the "8AT Transmission Defect"). The Plaintiffs contend that the 8AT Transmission Defect is inherent in each Class Vehicle and was present at the time of sale. Despite these widespread and well-known problems, the Plaintiffs allege, Toyota continued to market the Direct Shift 8AT Transmission not only as a fuel-efficient model, but one that would achieve "quick and smooth response to accelerator pedal operation" which would "create an 'as desired' direct driving feel..." Although the Defendants were sufficiently aware of the 8AT Transmission Defect from pre-production testing, design failure mode analysis, calls to the customer service hotline, and customer complaints made to dealers, this knowledge and information was exclusively in the possession of the Defendants and their network of dealers and, therefore, unavailable to consumers, the Plaintiffs insist. The Plaintiffs add that despite access to aggregate internal data, the Defendants have actively concealed the existence of the defect. Had the Defendants disclosed the 8AT Transmission Defect, the Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have purchased or leased the Class Vehicles or would have paid less for them, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased a new 2018 Highlander XL from Groove Toyota, an authorized Toyota dealer in Englewood, Colorado. The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, warranted, and/or serviced the Class Vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven R. Weinmann, Esq. Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 556-4811 Email: Steven.Weinmann@capstonelawyers.com Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com - and - Russell D. Paul, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: rpaul@bm.net apark@bm.net - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Marc L. Godino, Esq. Danielle L. Manning, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 432-1495 Email: info@glancylaw.com - and - Mark S. Greenstone, Esq. GREENSTONE LAW PC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9156 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com U.S. XPRESS: Neely Alleges Unfair Wage Deductions for Truck Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case ESTELE RAY NEELY, Individually and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC., a Nevada Corporation, U.S. XPRESS, INC., a Nevada Corporation, and U.S. XPRESS LEASING, INC., a Tennessee Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00174 (E.D. Tenn., June 25, 2020) alleges that Defendants erroneously designated Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated as independent contractors and unlawfully deducted from and withheld portions of the wages owed to them in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants required Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated to cover the costs of the truck, insurance, and fuel by intentionally reducing the wages of Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated below the federal minimum wage. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid "over the road" truck driver. U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc., U.S. Xpress, Inc., and U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc. own and operate a fleet of long haul trucks, and provide trucking/distribution services to business entities throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com U.S.A.: Cole Seeks to Certify Class of Student Loan Borrowers ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as KORI COLE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Treasury, ELISABETH DEVOS, in her official capacity as United States Secretary of Education, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-01423-TFH (D. Colo., Filed ), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certify a class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2): "all borrowers of student loans issued or held by ED whose federal tax refunds have been or will be offset by ED and Treasury between March 27, 2020 and September 30, 2020, and whose federal tax refunds that were offset during that time period have not been fully returned to the borrowers"; and 2. appointing Student Defense and Democracy Forward Foundation as class counsel. Despite the clear instruction by Congress, after the CARES Act's enactment on March 27, 2020, the Defendants continued to offset tax refunds through fully automated, computerized system (TOP) to offset student loan debt held by ED. Ms. Cole seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to end and reverse the Defendants' failure to implement the CARES Act. Ms. Cole, is one of thousands of Americans whose tax refunds have been unlawfully offset since the enactment of the CARES Act. She took out federally-held student loans to attend Heritage College in Lakeside. USDT is the national treasury of the federal government of the United States where it serves as an executive department. ED is a Cabinet-level department of the United States.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alice W. Yao, Esq. Daniel A. Zibel, Esq. Eric Rothschild, Esq. NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK 1015 15th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 734-7495 E-mail: dan@defendstudents.org eric@defendstudents.org alice@defendstudents.org - and - Jeffrey B. Dubner, Esq. Sean A. Lev, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION 1333 H Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 448-9090 E-mail: jdubner@democracyforward.org slev@democracyforward.org UBER EATS: Delivery Driver Files IC Misclassification Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Staffing Industry Analysts reports that an Uber Eats delivery driver filed a lawsuit on June 18 claiming he was misclassified by Uber Technologies Inc. (NYSE: UBER) as an independent contractor and denied certain job protections under AB 5, California's get-tough bill on independent contractor misclassification, ClassAction.org reported. The plaintiff, who began working for Uber Eats in January 2020, is represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan -- an attorney known for launching class-action lawsuits against Uber and other human cloud platform firms over the issue of worker misclassification -- and looks to represent all Uber Eats drivers who have worked in California. [GN] UNILEVER: Summary Judgment Upheld in St. Ives Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that two women who say they used a facial scrub and would not have purchased it had they known that it causes "micro-tears" in the skin which, they assert, is now shown by scientific findings, have no personal claims against the manufacturer, Unilever, absent evidence of harm to themselves from use of the product, and have no cognizable class claims, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held. The memorandum opinion upholds a summary judgment granted on Dec. 17, 2018, to Unilever, an international manufacturing giant, by District Court Andrew J. Guilford of the Central District of California. The plaintiffs, Kaylee Browning -- a former California resident, now living in Arizona, who purchased Unilever's St. Ives Apricot Scrub while in this state -- and Sarah Basile, a denizen of New York, sued on the basis of recent revelations about the product. Their District Court complaint asserts that "St. Ives is unfit to be sold or used as a facial scrub" and "is completely worthless." Unilever was derelict, they contend, in failing to disclose the drawbacks inherent in using its scrub. Potential Ill-Effects The pleading, citing studies, says: "Unfortunately for consumers, use of St. Ives as a facial exfoliant leads to long-term skin damage that greatly outweighs any potential benefits the product may provide. St. Ives' primary exfoliating ingredient is crushed walnut shell, which has jagged edges that cause micro-tears in the skin when used in a scrub. While this damage may not be immediately noticeable to the naked eye, it nonetheless leads to acne, infection and wrinkles." In opposing summary judgment, Browning and Basile relied on a declaration by a Florida dermatologist, Mark Nestor, who opined that "use of St. Ives as directed leads to facial skin irritation and impaired barrier function" and other potential medical problems. District Court's View Guilford declared that Browning and Basile "haven't provided sufficient evidence of a safety hazard or product defect that Defendant was required to disclose" and that their "allegations are too generalized and conjectural to survive summary judgment." Assailing their fitness to represent a class, he said: "Browning and Basile are asymptomatic class representatives. Even if the Court found there was a genuine dispute of fact regarding the safety hazard created by the walnut shell powder in St. Ives, it does not appear to have afflicted Browning or Basile . . . Browning and Basile don't claim they suffered from micro-tears, infection, or other physical ailments when they used St. Ives . . . .At best, Plaintiffs assume they suffered from micro-tears which they could neither see nor feel." Ninth Circuit Opinion The Ninth Circuit on June 18 expressed agreement, saying: "Plaintiffs provided no summary judgment evidence linking 'micro-tears' caused by Unilever's facial scrubs to any concrete injuries. Dr. Nestor's summary judgment declaration opined only that an impaired [outer layer of the skin] 'can increase chances' of a host of recognized long-term health risks, but he was unable to observe or quantify any of those risks in his two-week study. Moreover, Plaintiffs used the products for years and showed no symptoms of the 'dry irritated skin or infections' that Dr. Nestor warned could be caused by micro-tears." The opinion says that the plaintiffs' "failure to present summary judgment evidence linking use of the product to actual injury undermines their fraudulent omission theories" and finds no fault with Guilford's rejection of other theories. The case is Browning v. Unilever United States, Inc., 19-55078. [GN] UNITED STATES: Class Action Pending vs ICE Over Mesa Verde Facility ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Davis Vanguard reports that earlier this month, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction to lawyers challenging conditions of detention filed on behalf of everyone detained at the Mesa Verde Detention Facility in Bakersfield. The judge's order supplemented his TRO (temporary restraining order) in late April that required ICE to identify people to release in the face of the social distancing and other problems at the center. At that time, Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court of Northern California rejected the government's argument for a delay and voiced impatience with attempts by ICE to slow down the class action. We have now learned that on June 19, 2020, government lawyers disclosed that a medical provider at the Mesa Verde Detention Center in Bakersfield, CA, tested positive for COVID-19. The disclosure came at a hearing in connection with a class action lawsuit challenging conditions of confinement in ICE detention facilities during COVID-19. Federal District Court Judge Vince Chhabria ordered ICE to present by Monday, June 22, at 5pm what ICE has done and will do in response. "ICE dropped the bombshell news that a medical provider at its privately run detention center in Bakersfield tested positive for COVID-19. It is incomprehensible that, amidst a global pandemic, ICE has failed to take even the most minimal steps to ensure access to testing," said Emi MacLean, an attorney in the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. "It is outrageous that ICE is doing virtually nothing to protect people from the threat of COVID-19 despite the extraordinary risks the pandemic poses for people in detention. There are no excuses. ICE detention in this context is unconscionable." Despite being several months into the pandemic, ICE has not mandated testing in its facilities, and has tested no staff or detainees at the Mesa Verde Detention Center. ICE reported that the medical provider in question obtained a test independently. ICE did not disclose any measures it was taking to ensure the health and safety of its other staff and the people in ICE custody. "Enough is enough. We demand accountability. We also join with key leaders and organizations throughout California to insist that the state launch an independent investigation into the practices of GEO and ICE during this pandemic, which have put lives at risk," says Francisco Ugarte, Manager of the Immigration Defense Unit at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. In the previous order, Chhabria openly chided ICE and its "obstinance" in opposing release of individuals "on a blanket basis" in "positions that are downright irrational, not to mention inhumane." The order noted, "ICE's conduct and attitude towards its detainees at Mesa Verde and Yuba County Jail since the pandemic began have shown beyond doubt that ICE cannot currently be trusted to prevent constitutional violations at these particular facilities without judicial intervention." Chhabria knocked ICE's representation to the court that it was quarantining people transferred into Mesa Verde and Yuba Jail. In fact, it's been learned that at least two people previously held in jail populations with dozens of coronavirus infections were released directly into the main population without any isolation. [GN] UNITED STATES: Detainees Sue Over Denied Right to Contact Counsel ----------------------------------------------------------------- Franklin Gomez Carranza and Ruben Torres Jauregui, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Matthew T. Albence, Acting Director of ICE, Department of Homeland Security, Chad F. Wolf, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Corey A. Price, Field Office Director for the El Paso Field Office, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00424, (D. N.M., May 4, 2020), seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to remedy alleged violations of the constitutional and statutory rights of individuals held in government custody pending immigration proceedings pursuant to the First and Fifth Amendment Clauses. Carranza and Jauregui, citizens of Honduras and Cuba respectively, are held in detention facilities under the custody of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They claim to be denied placing telephone calls necessary to consult with or obtain counsel. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. David Hosp, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP 222 Berkeley St. Ste. 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 880-1886 Facsimile: (617) 880-1801 Email: dhosp@orrick.com - and - Paige Pavone, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 506-3604 Facsimile: (212) 506-5151 Email: ppavone@orrick.com UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Gold Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund ------------------------------------------------------- Julie Gold, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated Plaintiff, v. The University of Miami, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-22316 (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2020), seeks disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees, on-campus housing, and meals, injunctive relief including enjoining the University of Miami from retaining the pro-rated, unused monies paid for tuition, fees, on-campus housing and meals, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded and such other and further relief as may be just and proper, refunds of all tuition fees paid on a pro-rata basis, together with other damages resulting from breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The University of Miami is a private institution located in Miami, Florida. Gold's son was a full-time undergraduate student during Spring 2020 semester. The University of Miami decided to close campus, constructively evict students, and transition all classes to an online/remote format as a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease. Gold claims to be deprived the benefits of in-person instruction, access to campus facilities, student activities and other benefits and services in exchange for which they had already paid fees and tuition. The University of Miami refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees and other costs. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. Michael J. Pascucci, Esq. EGGNATZ PASCUCCI, P.A. 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Phone: (954) 889-3359 Fax: (954) 889-5913 Email: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com - and - Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Tel: (516) 873-9550 Email: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com USA TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal from Decision to Stay Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ USA Technologies, 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 appeal from the order of the Chester County, Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania granting a stay on the putative class action suit with Docket No. 2019-04821-MJ, is still pending. A putative shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company, its chief executive officer and chief financial officer at the relevant time, its directors at the relevant time, and the Underwriters, in the Court of Common Pleas, Chester County, Pennsylvania, Docket No. 2019-04821-MJ. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. On September 20, 2019 the Court granted the defendants' Petition for Stay and stayed the Chester County action until the Consolidated Action reaches a final disposition. On October 18, 2019, plaintiff filed an appeal USA Technologies, Inc. provides wireless networking, cashless transactions, asset monitoring, and other value-added services in the United States and internationally. USA Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania. USA TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in PA Suit Wins Preliminary Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- USA Technologies, 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 Eastern District of Pennsylvania has granted preliminary approval of the settlement in the consolidated class action suit with Docket No. 19-cv-04565. As previously reported, various putative shareholder class action complaints had been filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company, its chief executive officer and chief financial officer at the relevant time, its directors at the relevant time, and the investment banks who served as underwriters in the May 2018 follow-on public offering of the Company (the "Underwriters"). These complaints alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These various actions were consolidated by the Court into one action (the "Consolidated Action"), and the Court granted the Motion to Transfer filed by the Company and its former chief executive officer, and transferred the Consolidated Action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Docket No. 19-cv-04565. On November 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and defendants filed motions to dismiss on February 3, 2020. The Court has not yet ruled on the motions to dismiss. The parties participated in a private mediation on February 27, 2020 which resulted in a settlement. On May 29, 2020, the plaintiffs filed documents with the Court seeking preliminary approval of the settlement, with the defendants supporting approval of the settlement. On June 9, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and issued a scheduling order for further action on the settlement. The settlement provides for a payment of $15.3 million which includes all administrative costs and plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses. The Company's insurance carriers are anticipated to pay approximately $12.7 million towards the settlement and the Company is anticipated to pay approximately $2.6 million towards the settlement, which has been recorded as a liability in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements. Payments will not be distributed pursuant to the settlement until and unless an opt-out process is completed successfully and the Court grants final approval of the settlement. USA Technologies said, "The Company expects but cannot assure that those events will occur later in the calendar year. Should the settlement not be approved the parties will resume litigation of the claims." USA Technologies, Inc. provides wireless networking, cashless transactions, asset monitoring, and other value-added services in the United States and internationally. USA Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania. VAIL CORP: Bellafatto Sues Over Cancelled Ski Passes, Seeks Refund ------------------------------------------------------------------ Amanda Bellafatto, an individual person on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Vail Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01585, (D. Colo., June 2, 2020), seeks restitutionary damages, a full cash refund, an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs and such other and further relief resulting from breach of contract/warranty and violation of The Colorado Consumer Protection Act. Vail operates ski resorts in Colorado where Bellafatto purchased season passes for the 2019-2020 ski season but was canceled as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. She claims to be denied a refund. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 432-8492 Email: jllurie@pomlaw.com VAIL CORP: Connolly Wants Ski Pass Refunded Amid COVID-19 Closure ----------------------------------------------------------------- MCKENNA CONNOLLY, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. THE VAIL CORPORATION d/b/a Vail Resorts Management Company, a Colorado Corporation Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01881 (D. Colo., June 25, 2020) is a class action complaint by the Plaintiff for Defendant's negligence, reckless, and/or intentional practice of effectively canceling Plaintiff's and Class Members' ski and snowboard passes without issuing any refund. According to the complaint, Defendant sells hundreds of thousands of their popular Epic Passes throughout the country, many of which cost hundreds of dollars or as much as a thousand dollars. In March of 2020 and in the face of the spreading COVID-19 pandemic, Defendant initially suspended operations at all of its ski areas in North America from March 15, 2020 until March 22, 2020. Defendant stated that it would refund all lift tickets that were valid for March 15-22, 2020; however, Defendant refused to provide refunds of any portion of the monies passholders paid to purchase Epic Passes. On March 17, 2020, Defendant stated that it would close all of it ski areas in North America beginning March 20, 2020. Defendant announced for the first time on April 27, 2020, that it would issue credits- varying in amount based on the type of pass and the usage prior to the shutdowns- to impacted 2019-2020 passholders. However, those credits may only be applied toward the purchase of new passes for the 2020-2021 season and Defendant continues to refuse to offer refunds of any kind for the Epic Passes for the 2019-2020 season. Plaintiff Connolly, who purchased the Epic Local Pass on October 12, 2019 for $719.00, seeks for herself and Class Members monetary and injunctive relief compensating consumers on a pro-rata basis for the unused portions of their Epic Passes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. Nicholas R. Lange, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 111 West Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com nlange@carlsonlynch.com VMSB LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Gonzales Claims --------------------------------------------------------- The case, JAVIER A. GONZALEZ, and other similarly individuals, Plaintiff v. VMSB, LLC d/b/a CASA CASUARINA d/b/a GIANNI'S, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-22644-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 25, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from on or about January 1, 2019 through approximately March 13, 2020 as a non-exempt, full-time, hourly line cook. Plaintiff claims that despite regularly working 6 days per week with more than 40 hours every week, Defendant denied him of the overtime wages at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40. Moreover, Plaintiff suffered a deduction of 3 hours every week for the 30 minutes lunch breaks which constitute additional overtime hours that Defendant failed to pay. VMSB, LLC d/b/a Casa Casuarina d/b/a Gianni's operates a hotel and restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Tel: (305) 446-1500 Fax: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com VOLKSWAGEN: Judge Dismisses Salepeople's Dieselgate Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge has dismissed a proposed class action by Volkswagen salespeople who said the automaker's diesel emissions cheating scheme fooled them into taking their jobs and resulted in their compensation declining when the scandal became public. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco ruled on June 18 that in claiming VW and auto supplier Robert Bosch GmbH committed racketeering and fraud, the salespeople at VW dealerships failed to adequately allege the scheme was what caused them to earn less in commissions due to a drop in sales. [GN] WALMART INC: Gabertan Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts ----------------------------------------------------- Charlie Gabertan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Walmart Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05520 (W.D. Wash., June 1, 2020), seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Walmart is a multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores and grocery stores. To promote its services, it engages in unsolicited SMS ads sent en masse via an auto dialer. Gabertan did not give express consent to receive such texts. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Aaron M. Ahlzadeh, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com aaron@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Kira M. Rubel, Esq. THE HARBOR LAW GROUP 3615 Harborview Drive NW, Suite C Gig Harbor, WA 98332-2129 Tel: (253) 251-2955 Email: Kira@theharborlawgroup.com WASTE PRO: Tweedie Suit Seeks to Certify Background Check Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CANDISS TWEEDIE, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WASTE PRO OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida profit corporation, and WASTE PRO USA, INC., a Florida profit corporation, Case No. 8:19-cv-01827-TPB-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a Background Check Class of: "all WastePro employees and job applicants in the United States who were the subject of a consumer report that was procured by WastePro within two years of the filing of this complaint through the date of final judgment in this action as required by 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(2)(A) and as to whom WastePro used the purported disclosure and authorization form, or substantially similar forms"; 2. designating herself as Class Representative; 3. appointing her counsel and her firm as class counsel; and 4. allowing for notification to the Class members. The Plaintiff alleges when WastePro procured her consumer report, it violated her rights pursuant to 15 U.S.C. sections 1681b(b)(2)(A))(i)-(ii). Without providing her a lawful disclosure, WastePro failed to obtain her lawful authorization before obtaining her consumer report. WastePro operates several waste-related businesses, including waste collection and recycling, dumpster rentals and transfer/landfill services.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: 813-223-5505 Facsimile: 813-257-0572 E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Amy S. Tingley, Esq. Matthew J. Pierce, Esq. Jennifer Elouise Belbeck, Esq. STOVASH, CASE & TINGLEY, P.A. The VUE at Lake Eola 220 N. Rosalind Avenue Orlando, FL 32801 E-mail: atingley@sctlaw.com mpearce@sctlaw.com jbelbeck@sctlaw.com WHITE COUNTY, IN: Hines Seeks to Certify Confined Persons Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JUSTIN A. HINES, on behalf of himself and a class of those similarly situated v. SHERIFF OF WHITE COUNTY, INDIANA, in his official capacity, Case No. 4:20-cv-00043-TLS-JPK (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons currently confined, or who will in the future be confined, in the White County Jail"; and 2. appointing himself as counsel for the class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). White County is a county located in the U.S. state of Indiana. As of the 2010 census, the population was 24,643. The county seat is Monticello.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gavin M. Rose, Esq. Stevie J. Pactor, Esq. ACLU OF INDIANA 1031 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 Telephone: 317 635-4059 Facsimile: 317 635-4105 E-mail: grose@aclu-in.org spactor@aclu-in.org XTO ENERGY: Shortchanges Oil/Gas Royalty Payments, Brusamonti Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter Brusamonti and Lisa Brusamonti, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. XTO Energy. Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00652 (W.D. Pa., May 4, 2020), seeks compensatory losses and damages allowed by law, including prejudgment and post-judgment interest and costs and expenses of litigation and such other further relief resulting from breach of contract. XTO Energy produces gas and its constituents in Western Pennsylvania under various standard form oil and gas leases. Peter and Lisa Brusamonti, a married couple, are the owners of mineral interests in real property located in Butler County, Pennsylvania. XTO allegedly breached the oil and gas leases by artificially reducing the royalties it paid and failed to pay royalties due on production. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. Sara J. Watkins, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Tel: (412) 281-7229 Fax: (412) 281-4229 Email: arihn@peircelaw.com swatkins@peircelaw.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. Daniel C. Levin, Esq. LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Tel: (215) 592-1500 Fax: (215) 592-4663 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com dlevin@lfsblaw.com YOUTUBE: Black Users File Race Discrimination Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that four black content creators have sued YouTube for allegedly engaging in race-based discrimination by restricting and de-monetizing videos that carry titles or tags like "black lives matter," "racism," and "white supremacy." In a class-action complaint filed in federal court in San Jose, YouTube users Kimberly Carleste Newman, Lisa Cabrera, Catherine Jones, and Denotra Nicole Lewis allege that the company uses artificial intelligence, algorithms and other filtering tools "to limit or prevent revenue generation from videos" based on racial identity or viewpoint. Google's YouTube "knowingly used and continue to use discriminatory content filtering review tools and procedures that 'target' plaintiffs and other persons similarly situated, for access restrictions because they are African American, persons of color, or are identified by defendants as having an ethnicity or other personal immutable traits and/or viewpoints, not because the actual video content or material violates YouTube's purportedly neutral content rules," the lawsuit alleges. Newman and the other plaintiffs are not the first to accuse Google of viewpoint discrimination. For example, Prager University sued YouTube for allegedly violating the First Amendment by de-monetizing and restricting access to conservative clips. In that matter, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in February that Google is not bound by the First Amendment's prohibition against censorship, because the First Amendment only applies to government entities and not private companies like YouTube. But Prager's complaint, unlike the one filed last week, did not also accuse Google of violating federal laws that prohibit race-based discrimination. The new class-action complaint comes as web companies' content practices are under increased scrutiny. In [May], President Trump issued an executive order that aims to task the Federal Communications Commission with developing regulations to link web companies' legal protections to their content moderation policies. [GN] [*] AUSTRALIA: Restaurant Owners Urged to Seek Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Sky News host Rowan Dean says restaurant owners in Victoria should seek a class action law suit against the government for destroying their businesses after the premier reinstituted lockdown measures. Victoria has recently experienced a spike in coronavirus cases with the state recording over 100 current active cases of the virus, forcing the premier to hold off on planned easing of lockdown restrictions. "This is what happens when you vote in Labor governments and Labor authoritarian individuals," Mr Dean told Sky News host Paul Murray. [GN] [*] Court Hears Meatpacker Cos.' Motion to Dismiss Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Zach Fisher, writing for News-Press NOW, reports that a lot of attention has been placed on the meatpacking industry and its prices over the last several months. There has been trouble over the last several decades, according to the head of a cattleman rights organization. A class-action lawsuit was filed in a federal circuit court in Minnesota against the four main meat-production companies for rigging prices. "That's what was held on June 8, was the Minnesota federal district court heard oral arguments on the packer's motion to dismiss the case," Bill Bullard, chief executive officer of R-Calf USA, said. "In May they were the highest beef prices on record that consumers were paying. This strongly suggests to us that the marketplace is broken and it is in dire need of immediate action." R-Calf has been involved in lawsuits for years with meat processors. This time there is momentum at every level of government on the group's side, which is something Bullard said is unique to the industry. Bullard also said that the COVID-19 pandemic played a huge role in getting legislators involved. There are 11 state attorney generals, commissioners of agriculture, members of Congress and even President Trump listening to this issue. The lawsuit is filed in Minnesota, but the litigation impacts producers in every state in the nation. The case is still in the early stages but has the potential to change some federal laws on what the big four meat processors are allowed to do in terms of setting prices. While there are still a lot of steps and victories needed to get to that stage, Bullard said those on his side are taking things one step at a time. "If we prevail in this, which we hope to do, we will then move on to the discovery phase. Now in our lawsuit we alleged that the meatpackers conspired to artificially depress prices and violation of the law," Bullard said. [GN] [*] COVID-19 Class Actions Target Hospitality, Leisure Industry --------------------------------------------------------------- Jaikaran Singh, Esq. -- jsingh@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that plaintiff's lawyers trying to capitalize on the chaos created by the COVID-19 pandemic have filed class action lawsuits against hospitality and leisure industry companies, like hotels, timeshares, fitness and social clubs, amusement parks, ski resorts, and even homeowner's associations, among others, seeking refunds of monthly fees and dues based on alleged lack of access or use of facilities and amenities caused by a business' compliance with state and local operations restrictions and agency guidelines. Most of the cases filed to date have focused on breach of contract, tort and statutory consumer protection law theories of liability and recovery. Unfortunately, there is reason to anticipate that this activity will continue, and potentially even escalate in some states. Companies that charge monthly membership dues or fees should be prepared to respond quickly, decisively and strategically if their business becomes a target for a COVID-19 related class action. This article offers a litigation checklist with a high-level look at some important procedural and strategy considerations that may apply on a case by case basis for defending against these types of class claims. Depending on the specific facts at issue, the options presented in this checklist, where available, may factor into an approach for companies to use in working with counsel to effectively manage and address a class action related to COVID-19. Procedural and Venue Considerations Removal to Federal Court: If the plaintiff filed the case in state court, consider removal to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), or possibly traditional diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. Because COVID-19 related claims are typically being asserted on behalf of all members or customers, the CAFA requirements of minimal diversity, at least 100 class members and greater than $5 million in controversy for federal jurisdiction are often satisfied. To the extent an arbitration agreement exists, a federal court venue is preferable for seeking to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. Arbitration Provision with Class Action Waiver: Is there an agreement to arbitrate that can serve as a basis to compel arbitration (i.e., user agreement, membership agreement, service contract, online enrollment form)? Most asserted COVID-19 related claims targeting the hospitality and leisure industry arise from or involve providing services or other performance pursuant to a consumer contract, which often contain an arbitration provision with class action waiver. Arbitration agreements with class action waivers are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. See AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011). Choice of Venue: If arbitration is not available, is there a consumer contract with a choice of venue provision or forum selection clause that governs where any litigation is to proceed? Consider whether a motion to change or transfer venue to a more favorable forum exists based on contract or some other ground, like the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens. See Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, 571 U.S. 49 (2013); see also 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). Choice of Law: A related contract consideration is whether a choice of law provision exists that dictates what law applies? If so, does that choice of law provision cover contract based claims and non-contract based claims? Depending on the wording of the choice of law provision, there may be a question of what law applies to non-contract based claims, like tort or statutory consumer protection law claims. Note also that the law of the forum state where a class action is venued does not necessarily govern the claims of all class members. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985). Specific Jurisdiction Challenge: Under Bristol-Meyers Squibb v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), district courts are precluded from exercising specific jurisdiction over the claims of non-resident plaintiffs in state mass tort actions unless the plaintiff can show sufficient contacts with the forum and the facts giving rise to the plaintiff's claim. Although courts in different jurisdictions are split on the application of Bristol-Myers to nationwide class actions, depending on the venue, a challenge to specific jurisdiction for out-of-state plaintiffs is worth consideration at the early litigation stage. Defense Strategy Considerations Lack of Standing: Did the named plaintiff suffer an injury in fact or harm sufficient to confer Article III standing? See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). Depending on the service or performance at issue, the named plaintiff (and other consumers) may not have sustained cognizable injury or harm because of actions taken by the defendant to mitigate damages, provide reasonable alternatives or substitutions for performance, make reparation, or postpone performance (as opposed to cancelation) for a later time when not prohibited or restricted, or when otherwise more feasible to do. No Breach of Contract: Depending on the language of a consumer contract, an argument may exist to support a showing of no breach if an agreement allows for reasonable modifications, substitute performance or the ability to make reparations during the contract term, which was done or offered by the non-performing party. Class Certification: The details of a defense plan to defeat class certification will depend on the case-specific facts. However, with COVID-19 related class claims, it is likely that the most effective certification defense will focus on differences within the proposed class concerning contract terms, performance, derived benefits, causation and injury, harm or damage, and the existence of state and local orders or directives or other circumstances affecting the defendant's ability to perform. Variation among putative class members will shape arguments related to the Rule 23 requirements of predominance and typicality. Force Majeure: Does the consumer contract contain an applicable force majeure provision? The use by a nonperforming party of a force majeure provision is contract language specific, and turns on the particular facts at issue. Accordingly, the first step is to determine whether a COVID-19 related event qualifies as force majeure under the contract. If so, was nonperformance by the defendant foreseeable and able to be mitigated by the plaintiff, and is performance by the defendant actually impossible, such that it is excused. State and local government imposition of prohibitions and restrictions on business operations, travel, venue capacity, gatherings and movement in general should be considered to assess whether the circumstances in a particular case give rise to a qualifying event for force majeure. Frustration of Purpose: Where a force majeure defense is not available, the common law defense of frustration of purpose may exist when an event unforeseen at the time of contracting undermines the parties' principal purpose for entering into a contract such that any reasonably available means to perform is materially different from what the parties contemplated when they formed the contract. One consideration when asserting this defense is that if successful, the contract is terminated, which, depending on the situation, may not be a desirable outcome. Impossibility or Impracticability of Performance: A related, but different, common law defense to frustration of purpose is the doctrine of contract impossibility or impracticability. Contract impossibility occurs where performance of a contract duty is excused based on a change in circumstances, which the parties did not anticipate at the time of contracting, that makes performance of the contract literally impossible. Given the difficulty of proving actual impossibility, many courts have shifted to an impracticability standard where contemplated performance of a duty is excused on a showing that it is unreasonably difficult or excessively costly to perform, although possible, because of an unforeseen change in circumstances. Change of Law: A change in the law may render a valid contract unenforceable as illegal if it is not possible to achieve the object of the contract without violating a law. Recent state and local orders, guidelines or directives in effect in some jurisdictions to address the COVID-19 pandemic may, in certain instances, require compliance that is inconsistent with the contract objective or performance. Because these types of public policy laws apply immediately based on overriding public-interest considerations, many businesses are not able to comply while at the same time providing contracted-for services or other performance that was contemplated at the onset. [GN] [*] COVID-19 Employment Class Actions May Face Some Obstacles ------------------------------------------------------------- Dalton McGrath, Esq. -- dalton.mcgrath@blakes.com -- Birch Miller, Esq. -- birch.miller@blakes.com -- James Sullivan, Esq. -- james.sullivan@blakes.com -- and Andrea York, Esq. -- andrea.york@blakes.com -- of Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that putative class actions filed in connection with COVID-19 employment-related matters may face some obstacles in proceeding. Certain hurdles exist in the common law provinces in Canada that may prove insurmountable. Section 21 of the Alberta Workers' Compensation Act (Act) bars any claim or causes of action against the employer for any compensation as a result of any accident happening to the worker. The Act, which is similar to other legislation throughout the common law provinces, grants jurisdiction over such claimed injuries to be determined through the mechanisms outlined in the Act; for example, please see Section 26 of Ontario's Workers' Compensation Act, Section 127 of the British Columbia Workers' Compensation Act and Section 43 of The Workers' Compensation Act in Saskatchewan. Interestingly, the Act and similar provincial legislation supplant not only all rights and causes of action, statutory or otherwise, to which a worker would otherwise be entitled, but it also applies to the worker's legal personal representatives and dependants. Similarly, Section 23 of the Act, and similar provisions in corresponding common law jurisdictions, provides that if an accident happens to a worker or even the worker's dependants, which would give rise to compensation under the Act, neither the worker, the worker's legal personal representatives, the worker's dependants nor the worker's employer has any cause of action in respect of or arising out of the personal injury suffered by, or the death of, the worker as a result of the accident. The terms "dependant" and "accident" are broadly defined in the Act and similar provincial legislation. The latter definition includes a wilful and intentional act, a chance event, disablement and a disabling or potentially disabling condition caused by an occupational disease. Under the Act, if a worker contracts COVID-19 as a direct result of the duties of their employment, he or she may be entitled to compensation from the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) if the nature of employment involves sufficient exposure to the source of infection, and the nature of employment is shown to be the cause of the condition or the nature of employment creates a greater risk of exposure for the worker. For more information, see the WCB Worksheet and WCB Fact Sheet. Alberta and other common law courts in Canada take a strict approach to ensuring that worker compensation claims are dealt exclusively within the jurisdiction of the WCB, and not the courts. Attempts to circumvent that legislation by commencing actions directly against officers and directors, who are not subject to the Act, have generally proven to be unsuccessful as it is generally difficult to establish that a particular officer or director has acted beyond her or his scope of duties and obligations. In the context of COVID-19, it is likely that the courts will continue to confirm the jurisdiction of the WCB to award compensation through that regime instead of through the courts. In Stewart v. Enterprise Universal Inc., 2010 ABQB 259, the plaintiff was a nurse at the Holy Cross Centre in Calgary and brought a class action as the representative plaintiff against the owner and operator of the hospital -- and his employer -- together with the officers and directors of that corporation, on the basis that he and other nurses had allegedly been exposed to asbestos from renovations which resulted in health issues. Enterprise brought a summary judgment application prior to certification of the class action based upon the Act. Justice Sheila Martin -- as she then was prior to her elevation to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) -- granted summary judgment dismissing the claim and citing the express provisions of the Act and a plethora of cases which precluded recovery in civil actions where the Act applies. Justice Martin also dismissed the proceeding against the directors of the employer, finding that they were protected by the corporate veil and that it had not been pierced in the circumstances. The particular circumstances of each case would need to be examined in light of the specific provisions of the Act, and other provincial legislation as applicable, to determine whether such legislation would preclude civil actions, including class actions. A further obstacle arising for unionized employees under a collective agreement is the SCC decision in Bisaillon v. Concordia University, 2006 SCC 19, where the SCC denied an employee's attempt to bring a class action against their employer on the basis of a dispute over pension plan funds. In doing so, the SCC held that to allow the class action to proceed would be incompatible with the exclusive jurisdiction of grievance arbitrators and the representative function of certified unions. In coming to that conclusion, the court participated in an analysis as to whether the dispute arose out of the collective agreement and specifically, whether the dispute, "in its essential character, arises from the interpretation, application, administration or violation of the collective agreement." Some litigants have attempted to circumvent that common law jurisprudence, which has been adopted in many common law jurisdictions, by arguing that the courts should have residual jurisdiction over all matters not falling within such collective agreement; however, to date, those attempts have been unsuccessful. While the SCC's decision in Bisaillon v. Concordia University arose out of a Quebec labour dispute, the principles set out therein have been adopted across the country. Based on the above principles outlined in common law provincial legislation, combined with the common law jurisprudence, employees subject to WCB legislation or collective agreements will face significant and perhaps insurmountable obstacles in commencing civil actions, including class actions, related to COVID-19 claims. [GN] [*] EU Countries, Lawmakers Strike Deal on Class Action Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Foo Yun Chee, writing for Reuters, reports that European Union countries and lawmakers struck a deal late on June 22 to pave the way for Europeans to team up and sue companies for defective products but with built-in safeguards to guard against the excesses of U.S. class action lawsuits. The move to boost consumers' rights gained pace following Volkswagen's diesel cheating scandal which has led to thousands of regulatory investigations and lawsuits. The European Parliament said such lawsuits could cover data protection, financial services, travel and tourism, energy, telecommunications, environment and health, and air and train passenger rights. The agreement between representatives of EU governments and the European Parliament will need to be rubber stamped by the 27 EU countries and the legislative body in the coming weeks. The bloc will have two years to convert the EU legislation into national laws. The European Commission announced the proposal in 2018, but it was delayed by disagreements among EU countries and EU lawmakers. "We have sought to strike a balance between the legitimate protection of consumer interests and the need for legal certainty for businesses," lawmaker Geoffroy Didier said in a statement. European consumer lobbying group BEUC welcomed the agreement. "This deal is a huge landmark to make justice available to all EU consumers. Consumers can finally go to court as a group when their rights have been harmed by the same trader," BEUC director general Monique Goyens said. Under the agreement, each EU country will have to name at least one consumer organisation or public body to launch class actions on behalf of consumers. Safeguards to prevent frivolous or abusive litigation include the "loser pays" principle which ensures that the defeated party in a lawsuit pays the costs of the proceedings for the successful party. [GN] [*] Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss Cannabis TCPA Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Darren Dummit, Esq., Stanley Jutkowitz, Esq., and Robert Milligan, Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that THC, CBD, CBN . . . the Cannabis industry is quite familiar with acronyms. But it's another nasty little four letters, TCPA, that are -- or should be -- on the top of mind for every dispensary, delivery service, CRM platform, and private equity holding company. This as the US Supreme Court decides what the byzantine 30-year-old law will look like following a landmark decision expected by the end of June or July. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which regulates robocalls and unsolicited texts to consumers, has been the vehicle for a number of class action suits against Cannabis companies over the past year, including an uptick of such suits during Covid-19. And with the advertising restrictions and younger demographics of the industry, the class actions are now bring brought in droves, with over 10 being brought over the last 6 weeks alone. Like a tremor before a larger quake, the impact of this trend is only beginning to be felt -- just ask Eaze (the "Uber" of marijuana retail), who has been told by a California federal judge twice that its proposed $3.4 million settlement, based on the actions of a third party texting technology, is insufficient, and who was at the same time hit with another separate TCPA suit based on their current terms and conditions. But it doesn't take a seismologist to know the Big One(s) are right around the corner for the Cannabis industry, who should have noticed last week as an established cruise line company looked to consummate a $76 Million TCPA settlement from 2017, only to have the Plaintiffs' counsel ask the court to bump its initial $15 million fee by another $3.49 million. Assuming the TCPA is not radically altered by the upcoming Supreme Court decision, this article highlights the most relevant Cannabis-related TCPA class action activity to-date, and more importantly, some of the ways Cannabis companies can best avoid and defend these high exposure class action suits -- including proper consent, opt outs, coordination with the Federal Do Not Call List, use of respectable marketing contractors and experienced marketing counsel, arbitration provisions, class action waivers, and the use of a more data-centric approach to customer data. The Perfect Storm: TCPA + Cannabis Industry Factors The TCPA was enacted in 1991 to combat a rising tide of unwanted telemarketing calls and faxes, and has since been expanded to cover calls to cell phones and non-consensual text messaging. The original intent was to restrict automated or prerecorded (robo) calls unless the receiving party consents to receive the call, though critics have noted that technology has outpaced the federal statutes regulating telemarketing, leaving marketers uncertain as to what is and is not permitted under what was already a complex and difficult law to comply with. And the law certainly has some teeth -- given the statutory damages of $500-$1,500 per call or text, one can see how settlements can be in the nine figures. The law also has some reach, essentially imposing strict liability even when the texts/calls are made by a third party marketing company on behalf of their client. As such, compliance with the TCPA was already difficult for even the most established industries and companies. Nevertheless, with state-by-state regulations restricting the advertising methods in the nascent Cannabis industry, automated text messaging has become the preferred (or even necessary) method of reaching the primarily-younger consumers. Any cannabis consumer with a cellphone knows that these dispensaries and other services are often collecting phone numbers in connection with loyalty and rewards programs, which are then used for direct marketing purposes usually via SMS text messaging. As such, even the more deliberate and careful Cannabis companies face the inherent difficulties of complying with (and avoiding class action exposure from) the TCPA. Making matters even dicier is the flood of new Cannabis companies looking to enter the market as quickly and directly as possible. Given all of the other regulation hurdles these companies need to jump over, it is the unknown or ignored TCPA speed bumps that could have the potential to cause the most damage regardless of whether the non-compliance is caused by recklessness or well-intentioned scrappiness. For these reasons, a target has formed on the backs of Cannabis companies for Plaintiffs' counsel looking to take advantage of the TCPA and the nascent Cannabis industry, which are often funded by private equity or high net worth individuals/celebrities. When these holding companies also perform managerial or advisory services, the potential for them to be named as Co-Defendants in these class actions increases significantly – proving that securities litigation may not be the only class action trend worth watching as the money behind marijuana companies expands and becomes more integrated. Eaze-y-Does It: Cannabis-related TCPA Class Action Activity The TCPA Class Action suits against Cannabis companies have, in one form or another, been based on the following fact patterns: (1) Texting non-clients who have never signed up or consented due to mass texting policies or practices; (2) Texting non-clients who have never signed up or consented due to third party inputting error; (3) Texting client consumers who did not give adequate consent to being texted; and (4) Texting clients who have opted out of being texted (and/or are on the Federal Do Not Call List). The most high-profile and widely applicable case study has to be the Eaze, the well-known online marketplace and technology platform for marijuana deliveries that's been described (in a Complaint) as the "Uber" of the Cannabis industry. In what feels like a lifetime ago, Eaze user Farrah Williams brought suit on behalf of herself and others who, beginning in 2017, received alleged unwanted and unsolicited marketing text messages without their consent and without offering the option to opt out. Eaze sought to have the case sent to arbitration based on a "clickwrap" agreement in its terms of service, which Plaintiffs did not deny agreeing to, but instead tried to dispute the legality of the contract itself due to marijuana's nebulous federal legal status. In a notable yet limited victory for the Cannabis industry, the court did not specifically rule on whether there was a legal contract, but it did find that the arbitration clause was severable from the contract as a whole, and sent the case to arbitration. But not to rest on the laurels of any "victories", the same plaintiffs' counsel filed another lawsuit in 2018, this time with lead plaintiff Kristine Lloyd and over 51,000 class members, who allege they never enrolled in or used Eaze's services but nonetheless were "inundated" with the company's unsolicited, autodialed text messages (sent by a third party technology provider). Eaze argued that Lloyd's claims are based on verification texts that were accidentally sent to her when another user in Ohio apparently entered a single digit wrong when signing up for the service. In April 2019, Eaze initially agreed to a $1.75 million proposed settlement of this class action claim, which also required Eaze to implement several "significant changes to its consumer marketing practices going forward." The changes were to include instituting TCPA compliance training and marketing oversight of key personnel involved in text messaging; refraining from continuing to work with the third party company that sent most of the offending texts; inserting opt-out notices in all verification text messages; ensuring that verification reminder texts do not include advertising copy; and adjusting its user verification process to prevent nonusers from mistakenly and repeatedly receiving messages they had never requested, according to the motion. This proposed settlement was rejected by a federal judge in the Northern District of California, who was skeptical of the low dollar amounts and felt the proposed claims processes were lacking. Subsequently, a second proposed settlement which increased the monetary sum to $3.49 Million was also rejected, leaving the parties to continue litigating to this day, albeit with the inclusion of a new class of plaintiffs who are willing users of the app that may or may not have agreed to arbitration. But Eaze is by no means alone. In June 2019, a group of plaintiffs filed a class action suit against Baker Technologies and its parent company Tilt Holdings Inc., alleging violations of the TCPA and California's Unfair Competition Law. Tilt Holdings specializes in cannabis technology, and its subsidiary Baker Technologies provides customer relationship management services to retail stores, including online ordering, customer loyalty, messaging and analytics. Specifically, the suit alleges that Baker Technologies collected cell phone numbers, provided them to its cannabis dispensary clients and facilitated telemarketing text messages to those mobile numbers without first obtaining the necessary consent. The companies maintain that messages were only sent to customers who have voluntarily signed up to receive messages at dispensaries and that those customers may opt-out at any time -- in full compliance with the TCPA. But, that doesn't stop the case from going forward or discovery from taking place. Baker Technologies urged the court last month to stay the action given the upcoming Supreme Court decision and the complexity of the case, which could implicate more than 1,000 dispensary clients, but that discussion may become moot with the decision expected soon. Any potential uncertainty around TCPA certainly hasn't stopped or slowed down the Plaintiffs' bar, who in anticipation of the upcoming ruling, have instead hit the Cannabis industry with more than a dozen class action TCPA suits over the last 6 weeks alone, targeting dispensaries and other companies in Oregon, Denver, Nevada, Florida, Arizona, and California -- with the majority of cases brought in California.. While the Cannabis TCPA trend was emerging over the past year, the volume seems to be increasing over the past few months at an alarming rate, with headlines about "The Latest TCPA Suit Filed Against Cannabis Company" becoming almost ubiquitous in the industry trades. What To Do The current US Supreme Court case asks whether the government debt collection exception to the TCPA is an unconstitutional, content-based carveout. The justices will soon be deciding whether to uphold the provision, sever the provision, or strike down the law entirely. It is unclear what changes may result from the decision to be handed down any day now, but for purposes of this article, we will assume the TCPA remains substantially intact. In the meantime, it is clear that even established Cannabis companies need to take proactive steps with their text messaging and marketing systems to minimize the risk of unwanted legal actions, knowing that full reliance on a third party to comply with the TCPA will not shield them against direct liability. And it is abundantly clear that younger companies who willfully or inadvertently fail to comply with the TCPA, or those who fail to adequately vet similarly-new third party marketing services, may be exposing themselves to significant liability. Companies should therefore not only diligently vet the third party marketing companies to ensure proper TCPA compliance protocols, but should also take additional steps as a second layer of protection. One relatively straightforward step would be to routinely cross-check the Federal Do Not Call List, which essentially acts as a published dating service between Plaintiffs' attorneys and prospective Plaintiffs. Of course the ability to initially opt out is a basic requirement, but companies need also provide for the continuing ability to opt out, and ensure those subsequent opt outs are complied with. This is already an issue that has been recurring in the Cannabis TCPA litigation. Before the text messages can be sent, the customer information must first be obtained through proper consent procedures – that again is a given. But the terms and conditions by which consent is given are of increasing importance, especially in light of the recent Eaze ruling which enforced the arbitration provision despite questions about the legality of the underlying subject of the contract. A clear, conspicuous and enforceable arbitration provision and class action waiver will go a long way in limiting the potential TCPA class action exposure. However, it must be noted that California law has its own treatment of class action waivers and arbitration provisions, often resulting in challenges on various grounds. In attempting to invalidate these agreements, Plaintiffs will typically argue that such a provision cannot be enforceable if it waives an unwaivable public or statutory right, or whether it deals with a waiveable private right. For that reason, choice of law provisions and venue provisions should also be considered when drafting the terms and conditions. Additionally, companies need to ensure that a binding agreement has been formed as part of their sign up process, with appropriate click boxes. Once the terms are agreed to, the opt outs are in-place, and the other "improvements" outlined in the proposed Eaze settlement, companies would also be wise to employ a more data-centric approach to customer data. Tracking and utilizing current customer data will not only bring all the usual marketing benefits, but it may also assist in defeating class certification by arguing individualized issues predominate over any common issues presented by the class, or that there are not in fact enough class members to warrant a class action. In one recent example, California cannabis delivery company Xaler defeated class certification in a TCPA suit this past January, when a federal judge found there were not enough consumers to justify bringing the case on a class basis (the suit has subsequently been dismissed in March). Precautions should be taken by Cannabis companies, but this is one area of the law where violations can happen even in the absence of negligence, with the potential for millions in damages. Prudent Cannabis companies should select their marketing providers wisely and use competent counsel to navigate these minefields. As the Cannabis industry landscape continues to evolve even during Covid-19 and as the smoke clears, without appropriate precautions in place, TCPA may soon become as recognizable as THC. [GN] [*] Victorian Gov't. Allows Contingency Fees for Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Naomi Neilson, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that the Victorian government has passed legislation making it easier to secure justice by class actions that weighs up legal costs and eases the burden on unsuccessful clients. Bringing class actions for silicosis, wage theft and other forms of wrongdoing is is easier to secure with a new law that ensures claimants do not face the burden of the legal costs if their case is unsuccessful. Plaintiff lawyers will now also receive what will be a percentage of the settlement or damages, or a "contingency fee". The reforms follow results from independent advice and recommendations lodged with the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC), which found that Victoria's class action regime is under-utilised with an average of five or less class actions filed per year. State Attorney-General Jill Hennessy said: "We are removing barriers to class actions to allow people with genuine claims -- who may not be in a position to take on financial risks of a case -- to bring their class action to court. "Class actions play a critical role in our justice system and it's important that people with meritorious claims are provided with every opportunity to have their matter heard." The VRLC, the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Productivity Commission have recommended the introduction of contingency fees for class actions despite them historically being prohibited in Australia. This means that clients will no longer need to pay legal fees if unsuccessful but lawyers still receive a monetary reward for assisting. Shine Lawyers head of class actions Jan Saddler said the new law will make securing justice much more accessible and affordable by providing alternative funding plans. "It means worthy cases with a modest value can proceed in circumstances where the litigation funding would be difficult to obtain," Ms Saddler said. "So long as companies do the right thing by people, they should have no reason to fear this important reform." This new legislation will also expand powers for the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission (IBAC) to include the ability to arrest a potential witness who is suspected of corrupt activity and who they believe are at risk of fleeing the state. [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 ***