/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200710.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, July 10, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 138
Headlines
4C KINZIE: Court Narrows Claims in Luna Labor Class Suit
ACCENTURE PLC: Data Security Breach Class Suit Still Ongoing
ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: 10 Suits on Tetraphase Merger Underway
ACER THERAPEUTICS: Gonzalez Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statements
ACG CAR CARE: Faces Bolivar Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
ALASKA AIRLINES: Parties in Shattenkirk Suit File Status Report
ALEX AUTO: Ramos Seeks Unpaid Wages, Overtime for Auto Cutters
ALLAKOS INC: Kim's Securities Class Action Underway
ALTRIA GROUP: McGee Alleges Conspiracy in E-Cigarette Market
AMAZON CORPORATE: Fails to Provide COBRA Notice, Kendall Claims
AMERICAN SPECIALTY: Still Charges Fees Amid COVID-19, Hodges Says
AMERICOLLECT INC: Chambliss Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
AMERICOLLECT INC: Class Cert. Proceedings Stayed in "Chambliss"
AMERIFIELD INC: Casillas Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Truck Drivers
AMNEAL PHARMA: Briefing on Special Master's Proposal Underway
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Suits over Prescription Opioid
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Summary Judgment Bids Filed in Opana Suit
APPLE INC: Fails to Protect Consumer Privacy Rights, Ohanian Says
ASIAN MOON: Faces Zhang Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
ASTELLAS US: Miller et al. Sue Over 401(k) Plan Losses
ATLAS FIELD: Daniel et al. Seek Unpaid Wages, OT for Foresters
ATRIA SENIOR: Buchanan Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
ATV INC: Faces Herndon Employment Suit in California Super. Ct.
BISMILLAH BAWARCHI: Martinez Sues over Unpaid Minimum and OT Pay
BLACKBERRY LTD: Class Certification Bid in SDNY Suit Pending
BLACKBERRY LTD: Discovery Ongoing in Ontario Class Suit
BLACKBERRY LTD: Employment Class Suit in Ontario Ongoing
BLACKBERRY LTD: Initial Settlement Approval Hearing on July 16
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Braverman Seek to Certify i3 Owners Class
BROADWAY S/S INC: Lara Seeks Proper Wages for Mechanics
BRUNSWICK CORP: Conditional Class Certification in Robles Denied
BTI GROUP: A1 On Track Sues in California Alleging TCPA Violation
BUILDING SERVICE: Lardo Sues Over Denial of Disability Pension
BUMBLE HOLDING: King Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Settlement Classes
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Heredia Seeks Final Settlement Approval
CAPITAL MEDICAL: Katz Sues in South Carolina Over TCPA Violation
CAPITAL ONE: Pfahning Appeals E.D. Virginia Ruling to 4th Circuit
CARNICERIA HISPANOAMERICANA: Underpays Butchers, Munoz Claims
CEDAR SHAKE: Court Grants Letter Rogatory Request in Antitrust Suit
CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Faces Jones Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
CELLULAR SALES: Granted Leave to Serve on Chapman
CHARLES BAKER: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification
CHEETAH MOBILE: Azure Funds Sues over 17% Drop in Share
CHRISTOPHER BALDWIN: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid OT & Spread of Hours Pay
COLLEGE VISTA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages to LVNs, Waters Claims
CORVIAS: Three Fort Bragg Families File Class Action
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Kristy Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
CREATIVE INDUSTRIES: Arun Yang Removed as Lead Plaintiff
CREST HOTEL: Underpays Housekeepers, Tello Claims
CUMULUS MEDIA: Class Suit over 401(k) Plan Underway
CUYAHOGA, OH: Papp Alleges Discrimination of Female Jail Guards
DCH REGIONAL: Court Denies Dismissal of McAteer Class Suit
DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces Proctor Suit Over Futures Prices Manipulation
DEUTSCHE BANK: Robert Charles Alleges Spoofing of Treasury Futures
DIMARE HOMESTEAD: Ochoa FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Vlasa Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
DOLLAR BANK: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agent Fees, Prinzo Claims
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Walden Sues in N.D. Texas Over FDCPA Violation
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Makurat Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
EQUITRANS MIDSTREAM: Faces Brown Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Garthwait Sues Over 401(k) Plan's Mismanagement
EYM PIZZA: Robertson et al. Seek Refund for Out-of-Pocket Expenses
FINJAN HOLDINGS: Docs on Fortress Merger Lack Info, Post Alleges
FINJAN HOLDINGS: Merger Docs Have Incomplete Info, Grier Says
FIREBIRD FREIGHT: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Mejia Claims
FLOOR & DECOR: Hammond Seeks to Certify Collective Action
FLORIDA: Court Dismisses Prisoner Suit vs. Lee County Sheriff Dept.
FPA MULTIFAMILY: Lawrence Seeks Refund for March & April Rent
FROEDTERT HEALTH: Fore Seeks to Certify Hourly Employees Class
GALLITOS MEXICAN: Nocelotl et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages
GEO GROUP: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Novoa Suit
GLENS FALLS: Improperly Charges Overdraft & NSF Fees, Richard Says
GLOBAL CONCESSIONS: Flores Suit Seeks Payment Over Tip Skimming
GLOBAL SPEC: Fails to Pay Overtime, Vanaken Claims
GRUBHUB INC: Eliades et al. Allege Price-Fixing
GULFPORT ENERGY: Lefort Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Faces Leal Insurance Suit in Connecticut
HIGH RIVER LTD: Franchi Submitted Verification in Breach Lawsuit
HOUSTON COMMUNITY: Brown Discrimination Suit Moved to S.D. Texas
HUGHES CITY, AR: Court Wants Narrower Class
ICON PLC: Miller Labor Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to N.D. Calif.
IFFAH INVESTMENTS: Ghauri Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
IGNITE INTERNATIONAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Baker Claims
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: UFCW Unit Sues Over Delays in Generic Drug
JEFFERSON, NY: Court Denies Nourse's Class Certification
JOHN M. LEUTHARDT: Gonzalez et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
JRCRUZ CORP: Thomas et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages For Flaggers
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Moll Sues Over Unpaid Meal Breaks
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Misclassifies Assistant Managers, Graziano Says
KRAFT HEINZ: Falsely Labels Cheese Products as Natural, Koh Claims
LG ELECTRONICS: Sosenko Suit Moved From C.D. California to D.N.J.
LISA'S ULTIMATE: Bennett Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
M & L CLEANING: Jimenez FLSA Suit Granted Collective Status
MANAGED LABOR: Underpays Transporters & Drivers, Poliner Alleges
MANAGEMENT HEALTH: Lo Alleges Illegal Recruitment of Nurses
MARKEL INSURANCE: Fountain Enterprises Seeks Pay for COVID-19 Loss
MATHERSON ORGANICS: Schnurer Sues Over Toothpowders' Side Effects
MDL 1720: R&M Objectors' Request for Attorneys' Fees Denied
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Class Certification Hearing Set for Dec. 17
MI BARRIO MEAT: Franco Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Butchers
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Schnapf FDCPA Class Suit in S.D. Indiana
MIKE & CATHY'S: Merino et al. Sue Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
MONSANTO CO: Baltimore County, City Lead Class Action Settlement
MONSANTO CO: Long Beach, et al. Seek Approval of $550-Mil. Accord
MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Causes Cancer, Diaz et al. Claim
MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Product Causes Cancer, Roden Claims
MOOREGROUP CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in Porter Class Suit
MT. WASHINGTON PIZZERIA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Noble Claims
NASH EXPRESS: Rodriguez Sues Over Bounced Check & Unpaid Wages
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 11 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir.
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 22 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir.
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 3 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir.
NEW YORK: Farmingdale Gym Owner Plans to File Class Action
NY EDUC DEPT: Court Certifies Class in J.S.M. "Due Process" Suit
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Anadarko Acquisition Related Suits Ongoing
OCWEN LOAN: Franklin Class Cert. Bid Denied, Case Stayed
PACIFIC FERTILITY: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification
PARAGON COIN: Court Certifies Federal Claims Class
PAUL F. VANEK: Polch Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PEPPERIDGE FARM: Faces Paugstat Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
PFIZER INC: Faces Hays Suit in Colorado Alleging Personal Injury
PHH MORTGAGE: Torres Balks at Bankruptcy Plan Objections, Fees
PLAYAGS INC: Chowdhury Sues over 17% Drop in Share
PNC BANK: Class Limited to Loan Officers Employed Thru June 2019
PRO ACTIVE SAFETY: Misclassifies HSE Specialists, Clayton Claims
PROGRESSIVE SELECT: South Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
PROPER & WILD: Preston et al. Sue Over Tip Pooling and Unpaid OT
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Moreland Alleges Insurance Policy Breach
QUAPAW HOUSE: Schatz Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
QUEST NUTRITION: Jolly Sues in S.D. New York Over Fraud Claims
QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barrett Claims
READING INTERNATIONAL: Brown & Wagner Class Suits Ongoing
RESTORBIO INC: Adicet Merger Deal Lacks Info, Plumley Claims
RITE AID: Infant Meds Has Active Compound, Ostermeier-McLucas Says
SALLY WOLF GRINNELL: Toro Buying Cashiers Property for $525K
SAN DIEGO: Guardian Ad Litem Petition Denied in J.F. Lawsuit
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Kelly Alleges Illegal Repossession of Vehicle
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Saidman Sues Over Work Harassment, Bias
SCHREIBER/COHEN LLC: Court Rules on Class Certification in Marti
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Garay Suit Seeks to Certify Florida Classes
SK ENERGY: Carpe Carma Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California
STATE COLLECTION: Gordon Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
STATE FARM: Clippinger Insurance Suit Removed to W.D. Tennessee
STEAM GENERATING: Miller Seeks to Certify Workers Class
STERLING HOME: Class Settlement in Darby Suit Gets Final Approval
STOP N GO CORP: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Castillo Claims
TARO PHARMA: Limited Discovery Underway in Speakes Suit
TASTE OF NORTH CHINA: Yang Seeks FLSA Collective Action
TEVA CORP: Ontario Teachers & Anchorage Police Seek Class Status
TEXAS HEALTH: Faces Strong Class Suit in Texas District Court
TIKTOK INC: Parents Sue Over Collection of Minors' Biometric Data
TOYOTA MOTOR: Gendron Suit Moved From California to E.D. New York
TRANS WORLD: Spack et al. Seek Approval of Settlement
TWIN STONE: Serrano Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
U.S. BANCORP: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Jackson et al. Claim
U.S. BANK: Fails to Timely Release Mortgage Liens, Ballard Alleges
UNIT CORP: Appeal in Panola Independent School Suit Stayed
UNIT CORP: Chieftain Royalty Suit Stayed
UNIT CORP: Class Certification Bid in Cockerell Suit Stayed
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Ninivaggi Class Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y.
URBAN COMMONS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Kandil Says
VICTOR HILL: Fails to Take COVID-19 Measures in Jail, Jones Says
VITOL INC: Long et al. Allege Gasoline Price-Fixing
WALDORF ASTORIA: Lopez Seeks Payment for Off-the-Clock Hours
WALGREENS BOOTS: North Las Vegas Suit Remanded to State Court
WALMART INC: Faces Class Action Over Dust Removal Spray
WELLS FARGO: Faces Mitchell Suit Over Unpaid Off-The-Clock Wages
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Still Face Claims at March 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Talks with Fireman's Fund Underway
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Still Defends Stearns PI Suits at March 31
*********
4C KINZIE: Court Narrows Claims in Luna Labor Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the case captioned ERIK LUNA, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 4C KINZIE
INVESTOR, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18 C 5165, (N.D.
Ill.).
The case is a collective and class action against 15 bars and
restaurants located in Chicago, brought by a server at one of the
establishments. The initial Complaint consisted of ten counts:
Count I-violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act; Count
II-violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law; Count III-violation
of the Chicago Minimum Wage Law; Count IV-violation of the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA); Count V-conversion; Count
VI-violation of Section 7434 of the Internal Revenue Code; Count
VII-RICO; Count VIII-civil conspiracy; Count IX common law fraud;
and Count X-negligent misrepresentation.
Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint that includes as Counts I
though IV the wage counts which were not dismissed and has
repleaded Count VI, the Internal Revenue Code claim as Count V, the
RICO count as Count VI, and the fraud count as Count VII.
Defendants have again moved to dismiss the three repleaded counts.
Fraud Counts
The fraud counts rely on the W-2s as deliberately overstating the
servers' income to shift the tax burden from Defendants to the
servers.
The Amended Complaint states that the Plaintiff servers receive and
report, on average, 12% of Defendants' sales in take home cash.
Plaintiffs further assert that Defendants, in preparing and filing
the W-2s, assume that servers receive tip income equal to 16-20% of
total sales. Thus, the servers are saddled with higher income and
accordingly are required to pay more tax. Somewhat offsetting this
theory is the fact that if an employer over-reports an employee's
income, the employer is liable for an increased amount due to the
federal government for Social Security and FICA payments.
Regardless, the discrepancy between what Defendants report to the
IRS and what the servers report as receiving from customers should
be easily determined through discovery. Thus, at this stage of the
case, the Court will let the fraud counts stand and await future
determination based on a more complete record, perhaps at the
summary judgment stage.
The Motion to Dismiss Count V, violation of Section 7434 of the
Internal Revenue Code, and Count VII, common law fraud, is denied.
RICO Count
Plaintiffs allege in Count VI that Defendants violated the RICO
statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c). To state such a cause of action, a
plaintiff must show (1) conduct, (2) of an enterprise, (3) through
a pattern, (4) of racketeering activity.
Defendants take aim at each of the respective elements of a Sec.
1962(c) claim. However, the Court notes it need only consider the
conduct and enterprise elements.
The Amended Complaint describes the 15 Defendant bar and restaurant
entities as "part of a collection of bars and restaurants located
in Chicago, Illinois operating under the common 'Four Corners'
enterprise." "Four Corners" is described as "a voluntary
unincorporated association of entities operating the foregoing bars
and restaurants located in Chicago, Illinois." Additionally, the
Amended Complaint alleges that other entities, including the Four
Corners Tavern Fund LLC; Four Corners Tavern Group Investors, LLC;
Four Corners Tavern Partners, LLC; Four Corners Tavern Group Inc.;
Four Corners Holding LLC; Four Corners Capital Advisors, LLC; Four
Corners Shuttle LLC; 4C Cheval LLC; and 1001 W. Lake LLC, all
operating out of the same business address of 1040 West Randolph
Street, Chicago, Illinois, "all control[] the payment of wages to,
servers who serve food and drinks to customers at the bars and
restaurants with the Four Corners enterprise." The Amended
Complaint then alleges that Defendants Matthew Menna and Andrew
Gloor are "real person[s] and [] manager[s] of the previously
described entities, who exercise significant control, oversight,
and authority relative to the entities within the Four Corners
enterprise."
The Court opines that "[w]hile the Amended Complaint's description
of the legal set up of the Four Corners enterprise is confusing to
say the least, the bottom line is that Menna and Gloor appear to
own and control Four Corners, and through that enterprise they
conduct the business of operating certain bars and restaurants for
their own enrichment. Consequently, Menna and Gloor constitute
both the person and the enterprise, which is not a violation of
Section 1962(c) when the two are combined."
The Court therefore dismisses Count VI, this time with prejudice.
IWPCA Count
The Court denied Defendants' first motion to dismiss the IWPCA
claim without comment. The Court overlooked the position of the
Defendants that sought dismissal of this claim. The Court has now
been asked once again to consider dismissal of this count.
Defendants contend that the IWPCA cannot be used to recover where
the claim is based on minimum wage claims.
Plaintiffs contend, however, that their claim presented in Count IV
is not based solely on the minimum wage laws but instead on an
agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendants that they receive all
of their tip income, which in Count IV they deny that they
received. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs and denies the Motion
to Dismiss Count IV.
In sum, the Court ruled that the Motion to Dismiss is granted in
part and denied in part. The Court dismisses Count VI of the
Amended Complaint with prejudice. The remaining Counts - I, II,
III, IV, V, and VII - shall stand.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 2020 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/r2yf6ha from
Leagle.com.
Erik Luna, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr. -
tom@attorneyzim.com ; Matthew C. De Re - matt@attorneyzim.com ;
Nickolas J. Hagman - nick@attorneyzim.com ; and Sharon Harris of
Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C.
4C Kinzie Investor, LLC, doing business as Highline Bar & Lounge,
1001 W. Lake Opco, LLC, doing business as Federales, 4C 1001 W.
Lake Opco, LLC, 4C 15 E. Illinois Operations, LLC, doing business
as Fremont Bar, Four Corners Tavern Fund Management, LLC, 1500 N.
Wells Opco, LLC, doing business as SteakBar, 4C 1500 N. Wells Opco,
LLC, Talbott Associates, LP, doing business as 20 East, 4C Wrigley,
LLC, doing business as Brickhouse Tavern, Keystone Holdings Corp.,
4C Riverside, LLC, doing business as Porter Kitchen & Deck, Cheval
Porter Manager, LLC, Wells Holdings Manager, LLC, West Loop Tap,
LLC, doing business as Brownstone Tavern & Grill (Madison and Ada),
Shef at Oak, Inc., doing business as Brownstone Tavern & Grill
(Madison and Ada), River North Tap, Inc., doing business as Sidebar
Grille, Rocco's, LLC, doing business as Ranalli's, Clark Street
Restaurant Partners, LLC, doing business as Gaslight, Asclose,
Inc., doing business as Schoolyard Tavern & Grill, The Chase
Tavern, Inc., doing business as Trellis Wine Bar, Saloon Holdings,
LLC., doing business as The Crossing Tavern, Saloon Holdings
Manager, LLC, Hardtales, Inc., doing business as Brownstone Tavern
& Grill (Lincoln and Irving Park), Four Corners, a voluntary
unincorporated association, Four Corners Tavern Fund I, LLC, Four
Corners Tavern Group Fund Investor, LLC, Four Corners Tavern
Partners, LLC, Four Corners Tavern Group, Inc., Four Corners
Holdings, LLC, Four Corners Capital Advisors, LLC, Four Corners
Shuttle, LLC, 4C Cheval LLC, 1001 W. Lake, LLC, Matthew Menna &
Andrew Gloor, Defendants, represented by Daniel W. Tarpey , Tarpey
Wix LLC; Noah A. Finkel - nfinkel@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw LLP;
Cheryl A. Luce -cluce@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw LLP; David G.
Wix, Tarpey Wix LLC & Matthew Showel , Tarpey Wix LLC.
Wells Holdings, LLC, doing business as Benchmark Bar and Grill,
Defendant, represented by Daniel W. Tarpey, Tarpey Wix LLC, Noah A.
Finkel, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Cheryl A. Luce, Seyfarth Shaw LLP &
Matthew Showel, Tarpey Wix LLC.
Wells Holdings, LLC, doing business as Bar and Grill, Defendant,
represented by David G. Wix, Tarpey Wix LLC.
ACCENTURE PLC: Data Security Breach Class Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Accenture PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by consumers of Marriott
International, Inc. related to the data security incident involving
unauthorized access to the reservations database of Starwood
Worldwide Resorts, Inc.
On July 24, 2019, Accenture was named in a putative class action
lawsuit filed by consumers of Marriott International, Inc.
("Marriott") in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland.
The complaint alleges negligence by the company, and seeks monetary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees and other related relief,
relating to a data security incident involving unauthorized access
to the reservations database of Starwood Worldwide Resorts, Inc.
("Starwood"), which was acquired by Marriott on September 23, 2016.
Since 2009, the company had provided certain IT infrastructure
outsourcing services to Starwood.
Accenture said, "We believe the lawsuit is without merit and we
will vigorously defend it. We cannot reasonably estimate a range of
loss, if any, at this time."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Accenture PLC provides management and technology consulting
services and solutions. The Company delivers a range of specialized
capabilities and solutions to clients across all industries on a
worldwide basis. Accenture operates a network of businesses
provides consulting, technology, outsourcing, and alliances. The
company is based in Dublin, Ireland.
ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: 10 Suits on Tetraphase Merger Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that 10 lawsuits, including three
putative class actions, are ongoing related to its merger agreement
with Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
On March 15, 2020, the Company entered into the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, or merger agreement, with Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., or Tetraphase, and Consolidation Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, or
Merger Sub, pursuant to which the Company will acquire Tetraphase.
As of May 8, 2020, ten lawsuits have been filed by alleged
Tetraphase stockholders challenging the merger.
* The first lawsuit, a putative class action complaint, is
captioned Plumley v. Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:20-cv-00496, and was filed by Patrick Plumley in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware. The Plumley
complaint names as defendants Tetraphase and each member of the
Tetraphase Board, as well as AcelRx and Merger Sub.
* The second lawsuit is captioned Sahan v. Tetraphase
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03069, and was
filed by Herman Sahan in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The Sahan complaint names as
defendants Tetraphase and certain members of the Tetraphase Board.
* The third lawsuit is captioned Giacobbe v. Tetraphase
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-10762, and was filed
by Charles Giacobbe in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. The Giacobbe complaint names as
defendants Tetraphase and each member of the Tetraphase Board.
* The fourth lawsuit is captioned Ravi v. Tetraphase
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03142, and was
filed by Surya Ravi in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The Ravi complaint names as
defendants Tetraphase and each member of the Tetraphase Board.
* The fifth lawsuit, a putative class action complaint, is
captioned Garity v. Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:20-cv-00542, and was filed by Edward Garity in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware. The Garity
complaint names as defendants Tetraphase and each member of the
Tetraphase Board, as well as AcelRx and Merger Sub.
* The sixth lawsuit, a putative class action complaint, is
captioned Kashavena v. Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2081-cv-01005, and was filed by Vanamala Kashavena in the
Middlesex County Superior Court. The Kashavena complaint names as
defendants Tetraphase and certain members of the Tetraphase Board,
as well as AcelRx and Merger Sub.
* The seventh lawsuit is captioned Waters v. Tetraphase
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01896, and was
filed by Joshua Waters in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. The Waters complaint names as
defendants Tetraphase and each member of the Tetraphase Board.
* The eighth lawsuit is captioned Gardner v. Tetraphase
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03352, and was
filed by James Gardner in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The Gardner complaint names as
defendants Tetraphase and certain members of the Tetraphase Board.
* The ninth lawsuit is captioned Kopczynski v. Tetraphase
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03426, and was
filed by Christopher Kopczynski in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. The Kopczynski complaint
names as defendants Tetraphase and certain members of the
Tetraphase Board.
* The tenth lawsuit is captioned Lapi v. Tetraphase
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03452, and was
filed by Nisjet Lapi in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The Lapi complaint names as
defendants Tetraphase and certain members of the Tetraphase Board.
The Plumley, Sahan, Giacobbe, Ravi, Garity, Waters, Gardner,
Kopczynski and Lapi complaints allege violations of Section 14(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The
plaintiffs in these actions generally allege that the registration
statement on Form S-4 omits material information with respect to
the proposed transaction, which renders such registration statement
false and misleading. The Sahan complaint also alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duty of candor/disclosure, by
allegedly disseminating a materially incomplete and misleading
registration statement in connection with the merger. The
Kashavena complaint alleges that the members of the Tetraphase
Board breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty/good faith
and candor/disclosure by allegedly entering into the merger through
a flawed and unfair process and disseminating a materially
incomplete and misleading registration statement in connection with
the merger. The Kashavena complaint alleges that Tetraphase,
AcelRx and Merger Sub aided and abetted in the alleged breach of
fiduciary duties.
The complaints seek preliminary and permanent injunction of the
proposed transaction and, if the merger is consummated, rescission
or rescissory damages. The complaints also seek the dissemination
of a registration statement that discloses certain information
requested by the plaintiffs. In addition, the complaints seek
attorneys' and experts' fees.
The defendants believe that the Plumley, Sahan, Giacobbe, Ravi,
Garity, Kashavena, Waters, Gardner, Kopczynski and Lapi complaints
are without merit.
AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
focuses on the development and commercialization of therapies for
the treatment of acute pain. The company's lead product candidate
is DSUVIA, a 30 mcg sufentanil sublingual tablet for the treatment
of moderate-to-severe acute pain. It also develops ZALVISO, a
pre-programmed and patient-controlled analgesia system that allows
hospital patients with moderate-to-severe acute pain to self-dose
with sufentanil sublingual tablets to manage their pain. The
company was formerly known as SuRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
changed its name to AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in August 2006.
AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2005 and is
headquartered in Redwood City, California.
ACER THERAPEUTICS: Gonzalez Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS GONZALEZ DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JASON AMELLO, STEVE ASELAGE,
HUBERT BIRNER, JOHN M. DUNN, MICHELLE GRIFFIN, LUC MARENGERE, HARRY
PALMIN, and CHRIS SCHELLING, Defendants, and ACER THERAPEUTICS
INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00909-UNA (D. Del., July
6, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Individual Defendants made false
and misleading Proxy Statements with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) for 2018 and 2019 by failing to disclose
these material facts: (a) the Ong Trial, a French clinical trial
published in October 2010 involving the use of celiprolol, was
substantially biased and underpowered, and would be inadequate to
support the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of EDSIVO,
Acer's new drug for the treatment of vascular Ehlers-Danlos
Syndrome; (b) the FDA had not agreed that further clinical trials
for EDSIVO were not needed for the approval of EDSIVO's new drug
application (NDA); (c) due to the foregoing, it was highly unlikely
that EDSIVO's NDA would ultimately be approved; and (d) Acer
Therapeutics failed to maintain internal controls.
The misrepresentations and omissions were material to the Plaintiff
in voting on the matters set forth for shareholder determination in
the Proxy Statements, including, but not limited to: (a) with
respect to the 2018 Proxy Statement, approval of the
reincorporation of the Company as a Delaware corporation, approval
of the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan, and approval of amendments to the
Company's Certificate of Incorporation pertaining to stockholder
action at certain meetings, future amendments to the Company's
Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws, and the implementation of
a forum selection clause, among other things; (b) with respect to
the 2019 Proxy Statement, advisory approval of executive
compensation and advisory approval of the frequency of future
advisory votes on executive compensation; and (c) with respect to
both Proxy Statements, election of directors and ratification of an
independent auditor.
The false and misleading elements of the Proxy Statements led to
the approval of the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan and to the
re-election of Defendants Schelling, Amello, Aselage, Birner, Dunn,
Griffin, and Marengere to the Board, which allowed them to continue
breaching their fiduciary duties to Acer.
Acer Therapeutics Inc. is a pharmaceutical company focused on the
acquisition, development and commercialization of therapies for
serious rare and life-threatening diseases with critical unmet
medical need. The company's principal executive offices are located
at One Gateway Center, Suite 351, 300 Washington Street, Newton,
Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
DELEEUW LAW LLC
1301 Walnut Green Road
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 274-2180
- and –
Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
Daryoush Behbood, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
- and –
Brett D. Stecker, Esq.
SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER
326 W. Lancaster Avenue
Ardmore, PA 19003
Telephone: (303) 861-3003
- and –
Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER
600 17th Street, Ste. 2800 South
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 861-3003
ACG CAR CARE: Faces Bolivar Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL BOLIVAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACG CAR CARE, LLC; and THE AUTO CLUB GROUP,
Defendant, Case: 1:20-cv-03741 (N.D. Ill., June 25, 2020) is an
action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.
The Plaintiff Bolivar was employed by the Defendants as service
technician.
ACG Car Care, LLC operates an auto repair facility. The Company
provides insurance, travel, maintenance and repair, auto loan, and
related services for its members. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
Little Rock, AK 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
ALASKA AIRLINES: Parties in Shattenkirk Suit File Status Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case, MADELEINE F. SHATTENKIRK, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alaska
Airlines, Inc., Defendant, Case No. C19-01656 RSL (W.D. Wash), have
filed a joint status report as directed by the Court in its March
20, 2020 order staying the action.
In March 2020, the Parties jointly moved to stay the action pending
ongoing negotiations of a global settlement of this and nine other
similar actions involving airline and rail carriers.
Judge Robert S. Lasnik approved the request to stay the action on
March 20, 2020, a full-text copy of which order is available at
https://is.gd/MpzsUd from Leagle.com.
The negotiating parties contemplate submission of the global
settlement for approval under Rule 23(e) in Dolan v. JetBlue
Airways Corp., No. 0:18-cv-62193-RS (S.D. Fla.). Final approval of
the class settlement in Dolan would result in the dismissal of this
action.
The Parties relate that despite the challenges of the COVID-19
pandemic, they have made substantial progress toward global
settlement. Drafts of a proposed stipulation of class action
settlement have been prepared and reviewed. They expect a Joint
Notice of Pending Settlement to be filed in the Dolan case.
Thus, the Parties propose to file a further status report to
appraise the Court of any development.
A full-text copy of the Joint Status Report is available at
PacerMonitor.com at https://is.gd/3YoAN9
Madeleine F Shattenkirk, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel C. Hedlund --
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com -- GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC, pro hac vice,
Kim D. Stephens -- kstephens@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS,
Marc Lawrence Godino -- mgodino@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY PRONGAY &
MURRAY LLP, pro hac vice, Melissa Emert -- memert@ssbny.com --
STULL STULL & EMERT, pro hac vice, Rebecca Luise Solomon --
rsolomon@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS & Rosemary M. Rivas
-- rrivas@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP, pro hac vice.
Alaska Airlines Inc, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented
by Gayle I. Jenkins -- gjenkins@winston.com -- WINSTON & STRAWN,
pro hac vice, Lazaro Fernandez -- lfernandez@stackfernandez --
STACK FERNANDEZ & HARRIS PA, pro hac vice & Rebecca J. Francis --
rebeccafrancis@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.
ALEX AUTO: Ramos Seeks Unpaid Wages, Overtime for Auto Cutters
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALEX AUTO PARTS, INC.; ALEXANDER MEZO; JUAN
CARLOS CALDERON; and EDWIN FERNANDEZ, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-05079 (S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including failure to pay the Plaintiff and
Class members appropriate minimum wages, failure to pay them
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, and failure to keep payroll records.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an auto cutter in
Bronx, New York in or around 1994 until in or around November
2018.
Alex Auto Parts, Inc. is an automobile parts company with principal
place of business located at 327 Bryant Avenue Bronx, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
ALLAKOS INC: Kim's Securities Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Allakos Inc. continues to defend itself against a putative
securities class action complaint captioned Kim v. Allakos et al.,
No. 20-cv-01720 (N.D. Cal.), according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
On March 10, 2020, the complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against the
Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Robert Alexander, and its
Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Leo Redmond.
The complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and seeks damages based on alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions concerning its Phase 2 clinical
trials of antolimab (AK002). The proposed class period is August
5, 2019, through December 17, 2019, inclusive.
The Company said that given the early stage of this litigation
matter, it cannot reasonably estimate a potential future loss or a
range of potential future losses and has not recorded a contingent
liability accrual as of March 31, 2020.
ALTRIA GROUP: McGee Alleges Conspiracy in E-Cigarette Market
------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA McGEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC;
and JUUL LABS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-04413 (N.D. Cal.,
July 1, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants entered into and engaged
in continuing combination, conspiracy or agreement to unreasonably
restrain trade or commerce by artificially reducing or eliminating
competition with respect to the sale, marketing and distribution of
closed system e-cigarettes sold to purchasers in the United States
and its territories. Altria and JUUL entered into relationship
agreement on December 20, 2018 by which Altria agreed to exit the
e-cigarette market in exchange for a 35% stake in JUUL. As a result
of this unlawful agreement, JUUL was able to raise, maintain, or
stabilize the prices of closed system e-cigarettes sold to
purchasers in the country.
The Defendants' anticompetitive and unlawful conduct has
proximately caused injury to the Plaintiff and members of the Class
by eliminating independent competition by Altria on price,
promotional activity, and innovation; reducing consumer choice; and
allowing JUUL to monopolize the market for closed system
e-cigarettes.
JUUL Labs, Inc. is a manufacturer of closed system e-cigarettes
with principal place of business located at 560 20th Street, San
Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a tobacco company headquartered at 6601 West
Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Enterprises LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of tobacco
manufacturer Altria Group and is located at 6601 West Broad Street,
Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
Christopher Lebsock, Esq.
Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
clebsock@hausfeld.com
bsweeney@hausfeld.com
- and –
Scott A. Martin, Esq.
Irving Scher, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com
ischer@hausfeld.com
- and –
William G. Caldes, Esq.
Jeffery L. Spector, Esq.
Icee N. Etheridge, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
E-mail: BCaldes@srkattorneys.com
Jspector@srkattorneys.com
IEtheridge@srkattorneys.com
- and –
David P. McLafferty, Esq.
MCLAFFERTY LAW FIRM, P.C.
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 940-4000
E-mail: DMclafferty@mclaffertylaw.com
- and –
Michael J. Boni, Esq.
Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
15 St. Asaphs Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (610) 822-0200
Facsimile: (610) 822-0206
E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
jsnyder@bonizack.com
- and –
Lee Albert, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
New York, NY 101689
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com
AMAZON CORPORATE: Fails to Provide COBRA Notice, Kendall Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
RHIANNON KENDALL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON CORPORATE, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-02493-JFA (D.S.C., June 30, 2020) alleges that
Defendant violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 ("ERISA"), as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 ("COBRA"), by failing to provide
Plaintiff and the putative class with a COBRA notice that complies
with the law.
According to the complaint, despite having access to the Department
of Labor's Model COBRA form, Amazon chose not to use the model form
-- presumably to save Amazon money because COBRA coverage is
inherently expensive for employers.
The Defendant has repeatedly violated ERISA by failing to provide
participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice, as
prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health
coverage upon the occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by
the statute. The Defendant's COBRA notice violates the law as it is
not written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average
plan participant because it attempts to scare individuals away from
electing COBRA by including an ominous warning suggesting that the
submission of even "incomplete" information when electing COBRA may
result in civil, or even criminal, penalties.
As a result of these violations, which threaten Class Members'
ability to maintain their health coverage, Plaintiff seeks
statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses, and other appropriate relief as set forth herein and
provided by law.
Plaintiff was a participant in the Plan prior to her termination, a
qualifying event within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1163(2).
Amazon Corporate, LLC is the plan sponsor and plan administrator of
the Amazon Health & Welfare Benefits Plan with principal place of
business in Seattle, Washington, but is registered to do business
in the State of South Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harper T. Segui, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
217 Lucas Street, Suite G
Mount Pleasant, SC
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
E-mail: harper@whitfieldbryson.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60630
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com
- and -
Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
300 S. Biscayne Blvd, #2704
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 610-5223
E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE First Avenue, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
AMERICAN SPECIALTY: Still Charges Fees Amid COVID-19, Hodges Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WALTER HODGES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN SPECIALTY HEALTH INCORPORATED; and
AMERICAN SPECIALTY HEALTH FITNESS, INC., Defendants, Case
3:20-cv-01158-LAB-AHG (S.D. Cal., June 24, 2020) alleges that the
Defendants charges their customers monthly membership fees when
fitness centers were closed during the COVID-19 Pandemic.
To sign up for Defendants' program, customers provide the
Defendants with their credit card or debit card information. The
Defendants then automatically charge their customers as payments
are due on a monthly basis.
Beginning in March 2020, gyms across the country closed down
indefinitely as "stay at home" and "shelter in place" orders were
issued. However, the Defendants continued charging their customers
including the Plaintiff, the full monthly membership fees. In doing
so, the Defendants made the deliberate decision to take millions of
dollars from their customers who did not have access to the service
the Defendants promised, agreed, and warranted to them.
During the pandemic, millions of Americans lost their jobs and the
ability to earn a living. Millions of people are struggling to
survive. Rather than stop charging their customers during the
pandemic, like other business have done, the Defendants have
continued taking money from their customers. The Plaintiff and
Class Members need the money that the Defendants have unlawfully
taken from them. The Defendants have taken this decision to profit
from the COVID-19 Pandemic to the detriment of millions of
Americans.
American Specialty Health, Inc. provides healthcare services. The
Company offers health plans, employer groups, insurance carriers,
trust funds, health services, fitness and exercise, and population
health management programs. American Specialty Health operates in
the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tej P. Singh, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
1055 West 7th Street, 33rd Floor - 165
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (877) 342-2020
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: tsingh@hftrialfirm.com
- and -
Don Foty, Esq.
David W. Hodges, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
dhodges@hftrialfirm.com
AMERICOLLECT INC: Chambliss Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CHARLES E. CHAMBLISS,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
AMERICOLLECT, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00922-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 plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
him as the class representative, and appoint his 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.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
AMERICOLLECT INC: Class Cert. Proceedings Stayed in "Chambliss"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CHARLES E. CHAMBLISS v.
AMERICOLLECT, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00922-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the
Hon. Judge William E. Duffin granted Plaintiff's request to stay
further proceedings on the motion for class certification.
On June 18, 2020, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At
the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly refers
to as a "protective" motion for class certification.
The plaintiff has moved to certify the class described in the
complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on
that motion.
In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class‐action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to
buy off the named plaintiffs."
However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a
motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the
Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to
delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."
Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco.
United Collection provides debt collection and accounts receivable
management services to creditors.[CC]
AMERIFIELD INC: Casillas Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Truck Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMIRO CASILLAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERIFIELD, INC., Defendant, Case
5:20-cv-00741 (W.D. Tex., June 23, 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 Casillas was employed by the Defendants as truck
driver.
Amerifield, Inc. is a trucking company that provides transportation
and logistics services to customers in the Southwestern United
States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
marbuckle@eeoc.net
AMNEAL PHARMA: Briefing on Special Master's Proposal Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that in the consolidated suit styled, In Re
Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, the briefing
in support of and in opposition to the Special Master's proposal is
underway.
Specifically, on February 20, 2020, the Special Master issued a
Report & Recommendation and Proposed Order providing for the
establishment of two bellwether trial tracks; Track One would
involve a jury trial of the overarching conspiracy claims presented
in the States Attorneys General's May 10, 2019 complaint (in which
the Company and Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC ("Amneal") are
defendants), and Track Two would consist of a second round of
trials on one of three different individual drug conspiracy
complaints (none of which involve the Company or any Amneal
entities).
Beginning in March 2016, numerous complaints styled as antitrust
class actions on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect
purchasers (or end-payors) and several separate individual
complaints on behalf of certain direct and indirect purchasers (the
"opt-out plaintiffs") have been filed against manufacturers of
generic digoxin, lidocaine/prilocaine, glyburide-metformin, and
metronidazole, including Impax.
The end-payor plaintiffs comprised Plaintiff International Union of
Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund; Tulsa Firefighters
Health and Welfare Trust; NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund; Pipe Trade
Services MN; Edward Carpinelli; Fraternal Order of Police, Miami
Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Nina Diamond; UFCW Local 1500
Welfare Fund; Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund; The City
of Providence, Rhode Island; Philadelphia Federation of Teachers
Health and Welfare Fund; United Food & Commercial Workers and
Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust; Ottis McCrary; Plumbers
& Pipefitters Local 33 Health and Welfare Fund; Plumbers &
Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund; Unite Here
Health; Valerie Velardi; and Louisiana Health Service Indemnity
Company. The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprised KPH Healthcare
Services, Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc.; Rochester Drug
Co-Operative, Inc.; Cesar Castillo, Inc.; Ahold USA, Inc.; and FWK
Holdings, L.L.C. The opt-out plaintiffs comprised The Kroger Co.;
Albertsons Companies, LLC; H.E. Butt Grocery Company L.P.; Humana
Inc.; and United Healthcare Services, Inc.
On April 6, 2017, the JPML ordered the consolidation of all civil
actions involving allegations of antitrust conspiracies in the
generic pharmaceutical industry regarding 18 generic drugs in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ("E.D. Pa."), as In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals
Pricing Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2724). Consolidated class
action complaints were filed on August 15, 2017 for each of the 18
drugs; Impax is named as a defendant in the 2 complaints respecting
digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine. Impax also is a defendant in the
class action complaint filed with the MDL court on June 22, 2018 by
certain direct purchasers of glyburide-metformin and
metronidazole.
Each of the various complaints alleges a conspiracy to fix,
maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate
markets or customers for the particular drug products at issue.
Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.
On October 16, 2018, the Court denied Impax and its co-defendants'
motion to dismiss the digoxin complaint.
On February 15, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss various state antitrust, consumer
protection, and unjust enrichment claims brought by two classes of
indirect purchasers in the digoxin action. The Court dismissed
seven state law claims in the end-payor plaintiffs' complaint and
six state law claims in the indirect reseller plaintiffs'
complaint. Motions to dismiss the glyburide-metformin and
metronidazole complaint, as well as 2 of the complaints filed by
certain opt-out plaintiffs, were filed February 21, 2019.
On March 11, 2019, the Court issued an order approving a
stipulation withdrawing the direct purchaser plaintiffs'
glyburide-metformin claims against Impax.
On May 10, 2019, the Company was named in a civil lawsuit filed by
the Attorneys General of 43 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut against numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers,
as well as certain of their current or former sales and marketing
executives, regarding an alleged conspiracy to fix prices and
allocate or divide customers or markets for various products,
including, with respect to the Company, bethanechol chloride
tablets, norethindrone acetate tablets, and ranitidine HCL tablets,
in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection
laws. Plaintiff States seek, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages (including treble damages and civil penalties), as
well as equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.
On June 4, 2019, the JPML transferred the lawsuit to the E.D. Pa.
for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724.
On November 1, 2019, the State Attorneys General filed an Amended
Complaint in their lawsuit, bringing claims on behalf of 9
additional states and territories against several defendants; the
relief sought and allegations concerning the Company (including the
products allegedly at issue) are unchanged from the original
complaint.
On July 31, 2019, the Company and Impax were served with a Praecipe
to Issue Writ of Summons and Writ of Summons filed in the
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas by 87 health insurance
companies and managed health care providers (America's 1st Choice
of South Carolina, Inc., et al. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al.,
No. 190702094), naming as defendants in the putative action the
same generic pharmaceutical manufacturers and individuals named in
the State Attorneys General lawsuit. However, to date, no
complaint has been filed or served in this action.
On December 12, 2019, the court entered an Order placing the case
in deferred status pending further developments in MDL No. 2724.
On October 11, 2019, opt-out plaintiff United Healthcare Services,
Inc. filed a second complaint, in the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota (United Healthcare Services, Inc. v.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., No. 0:19-cv-02696),
following on and supplementing its original action, asserting
antitrust claims against the Company and other generic
pharmaceutical manufacturers arising from the facts alleged in the
State Attorneys General lawsuit. Plaintiff seeks, among other
things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief,
including disgorgement and restitution. The parties anticipate
that the lawsuit will be transferred by the JPML to the E.D. Pa.
for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724.
On October 18, 2019, opt-out plaintiff Humana, Inc. also filed a
second complaint, likewise following on supplementing its original
action to assert antitrust claims against the Company and other
generic pharmaceuticals manufacturers arising from the facts
alleged in the State Attorneys General lawsuit, and similarly
seeking, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and
equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. The
lawsuit was filed in the E.D. Pa. (Humana Inc. v. Actavis
Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No. 2:19-cv 04862), and likely will be
incorporated into MDL No. 2724 for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.
On November 14, 2019, the Company was named in a complaint filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, on
behalf of 14 counties in the state of New York, who allege to be
both direct and end-payor purchasers of generic pharmaceutical
drugs (County of Nassau, et al., v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., et
al., No. 616029/2019). The complaint asserts antitrust claims
against the Company and other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers
arising from the facts alleged in the State Attorneys General
lawsuit. Plaintiff Counties seek, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and
restitution.
On December 17, 2019, defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (No.
2:19-cv-07071) and, on January 3, 2020, the case was transferred by
the JPML to the E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with
MDL No. 2724.
On December 11, 2019, the Company and Impax were named in a
complaint filed in E.D. Pa. by Health Care Service Corp., a
customer-owned health insurer opting out of the end-payor plaintiff
class (Health Care Service Corp. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al.,
No. 2:19-cv-05819-CMR). Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy among
generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to fix prices and allocate or
divide customers or markets for various products (including, with
respect to the Company, bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone
acetate tablets, and ranitidine HCL tablets; and with respect to
Impax, digoxin, lidocaine-prilocaine, and metronidazole) in
violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection
laws. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary
damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and
restitution. The lawsuit likely will be incorporated into MDL No.
2724 for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
On December 16, 2019, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut against Impax and
against numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers on behalf of
assignees of claims from third-party health benefit plans, opting
out of the end-payor plaintiff class (MSP Recovery Claims, Series
LLC, et al. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No.
3:19-cv-01972-SRU), and alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and
allocate or divide customers or markets for various products
(including, with respect to Impax, digoxin and
lidocaine-prilocaine) in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution.
On January 10, 2020, the case was transferred by the JPML to the
E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724.
On December 19, 2019, the end-payor plaintiffs filed a new
complaint, following on and supplementing their putative class
action lawsuit pending in MDL No. 2724. Plaintiffs' new complaint,
which names as defendants the Company, Amneal, Impax, and numerous
generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, alleges a conspiracy to fix
prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various
products (including, with respect to the Company/Amneal,
bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone acetate tablets,
ranitidine HCL tablets, naproxen sodium tablets,
oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets, phenytoin sodium capsules, and
warfarin sodium tablets; and with respect to Impax, metronidazole,
amphetamine salts tablets, dextroamphetamine sulfate ER capsules,
cyproheptadine HCL tablets, methylphenidate tablets, and
pilocarpine HCL tablets) in violation of federal and state
antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs continue to
seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and
equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.
On December 20, 2019, the indirect-reseller plaintiffs filed a new
complaint naming the Company, following on and supplementing their
putative class action lawsuit pending in MDL No. 2724. The new
complaint is brought on behalf of both independent pharmacies and
hospitals, and asserts antitrust claims against the Company and
other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers (as well as distributors
of generic pharmaceuticals, including AmerisourceBergen Corp.,
Cardinal Health Inc., and McKesson Corporation) arising from the
facts alleged in the State Attorneys General lawsuit. Plaintiffs
continue to seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.
On December 27, 2019, the Company and Impax were named in a
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California by Molina Healthcare, Inc., a
publicly traded healthcare management organization opting out of
the end-payor plaintiff class (Molina Healthcare, Inc. v. Actavis
Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No. 3:19-cv-08438). Plaintiff alleges a
conspiracy among generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to fix prices
and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products
(including, with respect to the Company, bethanechol chloride
tablets, norethindrone acetate tablets, and ranitidine HCL tablets;
and with respect to Impax, digoxin, lidocaine-prilocaine, and
metronidazole) in violation of federal and state antitrust and
consumer protection laws. Plaintiff seeks, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution.
On February 5, 2020, the case was transferred by the JPML, to the
E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724.
On February 7, 2020, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a new
complaint, following on and supplementing their putative class
action lawsuit pending in MDL No. 2724. Plaintiffs' new complaint,
which names as defendants the Company, Amneal, Impax, and numerous
generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, alleges a conspiracy to fix
prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various
products (including, with respect to the Company/Amneal,
bethanechol chloride tablets, ranitidine HCL tablets, naproxen
sodium tablets, oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets,
hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets, phenytoin sodium capsules, and
warfarin sodium tablets; and with respect to Impax, amphetamine
salts tablets, dextroamphetamine sulfate ER capsules,
methylphenidate tablets, and pilocarpine HCL tablets) in violation
of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws.
Plaintiffs continue to seek, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and
restitution.
On March 2, 2020, the Company, Amneal, and Amneal Pharmaceuticals
of NY, LLC, were named in a complaint filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas by Harris County,
Texas, which is the primary county for the Houston Metropolitan
Area (Harris County, Texas v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et
al., No. 4:20-cv-00733). Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy among
generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to fix prices and allocate or
divide customers or markets for various products in violation of
federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws;
specifically, plaintiff alleges that it has paid approximately
US$3.86 million since 2013 for products attributable to Amneal
entities.
On March 30, 2020, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order
tagging the case for transfer to the E.D. Pa. for coordination
and consolidation with MDL No. 2724.
Fact and document discovery in MDL No. 2724 are proceeding.
On December 26, 2019, the MDL court entered a case management order
extending by stipulation certain pretrial discovery deadlines,
including leaving open-ended the date by which, after consultation
with MDL court's appointed Special Master, the parties are to agree
upon bellwether claims or cases for, inter alia, class
certification and/or trials.
On February 20, 2020, the Special Master issued a Report &
Recommendation and Proposed Order providing for the establishment
of two bellwether trial tracks; Track One would involve a jury
trial of the overarching conspiracy claims presented in the States
Attorneys General's May 10, 2019 complaint (in which the Company
and Amneal are defendants), and Track Two would consist of a second
round of trials on one of three different individual drug
conspiracy complaints (none of which involve the Company or any
Amneal entities). Briefing in support of and in opposition to the
Special Master's proposal is underway.
The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the
claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any
adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations,
cash flows and/or overall financial condition.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Suits over Prescription Opioid
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that it continues to face lawsuits
related to prescription opioid pain relievers, including a
multidistrict litigation pending as In Re National Prescription
Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804 (the "MDL"), in Ohio.
The Company and certain of its affiliates have been named as
defendants in various matters relating to the promotion and sale of
prescription opioid pain relievers. The Company is aware that
other individuals and states and political subdivisions are filing
comparable actions against, among others, manufacturers and parties
that have promoted and sold prescription opioid pain relievers, and
additional suits may be filed.
The complaints, asserting claims under provisions of different
state and Federal law, generally contend that the defendants
allegedly engaged in improper marketing of opioids, and seek a
variety of remedies, including restitution, civil penalties,
disgorgement of profits, treble damages, attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief. None of the complaints specifies the exact
amount of damages at issue. The Company and its affiliates that
are defendants in the various lawsuits deny all allegations
asserted in these complaints and have filed or intend to file
motions to dismiss where possible. Each of the opioid-related
matters is in its early stages. The Company intends to continue to
vigorously defend these cases. In light of the inherent
uncertainties of civil litigation, the Company is not in a position
to predict the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or provide an
estimate of the amount or range of potential loss in the event of
an unfavorable outcome in any of these matters.
On March 27, 2018, plaintiff American Resources Insurance Company,
Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama against Amneal, Amneal Pharmaceuticals
of New York, LLC, Impax, and thirty-five other pharmaceutical
company defendants. Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of
insurers that since January 1, 2010, allegedly have been wrongfully
required to: (i) reimburse for prescription opioids that allegedly
were promoted, sold, and distributed illegally and improperly by
the pharmaceutical company defendants; and (ii) incur costs for
treatment of overdoses of opioid medications, misuse of those
medications, or addiction to them. The complaint seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, but plaintiff's complaint does
not include any allegation of specific damage amounts. On or about
May 2, 2018, the case was transferred to the MDL. All activity in
the case is stayed by order of the MDL court.
On February 7, 2019, Kentucky River District Health Department
requested that the Company execute a waiver of service in its case
pending in the MDL. Plaintiff's putative class action complaint
names Amneal and 20 other pharmaceutical companies and other
entities as defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants are
liable for the economic injuries it suffered, on behalf of itself
and similarly situated Kentucky health departments, as a result of
their role in responding to an alleged "opioid epidemic." Plaintiff
requests an unspecified amount of damages against the defendants.
All activity in the case is stayed by order of the MDL court.
In October 2019, the Company, Amneal, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New
York, LLC, and Impax were served with a putative class action
complaint, which also names as defendants numerous manufacturers of
opioid products (and certain corporate officers thereof), filed in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee by several individuals who allegedly purchased
prescription opioid medication in cash and/or with an insurance
co-payment (Rhodes, et al., v. Rhodes Technologies, Inc., et al.,
No. 3:19-cv-00885). Plaintiffs claim that they would not have
purchased these prescription opioid products had defendants not
allegedly misrepresented the products' "addiction propensities,"
and thereby suffered economic loss. Plaintiffs purport to
represent a nationwide class of all individuals who directly or
indirectly purchased prescription opioid medication from January
2008 to the present in 31 different states, allege causes of action
for violations of those states' antitrust laws and consumer
protection statutes (and unjust enrichment), and seek, in addition
to class certification, unspecified monetary damages (including
actual, statutory, and punitive or treble damages) and equitable
relief, including declaratory judgment and restitution.
There are currently 26 cases brought by various West Virginia and
Kentucky hospitals that have been consolidated in the state-court
West Virginia Opioid Litigation Multi-Litigation Panel (the "MLP").
On November 20, 2019, the manufacturer defendants collectively
filed a motion to dismiss, in which Amneal joined, and the Company
filed its own individual motion to dismiss. The MLP has denied the
manufacturer defendants' motion to dismiss, but has not yet ruled
on the Company's separate motion. There also are five additional
cases brought by West Virginia municipalities against the Company,
Amneal, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, and Impax which
have been transferred to the MLP. The Amneal entities' responsive
pleading deadline is May 18, 2020, and the Company intends to file
motions to dismiss in those cases. The MLP also ordered an early
mediation on February 26 and 27, 2020, during which plaintiffs did
not make a settlement demand. The MLP has ordered a public
nuisance bench trial to occur beginning on March 22, 2021.
Defendants have filed a motion for reconsideration of the order
denying a jury trial.
The Company and certain of its affiliates recently have been named
in approximately 915 cases now pending in the MDL court or in
various state and territorial courts, including cases brought by:
* Political subdivision / municipal entity plaintiffs from the
states of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming;
* Third-party payor plaintiffs;
* Individual plaintiffs;
* Indian tribe plaintiffs; and
* Hospital / healthcare provider plaintiffs.
Requests for waivers for service of process have been transmitted
by plaintiffs' counsel to defense counsel in relation to the
Company and certain of its affiliates in most of these cases. In
each case where service on the Company or its affiliates has been
perfected, and the case is not stayed, responsive pleadings or
pre-answer motions have been filed.
The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the
claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any
adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations,
cash flows and/or overall financial condition.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Summary Judgment Bids Filed in Opana Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that defendants in the Opana ER(R) Antitrust
Litigation have filed motions for summary judgment.
From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 complaints styled as class actions
on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers (also known
as end-payors) and several separate individual complaints on behalf
of certain direct purchasers (the "opt-out plaintiffs") were filed
against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and Impax.
The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprise Value Drug Company and
Meijer Inc.
The end-payor plaintiffs comprise the Fraternal Order of Police,
Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Wisconsin Masons' Health Care
Fund; Massachusetts Bricklayers; Pennsylvania Employees Benefit
Trust Fund; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 138
Welfare Fund; Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana; Kim Mahaffay; and Plumbers
& Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund.
The opt-out plaintiffs comprise Walgreen Co.; The Kroger Co.;
Safeway, Inc.; HEB Grocery Company L.P.; Albertson's LLC; Rite Aid
Corporation; Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.; and CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPML") ordered the pending class
actions transferred to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois ("N.D. Ill.") for coordinated
pretrial proceedings, as In Re: Opana ER Antitrust Litigation (MDL
No. 2580). (Actions subsequently filed in other jurisdictions also
were transferred by the JPML to the N.D. Ill. to be coordinated or
consolidated with the coordinated proceedings, and the District
Court likewise has consolidated the opt-out plaintiffs' actions
with the direct purchaser class actions for pretrial purposes.)
In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an
anticompetitive settlement agreement with Impax to delay generic
competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal
antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and
restitution.
Discovery, including expert discovery, is ongoing.
On March 25, 2019, plaintiffs filed motions for class certification
and served opening expert reports. Defendants' oppositions to
class certification and rebuttal expert reports were filed and
served on August 29, 2019.
On November 5, 2019, plaintiffs filed reply briefs in further
support of their motions for class certification.
On January 17, 2020, defendants filed a motion for leave to file
joint surreply briefs in response thereto; plaintiffs filed
responses on January 24, 2020.
On February 5, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion for
leave, and entered a case schedule to which the parties jointly
stipulated, setting a trial date of March 15, 2021, though it will
likely be delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
On April 15, 2020, defendants filed motions for summary judgment.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals said, "The Company believes it has
substantial meritorious defenses to the claims asserted with
respect to the litigation. However, any adverse outcome could
negatively affect the Company and could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and/or
overall financial condition."
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.
APPLE INC: Fails to Protect Consumer Privacy Rights, Ohanian Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIGRAN OHANIAN and REGGE LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC. and T-MOBILE
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05162 (S.D.N.Y., July 6,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
New York General Business Law, fraudulent misrepresentation, and
unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false and
deceptive marketing and advertising of their products. Defendant
Apple manufactures, advertises and sells iPhone mobile devices with
a known security flaw in the iOS software that allowed iMessage
correspondence sent by iPhone users and FaceTime calls made by
iPhone users to be improperly accessed by third parties. Apple's
failure to disclose this information to consumers was a material
omission because it misleads a reasonable consumer as to the data
privacy and security features of the iPhone. Defendant T-Mobile
also deceives consumers, including the Plaintiffs, by its practice
of recycling phone numbers linked to SIM cards, and selling those
SIM cards to consumers for use in the iPhone without requiring
prior users to manually disassociate their Apple IDs from the phone
numbers associated with the recycled SIM cards, hereby placing
consumers' data and confidential personal information at risk.
Apple Inc. is a multinational company that manufactures,
advertises, markets, distributes, and sells computer hardware,
software, and mobile devices, with its principal place of business
located at One Apple Park Way, Cupertino, California.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. is a wireless mobile network operator that
manufactures, advertises, markets, distributes, and sells SIM
cards, with its principal place of business located at 12920 SE
38th St., Bellevue, Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Aaron J. Solomon, Esq.
OVED & OVED LLP
401 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 226-2376
ASIAN MOON: Faces Zhang Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------
Chengcheng Zhang, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASIAN MOON RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a
ASIAN MOON; VICKIE S LI; and SHERRY LI, Defendants, Case
2:20-cv-02776-GRB-AKT (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2020) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff Zhang was employed by the Defendants as waiter.
Asian Moon Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Asian Moon is engaged in the
restaurant business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jiajing Fan, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-20 38 th Ave. Suite 10G
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 353-8588
Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
E-mail: jfan@hanglaw.com
ASTELLAS US: Miller et al. Sue Over 401(k) Plan Losses
------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN WOERTH MILLER, FAURUM SANKARI, ANGELA HEIMGARTNER, MICHAEL
WACHALA, MARY BETH PREUSS, ERIC TERHAERDT, PATRICIA WALSH, and
SHEILA EARLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated participants and beneficiaries of the Astellas US
Retirement and Savings Plan, Plaintiffs v. ASTELLAS US LLC; THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ASTELLAS US LLC; THE ASTELLAS RETIREMENT PLAN
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE; AON HEWITT INVESTMENT CONSULTING, INC.,
NKA AON INVESTMENTS USA, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1–14, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03882 (N.D. Ill., July 1, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties pursuant to
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants breached the fiduciary
duties they owed to the Plan, the Plaintiffs, and other
participants by failing to act and decide in the best interests of
Plan participants, which include: (1) selecting and retaining the
Aon Hewitt collective investment trusts in the Plan despite the
availability of better performing alternative investment options;
(2) failing to monitor their appointees and delegees and their
fiduciary process, which would have alerted any prudent fiduciary
to the potential breach because of the unreasonable investment
management fees and imprudent investment options; and (4) failing
to remove appointees and delegees whose performance was inadequate.
As a direct result of these breaches of fiduciary duties, the Plan
suffered substantial losses.
Astellas US LLC is a pharmaceutical product manufacturing limited
liability company headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois.
Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc., now known as Aon
Investments USA, Inc., is a registered investment adviser under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 with its principal place of
business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
Michael A. Wolff, Esq.
Sean S. Soyars, Esq.
Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq.
Scott T. Apking, Esq.
100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
St. Louis, MO, 63102
Telephone: (314) 621-6115
Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
mwolff@uselaws.com
ssoyars@uselaws.com
kstruckhoff@uselaws.com
sapking@uselaws.com
ATLAS FIELD: Daniel et al. Seek Unpaid Wages, OT for Foresters
--------------------------------------------------------------
HOMER DANIEL and CHARLES STUCKER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ATLAS FIELD SERVICES, LLC;
CRAIG TAYLOR; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-04415
(N.D. Cal., July 1, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Labor
Code, and California Business and Professions Code including: (1)
failure to pay all contractual wages owed; (2) failure to pay all
overtime wages owed; (3) failure to pay all minimum wages owed; (4)
failure to provide timely meal periods, and/or provide appropriate
compensation in lieu thereof; (5) failure to provide timely,
complete, rest periods, and/or provide appropriate compensation in
lieu thereof; and (6) failure to reimburse employees for necessary
business expenditures.
Mr. Daniel and Mr. Stucker were employed by the Defendants as
consulting utility foresters through October 2019 and March 2020,
respectively.
Atlas Field Services, LLC is a full-service Health, Safety &
Environment (HSE) company headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
Leanna Marie Sac, Esq.
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
Oakland, CA 94612-3547
Telephone: (510) 832-9999
Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
LMSac@TheMMLawFirm.com
ATRIA SENIOR: Buchanan Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MARY BUCHANAN, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated v. ATRIA SENIOR LIVING,
INC., a Delaware Corporation and ATRIA MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-19 00279232 (Filed May 21, 2020), was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California on June 25, 2020.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-01277-JAM-DB to the proceeding.
The complaint alleges claims against the Defendants for unpaid
minimum wages and liquidated damages, unpaid overtime, and failure
to provide meal and rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof.
Atria Senior is a privately held, for-profit senior housing company
based in Louisville, Kentucky.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher A. Crosman, Esq.
Elizabeth M. Levy, Esq.
Michael H. Lee, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
E-mail: ccrosman@seyfarth.com
elevy@seyfarth.com
mhlee@seyfarth.com
ATV INC: Faces Herndon Employment Suit in California Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ATV, INC., et al. The
case is styled as Dion Herndon, as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ATV INC. DBA AMERICAN TIRE DEPOT,
AMERICAN TIRE DEPOT INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Case No.
20STCV25013 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 2, 2020).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment."
Atv, Inc., retails auto parts. The Company offers automotive
interiors and exteriors, steering wheels, airbag modules,
instrument panels and related components, ventilators, and internal
and external trim parts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul K. Haines, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
222 N Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
El Segundo, CA 90245-5629
Telephone: (424) 292-2350
Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
BISMILLAH BAWARCHI: Martinez Sues over Unpaid Minimum and OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
ISAIS FLORES MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- BISMILLAH BAWARCHI INC.
(D/B/A BAWARCHI INDIAN CUISINE), FRESH FOOD NYC INC. (D/B/A
BAWARCHI INDIAN CUISINE), AZIZ A KHAN, and MOHAMMED A. MAHBUB,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04987 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2020) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, and
other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
According to the complaint, Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff
Flores appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight
rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Defendants employed a policy and practice of disguising Plaintiff
Flores' actual duties in payroll records by designating him as a
delivery worker instead of as a non-tipped employee. This allowed
Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiff Flores at the minimum wage
rate and enabled them to pay him at the tip-credit rate.
Plaintiff Flores was employed as a delivery worker at the
restaurants located in New York.
Bismillah Bawarchi Inc., (d/b/a Bawarchi Indian Cuisine), and Fresh
Food NYC Inc., (d/b/a Bawarchi Indian Cuisine), own, operate, or
control two Indian restaurants located in New York under the name
"Bawarchi Indian Cuisine."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Fallace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
BLACKBERRY LTD: Class Certification Bid in SDNY Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2020, that a motion for class
certification has been filed in the consolidated putative class
action suit pending before the Southern District of New York.
On March 14, 2014, four putative U.S. class actions were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, and on May 27, 2014, a consolidated amended class
action complaint was filed.
On March 13, 2015, the Court issued an order granting the Company's
motion to dismiss. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration and for leave to file an amended complaint on
November 13, 2015.
On August 24, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the District Court order dismissing the complaint,
but vacated the order denying leave to amend and remanded to the
District Court for further proceedings in connection with the
plaintiffs' request for leave to amend. The Court granted the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend on September 13, 2017.
On September 29, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended class action complaint, which added the Company's former
Chief Legal Officer as a defendant.
The Court denied the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on March 19, 2018.
On January 4, 2019, the Court issued an order placing the case on
its suspense calendar but allowed fact and expert discovery to
continue. On August 2, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
and Recommendation that the Court grant the defendants' motion for
judgment on the pleadings dismissing the claims of additional
plaintiffs Cho and Ulug.
On September 24, 2019, the District Court Judge accepted the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation and dismissed the claims of Cho
and Ulug against all defendants.
On October 17, 2019, Cho and Ulug filed a Notice of Appeal. Cho and
Ulug filed their opening brief on February 20, 2020, and the
Company filed its opposition brief on May 21, 2020.
Fact discovery was completed on January 31, 2020, and expert
discovery is scheduled to be completed on November 13, 2020.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on June 8, 2020.
BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments around the world. The
company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150
million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages
artificial intelligence ("AI") and machine learning to deliver
innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data
privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security
management, encryption, and embedded systems.
BLACKBERRY LTD: Discovery Ongoing in Ontario Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit pending before an Ontario Court.
On July 23, 2014, the plaintiffs in the putative Ontario class
action filed a motion for certification and leave to pursue
statutory misrepresentation claims. On November 16, 2015, the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a statutory claim for
misrepresentation.
On December 2, 2015, the Company filed a notice of motion seeking
leave to appeal this ruling.
On January 22, 2016, the Court postponed the hearing on the
plaintiffs' certification motion to an undetermined date after
asking the Company to file a motion to dismiss the claims of the
U.S. plaintiffs for forum non conveniens.
Before that motion was heard, the parties agreed to limit the class
to purchasers who reside in Canada or purchased on the Toronto
Stock Exchange.
On November 15, 2018, the Court denied the Company's motion for
leave to appeal the order granting the plaintiffs leave to file a
statutory claim for misrepresentation.
On February 5, 2019, the Court entered an order certifying a class
comprised persons (a) who purchased BlackBerry common shares
between March 28, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and still held at
least some of those shares as of September 20, 2013, and (b) who
acquired those shares on a Canadian stock exchange or acquired
those shares on any other stock exchange and were a resident of
Canada when the shares were acquired.
Notice of class certification was published on March 6, 2019. The
Company filed its Statement of Defence on April 1, 2019, and
discovery is proceeding.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments around the world. The
company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150
million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages
artificial intelligence ("AI") and machine learning to deliver
innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data
privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security
management, encryption, and embedded systems.
BLACKBERRY LTD: Employment Class Suit in Ontario Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend an employment class action suit filed before the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice.
On February 15, 2017, a putative employment class action was filed
against the Company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
The Statement of Claim alleges that actions the Company took when
certain of its employees decided to accept offers of employment
from Ford Motor Company of Canada amounted to a wrongful
termination of the employees’ employment with the Company.
The claim seeks (i) an unspecified quantum of statutory,
contractual, or common law termination entitlements; (ii) punitive
or breach of duty of good faith damages of CAD$20,000,000, or such
other amount as the Court finds appropriate, (iii) pre- and post-
judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) such
other relief as the Court deems just.
The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class
action on May 27, 2019.
The Company commenced a motion for leave to appeal the
certification order on June 11, 2019. The Court denied the motion
for leave to appeal on September 17, 2019.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments around the world. The
company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150
million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages
artificial intelligence ("AI") and machine learning to deliver
innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data
privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security
management, encryption, and embedded systems.
BLACKBERRY LTD: Initial Settlement Approval Hearing on July 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2020, that a preliminary settlement
approval hearing is scheduled for July 16, 2020, in the putative
employment class action suit pending before the San Joaquin County
Superior Court.
On February 4, 2019, a putative employment class action and
California Private Attorney General Act claim was filed against the
Company in the San Joaquin County Superior Court alleging the
Company (i) failed to provide itemized wage statements in violation
of California Labor Code Section 226(a); and (ii) failed to pay all
wages due at termination in violation of California Labor Code
Section 201.
The complaint seeks statutory penalties, injunctive relief,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.
The Company filed its answer denying the allegations in the
complaint on March 18, 2019, and discovery is proceeding. On August
22, 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication of
the named plaintiff's wage statement claims.
The Court took the motion under submission following oral argument
on November 13, 2019, and the motion remains pending. The Court
denied the motion on January 21, 2020.
The parties have entered into a settlement agreement that is
subject to Court approval.
The plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement on June 11, 2020, and the preliminary approval hearing
is scheduled for July 16, 2020.
The parties will provide notice of the settlement to the class
after the Court enters its order preliminarily approving the
settlement.
BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments around the world. The
company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150
million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages
artificial intelligence ("AI") and machine learning to deliver
innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data
privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security
management, encryption, and embedded systems.
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Braverman Seek to Certify i3 Owners Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BARRY BRAVERMAN, et al., v.
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-00966-TJH-PJW
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs Barry Braverman, Hakop Demirchyan, Joel
Green, Dr. Glynda Roberson, and Edo Tsoar (California Plaintiffs),
will move the Court on or after November 9, 2020, for an order:
a. certifying California Plaintiffs' putative class in this
litigation defined as:
"all persons or entities who purchased or leased a new BMW
i3 with Range Extender model-year 2014-2016 (Class Cars)
from an authorized BMW dealer on or before May 16, 2016,
in California."
Excluded from the Class are BMW North America and BMW AG,
their employees, co-conspirators, officers, directors,
legal representatives, heirs, successors, wholly- or
partly-owned, and their subsidiaries and affiliates, BMW
dealers, Class counsel and their employees, and the
judicial officers and their immediate family members and
associated court staff assigned to this case, all persons
who make a timely election to be excluded from the
Classes, and governmental entities.;
b. appointing themselves as class representatives; and
c. appointing Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class
Counsel.
The legal claims for which certification are sought are:
-- Breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the
Song-Beverly Act, Cal. Civ. Code sections 1791.1 & 1792;
and
-- A derivative Magnuson-Moss claim for implied warranty of
merchantability under 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq.
BMW of North America, LLC, markets and sells motor vehicles. The
Company offers vehicle accessories and interior and exterior parts,
apparel and accessories for men, women, and kids, as well as offers
vehicle financing and leasing services. BMW of North America
operates in the State of New Jersey.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Sean R. Matt, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Christopher Pitoun, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
sean@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
christopherp@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
CHIMICLES S CHWARTZ KRINER
& DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
361 West Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: (610) 642-8500
Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com
awf@chimicles.com
- and -
Jonathan A Michaels. Esq.
MLG AUTOMOTIVE LAW APLC
600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1240
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (949) 527-6900
Facsimile: (949) 581-6908
E-mail: jmichaels@mlgaplc.com
- and -
Hovanes Margarian, Esq.
THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM
801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 210
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 553-1000
E-mail: hovanes@margarianlaw.com
BROADWAY S/S INC: Lara Seeks Proper Wages for Mechanics
-------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS LARA, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, -against- BROADWAY S/S
INC., and AFTAB HUSSAIN, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-05010 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2020) is a civil action seeking
damages and equitable relief based upon Defendants' willful
violations of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by:
(i) the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA");
(ii) the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law
("NYLL");
(iii) the minimum wage provisions of the NYLL, NYLL Sec. 652(1),
12 NYCRR Sec. 142-2.1;
(iv) the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees
with wage statements containing specific categories of accurate
information on each payday;
(v) the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees
with a wage notice containing specific categories of accurate
information upon hire, NYLL Sec. 195(1); and
(vi) any other claim(s) that can be inferred from the facts set
forth.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked for Defendants -- a
Manhattan-based vehicle repair station and its owner and day-to-day
overseer -- as a mechanic, from in or around July 2014 until March
16, 2020.
Throughout his employment, Defendants willfully failed to pay
Plaintiff the overtime wages lawfully due to him under the FLSA and
the NYLL or the minimum wage required under the NYLL. Specifically,
throughout his employment, Defendants required Plaintiff to work,
and Plaintiff did in fact work, in excess of forty hours virtually
each week, yet Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff at least
at the rate of one and one-half times the minimum wage, or one and
one-half times his regular rate, whichever was greater, for any
hours that he worked in excess of forty in a week. Instead,
Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat weekly salary that did not include
overtime premiums and that brought his regular hourly rate below
the minimum that New York requires for all hours worked.
Additionally, in violation of New York law, Defendants failed to
provide Plaintiff with any wage statements on each payday or with
any wage notice upon his hire.
Broadway S/S Inc. is a New York-based vehicle repair station.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
BRUNSWICK CORP: Conditional Class Certification in Robles Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Duffin of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin denied Robles's Motion for Conditional Class
Certification in the case captioned SANDY ROBLES, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BRUNSWICK
CORPORATION, d/b/a MERCURY MARINE, Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-1809,
(E.D. Wis.).
Plaintiff Sandy Robles commenced the lawsuit on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated against her employer, Defendant
Brunswick Corporation d/b/a Mercury Marine, alleging that Mercury
Marine has a common policy and practice of impermissibly rounding
the start and end times of its production and maintenance
employees' work hours so as to deny such employees for compensation
for all hours worked. Robles alleges this was done in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and Wisconsin wage and hour
laws, and Wis. Admin. Code.
Mercury Marine's corporate headquarters are located in Fond du Lac,
Wisconsin. It is a marine propulsion manufacturer and sells marine
parts and accessories. Its Fond du Lac campus is broken into seven
different plants: 3, 4, 15, 15L, 15S, 17, and 98. Each facility has
production employees, but not every facility has maintenance
employees.
Before the court is Robles' motion for conditional class
certification and court facilitated notice. The motion only
addresses the potential federal law violation and asks the court to
certify the following collective action class:
All production and maintenance employees who are or have been
employed by Mercury Marine at it's Fond du Lac campus,
including Plants 3, 4, 15, 15L, 15S, 17, and 98 at any time
since November 15, 2015.
According to Mercury Marine, that proposed class would consist of
over 3,500 current and former employees.
Under the FLSA, a collective action may be maintained against any
employer by any one or more employees for and on behalf of himself
or themselves and other employees similarly situated. In
determining whether the plaintiff and the putative collective
action members are similarly situated, this court, like many other
courts, follows a two-stage process. At the first stage, the court
must determine whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a reasonable
basis for believing that she is similarly situated to potential
class members.
The second stage in the collective action certification process
occurs after conditional certification and normally when the
defendant files a motion for decertification. At the second stage,
the court must determine whether the plaintiffs who have opted in
are, in fact, similarly situated.
At this stage in the inquiry, the court's focus is not on whether
any policy at Mercury Marine violated the FLSA. Rather the focus is
on whether the admissible evidence in the record constitutes a
modest factual showing as to the existence of a nexus between
Robles and the members of the proposed class with regard to Mercury
Marine's alleged policies and practice.
Robles argues that all putative collective action members have been
subjected to the same rounding policies and have not been
compensated for any time they worked in the twenty-nine minutes
before the beginning of their shift or in the fourteen minutes
after their shift ended. This rounding policy, Robles argues,
rounds only in Mercury Marine's favor and has led to significant
differences between the scheduled work times and the amount of time
actually worked.
However, as Mercury Marine points out, at his deposition, Plaintiff
David Hall admitted that he was never required to perform work
during the pre- or post-shift periods, that he understood that he
would only be paid from his scheduled start time until his
scheduled end time unless his supervisor approved of him working
outside of his scheduled shift, and that, by his own choice, he
would sometimes start prep work before his shift started because it
makes the day a lot smoother.
Mercury Marine argues that no common policy exists among Robles and
the putative collective action members because the FLSA allows it
not to pay employees for the periods before and after their
scheduled times as long as they do not perform work.
It is undisputed that Robles and the putative collective action
members are all subject to the same policy: they will be paid only
for their scheduled shift unless prior approval for working
additional time is approved by their supervisors. Having said that,
only Robles testified that she was told she had to begin working
upon punching in, even if it was before the start of her scheduled
shift. No evidence has been offered that any other employee was so
instructed.
And while Plaintiff Alexandria Lockwood, David Hall, and Andrew Fox
all state generally that their respective supervisors knew they
were working before the start of their shift because they could see
them working, whether that is in fact true will be an
individualized determination for each supervisor. For example,
Lockwood says that the work she performs before the start of her
shift consists of talking to the person working at her workstation
from the prior shift. Whether Lockwood's supervisor saw Lockwood
talking to this other employee and recognized that it constituted
"working" rather than just chatting will have to be determined, but
the court will not be able to reach a general conclusion from that
determination regarding what other supervisors who were supervising
other employees knew.
In short, although the bar is set low for determining whether a
class ought to be conditionally certified, there nonetheless is a
bar. Conditional certification is not automatic. And here, Robles
has not demonstrated that she is similarly situated to the members
of her proposed class such that the class ought to be conditionally
certified.
Accordingly, the Court denies Robles's motion for conditional class
certification.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/w9l2fal from Leagle.com.
Sandy Robles, Plaintiff, represented by Summer H. Murshid , Hawks
Quindel SC, Timothy P. Maynard , Hawks Quindel SC & Larry A.
Johnson , Hawks Quindel SC, 54 Park Place, #400, Appleton, WI
54914
Brunswick Corporation, doing business as Mercury Marine, Defendant,
represented by Sean M. Scullen -sean.scullen@quarles.com - Quarles
& Brady LLP & Steven M. Kruzel - steven.kruzel@quarles.com -
Quarles & Brady LLP.
BTI GROUP: A1 On Track Sues in California Alleging TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BTI Group, et al. The
case is styled as A1 On Track Sliding Door Repair and Installation,
Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. BTI Group, a California corporation, DOES 1 through 10, Case No.
5:20-cv-04445 (N.D. Cal., July 2, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
BTI Group is the largest and most active merger and acquisition
("M&A") firm serving the western United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tiffany Noelle Buda, Esq.
LEXICON LAW PC
633 W. 5th Street, 28th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 223-5900
Email: tiffany.buda@gmail.com
BUILDING SERVICE: Lardo Sues Over Denial of Disability Pension
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL LARDO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, -against- BUILDING SERVICE 32BJ PENSION FUND;
TRUSTEES OF THE BUILDING SERVICE 32BJ PENSION FUND, as Plan
Administrator; Trustees Hector Figueroa, Larry Engelstein, Kevin
Doyle, Kyle Bragg, Howard I. Rothschild, Charles C. Dorego, John C.
Santora, Fred Ward; and John Doe Trustees 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-05047 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2020) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on his own
behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated participants in the
Building Service 32 BJ Pension Fund against Defendants pursuant to
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act section 502(a(1)(B), 29
U.S.C. sections 1132(a)(1)(B), for denying them disability
retirement benefits to which they are entitled under the terms of
the Pension Fund's Pension Plan and against the Trustees and Hector
Figueroa, Larry Engelstein, Kevin Doyle, Kyle Bragg, Howard I.
Rothschild, Charles C. Dorego, John C. Santora, Fred Ward, and John
Doe Trustees 1-10 pursuant to ERISA section 404, 29 U.S.C. sections
1104, for breach of fiduciary duty.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff submitted a claim for
employee benefits, pursuant to ERISA. He made various attempts to
perfect his claim for benefits by providing additional information
to satisfy the purported requirements of the Plan. Plaintiff met
the requirements of Section 4.08(a) and (c) of becoming totally and
permanently disabled while working in covered employment in that he
provided a Social Security Disability Notice of Award showing that
his disability began in December 2014, which was when he was still
working, and he provided other medical and SSA documentation
confirming that he is totally and permanently disabled.
Despite the fact that they met the requirements for a disability
pension under the plan, Plaintiff and the Class were denied
disability pensions by the Pension Fund. Defendants failed to
comply with the terms of the Plan when they denied Plaintiff and
the Class' disability pension benefits in violation of ERISA, 29
U.S.C. section 1132 (a)(1)(B), and Defendants' failure to comply
with the terms of the Plan was arbitrary and capricious.
Defendants also acted arbitrarily and capriciously when they
insisted that Plaintiff have a Social Security Disability Award
letter that determined that he was totally and permanently
disabled, even after he provided a letter from the Social Security
Administration from October 2018 confirming that the Social
Security Administration does not make determinations regarding
permanent disability.
Building Service 32BJ Pension Fund is an employee pension benefit
plan within the meaning of ERISA.
Trustees of the Building Service 32BJ Pension Fund are the Plan
Administrator of the Building Service 32BJ Pension Fund, within the
meaning of ERISA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William D. Frumkin, Esq.
Elizabeth Hunter, Esq.
Jordan M. Kaplan, Esq.
1025 Westchester Avenue, Suite 309
White Plains, NY 10604
Telephone: (914) 468-6096
E-mail: ehunter@frumkinhunter.com
wfrumkin@frumkinhunter.com
BUMBLE HOLDING: King Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Settlement Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as NICK KING, JR., DEENA
FISCHER, and ELENA WEINBERGER, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. BUMBLE TRADING, INC., and BUMBLE
HOLDING LTD., Case No. 5:18-cv-06868-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
will move the Court on July 15, 2020 for an order:
1. certifying these classes:
DSL Settlement Class defined as:
"all persons nationwide who purchased Bumble Boost during
the Settlement Class Period";
ARL Settlement Class defined as:
"all persons who purchased, within California, during the
Settlement Class Period, Bumble Boost and had their credit
card, debit card, and/or a third-party payment account
charged as part of Bumble's automatic renewal program or
continuous service program";
2. appointing Nick King, Jr. as class representative of the
ARL Settlement Class and Elena Weinberger and Deena
Fischer as class representatives of the DSL Settlement
Class;
3. appointing Grace E. Parasmo and Yitzchak H. Lieberman of
Parasmo Lieberman Law and David C. Parisi and Suzanne
Havens Beckman of Paris & Havens LLP as Class Counsel;
4. preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement;
5. approving the form and manner of notice to the Settlement
Class;
6. approving JND Legal Administration as the Settlement
Administrator; and
7. scheduling a Final Approval Hearing.
The Parties have agreed to a total of $22.5 million in
non-reversionary, monetary benefits to Monetary relief be
distributed to the Settlement Classes after deduction for
administrative costs, service awards to the Plaintiffs, and any fee
and expense award to Class Counsel.
Bumble develops application software. The company offers an online
dating application that enables users to meet new people for
dating, friendship, and relationship.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David C. Parisi, Esq.
Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
PARISI & HAVENS LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (818) 990-1299
Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
E-mail: dparisi@parisihavens.com
shavens@parisihavens.com
- and -
Grace E. Parasmo, Esq.
Yitzchak H. Lieberman, Esq.
PARASMO LIEBERMAN LAW
7400 Hollywood Blvd, #505
Los Angeles, CA 90046
Telephone: (646) 509-3913
Facsimile: (877) 501-3346
E-mail: gparasmo@parasmoliebermanlaw.com
ylieberman@parasmoliebermanlaw.com
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Heredia Seeks Final Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MABEL L. HEREDIA,
individually on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.P., Case No. 1:17-cv-00284-WCG (E.D. Wisc.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting final approval
to the Settlement, saying it is a fair, reasonable, and adequate
result for Class Members.
The Plaintiff said he achieved a valuable settlement for Class
Members which provides significant protections including direct
payments of $72.32 to each Class Member.
On March 13, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement
and conditionally certified the settlement class under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).
The Plaintiff alleges that CMS violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, by mailing consumers form letters to collect
defaulted Discover Bank credit card debts, which offered
settlements of those debts.
Capital Management is a nationally licensed and recognized
collections agency providing the highest level of delinquent
receivables resolution.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
Francis R. Greene, Esq.
Philip D. Stern, Esq.
Katelyn B. Busby, Esq.
STERN THOMASSON LLP
150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
Telephone (973) 379-7500
E-mail: Andrew@SternThomasson.com
Philip@SternThomasson.com
Francis@SternThomasson.com
CAPITAL MEDICAL: Katz Sues in South Carolina Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Medical
Education LLC. The case is styled as Bruce E. Katz, doing business
as: Juva Skin and Laser Center MD PC, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Capital Medical Education LLC, a
South Carolina limited liability company, Case No.
3:20-cv-02524-JMC (D.S.C., July 3, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Capital Medical Education educates physicians and other aesthetic
professionals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Margaret A Collins, Esq.
PALMETTO STATE LAW GROUP
1087 Harbor Drive, Suite B
West Columbia, SC 29169
Phone: (803) 708-7442
Fax: (803) 753-9352
Email: meg@pslawsc.com
CAPITAL ONE: Pfahning Appeals E.D. Virginia Ruling to 4th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Robin Pfahning filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Robin Pfahning v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Case
No. 1:19-cv-00950-LO-TCB, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit styled as Robin Pfahning, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Case
No. 1:19-cv-00263 (Filed May 6, 2019), was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) on
July 22, 2019. The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00950-LO-TCB to the proceeding. The suit
demands $5 million worth of damages. The case is assigned to the
Hon. District Judge Liam O'Grady.
The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, for damages and other relief arising from Capital
One's routine practice of charging interest on credit card accounts
for cash advances even after those cash advances are paid back in
full, the lawsuit says.
The appellate case is captioned as Robin Pfahning v. Capital One
Bank (USA), N.A., Case No. 19-2412, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ROBIN PFAHNING, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Bernard Joseph DiMuro, Esq.
DIMUROGINSBERG, PC
1101 King Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-2956
Telephone: 703-684-4333
E-mail: bdimuro@dimuro.com
- and -
Sophia Gold, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIEL PLLC
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: 202-350-4783
E-mail: sgold@kalielpllc.com
jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP
412 H Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: 202-470-3520
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
- and -
James Joseph Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD, LLP
1700 K Street
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: 617-573-5118
E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com
Defendant-Appellee CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., is represented
by:
Colleen Rosannah Smith, Esq.
Andrew James Soukup, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
850 10th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-4956
Telephone: 202-662-5431
E-mail: csmith@cov.com
asoukup@cov.com
CARNICERIA HISPANOAMERICANA: Underpays Butchers, Munoz Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ANIBAL MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, -against- CARNICERIA HISPANOAMERICANA, INC.
(D/B/A CARNICERIA HISPANOAMERICANA), FERNANDO GOMEZ, FERNEY GOMEZ,
and OSCAR ANDRADE (A.K.A. EL PAJARO) (A.K.A EL PAJARO), Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02857 (E.D.N.Y., June 29, 2020) alleges that
Defendants fail to pay minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the N.Y.
Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of
the New York Commissioner of Labor codified at N.Y. COMP. CODES R.
& REGS. tit. 12, § 146-1.6, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff Munoz worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and
failed to pay Plaintiff Munoz appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium.
Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Munoz the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day.
Plaintiff Munoz was employed by Defendants as a butcher at the meat
market in New York.
Carniceria Hispanoamericana, Inc. (d/b/a Carniceria
Hispanoamericana) owns, operates, or controls a meat market located
in New York under the name "Carniceria Hispanoamericana".[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Fallace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
CEDAR SHAKE: Court Grants Letter Rogatory Request in Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, granted Plaintiffs' Unopposed
Motion for Letter Rogatory in IN RE CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, This Document Relates to: ALL CLASS ACTIONS, Case No.
2:19-cv-00288-MJP. (W.D. Wash.)
Courts have the inherent authority to issue Letters Rogatory and
Letters of Request to Foreign nations, and may request that a
foreign nation order a witness to provide testimony that will aid
in the resolution of a matter pending in the United States.
Class Plaintiffs moved the Washington District Court for an Order
issuing a Letter Rogatory to the appropriate authorities in British
Columbia, Canada for documents from Intertek Testing Services, NA
Ltd., the third-party inspector with which Defendant Cedar Shake
and Shingle Bureau ("CSSB") has an inspection services agreement.
Here, Class Plaintiffs have been informed by Intertek that it will
produce documents as sought in a prepared Exhibit A only in
response to a filed court Order. Thus, it is necessary to compel
production of documents through a Letter Rogatory.
Class Plaintiffs seek documents from Defendant CSSB's sole
inspection entity to provide further evidence to prove the
allegations in their Second Amended Complaints. For example, Class
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have (and have wielded) the power
to prevent the sale of cedar shakes and shingles (CSS) made by CSSB
member (Member) mills by red tagging product preventing its sale
until the product is re-graded or re-inspected by CSSB's auditor,
Clay Walker, or Intertek acting under Clay Walker's supervision.
Defendants do not oppose the issuance of a Letter Rogatory
compelling the documents identified.
Accordingly, the Court grants Class Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Letter Rogatory Re: Document Subpoena to Intertek Testing
Services, NA Ltd., and will execute the Letter Rogatory without
delay.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ulbqnjc from
Leagle.com.
Jack L Liebo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anne T. Regan -
aregan@hjlawfirm.com - HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, pro hac vice, Arielle S.
Wagner - aswagner@locklaw.com - LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, pro hac
vice, Brian D. Clark - bdclark@locklaw.com - LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL
NAUEN, pro hac vice, Elizabeth R. Odette - erodette@locklaw.com -
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, pro hac vice, Kailey C. Mrosak -
kcmrosak@locklaw.com - LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, pro hac vice, Mark
Adam Griffin - mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com - KELLER ROHRBACK LLP,
Nathan D. Prosser - nprosser@hjlawfirm.com - HELLMUTH & JOHNSON
PLLC, pro hac vice, Raymond J. Farrow - rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com
- KELLER ROHRBACK, W. Joseph Bruckner - wjbruckner@locklaw.com -
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, pro hac vice & Karin Bornstein Swope -
kswope@kellerrohrback.com - KELLER ROHRBACK LLP.
Cedar Shake & Shingle Bureau, a Washington nonprofit corporation,
Defendant, represented by Jessica Walder - walderj@lanepowell.com -
LANE POWELL PC, Larry Steven Gangnes - gangnesl@lanepowell.com -
LANE POWELL PC, Devon John McCurdy - mccurdyd@lanepowell.com - LANE
POWELL PC, Heidi Brooks Bradley - bradleyh@lanepowell.com - LANE
POWELL PC, Joseph D. Adamson - adamsonj@lanepowell.com - LANE
POWELL PC & Ryan P. McBride - mcbrider@lanepowell.com - LANE POWELL
PC.
Waldun Forest Products Ltd, a British Columbia corporation,
Defendant, represented by Mathew L. Harrington - MLH@stokeslaw.com
- STOKES LAWRENCE.
CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Faces Jones Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABIONCA JONES, on behalf of all aggrieved employees of the
Defendant in the State of California v. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL
CENTER; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV23698
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 23, 2020), seeks to recover
civil penalties for wage and hour violations pursuant to the
California Labor Code, Private Attorneys General Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to provide
lawfully compliant meal periods and meal and rest periods premium
compensation when no meal and rest periods were properly provided;
and failed to pay all minimum, regular, and overtime wages for all
the time they were suffered or permitted to work, and engaged in
work.
The Defendants operate the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los
Angeles, California. The Medical Center is an 886-bed hospital and
multi-specialty academic health science center, which is a part of
the Cedars-Sinai Health System.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq.
Vilmarie Cordero, Esq.
Alex Kuner, Esq.
GRAHAMHOLLIS APC
3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: 619 692 0800
Facsimile: 619 692 0822
E-mail: ghoUis@grahamhoUis.com
vcordero@grahamhollis.com
akuner@grahamhollis.com
CELLULAR SALES: Granted Leave to Serve on Chapman
-------------------------------------------------
In the case CELLULAR SALES OF KNOXVILLE, INC., a corporation;
CELLULAR SALES OF NORTH CAROLINA, LLC, a limited liability company;
CELLULAR SALES OF PENNSYLVANIA, LLC, a limited liability company,
Petitioners, v. DAVID CHAPMAN, Respondent, Case No. 1:19CV768,
(M.D. N.C.), Judge Thomas Schroeder of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (1)
granted Cellular Sales's motion for leave to serve Chapman with
sufficient process and (2) denied Chapman's motion to dismiss or
stay.
The present dispute arose on June 18, 2019, when David Chapman
allegedly disregarded his arbitration agreement and filed a lawsuit
against Cellular Sales in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, claiming that Cellular Sales
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage
and Hour Act. The lawsuit seeks the certification of a collective
action and a class action.
Petitioners Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc. ("Cellular Sales
TN"), Cellular Sales of North Carolina, LLC ("Cellular Sales NC"),
and Cellular Sales of Pennsylvania, LLC ("Cellular Sales PA")
(collectively, "Cellular Sales") filed a petition against
Respondent David Chapman on July 29, 2019, seeking an order to
compel arbitration pursuant to Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration
Act ("FAA").
Cellular Sales TN is a Tennessee corporation and the parent company
of Cellular Sales NC, a North Carolina limited liability company,
and Cellular Sales PA, a Pennsylvania limited liability company.
Cellular Sales NC and Cellular Sales PA are authorized dealers of
Verizon Wireless products and services and market and sell cellular
products and wireless services in North Carolina and Pennsylvania,
respectively.
Chapman, a citizen of North Carolina, became employed by Cellular
Sales NC in March 2017. Upon his employment, Chapman executed a
Dealer Compensation Agreement, which set forth the terms of his
compensation and the formula for calculating commissions. The
agreement also contained a binding arbitration clause under which
Chapman agreed to submit disputes to arbitration on an individual
basis.
Before the court is Chapman's motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(4), and 12(b)(5), or, in
the alternative, to stay the proceedings pending a decision in a
related action before a district court in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Recognizing an issue with proper service, Cellular
Sales filed a motion for leave to re-serve Chapman.
Chapman argues that Cellular Sales' petition for an order
compelling arbitration should be dismissed because of insufficient
process and insufficient service of process, and that the North
Carolina court therefore lacks personal jurisdiction over Chapman.
Cellular Sales responds that Chapman had actual notice of the
proceedings and contends that dismissal is unwarranted because
Chapman suffered no prejudice.
Chapman's motion to dismiss for insufficient process and
insufficient service of process is based on the same alleged
deficiency failure to include a copy of the petition with the
summons. Because a failure to include a copy of the petition is
properly challenged under a Rule 12(b)(5) motion for insufficient
service of process, the Court denies without prejudice Chapman's
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(4).
The Court further notes that it is uncontested that Cellular Sales
failed to include a copy of the petition with the summons issued to
Chapman, in violation of Rule 4. However, allowing Cellular Sales
leave to correct the deficiencies in service will not prejudice
Chapman, and it is apparent that proper service is likely to be
accomplished. Cellular Sales argues that the failure to include a
copy of the petition with the summons did not hinder Chapman's
ability to file a timely response, so granting them leave to
perfect service will result in no prejudice.
The Court will exercise its discretion and, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), and grant Cellular Sales leave in
which to effect proper service on Chapman.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wdd9j3l from Leagle.com.
CELLULAR SALES OF KNOXVILLE, INC., CELLULAR SALES OF NORTH
CAROLINA, LLC & CELLULAR SALES OF PENNSYLVANIA, LLC, Plaintiffs,
represented by C. LARRY CARBO, III -
larry.carbo@chamberlainlaw.com - CHAMBERLAIN HRDLICKA WHITE
WILLIAMS & AUGHTRY, PC, JULIE R. OFFERMAN -
julie.offerman@chamberlainlaw.com - CHAMBERLAIN HRDLICKA WHITE
WILLIAMS & AUGHTRY, PC & KYLE R. STILL - kstill@wyrick.com - WYRICK
ROBBINS YATES & PONTON LLP.
DAVID CHAPMAN, Defendant, represented by LAURA L. NOBLE , THE NOBLE
LAW FIRM, PLLC, 141 Providence Road, Suite 210, Chapel Hill, NC,
27514
CHARLES BAKER: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CONRAD MURPHY, et al., v.
CHARLES BAKER, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-12481-PBS (D. Mass.), the
Hon. Judge Patti B. Saris entered an order:
1. allowing the Defendants' motion to dismiss, without
prejudice, to the Plaintiffs refiling an action as to
their individual claims;
2. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
motion for appointment of counsel; and
3. directing the clerk to enter a separate order of
dismissal.
The Court said, "Conrad Murphy and Christopher Fladger, as pro se
plaintiffs, cannot fairly and adequately represent the interests of
the class that they have identified. Moreover, the court does not
find that the complexity of the factual and legal issues raised
warrant the appointment of counsel."
This pro se civil rights action was initiated by Conrad Murphy and
Christopher Fladger, each a civilly committed inmate confined to
the Massachusetts Treatment Center. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory
and injunctive relief for the alleged violation of their
constitutional rights.[CC]
CHEETAH MOBILE: Azure Funds Sues over 17% Drop in Share
-------------------------------------------------------
AZURE FUNDS LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHEETAH MOBILE, INC.; SHENG FU; VINCENT
ZHENYU JIANG; and THOMAS JINTAO REN, Defendants, Case 2:20-cv-05696
(C.D. Cal., June 25, 2020) is a class action on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Cheetah Mobile
securities between March 25, 2019 and February 20, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On February 21, 2020, before the market opened, Cheetah Mobile
disclosed that its Google Play Store, Google AdMob, and Google
AdManager accounts were disabled on February 20, 2020 "because some
of the Cheetah Mobile's apps had not been compliant with Google
policies, resulting in certain invalid traffic."
On this news, the Cheetah Mobile's share price fell $0.61, or
nearly 17%, to close at $2.99 per share on February 21, 2020, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Cheetah Mobile's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that certain of Cheetah Mobile's apps were not
compliant with the terms of its agreements with Google; (2) that,
as a result, there was a reasonable likelihood that Google would
terminate its advertising contracts with the Cheetah Mobile; (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Cheetah Mobile's ability to
attract new users would be adversely impacted; (4) that, as a
result, the Cheetah Mobile's revenue was reasonably likely to
decline; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Cheetah Mobile's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
Cheetah Mobile Inc develops internet and mobile enhancement
software and applications. The Company develop and operates and
internet browser, and internet security, memory saving, power
optimization, mobile games, and photo collage applications. Cheetah
Mobile operates in China. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
CHRISTOPHER BALDWIN: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid OT & Spread of Hours Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
DINA MARISOL ROMERO RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTOPHER BALDWIN and ROSARIO
BALDWIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04991 (S.D.N.Y., June 29,
2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendants
for their alleged unlawful employment policy and practice in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a housekeeper at the
private residence located at 11 E 87th Street, Spt. 12F, New York,
NY 10128 from approximately April 23, 2003 until on or about
February 5, 2020.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants did not appropriately compensate
her for the hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week although
she was required by Defendants to work 10 hours a day. Allegedly,
Defendant failed to pay the "spread of hours" and overtime required
by the federal and state law and regulations.
Defendant Christopher Baldwin determines the wages and compensation
of the employees of Defendants.
Defendant Rosario Baldwin is the wife of Defendant Christopher
Baldwin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 317-1200
Fax: (212) 317-1620
Email: https://www.faillacelaw.com/contact-us/
COLLEGE VISTA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages to LVNs, Waters Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARICEL BELONIO WATERS v. COLLEGE VISTA, LLC dba COLLEGE VISTA
POST-ACUTE; SUN-MAR HEALTH CARE, INC.; SUN-MAR NURSING CENTERS; and
DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV23520 (June 22, 2020),
alleges that College Vista did not provide the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated aggrieved employees with the minimum wages to
which they were entitled for work performed pursuant to the
California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff contends that this is so because she and others
Licensed Vocational Nurses would often perform work before clocking
in and after clocking out as it was common practice for LVNs at the
facility. She asserts that management was unequivocally aware of
the latter and the fact that she and others were not being paid for
all hours worked
Ms. Waters started working for College Vista in November 2019 as a
Licensed Vocational Nurse. Her employment ended on March 25, 2020.
She was considered an hourly, non-exempt employee.
College Vista is a health care provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
CORVIAS: Three Fort Bragg Families File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Rachael Riley, writing for The Fayetteville Observer, reports that
three Fort Bragg families have filed a class-action complaint
against the installation's housing partner, claiming their on-post
homes have mold, lead-based paint and wood rot.
The 64-page complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina on June 25.
Staff Sgt. Shane Page, Spc. Spenser Ganske and Sgt. 1st Class
Christopher Wilkes are the plaintiffs in the case represented by
Raleigh-based Penry and Reimann law firm and South Carolina-based
Bauer and Metro law firm, court documents state.
The documents say the exact number of plaintiffs is unknown but
there could be "thousands of members" in the proposed class-action
lawsuit.
The complaint was filed against Corvias; its founder, John
Picerene; Heather Fuller, Corvias' operations director at Fort
Bragg; and Corvias' affiliates.
Corvias is Fort Bragg's housing manager.
"We're aware of the lawsuit that was filed, however it does not
reflect accurate details, said Mary Humphreys, a director with
Corvias. "We intend to dispute what is described."
The plaintiffs are requesting a jury trial and and damages
exceeding $5 million.
Among the claims, the complaint alleges the defendants leased homes
with known problems that caused "lack of effective moisture and air
barriers between exterior cladding and wall cavities in all
homes."
The problems allegedly caused mold, wood rot and other conditions
that threatened the health and safety of the plaintiffs, as workers
were allegedly instructed to conceal the defects from tenants, the
complaint states.
The complaint alleges that when Corvias entered into its lease with
Fort Bragg in 2003, its representatives were aware of an
environmental baseline survey of lead paint in 1993.
The information about lead-based paint and its hazards was not
provided to residents, the complaint alleges.
The complaint alleges the defendants breached contract obligations,
shoddy repairs were made to homes, misleading records were kept and
tenants were threatened with punitive damages if they refused to
sign new leases.
Page has lived in Fort Bragg post housing since August 2016. Ganske
has lived on post since September. Wilkie has lived on post since
March 2017.
The complaint alleges the defendants collected "many millions in
fees" for construction, development and management of the homes,
with maintenance expenses covered by renters' base housing
allowance.
"Documents will show that defendants received iron-clad assurances
of profit while class plaintiffs lived in slum-like conditions,"
the complaint alleges.
The complaint says Page first noticed water damage to his home in
September 2016, with Corvias workers allegedly painting over the
damage "instead of repairing its cause."
In the following months, the home was infested with ants, cracks
appeared in walls, the heating and air conditioning ventilation
system failed, and most calls for repairs were "tardy and
insufficient," the complaint states.
The complaint alleges mold was found in the home by 2018, and in
2019, Page received an email from Corvias asking him to renew his
lease or that he would face $100 in monthly fees, despite his
original lease requiring renewal.
When Wilkies and his family moved into their home, they noticed
cracked bricks on the exterior, a sagging floor inside and plumbing
problems.
The complaint notes a canceled work order for roof repairs,
improper work and a leaking bathroom toilet causing more damage to
an already sagging bathroom floor.
In December 2019, the roof and inside ceiling collapsed, as one
worker fell through.
The complaint alleges maintenance workers told Wilkies they
couldn't promise another home wouldn't have similar maintenance
problems.
He has filed 33 work orders with Corvias.
When moving in, squirrels were living in the attic of Ganske's
home, with urine soaking through the living room ceiling, the
complaint says.
Water instruction caused mold to grow in the window frame of their
daughter's bedroom.
There was a large crack in the ceiling that extended down the wall,
dirty carpet with nails underneath and electrical outlets in the
bathroom not working, the complaint states.
The family submitted work orders but did not receive a response for
months, until Corvias representatives told the family in April 2019
that their work orders were deleted.
Ganske's wife found the heating and ventilation system was leaking
and covered in mold, with water in the closet and a repairman using
a vacuum to remove the water, the complaint alleges.
With more mold found in the house, Ganske filed a formal complaint
with his command.
Corvias sent a contractor to remove the mold, who showed Ganske's
wife the attic soaked in water and allegedly told her he'd seen
similar problems in other homes and was not allowed to tell
residents mold was present, the complaint states.
Fuller came to the Ganske's home and told the family there were no
defects and that Corvias was no longer conducting mold tests in
Fort Bragg homes, the complaint alleges.
"Ganske asked to be relocated to another home, but Fuller said
additional charges would apply which the Ganskes could not afford,"
the complaint alleges. [GN]
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Kristy Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY KRISTY, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CV366341 (Filed April 28, 2020),
was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of
Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Jose) on June 22, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-04119 to the proceeding.
The complaint asserts claims for the Defendants' violation of the
California Labor Code, Private Attorneys General Act. The Plaintiff
seeks penalties under Labor Code Section 203 of up to 30 working
days of wages for failure to pay wages due when employment
terminates. The Plaintiff seeks these penalties on behalf of
himself and all other non-exempt employees in California whose
employment terminated during the three years preceding the
lawsuit.
Costco is an American multinational corporation, which operates a
chain of membership-only warehouse clubs.[BN]
The Defendant Costco represented by:
David D. Kaduem, Esq.
Geoffrey C. Westbrook, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
E-mail: dkadue@seyfarth.com
gwestbrook@seyfarth.com
CREATIVE INDUSTRIES: Arun Yang Removed as Lead Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of New York County ordered the removal of Arun
Yang as lead plaintiff in the case captioned A. YANG, JACQUELINE
SUBRAMANIAM, MORGAN CASTILLA, E. STEEL, DAWN FADELY, and P. SHARMA,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CREATIVE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION and RUDD REALTY
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendants, Docket No. 155681/2017, Motion
Seq. No. 008, 2020 NY Slip Op 30008 (N.Y. Sup.).
The class action involves alleged rent overcharges in a building
located at 28 Bedford Street, New York, New York. In December
2018, the Court certified the case as a class action and appointed
A. (Arun) Yang and Dawn Fadely as lead/representative plaintiffs in
the certified class action.
In July 2019, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to amend the
complaint changing the relevant "look back" period from four to six
years prior to the filing of the complaint; removing Yang as a
lead/representative plaintiff; appointing Morgan Castilla as a
lead/representative plaintiff; and amending the class definition to
reflect the change in the look back and that the J-51 benefits
previously received by the building have now expired. Plaintiffs
cite to the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019
("HSTPA"), signed on June 14, 2019, which extended the look back
window for rent overcharge claims from four to six years.
Plaintiffs submit an affidavit from Castilla and argue that she,
like Fadely, has claims typical of the class and will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class. Castilla states in
her July 19, 2019 affidavit that she has resided at the building
since October 1, 2015, and seeks to be named a lead plaintiff and
class representative and to represent the subclass of current
tenants.
Plaintiffs argue in reply that to the extent Defendants argue Yang
is not a suitable class representative, the issue is moot if the
relief sought by Plaintiffs to remove him as a class representative
is granted.
As a general rule, leave to amend a pleading should be freely
granted in the absence of prejudice to the nonmoving party where
the amendment is not patently lacking in merit and the decision
whether to grant leave to amend a complaint is committed to the
sound discretion of the court.
As to the issue of the proposed change in lead/representative
plaintiff removing Yang and adding Castilla, as a preliminary
matter, the Court notes that Castilla, along with Subramaniam,
Steel, and Sharma have remained in the caption as named plaintiffs.
In the class action complaint both as originally filed and
proposed as an amendment in the instant motion, Yang, Subramaniam,
Castilla, Steel, Fadely, and Sharma are the named plaintiffs suing
Defendants on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated.
Nevertheless, once Plaintiffs elect to proceed with certification
naming some, but not all, of the originally named plaintiffs as
class representatives, or lead plaintiffs, the meaning is the same,
those originally named plaintiffs who will not be class
representatives should be removed from the caption in the interest
of clarity and to conform the pleading to the facts of the case.
That said, based upon the papers submitted, the Court will approve
the removal of Yang as a class representative and the appointment
of Castilla as a class representative. In a class action involving
multiple class representatives, a class representative may be
removed as a class representative, and this is not fatal to the
certification of the class.
Here, the removal of Yang as a class representative is anticipatory
in nature based upon Defendants' arguments that Yang is not an
adequate class representative. Further, the Court finds there is
no prejudice to Defendants as to the addition of Castilla on
substantially similar grounds as those submitted in support of the
appointment of Fadely, which was previously approved by the Court
without objection as to substance.
Discovery in the action is not yet complete, and Defendants may
notice the deposition of Castilla in accordance with the Court's
recent order. As such, the branch of the motion removing Yang and
inserting Castilla as a class representative is granted, but the
names of Yang, Subramanian, Steel, and Sharma must be removed as
named plaintiffs from both the caption and the body of complaint,
as, now that the class has been certified, the named plaintiffs,
only, shall be the class representatives/lead plaintiffs.
A full-text copy of the New York County Supreme Court's Decision
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/utpx2cc from
Leagle.com.
CREST HOTEL: Underpays Housekeepers, Tello Claims
-------------------------------------------------
NORMA N. TELLO, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. CREST HOTEL GROUP LLC, d/b/a CREST HOTEL SUITES, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-22702-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2020) is a collective
action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff had been employed by Defendant for 3 years and 6 months
as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly paid housekeeper from
approximately September 1, 2016 to March 23, 2020, which is the
date he was laid-off because the Crest Hotel Suites hotel closed
due to the COVID-19 quarantine.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals regularly worked 5 days per week, from 8:30 a.m. to
5:30 p.m. or a total weekly average of 45 hours during their
employment with Defendant. However, Defendant did not pay them
overtime wages for the work they performed in excess of 40 hours.
Moreover, Defendant did not allow Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals to take 30 minutes of bona fide lunchtime,
which constitute additional 2.5 hours unpaid overtime hours.
Crest Hotel Group, LLC d/b/a Crest Hotel Suites is a boutique hotel
in the heart of South Beach in Miami, Florida. [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
CUMULUS MEDIA: Class Suit over 401(k) Plan Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Cumulus Media Inc. is defending itself against a putative class
action lawsuit filed by two individual plaintiffs in Georgia
related to the Cumulus Media Inc. 401(k) Plan, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
On February 24, 2020, two individual plaintiffs filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia alleging claims regarding the
Cumulus Media Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan").
The case alleges that the Company breached its fiduciary duties
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA")
in the oversight of the Plan, principally by selecting and
retaining certain investment options despite their higher fees and
costs than other available investment options, causing participants
in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees, and by failing to
monitor other fiduciaries. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages
on behalf of a class of Plan participants from February 24, 2014
through the date of any judgment.
Cumulus Media Inc., an audio-first media and entertainment company,
owns and operates radio stations in the United States. It operates
through two segments, Cumulus Radio Station Group and Westwood One.
The company offers content through approximately 428
owned-and-operated stations in 87 United States media markets; and
approximately 8,000 broadcast radio stations affiliates and various
digital channels. Cumulus Media Inc. was incorporated in 2018 and
is based in Atlanta, Georgia.
CUYAHOGA, OH: Papp Alleges Discrimination of Female Jail Guards
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA PAPP, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH, Defendant, Case No. CV
20 934156 (Ohio Common Pleas Court, June 29, 2020) is a class
action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
discriminatory practices in violation of Ohio Revised Code Section
4112.02.
Plaintiff and the class of similarly situated persons were hired by
Defendant as female corrections officers and/or jail guards.
Plaintiff claims that only female corrections officers and/or jail
guards were required by Defendant to act as guards of male inmates
at the jail, but did not require male employees to act as guards of
female inmates. As a result, female guards were consistently and
pervasively subjected to sexual harassment, hostile work
environment, and lewd acts, comments and gestures from the male
inmates for at least two years and continuing through the present.
Although Defendant was informed and made aware by Plaintiff and the
class members about those offensive and dangerous conduct by
inmates, Defendant failed to take action and refused to prevent,
discipline, investigate, or bring charges against the inmates.
Moreover, Plaintiff and other class members were still assigned by
Defendant at the male inmates' jail and were continually subjected
to sexual harassment and hostile work environment.
Cuyahoga County is a county located in the northeastern part of the
U.S. state of Ohio on the southern shore of Lake Erie, across the
U.S.-Canada maritime border. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
60 South Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077
Tel: (440) 352-3391
Fax: (440) 352-3469
Email: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
- and –
Thomas D. Robenalt, Esq.
John Colan, Esq.
THE ROBENALT LAW FIRM, INC.
23550 Center Ridge Rd., Ste. 103
Westlake, OH 44145
Tel: 216-223-7535
Fax: 216-307-2352
Email: trobenalt@robenaltlaw.com
jcolan@robenaltlaw.com
DCH REGIONAL: Court Denies Dismissal of McAteer Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala of the U.S. District for the Northern
District of Alabama, Southern Division, refused to dismiss the case
captioned MITCHELL McATEER, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DCH REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; DCH
HEALTH SYTEMS; AVECTUS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00859-MHH, (N.D. Ala.).
DCH Health Systems, Inc. provides medical services and operates a
medical facility called DCH Regional Medical Center. Defendant DCH
Regional Medical Center is affiliated with DCH Health Systems, Inc.
DCH entered into contracts with health insurance providers,
including Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama, to provide medical
services to insured patients at contracted rates. Those agreements
obligate DCH to provide medical services to patients at the
contract rate, bill the patients' insurance carriers, and accept
payment from the patients' insurance carriers in satisfaction of
the patients' debts.
On behalf of a proposed plaintiff class, Mitchell McAteer alleges
that DCH and Avectus wrongfully billed and collected payments from
insured patients and collected payments that exceeded what the DCH
defendants were entitled to recover under their contracts with Blue
Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama and other insurers. Mr. McAteer seeks
recovery on seven counts: (1) violation of Alabama Deceptive Trade
Practices Acts ("ADTPA"); (2) tortious interference with
contractual relationship/business expectancy; (3) unjust
enrichment; (4) money paid by mistake; (5) civil conspiracy; (6)
breach of contract; and (7) injunctive relief.
Before the Court is a renewed motion to dismiss filed by defendants
DCH Regional Medical Center and DCH Health Systems, and a motion to
dismiss filed by defendant Avectus Healthcare Solutions, LLC.
DCH and Avectus argue that the Court may not exercise jurisdiction
over these state law claims under the Class Action Fairness Act's
(CAFA) home-state exception.
CAFA grants subject matter jurisdiction to federal district courts
over class actions in which (1) any member of the plaintiff class
is a citizen of a state different from the state of citizenship of
any defendant, (2) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5
million, and (3) the proposed plaintiff class contains at least 100
members.
The home-state exception applies if two-thirds or more of the
members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the
primary defendants, are citizens of the State in which the action
was originally filed. The parties agree that the DCH defendants
are citizens of Alabama and primary defendants and that Avectus is
not a citizen of Alabama.
The parties dispute whether Avectus is a primary defendant under
CAFA. If Avectus is not a primary defendant, then the home-state
exception will apply, and the Court may not exercise jurisdiction.
If Avectus is a primary defendant, then the home-state exception
will not apply, and the Court may exercise jurisdiction over Mr.
McAteer's action.
Mr. McAteer asserts against Avectus the following tort claims:
violation of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act; tortious
interference with a contractual relationship or business
expectancy; and civil conspiracy. Each claim rests on a similar
factual predicate. According to Mr. McAteer, Avectus evaluated his
patient file, contacted him about a potential settlement,
negotiated a settlement amount with him, and agreed to accept that
amount as payment for his medical expenses, despite having
knowledge that he had health insurance coverage from Blue
Cross/Blue Shield.
While DCH's act of sending patient files to Avectus is a necessary
pre-condition of Avectus's alleged improper collection efforts, Mr.
McAteer does not seek to hold Avectus liable for DCH's conduct.
Instead, Mr. McAteer's claims against Avectus are based on
Avectus's debt-collection efforts, in which Avectus independently
reviews and investigates patient files submitted by DCH and
determines by exercising its own judgment whether it can recover a
patient's medical bills. Those allegations, if true, demonstrate
that Avectus caused direct harm to Mr. McAteer and similarly
situated DCH patients. Recovery against Avectus would follow
directly from Avectus's interactions with Mr. McAteer, as opposed
to DCH's interactions with Mr. McAteer.
Avectus argues that its exposure is insignificant compared to DCH's
exposure because the class, by definition, includes persons for
whom Avectus may not have played any role in obtaining payment.
But Avectus and DCH have not provided factual support for this
conclusory statement.
Avectus argues that it cannot be a primary defendant on Mr.
McAteer's equitable claims for unjust enrichment and money paid by
mistake because, under the agreement between Avectus and DCH,
Avectus received only a small percent of any alleged unlawful
payment by the members of the putative class. As a result, Avectus
argues, on the quasi-contract claims, it would not sustain a
substantial loss as compared to other defendants if found liable.
But that does not matter because Avectus is a real and substantial
target of the plaintiffs' tort claims for damages, and district
courts look at a lawsuit holistically to determine which defendants
are the real targets of the litigation.
CAFA's home-state exception does not apply, the Court opines.
Thus, the Court denies the Defendants' motions to dismiss.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/szst47s from Leagle.com.
Mitchell McAteer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by J. Allen Schreiber , SCHREIBER
LAW FIRM, 4275 Executive Sq, Ste 200, La Jolla, CA 92037, Lauren
Elizabeth Miles - lauren.miles@beasleyallen.com - Beasley Allen, C.
Lance Gould , BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC, 218
Commerce Street, Montgomery, AL 36104, Leslie Lee Ann Pescia -
Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com - BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS
& MILES PC & Wilson Daniel Miles, III -dee.miles@beasleyallen.com -
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC.
DCH Regional Medical Center, Defendant, represented by James J.
Jenkins, PHELPS JENKINS GIBSON & FOWLER LLP & Terri Olive Tompkins,
PHELPS JENKINS GIBSON & FOWLER, 1201 Greensboro Avenue
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
DCH Health Systems, Defendant, represented by James J. Jenkins ,
PHELPS JENKINS GIBSON & FOWLER LLP.
Avectus Healthcare Solutions LLC, Defendant, represented by
Kimberly Bessiere Martin - kmartin@bradley.com - BRADLEY ARANT
BOULT CUMMINGS LLP & Zachary A. Madonia - zmadonia@bradley.com -
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP.
DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces Proctor Suit Over Futures Prices Manipulation
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES HERBERT PROCTOR, III ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.,
DEUTSCHE BANK AG, and JOHN DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-03821 (N.D. Ill., June 29, 2020) arises from Defendants'
unlawful and intentional manipulation of U.S. Treasury Futures
contracts and Eurodollar Futures contracts that trade on United
States-based exchanges, including the Chicago Mercantile Exchange
and its subsidiary the Chicago Board of Trade, during the period at
least January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 in violation of the
Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq., and the common
law.
According to the complaint, Defendants manipulated the prices of
Treasury and Eurodollar Futures by employing a classic manipulative
device known as "spoofing," whereby Defendants placed orders for
Treasury and Eurodollar Futures to send false and illegitimate
supply and demand signals to these markets and then canceled those
orders before execution. As a result, Defendants caused Treasury
and Eurodollar Futures prices to be artificial throughout the Class
Period to financially benefit their trading positions at the
expense of other investors, like Plaintiff and the Class.
Defendants repeated the scheme throughout the Class Period and
successfully manipulated Treasury and Eurodollar Futures prices to
artificial levels throughout the Class Period.
Plaintiff's allegations and claims are made on information and
belief (except as to allegations specifically pertaining to
Plaintiff, which are made on personal knowledge) based on the
investigation conducted by and under the supervision of Plaintiff's
counsel.
Plaintiff transacted in Treasury Futures during the Class Period,
including purchases and sales of futures on the CBOT.
Deutsche Bank AG is a German financial services company
headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany.
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Deutsche Bank AG.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq.
Brian P. O’Connell, Esq.
Kaitlin Naughton, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
150 S. Wacker Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 782-4882
E-mail: afata@caffertyclobes.com
jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com
boconnell@caffertyclobes.com
knaughton@caffertyclobes.com
DEUTSCHE BANK: Robert Charles Alleges Spoofing of Treasury Futures
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CHARLES CLASS A, L.P., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES
INC. and JOHN DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03913 (N.D.
Ill., July 2, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Commodity Exchange Act.
According to the complaint, Deutsche Bank Securities and its
traders are engaged in a fraudulent and deceptive spoofing scheme
across the full range of U.S. Treasury Futures market from 2009 to
December 2013 in order to manipulate futures prices. The Defendants
entered orders to buy or sell U.S. Treasury Futures instruments on
commodity exchanges even though they never intended to execute
those orders. Deutsche Bank's deceptive orders created an
artificial appearance of market demand and artificial prices that,
in turn, induced other market participants to act. Deutsche Bank
then took advantage of the movement that the artificial prices of
its deceptive orders had caused by cancelling the deceptive orders
and turning around to purchase or sell those instruments at the now
artificially low or high prices and quantities, all to the
detriment of those traders who acted based on the false belief that
the deceptive orders were legitimate and intended to be executed.
Robert Charles Class A, L.P. is a limited partnership with
principal place of business located in San Diego, California.
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. is a Delaware corporation that offers
investment advisory services, with its principal place of business
is located at 60 Wall Street, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George A. Zelcs, Esq.
Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
Chad E. Bell, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY LLC
205 North Michigan Plaza, Suite 1950
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 641-9750
Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
- and –
Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
Thomas K. Boardman, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 233-6444
Facsimile: (212) 233-6334
E-mail: pbarile@scott-scott.com
tboardman@scott-scott.com
- and –
Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
- and –
Louis F. Burke, Esq.
LOUIS F. BURKE PC
460 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 682-1700
E-mail: lburke@lfblaw.com
DIMARE HOMESTEAD: Ochoa FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ABELINO OCHOA, and all others
similarly suited under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. DIMARE HOMESTEAD, INC.,
a Florida corporation, PAUL J. DIMARE, individually, Case No.
2020-012441-CA-01, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court,
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 23,
2020.
The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-22590-XXXX to the proceeding.
The lawsuit asserts claim against the Defendants for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
DiMare operates as a fruits and vegetable distribution company. The
Company produces and supplies tomatoes, melons, citrus fruits, and
vegetables. Dimare Homestead serves clients in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Stefany, Esq.
ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A.
Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 225
324 South Hyde Park Avenue
Tampa, FL 33606-4127
Telephone: (813) 251-1210
Facsimile: (813) 253-2006
E-mail: dstefany@anblaw.com
- and -
Steven R. Eardon, Esq.
ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A.
121 Majorca Ave., Suite 300
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Facsimile: (305) 445-7801
Facsimile: (305) 442-1578
E-mail: sreardon@anblaw.com
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Vlasa Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JENNIFER VLASA, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. DIVERSIFIED
CONSULTANTS INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00921-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in
order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
her 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.
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
DOLLAR BANK: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agent Fees, Prinzo Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
PRINZO & ASSOCIATES LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR BANK FSB; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00961-PLD
(W.D. Pa., June 26, 2020) is a class action complaint brought by
the Plaintiff, seeking compensation from Defendants, who refuse to
comply with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
("CARES Act") that requires it to pay out of the compensation it
received for processing PPP loans, for services Plaintiff Prinzo
and a large number of other agents rendered on behalf of recipients
of Small Business Administration emergency loans.
On March 27, 2020, Congress passed the SBA's Paycheck Protection
Program ("PPP") which initially authorized up to $349 billion in
forgivable loans to small businesses to cover payroll and other
expenses (PPP I). After the initial funds quickly dried up,
Congress added $310 billion additional dollars to the program (PPP
II).
The PPP was designed to be fast and straightforward, allowing
business to apply through SBA-approved lenders and await approval.
Once approved, lenders would be compensated in the form of a
generous origination fee paid by the federal government, with the
requirement that the lender would be responsible for paying the fee
owed to the loan applicant’s agent (e.g., attorney or
accountant).
According to the complaint, Defendants apparently decided that they
do not need to complete the final step of the process and based on
information and belief have refused to pay the agents who assisted
PPP loan recipients with their applications. This practice seemed
to be a deliberate scheme from the beginning as even though they
were required to pay agents that assisted in the application
process, Defendants did not set up a structure or ask any questions
to determine whether borrowers utilized an agent in completing
applications.
The Defendants' failure to pay agents is in blatant violation of
PPP regulations stating that agent fees "will be paid by the lender
out of the fees the lender receives from SBA."
Plaintiff Prinzo & Associates is a Certified Public Accounting firm
organized in Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business
located in McMurray, Pennsylvania.
Dollar Bank is full service regional bank which operates 70
branches throughout Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq.
GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 985-9177
Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
Email: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
- and -
Elaine S. Kusel, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 737-9981
Email: esk@mccunewright.com
- and -
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
Tuan Q. Nguyen, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
Email: rdm@mccunewright.com
mmv@mccunewright.com
tqn@mccunewright.com
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Walden Sues in N.D. Texas Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lititia Walden,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Cavalry SPV I LLC, John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01769-L (N.D. Tex., July 2, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Dynamic Recovery Solutions provides nationwide consumer collection
services to industries, including Banking, Student Loan, Debt
Purchasing, Heath Care, Retail, Telecommunication and Utilities,
and On Line Lending.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (347) 668-9326
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
- and -
Nayeem Nur Mohammed, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NAYEEM NUR MOHAMMED
539 W. Commerce St., #1899
Dallas, TX 75208
Phone: (936) 718-7467
Email: Nayeem@nnmpc.com
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Makurat Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KARI MAKURAT, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ENHANCED
RECOVERY COMPANY LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00924 (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
individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
the Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
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.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
EQUITRANS MIDSTREAM: Faces Brown Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
BRAD BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EQUITRANS MIDSTREAM CORPORATION; and EQM
MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, LP, Defendants, Case 5:20-cv-00434 (S.D. W.Va.,
June 25, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime
wages and damages.
The Plaintiff Brown was employed by the Defendants as coating
inspector.
Equitrans Midstream Corporation owns, operates, acquires, and
develops midstream assets in the Appalachian Basin. The Company
manages natural gas transmission, storage, and gathering systems,
as well as high-and low-pressure gathering lines. Equitrans
Midstream serves customers in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Majestro, Esq.
James S. Nelson, Esq.
POWELL & MAJESTRO PLLC
405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 346-2889
Facsimile: (304) 346-2895
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Taylor A. Jones, 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
tjones@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
EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Garthwait Sues Over 401(k) Plan's Mismanagement
------------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY GARTHWAIT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and on behalf of the EVERSOURCE 401(K) PLAN
f/k/a NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY 401(K) PLAN, Plaintiff v.
EVERSOURCE ENERGY SERVICE COMPANY; THE EVERSOURCE PLAN
ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE; THE EVERSOURCE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE and DOES No. 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00902 (D.
Conn., June 30, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties to the Plan, the Plaintiff, and other participants
because they failed to fully disclose the expenses and risk of the
Plan's investment options to participants and they selected,
retained, and/or otherwise ratified high-cost and poorly-performing
investments, instead of offering more prudent alternative
investments when such prudent investments were readily available at
the time that they were chosen for inclusion within the Plan and
throughout the relevant period.
In addition, Eversource and the Committees breached their fiduciary
monitoring duties as they failed to monitor and evaluate the
performance of their appointees or have a system in place for doing
so; failed to monitor their appointees' fiduciary processes, which
would have alerted a prudent fiduciary to the breaches of fiduciary
duties; and failed to remove appointees whose performance was
inadequate in that they continued to maintain imprudent,
excessively costly, and poorly performing investments within the
Plan.
As a direct result of the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties,
the Plan and its participants, including the Plaintiff, have lost
millions of dollars of retirement savings.
Eversource Energy Service Company is an energy delivery company
headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Miller, Esq.
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Telephone: (860) 526-1100
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
lrubinow@sfmslaw.com
- and –
James C. Shah, Esq.
Alec J. Berin, Esq.
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (610) 891-9880
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
aberin@sfmslaw.com
- and –
Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
1401 Dove Street, Suite 510
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (323) 510-4060
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com
EYM PIZZA: Robertson et al. Seek Refund for Out-of-Pocket Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHAKYRA ROBERTSON and LUTHER BURKMAN, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EYM PIZZA OF GEORGIA,
LLC d/b/a PIZZA HUT, a Texas Limited Liability Company, EYM PIZZA
OF WISCONSIN, LLC d/b/a PIZZA HUT, a Texas Limited Liability
Company, Defendants, Case No. 3;20-cv-01753-C (N.D. Tex., July 1,
2020) is a collective complaint against Defendants for their
alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as an hourly paid delivery drivers
-- Plaintiff Robertson was from approximately March 2020 to the
present, while Plaintiff Burkman was from approximately February
2017 to the present.
According to the complaint, Defendant required each delivery
drivers to maintain and provide a safe, functioning, insured, and
legally-operable automobile to make deliveries, and to bear the
"out-of-pocket" expenses associated with their vehicles such as
gasoline, vehicle depreciation, insurance, maintenance, and
repairs.
Consequently, Plaintiffs and all others delivery drivers typically
experienced lower gas mileage, more rapid vehicle depreciation, and
greater vehicular expenses, and they pay significantly higher
automobile insurance rates.
Plaintiffs contend that Defendants systematically failed to
adequately reimburse their delivery drivers, including Plaintiffs,
for their automobile expenses which constitute a kickback to
Defendants.
EYM Pizza of Georgia, LLC and EYM Pizza of Wisconsin operate Pizza
Hut restaurants. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Meredith Mathews, Esq.
J. Forester, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul St., Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel: (214) 210-2100
Fax: (214) 346-5909
Emails: jay@foresterhaynie.com
mmathews@foresterhaynie.com
- and –
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
P.O. Box 4979
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Tel: (407) 420-1414
Fax: (407) 245-3401
Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
FINJAN HOLDINGS: Docs on Fortress Merger Lack Info, Post Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH POST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FINJAN HOLDINGS, INC.; DANIEL CHINN, ERIC
BENHAMOU; GLENN DANIEL; JOHN GREENE; HARRY KELLOGG; GARY MOORE;
ALEX ROGERS; MICHAEL SOUTHWORTH; CFIP GOLDFISH HOLDINGS LLC; and
CFIP GOLDFISH MERGER SUB INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00900-UNA (D. Del., July 2, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a false and
misleading solicitation statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) in connection with the proposed merger agreement
between Finjan Holdings and Fortress Investment Group LLC. The
solicitation statement omits material information with respect to
the proposed merger which includes Finjan's financial projections;
the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis performed by Finjan's financial
advisor, Atlas Technology Group, LLC; and the timing and nature of
all communications regarding future employment and directorship of
Finjan's officers and directors.
The omissions in the solicitation statement are material to the
Plaintiff and the Class since they will be deprived of their
entitlement to make a fully informed decision with respect to the
proposed transaction if such misrepresentations and omissions are
not corrected prior to the expiration of the tender offer.
Finjan Holdings, Inc. is an online security and technology company
that maintains its principal executive offices at 2000 University
Avenue, Suite 600, East Palo Alto, California.
CFIP Goldfish Holdings LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
and parent company of CFIP Goldfish Merger Sub Inc.
CFIP Goldfish Merger Sub Inc. is a direct wholly owned subsidiary
of CFIP Goldfish Holdings LLC. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and –
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
E-mail: rm@maniskas.com
FINJAN HOLDINGS: Merger Docs Have Incomplete Info, Grier Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ROBERT GRIER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINJAN HOLDINGS, INC., DANIEL
CHINN, ERIC BENHAMOU, GLENN DANIEL, JOHN GREENE, HARRY KELLOGG,
GARY MOORE, ALEX ROGERS, and MICHAEL SOUTHWORTH, Defendants, Case
No. 5:20-cv-04343 (N.D. Cal., June 29, 2020) arises from
Defendants' alleged violations of Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and breach of fiduciary duty.
Plaintiff is one of the shareholders of Finjan common stock.
According to the complaint, Defendant Finjan entered into an
agreement and plan merger with Fortress Investment Group LLC on
June 10, 2020 whereby Finjan common stock shareholders will receive
$1.55 in cash for each share of Finjan stock they own. However, the
Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and
misleading Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 24, 2020,
to convince Finjan shareholders to tender their shares.
Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants omitted material information
on the Recommendation Statement, which was necessary for Finjan
shareholders to make an informed decision concerning whether to
tender their shares. The omitted information includes Finjan's
unlevered free cash flow projections for 2020-2024 and all other
projections for 2020-2024, and the amount each Board member stands
to receive upon the consummation of the Proposed Transaction.
Daniel Chinn is the Chairman of the Board and director of Finjan.
Eric Benhamou, Glenn Daniel, John Greene, Harry Kellogg, Gary
Moore, Alex Rogers, and Michael Southworth are directors of
Finjan.
Finjan Holdings, Inc. operates a cybersecurity firm focusing in
intellectual property licensing and enforcement, mobile security
application development, and investing in cybersecurity
technologies and intellectual property. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David E. Brower, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
Culver City, CA 90230
Tel: (213) 446-6652
Fax: (212) 202-7880
Email: dbower@monteverdelaw.com
- and –
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave., Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
Tel: 212-971-1341
Fax: 212-202-7880
Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
FIREBIRD FREIGHT: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Mejia Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Eduard Mejia v. Firebird Freight Services Corp., and James
Walegir, Case No. 708451/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., June 25,
2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and
those similarly situated their overtime wage and minimum wage, in
violation of the New York Labor Law, and the New York Minimum Wage
Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant.
Firebird Freight is a family owned and operated trucking
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
215-28 Hillside Avenue
Queens Village, NY 11427
Telephone: 718 740-1000
Facsimile: 718 740-2000
FLOOR & DECOR: Hammond Seeks to Certify Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GERMMA HAMMOND on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. FLOOR AND DECOR
OUTLETS OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-01099 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. granting conditional certification of a collective action
and authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to notify:
"all current and former full time Hourly Workers who
worked for F&D at any time from December 10, 2016 to the
present and who were paid using the Kronos timekeeping
system";
2. directing the Defendant to provide, within 10 days, the
names, mailing addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone
numbers, dates of employment, positions held, and
locations worked of all putative employees;
3. directing the Plaintiff's counsel to notify all such
present and former employees on an expedited schedule by
mail, by e-mail, and by text message; and
4. giving all such present and former employees similarly
situated to the plaintiffs to have 90 days from the date
the Defendant provides their names and address to the
Plaintiff's counsel to mail an opt-in form to the
Plaintiff's counsel for filing in the Court.
The Defendant offers vinyl coverings, ceramic tiles, floor molding,
decorative glass, counter tops, finishing accessories, and wood
flooring products.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
N. Chase Teeples, Esq.
YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
Nashville, TN 37215
Telephone: (615) 250-2000
Facsimile: (615) 250-2020
E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com
teeples@yezbaklaw.com
- and -
Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
Diana J. Nobile, Esq.
McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
1101 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 833-8855
Facsimile: (202) 452-1090
E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com
djn@mselaborlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lincoln O. Bisbee, Esq.
Russell R. Bruch, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 739-3000
Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
E-mail: lincoln.bisbee@morganlewis.com
russell.bruch@morganlewis.com
- and -
Keane A. Barger, Esq.
Katharine R. Cloud, Esq.
RILEY WARNOCK & JACOBSON PLC
1906 West End Avenue
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 320-3700
Facsimile: (615) 320-3737
E-mail: kbarger@rwjplc.com
kcloud@rwjplc.com
FLORIDA: Court Dismisses Prisoner Suit vs. Lee County Sheriff Dept.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sheri Polster Chappell of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, has dismissed the
amended complaint in the case captioned DAVID BAKER, JR., ELGRON
TAYLOR, JOHN WALTERS, BRANDON FRANCISQUE, C. RODRIGEZ, MICHAEL
WILKINS, EARL JAY SLATON, ERIK THOMAS BARTLESON and RICHARD
HOLLOWAY, Plaintiffs, v. CARMINE MARCENO, TRINITY FOOD SERVICE
GROUP INC and LEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-226-FtM-38MRM. (M.D. Fla.).
Plaintiffs are nine pro se detainees who commenced the federal
class action suit because the food served at the Lee County jail
allegedly amounts to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth
Amendment.
The Lee County Sheriff's Department moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because
the pleading makes incoherent allegations, does not separate claims
into discrete counts, and asserts general accusations not targeted
at the specific Defendants.
The Sheriff identifies another issue: this is a putative class
action suit with Plaintiff David Baker Jr., a pro se prisoner, to
serve as the proposed representative.
The Court agrees with the Sheriff.
No pro se litigant can serve as a class representative. Not
allowing Baker to represent to the class also follows the Prisoner
Litigation Reform Act, which stops inmates from joining in a single
civil rights suit to share the mandatory filing fee.
The Amended Complaint also does not allege enough factual matter to
state a plausible Eighth Amendment violation, the Court finds.
To state a claim for an unconstitutional condition of confinement,
as alleged here, extreme deprivations are required. Plaintiffs'
Eighth Amendment claim centers on them allegedly being deprived
2,800 daily calories. But nowhere do they cite any regulations
establishing this caloric minimum to plead an extreme deprivation.
Nor do they allege facts showing that the jail's food poses an
unreasonable risk of serious damage to their health.
Thus, the Court granted Motion to Dismiss lodged by the Lee County
Sheriff's Department.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/vaavfa3 from Leagle.com.
David Baker, Jr., Plaintiff, pro se.
Elgron Taylor, Plaintiff, pro se.
John Walters, Plaintiff, pro se.
Brandon Francisque, Plaintiff, pro se.
C. Rodrigez, Plaintiff, pro se.
Michael Wilkins, Plaintiff, pro se.
Earl Jay Slaton, Plaintiff, pro se.
Erik Thomas Bartleson, Plaintiff, pro se.
Richard Holloway, Plaintiff, pro se.
Carmine Marceno & Lee County Sheriff's Department, Defendants,
represented by Kyle Dudek -kyle.dudek@henlaw.com - Henderson,
Franklin, Starnes & Holt, PA & John McQueen Miller, III -
john.miller@henlaw.com - Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, PA.
Trinity Food Service Group Inc, Defendant, represented by Christina
Marshon Fears ,1 State Farm Plz B-3, Bloomington, IL 61710-0001 &
Leonor M. Lagomasino- llagomasino@hinshawlaw.com - Hinshaw &
Culbertson, LLP.
FPA MULTIFAMILY: Lawrence Seeks Refund for March & April Rent
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JUSTIN LAWRENCE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FPA MULTIFAMILY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
8:20-cv-01517-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla., July 2, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's rescission, breach of contract, breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment,
conversion, and violation of Florida Consumer Collection Practices
Act.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated college students who entered a lease agreement with FPA
Multifamily, alleges that the Defendant refused to refund the
pro-rated money they paid for the months of March and April despite
the fact that they were not able to use and enjoy the Defendant's
rental services because they were forced to evacuate the premises
in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendant continues
to send debt collection correspondence to the Plaintiff on May 1,
2020 in an attempt to collect rent payment for services that the
Defendant cannot provide due to the closure of university campuses.
The Defendant's demand for payment and refusal to provide partial
refunds defies equity, common sense and is in diametrical
opposition to the Governor and President's directives concerning
the dangers of staying in the facilities.
Mr. Lawrence signed a lease for a room at The Social 2700 Student
Spaces Apartments owned by the Defendant for the Fall 2019-Summer
2020 academic school year.
FPA Multifamily, LLC is a real estate and property management
company, headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Heather H. Jones, Esq.
William Peerce Howard, Esq.
Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
4030 Henderson Boulevard
Tampa, FL 33629
Telephone: (813) 500-1500
Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
E-mail: Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
FROEDTERT HEALTH: Fore Seeks to Certify Hourly Employees Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toni Fore, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Froedtert Health Inc., Case No. 19-CV-1488 (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
-- granting conditional class certification; and
-- approving a notice to the class consisting of:
"all hourly non-exempt Froedtert employees who was
employed by Froedtert on or after October 10, 2016
who either received a unique user name and password
from Froedtert, or was eligible to qualify to
receive weekend premium pay, wellness works
payments, or fitness center attendance payments
from Froedtert, whether or not they ever actually
qualified to receive the payments."
Froedtert Hospital, located in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, is a teaching
hospital and a Level I adult trauma center, one of two such
facilities in Wisconsin.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yingtao Ho, Esq.
THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
310 W Wisconsin Ave, Suite 100 MW
Milwaukee, WI 53203
Telephone: 414 271-4500
Facsimile: 414 271-6308
E-mail: yh@previant.com
GALLITOS MEXICAN: Nocelotl et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRA NOCELOTL, JORGE LUIS CHUMIL YAXON, and TEODORO CUEVAS
LUCERO individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, -against- GALLITOS MEXICAN URBAN KITCHEN INC (D/B/A SAN
BLAS), JOHN DOE CORP. (D/B/A OJALA) GALLITOS MEXICAN URBAN KITCHEN
INC. (D/B/A GALLITO'S KITCHEN), BAHAR MIT RANA REST CORP. (D/B/A
GALLITO'S KITCHEN), AQSA FOOD CORP. (D/B/A GALLITO'S KITCHEN),
BAHAR REST CORP. (D/B/A GALLITO'S KITCHEN), BAHAR H KHANDAKAR,
ROCKY DOE, and IVAN DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02919
(E.D.N.Y., July 1, 2020) seeks payment for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29
U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq. ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y.
Labor Law Sections 190 et seq. and 650 et seq. (the "NYLL"), and
the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor codified at N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit.
12, Section 146-1.6, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
According to the complaint, Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees 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.
Plaintiffs were employed as a waitress, a delivery worker, a
dishwasher and cooks at the restaurants located in New York.
Defendants own, operate, or control two Spanish Restaurants,
located in New York under the names "San Blas" and "Ojala."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
GEO GROUP: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Novoa Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant The Geo Group, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit styled Raul Novoa, et al. v. The Geo Group, Inc.,
Case No. 5:17-cv-02514-JGB-SHK, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Riverside.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Jesus
G. Bernal entered an order:
(1) granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
(2) denying the Defendant's motion to exclude certain
declarations submitted by the Plaintiffs in support of the
Motion; and
(3) vacating the hearing set for December 2, 2019, on the
Motion to Exclude.
The Court said a separate class certification order will be filed
concurrently with order, defining the classes and appointing class
counsel.
On December 19, 2017, Raul Novoa filed this putative class action
complaint against the Defendant. The putative class action is
brought by current and former immigration detainees against the
operator of an immigration detention facility located in the City
of Adelanto, California. Since May 2011, GEO has operated the
Adelanto facility as a subcontractor for the City of Adelanto,
which entered into an Intergovernmental Service Agreement ("IGSA")
with Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") to hold
immigration detainees at the facility.
On August 16, 2019, the Plaintiffs sought leave to file a third
amended complaint. The TAC added Abdiaziz Karim and Ramon Mancia
as Plaintiffs, amended the class definitions, and added two causes
of action. The TAC alleges seven causes of action arising from the
Plaintiffs' detention at California's Adelanto Detention Center,
including violation of California's Minimum Wage Law; unjust
enrichment; violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; and
violation of California's Trafficking Victims Protection Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Raul Novoa, et al. v. The Geo
Group, Inc., Case No. 19-80169, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents RAUL B. NOVOA, JAIME CAMPOS FUENTES,
ABDIAZIZ MOHAMED KARIM and RAMON MANCIA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Robert Rafael Ahdoot, Esq.
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Theodore Walter Maya, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: 310-474-9111
E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
Daniel Henry Charest, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (469) 904-4550
Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
dcharest@burnscharest.com
- and -
Lydia Wright, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 799-2845
Facsimile: (504) 881-1765
E-mail: lwright@burnscharest.com
- and -
Robert Andrew Free, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF R. ANDREW FREE
P.O. Box 90568
Nashville, TN 37209
Telephone: (844) 321-3221
Facsimile: (615) 829-8959
E-mail: andrew@immigrantcivilrights.com
Defendant-Petitioner THE GEO GROUP, INC., is represented by:
Damien DeLaney, Esq.
AKERMAN LLP
601 West Fifth Street, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213-533-5920
E-mail: damien.delaney@akerman.com
GLENS FALLS: Improperly Charges Overdraft & NSF Fees, Richard Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DAPHNE RICHARD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK and DOES 1 through
100, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00734-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., July 1,
2020), arises from the Defendants' breach of contract, breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment, and violation of New York General Business Law.
According to the complaint, Glens Falls National Bank is engaged in
a practice of charging multiple overdraft and Non-Sufficient Funds
(NSF) fees for a single electronic transaction of its debit account
holders, including the Plaintiff. The bank assesses the fees using
an improper version of the balance in a member's account after
holding the authorized funds, causing additional confusion and
ambiguity. Under the terms and conditions of the contracts entered
by the Plaintiff and Class members with Glen Falls, the bank should
only charge overdraft or NSF fees when the transaction exceeded the
actual amount of money in the customer's account and only charge
fees per item and not per each presentment of an item. These
practices were deceptive and caused harm to the Plaintiff and Class
members as the fees charged on their accounts should not have been
imposed.
Glens Falls National Bank is a financial services institution with
principal place of business in Glen Falls, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Cherundolo, Esq.
J. Patrick Lannon, Esq.
CHERUNDOLO LAW FIRM, PLLC
AXA Tower I, 17th Floor
100 Madison Street
Syracuse, NY 13202
Telephone: (315) 449-9500
Facsimile: (315) 449-9804
E-mail: plannon@cherundololawfirm.com
jcherundolo@cherundololawfirm.com
- and –
Taras Kick, Esq.
THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
815 Moraga Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Telephone: (310) 395-2988
Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
E-mail: Taras@Kicklawfirm.com
- and –
Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
Woodbridge, NJ 07095
Telephone: (732) 636-8000
Facsimile: (732) 726-6686
E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com
GLOBAL CONCESSIONS: Flores Suit Seeks Payment Over Tip Skimming
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO FLORES and JASON HODGES, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. GLOBAL CONCESSIONS, INC., GATEWAY
AIRPORT CONCESSIONS, INC., AIRPORT CONCESSIONS GROUP, INC. d/b/a
MIAMI GLOBAL JOINT VENTURES and FELIPE VALLS, JR., individually,
Case No. 1:20-cv-22607-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 23, 2020), seeks to
recover compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs contend that they were non-exempt employees hired by
the Defendants on an hourly basis, but the Defendants willfully
refused to properly tip-credit them, and all others similarly
situated, as required under Federal law.
Plaintiff Eduardo Flores, was working 40 hours per week, with an
hourly pay rate of $5.60 per hour, but based upon calculations, was
shorted weekly on his tip sharing amount by $115 to $135 from 2017
and ongoing. Plaintiff Jason Hodges was working 40 hours per week,
with a pay rate of $6.25 per hour, but based upon calculations, was
shorted weekly on his tip sharing amount by $115 to $135 from 2017
up to his termination on November 10, 2019.
Global Concessions is a retail company based in Atlanta,
Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Chad Levy, Esq.
David M. Cozad, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 588
Sunrise, FL 33323
Telephone: (954) 763-5722
Facsimile: (954) 763-5723
E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com
assistant@levylevylaw.com
david@levylevylaw.com
GLOBAL SPEC: Fails to Pay Overtime, Vanaken Claims
--------------------------------------------------
The case, JAMES VANAKEN, on his own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL SPEC SECURITY GROUP,
LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, JOSEPH JOHNSON,
individually, and YUSUF JOHNSON, individually, Defendants, Case No.
8:20-cv-01490-TPB-TGW (M.D. Fla., June 30, 2020) arises from
Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Security Officer at 3750
Gunn Hwy, Tampa, FL 33618.
Plaintiff claims that he worked 55 hours or more in a work week
during his employment with Defendants. However, Defendant failed to
pay Plaintiff the required overtime wages at one and one-half times
his regular rate for those hours worked in excess of 40 within a
work week.
Joseph Johnson and Yusuf Johnson own and operate Global Spec
Security Group, LLC.
Global Spec Security Group, LLC is a security company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brianna A. Jordan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N. Franklin St., Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33602
Tel: 813-393-5457
Email: bjordan@forthepeople.com
GRUBHUB INC: Eliades et al. Allege Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------
The case, PHILIP ELIADES, JONATHAN SWABY, JOHN BOISI, and NATHAN
OBEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. GRUBHUB INC.; UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and POSTMATES INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05134 (S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2020), arises
from the Defendants' violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman
Act and state antitrust laws in the United States.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme in the restaurant platform, takeout and
delivery, and sit-down markets by forcing restaurants to enter into
agreements that contain most-favored nation provisions (MFNs). The
Defendants' MFNs have reduced price competition in these markets by
prohibiting restaurants from offering lower prices to consumers who
order directly from restaurants and by prohibiting restaurants from
offering lower prices through competing restaurant platforms. This
market power possessed by the Defendants allow them to profitably
impose supracompetitive pricing on both restaurants and consumers
in the takeout and delivery market and the sit-down market in both
national and local geographic markets.
Grubhub Inc. is an American online and mobile prepared food
ordering and delivery marketplace that connects diners with local
takeout restaurants, with its principal place of business in
Chicago, Illinois.
Uber Technologies, Inc. is an American multinational ride-hailing
company with its principal place of business in San Francisco,
California.
Postmates Inc. is an American company that offers local delivery of
restaurant-prepared meals and other goods, with its principal place
of business in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kyle W. Roche, Esq.
Edward Normand, Esq.
Stephen Lagos, Esq.
ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP
99 Park Avenue, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10016
E-mail: kyle@rcfllp.com
tnormand@rcfllp.com
slagos@rcfllp.com
GULFPORT ENERGY: Lefort Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BRYON LEFORT, individually
and on behalf of all other members of the general public similarly
situated v. GULFPORT ENERGY CORPORATION, Case No.
2:20-cv-01792-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:
a. conditionally certifying this case as a Fair Labor
Standards Act collective action under section 216(b)
against the Gulfport Energy on behalf of Named Plaintiff
and others similarly situated;
b. directing that notice be sent by United States mail and
email to the following class:
"all Ohio current and former oilfield workers employed by
Defendant who were classified as independent contractors
and paid a day-rate instead of time and one-half for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek during the
three years preceding the date of the filing of this
motion to the present";
c. approving the proposed Notice of FLSA lawsuit informing
such present and former employees of the pendency of this
collective action and permitting them to opt into the case
by signing and submitting the proposed Consent to Join
Form;
d. directing the Defendant to provide within 14 days of an
order granting conditional certification a Roster of such
present and former employees that includes their full
names, their dates of employment, their locations worked,
their last known home addresses, and personal email
addresses;
e. directing that the Notice and Consent, in the form
approved by the Court, be sent to such present and former
employees within 14 days of receipt of the Roster using
the home and email addresses; and
f. providing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent
in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses
or email addresses are found for one or more of such
present or former employees.
According to the Plaintiff's complaint, the Defendant misclassified
its oilfield workers, including its lease operators and well
tenders, as independent contractors to avoid paying them overtime
wages required under the FLSA. The Defendant maintained a uniform
pay practice of paying these lease operators a day rate without
overtime compensation.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Faces Leal Insurance Suit in Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hartford
Financial Services Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Leal,
Inc., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. d/b/a The Hartford,
Twin City Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 3:20-cv-00917 (D. Conn.,
July 2, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., usually known as The
Hartford, is a United States-based investment and insurance
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Phone: (860) 493-6292
Fax: (860) 493-6290
Email: mkindall@ikrlaw.com
HIGH RIVER LTD: Franchi Submitted Verification in Breach Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as ADAM FRANCHI and DAVID PILL, On Behalf
of Themselves and Those Similarly Situated v. JAFFREY A. FIRESTONE,
KEVIN LEWIS, PETER K. SHEA, SACHIN LATAWA, CARL C. ICAHN, HIGH
RIVER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, KOALA HOLDING LP, STARFIRE HOLDING
CORPORATION, and VOLTARI MERGER SUB LLC, Case No. 2020-0503 (Del.
Ch.), Adam Franchi submitted unsworn verification pursuant to Court
of Chancery Rules 23(aa) and 3(aa) in connection with the filing of
a verified class action complaint for breach of fiduciary duty.
Mr. Franchi said, "I held shares of Voltari Corporation common
stock continuously throughout the wrongs alleged in the Complaint.
I have authorized the filing of the Complaint against the
defendants in this action. I verify that I have reviewed the
foregoing Complaint and that the allegations as to me and my own
actions are true and correct and all other allegations upon
information and belief are true and correct."
High River operates as a venture capital firm.[BN]
HOUSTON COMMUNITY: Brown Discrimination Suit Moved to S.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ZELIA BROWN AND OTHER
SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS v. HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE, DR.
CESAR MALDONADO, JANET MAY AND DR. ADRIANA TAMEZ (Filed June 22,
2020), was removed from the Texas District Court, Harris County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
(Houston) on June 19, 2020.
The Southern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-02186 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants discriminated against her
because she is African-American, and because she is female, and
that the Defendants retaliated against her for allegedly reporting
wrongdoing within the College. She asserts claims for race and
gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and Chapter
21 of the Texas Labor Code.
HCC formerly employed Plaintiff Zelia Brown as a manager until she
voluntarily resigned from the College in March 2020. Just prior to
her resignation, the College had investigated concerns raised by
employees that the Plaintiff's mistreatment toward them was
inappropriate and that she had created a work environment of fear
and intimidation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin L. Hall, III, Esq.
William L. Van Fleet, II, Esq.
530 Lovett Blvd.
Houston, TX 77006
E-mail: bhall@bhalllawfirm.com
bvfleet@comcast.net
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul A. Lamp, Esq.
C. Cory Rush, Esq.
KARCZEWSKI BRADSHAW SPALDING
3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 560
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: 713 993-7060
Facsimile: 888 726-8374
E-mail: plamp@kbslawgroup.com
crush@kbslawgroup.com
HUGHES CITY, AR: Court Wants Narrower Class
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ROBERT SMART, TERRY ROSS
RIGGS, and JOHNATHAN JACKSON, Each Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. CITY OF HUGHES, ARKANSAS, Case No.
2:19-cv-00047-KGB (E.D. Ark., Filed April 22, 2019), the Hon. Judge
Kristine G. Baker entered an order:
1. denying, without prejudice, the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification, for approval and distribution
of notice, and for disclosure of contact information.
2. directing the Plaintiffs to file a motion for conditional
certification of a narrower class within 30 days from the
entry of this Order;
3. directing the parties to confer and file a joint proposed
amended scheduling order; and
4. directing the parties to request that the Court not enter
an amended final scheduling order until after it has ruled
on any such request, if plaintiffs renew their request for
conditional certification.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs can meet their lenient burden at
the notice stage of conditional certification by "establishing a
colorable basis for their claim that the putative class members
were the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan." The
Plaintiffs have not submitted any evidence that they were subject
to a common employment policy or plan. Accordingly, the Court
declines to certify conditionally a collective action."
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.[CC]
ICON PLC: Miller Labor Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as CHRYSTAL L. MILLER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ICON
PLC, LYNDA HOLCROFT, DOCS GLOBAL, INC., ICON CLINICAL RESEARCH LLC,
and DOES 1-100, Case No. 20-CIV-01732 (Filed April 20, 2020), was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Mateo, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on June 22, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-04117-KAW to the proceeding.
The complaint alleges claims against the Defendants under
California law for failure to pay overtime wages; failure to
provide meal and rest periods; failure to provide accurate,
itemized wage statements; and failure to timely pay all final
wages.
The Plaintiff alleges that Icon's Clinical Research Associates in
all positions were not compensated at a rate no less than one and a
half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of
eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a workweek, and were improperly
classified as salaried employees, exempt from overtime pay.
Specifically, the Plaintiff contends, Icon's Clinical Research
Associates in all positions are not properly exempt from overtime
pay under any exemption.
Icon is a global provider of outsourced development and
commercialization services to the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and
medical device industries.[BN]
Defendant Icon is represented by:
Christopher J. Banks, Esq.
Andrew P. Frederick, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: 650 843 4000
Facsimile: 650 843 4001
E-mail: christopher.banks@morganlewis.com
andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com
IFFAH INVESTMENTS: Ghauri Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, BILAL AHMAD GHAURI, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. IFFAH INVESTMENTS, INC., PINEHURST, INC., BAYTOWN BEST
LIQUOR, INC., HIGHWAY 146 PROPERTIES INC., SHAKIL AMIR DHUKKA,
SALIM A. DHUKKA SADIQUE ALI KHOJA, SYEED SADRUDDIN, Defendants,
Case No. 4:20-cv-02331 (S.D. Tex., July 1, 2020) arises from
Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have denied him and all others
similarly situated non-exempt employees overtime compensation at
the required premium overtime pay rate at one-and-one-half times of
their base hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 in one
or more workweek because Defendants applied a wide-spread policy
and practice of paying their employees' wages by cash only at their
straight-time hourly rates which allowed Defendants not to pay
their overtime hours.
Shakil Amir Dhukka, Salim A. Dhukka Sadique Ali Khoja, and Syeed
Sadruddin jointly own and operate the named legal entity
Defendants.
Iffah Invvestments, Inc., Pinehurst, Inc., Baytown Best Liquor,
Inc., and Highway 146 Properties Inc. operates gasoline stations
and convenience stores. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Syed N. Izfar, Esq.
11111 Katy Freeway, #1010
Houston, TX 77079
Tel: (713) 467-0786
Fax: (713) 467-2424
Email: syedizfar@sbcglobal.net
IGNITE INTERNATIONAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Baker Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IGNITE INTERNATIONAL, LTD., Defendant, Case
2:20-cv-01172 (D. Nev., June 23, 2020) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
Ignite International, Ltd. operates as a vertically-integrated
cannabis company. The Company engage, in the business of
cultivation, development, extraction, and distribution of cannabis
and cannabis-infused products, as well as the production and
distribution of cannabis-related accessories. Ignite International
serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gustavo Ponce, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
6069 South Fort Apache Rd., Ste 100
Las Vegas, NV 89148
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: gustavo@kazlg.com
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: UFCW Unit Sues Over Delays in Generic Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
UFCW LOCAL 1500 WELFARE FUND, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS
IRELAND LIMITED; JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ROXANE LABORATORIES,
INC.; HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; EUROHEALTH (USA), INC.; and
WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03852
(N.D. Ill., June 30, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Sherman Act, state antitrust laws, state
consumer protection laws, and state unfair trade practices laws in
the United States.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of all others similarly situated
consumers, alleges that Defendants Jazz Pharmaceuticals and Roxane
Labs engaged in an unlawful scheme to delay the entry of generic
competition in the market for Jazz's medication Xyrem, a sodium
oxybate oral solution.
On April 5, 2017, Jazz and Roxane entered into a pay-for-delay
agreement in order to: (a) delay generic entry of Xyrem in order to
lengthen the period in which Jazz's brand Xyrem could monopolize
the market and make supra-competitive profits; (b) keep an
authorized generic off the market during Roxane's 180-day generic
exclusivity period, thereby allowing Roxane to monopolize the
generic market for Xyrem during that period and allowing Roxane to
make supra-competitive profits; (c) allocate 100% of U.S. generic
Xyrem sales to Roxane during the first 180 days of generic sales;
and (d) raise and maintain the prices that the Plaintiff and Class
members would pay for Xyrem at supra-competitive levels until at
least July 2023.
In addition, Jazz engaged in deceptive conduct by: (1) improperly
listing the Xyrem Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS)
Patents in a publication called the "Approved Drug Products with
Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations," which is more commonly
referred to as the Orange Book, despite the fact that none claimed
a drug product or method of using a drug as required by regulation;
(2) withholding material prior art from the Patent and Trademark
Office (PTO) in the prosecution of certain patents purportedly
covering Xyrem, causing the PTO to improperly issue those patents;
and (3) asserting those improperly obtained patents against
would-be generic rivals in multiple patent infringement suits.
UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund (Local 1500) is an employee welfare
benefits fund with its principal place of business at 425 Merrick
Avenue, Westbury, New York.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business at Waterloo Exchange, Waterloo Road,
Dublin 4, Ireland. Its U.S. headquarters is located at 3170 Porter
Drive, Palo Alto, California.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited is a pharmaceutical company
organized and existing under the laws of Ireland, with its
principal place of business at Waterloo Exchange, Waterloo Road,
Dublin 4, Ireland.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC is a multinational pharmaceutical company
organized and existing under the laws of the United Kingdom, with
its principal place of business at 1 New Burlington Place, London,
W1S 2HR and its U.S. headquarters at 246 Industrial Way West,
Eatontown, New Jersey.
Roxane Laboratories, Inc. is a generic pharmaceutical manufacturer
with its principal place of business at 2001 Arlington Lane,
Columbus, Ohio.
Eurohealth (USA), Inc. is a pharmaceutical manufacturing company
with its principal place of business at 401 Industrial Way West,
Eatontown, New Jersey.
West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. is a generic pharmaceutical
manufacturer with its principal place of business at 401 Industrial
Way West, Eatontown, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Freed, Esq.
Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
Brian Hogan, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
2201 Waukegan Rd, Suite 130
Bannockburn, IL 60015
Telephone: (224) 632-4500
Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
E-mail: mfreed@fklmlaw.com
rwozniak@fklmlaw.com
bhogan@fklmlaw.com
- and –
Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
Robin A. van der Meulen, Esq.
Domenico Minerva, Esq.
Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
Veronica Bosco, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROWLLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
kgarvey@labaton.com
rvandermeulen@labaton.com
dminerva@labaton.com
mperez@labaton.com
vbosco@labaton.com
- and –
Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
Paul Costa, Esq.
Mary L. Russell, Esq.
FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 567-6565
Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
pcosta@finekaplan.com
mrussell@finekaplan.com
JEFFERSON, NY: Court Denies Nourse's Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BRAD NOURSE, both
individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated
v. THE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, Case No. 1:17-cv-00807-BKS-DJS
(N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Brenda K. Sannes denied the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff proposed a class consisting of:
"all persons who have been or will be placed into the
custody of the Jefferson County Jail after being charged with
misdemeanors, violations, traffic infractions, civil commitments or
other minor crimes and being eligible for bail, and were or will be
immediately strip searched upon their entry into the Jefferson
County Jail and who posted bail within four hours of their entry
into the facility."
The Court said, "In view of the individualized liability issues
regarding the circumstances of potential class members' strip
searches and the lack of evidence showing that common questions of
law and fact predominate over "questions affecting only individual
members," the Plaintiff has failed to meet the predominance
requirement. Accordingly, because the Plaintiff has failed to
satisfy Rules 23(a) and 23(b), his motion for class certification
is denied."
The Plaintiff brought this action alleging that his Fourth
Amendment right against unreasonable searches was violated when he
was strip searched during intake processing at the Jefferson County
Jail without being provided reasonable time to post bail.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
Maria K. Dyson, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, PC
One Pine West Plaza, Suite 109
Albany, NY 12205
The Defendant is represented by:
Teresa M. Bennett, Esq.
Anneliese Aliasso, Esq.
BARCLAY DAMON LLP
125 East Jefferson Street
Syracuse, NY 13202
JOHN M. LEUTHARDT: Gonzalez et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE GONZALEZ, JOSE SARAVIA, JUAN GONZALEZ, JUAN HIGINIO RAMIREZ
and SANTOS GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- JOHN M. LEUTHARDT
LANDSCAPING, INC. and JOHN LEUTHARDT, as an individual, Defendants,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02902 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2020) arises from the
failure of the Defendants to pay Plaintiffs time and a half of his
regular hourly wage for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation
of the overtime provisions contained in the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiffs were or are employed by Defendants as landscapers, snow
removers and nursery workers.
Due to Defendants' FLSA and NYLL violations, Plaintiffs are
entitled to recover from Defendants, jointly and severally, their
unpaid overtime wages and an amount equal to their unpaid overtime
wages in the form of liquidated damages, as well as reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of the action, including interest in
accordance with federal and state laws.
Further, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with a written
notice, in English and in Spanish (Plaintiffs' primary language),
of their rate of pay, regular pay day, and such other information
as required by NYLL. Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiffs
with wage statements upon each payment of wages, as required by
NYLL.
John M. Leuthardt Landscaping, Inc. is a New York-based landscape
architecture services provider.[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
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
JRCRUZ CORP: Thomas et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages For Flaggers
-------------------------------------------------------------
LATISHA THOMAS, AIESHAI LONDON and JAY SIMMONS, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, -against-
JRCRUZ CORP., Defendant, Case No. 511297/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Kings
Cty., June 30, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff to
recover unpaid prevailing wages, daily overtime and supplemental
benefits which she and the members of the putative Class were
entitled to receive for work, including weekend, evening and
holiday work, they performed pursuant to contracts entered into
between Defendants and public entities, including, but not limited
to, New York City Department of Transportation ("DOT") and New York
City Department of Design and Construction ("DDC") which required
payment of prevailing wages.
Plaintiffs are former construction flaggers who worked for
Defendant on public projects on New York City roadways. Throughout
their employment with Defendant, Plaintiffs were not paid the
applicable prevailing rate of wages or supplemental benefits for
all hours that they worked on water main, sewer and other public
works projects on New York City roadways.
Plaintiffs also bring claims for Defendants' failure to provide
proper wage notices pursuant to New York Labor Law.
Jrcruz Corp. is a New Jersey-based heavy construction company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brent E. Pclton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
Alison L. Mangiatordi, Esq.
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212)385-9700
Facsimile: (212)385-0800
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Moll Sues Over Unpaid Meal Breaks
---------------------------------------------------
BRITTNAY MOLL, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20CV367553 (Cal. Super., June
25, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular
hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and
rest periods.
The Plaintiff Moll was employed by the Defendants as hourly paid,
non exempt employee.
Juniper Networks, Inc. provides internet infrastructure solutions
for internet service providers and other telecommunications service
providers. The Company offers network infrastructure solutions that
includes IP routing, ethernet switching, security, and application
acceleration. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
Philip Song, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Misclassifies Assistant Managers, Graziano Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JENNA GRAZIANO, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.
and KOHL'S CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-05049
(S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2020) is a class action complaint brought
against Defendants for their alleged violations of the New York
Labor Law.
Plaintiff worked as an Assistant Store Manager of Human Resources
and Operations (ASM HRO) for Defendants from approximately
September 2007 to October 2015 at Kohl's store in Newburgh, New
York.
According to the complaint, Defendants classified all their ASMs,
including Plaintiff, as exempt from overtime. Thus, Defendants
compensate all ASMs a flat weekly salary without paying them for
the hours they work over 40 in a week despite spending most of
their time performing non-exempt duties.
Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. and Kohl's Corporation own and
operate retail department stores throughout New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Michelle Cassorla, Esq.
LIGHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Tel: (617) 994-5800
Fax: (617) 994-5801
Emails: sliss@llrlaw.com
mcassorla@llrlaw.com
- and –
Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
HAYBER MCKENNA & DINSMORE
221 Main St., Suite 502
Hartford, CT
Tel: (860) 522-8888
Fax: (860) 218-9555
Email: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
KRAFT HEINZ: Falsely Labels Cheese Products as Natural, Koh Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
SYLVIA KOH and DAVID GREEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-04425-AGT (N.D. Cal., July 2, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendant for breach of express
warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law,
California's Unfair Competition Law, and State Consumer Protection
Statutes.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
consumers in the United States, allege that the Defendant is
engaged in deceptive and false advertising and marketing of Kraft
Natural Cheese products. The Defendant represents the products as
naturally made but in reality, they were made with milk from cows
who were given recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST), an
artificial hormone. The Defendant deceives the consumers, including
the Plaintiffs, into thinking that the natural representations on
the products' labels mean that they were made without the use of
artificial hormone. The Plaintiffs and Class members have been
injured because they purchased the products at premium price and
received less than what they bargained and/or paid for.
The Kraft Heinz Company is a manufacturer of food and beverage
products that maintains its principal places of business in
Chicago, Illinois and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jaimie Mak, Esq.
Kim E. Richman, Esq.
RICHMAN LAW GROUP
535 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (718) 705-4579
Facsimile: (718) 228-8522
E-mail: jmak@richmanlawgroup.com
krichman@richmanlawgroup.com
LG ELECTRONICS: Sosenko Suit Moved From C.D. California to D.N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as GARY SOSENKO, DIANE TERRY,
and MICHAEL BURRAGE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., Case No.
8:19-cv-00610 (Filed April 1, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on June 23,
2020.
The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case
No.2:20-cv-07652 to the proceeding.
The class action is brought on behalf of California consumers, who
purchased refrigerators manufactured by LG that are equipped with
linear compressors (LG Refrigerators). LG designed, manufactured,
promoted, distributed, and sold the LG Refrigerators, pricing them
in the range of $1,400 to $7,000.
According to the complaint, a latent defect causes failure of the
refrigerator's linear compressor--a central component responsible
for cooling. The compressor defect renders the LG Refrigerators
unable to perform their most basic function: cooling and preserving
food and beverages. When the compressor defect manifests, the
refrigerator warms and its contents spoil, unless they are moved to
a working refrigerator or cooler.
Although refrigerators last 13 years on average, the LG
Refrigerators have been failing en masse within 36 months, says the
complaint.
Mr. Sosenko purchased a Kenmore-branded LG Refrigerator (Model 4
795.7402.411) for approximately $2,600 on May 26, 2016, from a
Sears store in Orange, California. Ms. Terry purchased an LG
Refrigerator (Model LMXS30776S/03) for approximately $3,200 on June
28, 2016, from the Pacific Sales Kitchen & Home store in Corona,
California.
LG Electronics manufactures and distributes consumer electronic
products. The Company offers light emission diode televisions,
mobile phones, monitors, refrigerators, washing machines, dryers,
air conditioners, and projectors.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
- and -
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
One Haverford Centre
361 West Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: (610) 642-8500
E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com
- and -
Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq.
Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
BERGER AND MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: ldeutsch@bm.net
LISA'S ULTIMATE: Bennett Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHATON BENNETT v. LISA'S ULTIMATE WAX III LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, and LISA SCHILLER, Case No. 9:20-cv-80988-DMM
(S.D. Fla., June 23, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees seeking to recover unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the pay practice on the part of the
Defendants violated the FLSA as the Defendants failed to properly
pay overtime to Ms. Bennett for those hours worked in excess of
40.
Ms. Bennett was employed by Lisa's Ultimate and Ms. Schiller.
Lisa's Ultimate offers hair removal and other related services. Ms.
Schiller is the owner and sole managing member of Lisa's.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Lustig, Esq.
Robert C. Johnson, Esq.
PIKE & LUSTIG, LLP
1209 N. Olive Ave.
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 855-7585
Facsimile: (561) 855-7710
E-mail: pleadings@pikelustig.com
M & L CLEANING: Jimenez FLSA Suit Granted Collective Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MANUEL JIMENEZ, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. M & L
CLEANING, INC. and JOHN MELIA, Case No. 3:19-cv-00078-KAD (D.
Conn.), the Hon. Judge Kari A. Dooley granted the Plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards
Act collective action.
The Court said, "The Plaintiff has made the requisite showing that
he and other "similarly situated" cleaners were victims of the
Defendants' common policy or plan and that the common policy or
plan violated the FLSA. Jimenez asserts, through his affidavit and
complaint, that he and his co-worker cleaners were regularly
required to work more than forty hours per week without receiving
any compensation for overtime. Specifically, their work schedule
and duties were such that they were required to work from 7:40 a.m.
until 5:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and from 7:40 a.m. to 5:30
p.m. on Friday. Jimenez estimates that the Defendants, who have a
high turnover rate among their cleaners, employ approximately
twenty-two cleaners at any given time, and he has identified seven
such cleaners by name. Jimenez asserts that the named cleaners
worked the same schedule and performed the same duties as him. To
his knowledge, Jimenez asserts, none of these cleaners were
compensated for the overtime work, as required by the FLSA.
Further, Jimenez has identified by name two cleaners who complained
to him about their work schedules and the fact that they were not
being paid overtime. Although the statements of these other
cleaners are, in some respects, hearsay, they are still probative
evidence for purposes of the step one Myers analysis."
Jimenez asserts claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Actand
the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.
Jimenez worked as a cleaner for M&L Cleaning between March of 2016
and October 13, 2018.
Melia owns, operates, and manages M&L Cleaning. M&L Cleaning
employs approximately 22 cleaners at any given time.[CC]
MANAGED LABOR: Underpays Transporters & Drivers, Poliner Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN POLINER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANAGED LABOR SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case no. 3:20-cv-00738 (M.D. Fla., July 1, 2020) is a collective
action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Transporter at the
Jacksonville International Airport in Jacksonville, Florida from on
or about September 8, 2019 to on or about March 26, 2020.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and all other hourly paid
drivers and transporters routinely worked more than 40 hours per
week. But, when Plaintiff reported his 83.66 hours that included
overtime hours worked on the standard company provided timesheet
during the period of December 23, 2019 to January 5, 2020,
Defendant removed all the overtime hours and paid him only 75.75
hours worked straight time.
The complaint asserts that Defendant fraudulently, unlawfully, and
willfully edited employee time records, shaving, deleting and
modifying hours worked to avoid paying overtime compensation owed
to hourly paid employees.
Managed Labor Solutions, LLC offers outsourced labor forces to
small and large businesses, including car rental companies at
airports and city based locations across the U.S.A. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
6940 West Linebaugh Ave., Suite 101
Tampa, FL 33625
Tel: (813) 639-9366
Fax: (813) 639-9376
Email: mlf@feldmanlegal.us
lschindler@feldmanlegal.us
MANAGEMENT HEALTH: Lo Alleges Illegal Recruitment of Nurses
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Robanne Lo, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Management Health Systems, LLC d/b/a MedPro
Staffing, Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-61319 (S.D. Fla., July 1,
2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the
Defendant seeking relief for Defendant's violations of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA")
According to the complaint, Defendant is a foreign labor recruiter
who purports to recruit nurses from abroad to work in healthcare
facilities throughout the United States. Defendant's operations and
the circumstances surrounding the nurses' work for Defendant result
in what is essentially indentured servitude. After getting nurses
to sign a non-negotiable contract agreeing to work for Defendant,
and after bringing them to the United States to work, Defendant
informs nurses that they are subject to up to a $40,000 penalty if
they leave before their three-year employment term is up.
The complaint further states that Defendant threatens its nurses
with legal action to keep them working for Defendant.
Defendant seeks to continue to profit from the nurses' labor under
Defendant's contracts with the various healthcare facilities at
which the nurses work through this scheme. This lawsuit seeks to
end Defendant's illegal practices and to compensate the victims of
those practices.
Plaintiff is a Registered Nurse employed by Defendant. He is a
citizen of the Republic of the Philippines and a legal permanent
resident of the United States. He lives in Texas.
Management Health Systems, LLC is one of the largest healthcare
staffing firms in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK
1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Suite 201H, #105
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
kstroly@varnellandwarwick.com
- and -
Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
Charles A. Delbridge, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: aprakash@nka.com
cdelbridge@nka.com
MARKEL INSURANCE: Fountain Enterprises Seeks Pay for COVID-19 Loss
------------------------------------------------------------------
FOUNTAIN ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a ANYTIME FITNESS - WEST POINT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MARKEL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case:
1:20-cv-03689 (N.D. Ill., June 24, 2020) alleges that the Defendant
unlawfully denied the Plaintiff's insurance claim.
As a result of the orders of the various civil authorities due to
the outbreak of infections and deaths associated with COVID-19, the
Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, significant and
injurious losses and expenses directly related to the inability to
use the physical locations covered by the Policy.
Under the Plaintiff's Policy, Markel is obligated to provide
coverage for, and to pay, business income losses and extra expense
losses resulting from the suspension of the Plaintiff's operations,
including suspensions resulting from actions of civil authorities.
Notice of loss was reported to Markel on April 18, 2020. In
response, on April 23, 2020, Markel reneged on these obligations
and wrongfully failed to fulfill its contractual obligation to
provide coverage for, and pay, the Plaintiff's business income
losses and extra expense losses resulting from the suspension of
the Plaintiff's operations, including suspensions resulting from
actions of civil authorities. It did so a mere four business days
after the Plaintiff's notice of loss, showing Markel engaged in no
meaningful investigation of the claims or review of the Policy.
Markel's actions in improperly denying the Plaintiff's claim were a
blatant disregard for the Plaintiff's contractual rights resulting
in a material breach of Markel's duties and obligation owed under
the Policy and deprived the Plaintiff of the benefit of its
bargain, causing serious financial damages.
Markel Insurance Company operates as an insurance company. The
Company underwrites property and casualty insurance. Markel
Insurance serves customers in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lisa B. Weinstein, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2350
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 610-5350
- and -
Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmermann, Esq.
April S. Rogers, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
505 20th Street N, Suite 1450
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 453-6415
- and -
Adam J. Gomez, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
123 Justison Street, 7 th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7100
- and -
Elizabeth Graham, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
One Market Street
Spear Tower, 36th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 789-4367
- and -
L.N. Chandler Rogers, Esq.
ROGERS LAW GROUP, P.A.
201 East Bankhead Street
P.O. Box 1771
New Albany, MS 38652
Telephone: (662) 538-5990
- and -
Winston B. Collier, Esq.
THE COLLIER FIRM, P.A.
P.O. Box 1702
Oxford, MS 38655
Telephone: 662-234-0320
MATHERSON ORGANICS: Schnurer Sues Over Toothpowders' Side Effects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY SCHNURER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MATHERSON ORGANICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-01223-LAB-LL (S.D. Cal., June 30, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, negligent misrepresentation,
and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and California False Advertising
Law.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated consumers, alleges that the Defendant made false and
deceptive representations of the Active Wow '24K White' Activated
Coconut Teeth Whitening Charcoal Powder - All Natural product.
These misrepresentations include: (i) naturally whiten teeth and
does so in a safe, healthy and/or gentle manner; (ii) are
recognized as safe and effective for long-term daily use; (iii) are
safe for enamel and gums; (iv) are third-party tested for enamel
safety; (v) detoxify and purify; (vi) adsorb, draw, or lift stains
off of teeth by operation of the adsorptive properties of charcoal;
(vii) are excellent for gum health; (viii) fight cavities and tooth
decay, by merit of the inclusion of xylitol; (ix) have
re-mineralizing properties by merit of the inclusion of bentonite;
(x) have anti-inflammatory and antiseptic properties, by merit of
the inclusion of orange seed oil; and (xi) are generally beneficial
to oral health and provide adequate dental hygiene for use as a
replacement for toothpaste. Contrary to the representations, the
product cannot deliver the promised health and cosmetic benefits
and its use can potentially detrimental to oral health and
aesthetics.
As a direct result of this wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff and
Class members have suffered ascertainable out-of-pocket losses from
their purchases of one or more Charcoal Toothpowders. Furthermore,
some consumers have experienced the negative effects that activated
charcoal can cause, including discoloration of the gumline, gum
irritation, excessive abrasion of tooth enamel and dentin,
yellowing of the teeth, and damage to dental implants.
Matherson Organics, LLC is a health and beauty products company
with principal place of business at 75 North Woodward Avenue,
#85899, Tallahassee, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Robert Noblin, Esq.
GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
4500 East Pacific Coast Highway, Fourth Floor
Long Beach, CA 90804
Telephone: (562) 391-2487
Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com
- and –
Robert S. Green, Esq.
GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
Larkspur, CA 94939
Telephone: (415) 477-6700
Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com
- and –
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
MDL 1720: R&M Objectors' Request for Attorneys' Fees Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Margo Brodie of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York issued a Memorandum and Order denying R7M
Objectors' Motion for Attorneys' Fees in IN RE PAYMENT CARD
INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This
document refers to: ALL ACTIONS, Case No. 05-MD-1720 (MKB) (JO),
(E.D. N.Y.).
On June 7, 2019, a group of objectors previously identified in this
multi-district litigation (the "MDL") as Retailer and Merchant
Objectors ("R&M Objectors") filed a motion to be compensated for
attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards for their role in
objecting to the previously approved settlement agreement (the
"2013 Settlement Agreement") that was later set aside by the Second
Circuit.
The R&M Objectors consist of restaurants, clothing stores, gas
stations, and all manner of small to mid-sized businesses located
in thirteen different states.
In July 2019, the Court referred R&M Objectors' motion to
Magistrate Judge James Orenstein for a report and recommendation.
By report and recommendation dated October 11, 2019 (the "R&R"),
Judge Orenstein recommended that the Court deny the motion. R&M
Objectors timely objected to the R&R, and Plaintiffs responded to
the objections.
By December 2019, the Court granted final approval of a class
settlement agreement in the case. The Court also granted
attorneys' fees to Plaintiffs' class counsel but adopted the R&R
and denied attorneys' fees and expenses for the R&M Objectors.
The Court explains its reasons for adopting the R&R in its entirety
and denying R&M Objectors' motion in a Memorandum and Order, a copy
of which is available at https://tinyurl.com/t72kx5f from
Leagle.com.
After reviewing R&M Objectors' arguments, both in the district
court and on appeal, the Court is not persuaded that R&M Objectors
were a substantial cause of the Second Circuit's decision to set
aside the 2013 Settlement Agreement.
While R&M Objectors objected early and consistently, their initial
objections did not raise any concerns about the adequacy of class
counsel's inherently conflicted representation or the problems with
the surcharge benefit, the Court notes. R&M Objectors did
eventually make the argument, starting at the preliminary approval
stage, that the surcharge provision of the injunctive relief would
not benefit all class members -- an argument that the Second
Circuit ultimately found persuasive. However, they were not the
first to make this argument, and, in later rounds of briefing,
largely echoed the more comprehensive arguments of other parties'
briefs, in which R&M Objectors joined, the Court points out.
Given the extensive objections to the settlement, the Court is not
convinced that, in the absence of R&M Objectors, the outcome on
appeal would have been any different. But even assuming that were
the case, the Court would still not be able to find that R&M
Objectors had substantially caused any increased value of the
Superseding Settlement Agreement, which the Court instead
attributes to the years of additional discovery and renegotiation
that followed the Second Circuit's decision, and which R&M
Objectors had no involvement in.
Accordingly, the Court denies R&M Objectors' request for attorneys'
fees.
Moreover, the Court finds that R&M Objectors have not established
any circumstances to warrant a service award.
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation, Plaintiff, represented by Linda P. Nussbaum , Nussbaum
Law Group, PC, 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor, New York,
NY 10036, Alexandra S. Bernay - XanB@lerachlaw.com - Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin R. Nagin -
BNAGIN@SIDLEY.COM - Sidley Austin LLP, Carmen A. Medici
-cmedici@rgrdlaw.com - Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP,
pro hac vice, D. Cameron Baker , Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP, David W. Mitchell - davidm@rgrdlaw.com - Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, pro hac vice, Dennis Stewart -
dstewart@gustafsongluek.com - Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Eric P. Barstad
, Robins Kaplan LLP, 800 Lasalle Ave Ste 2800
Minneapolis, MN, 55402-2039
Eastern Watch Co., Robert Gardner, Karla F. Solis, D.D.S., Inc.
d/b/a LA Holistic Dentistry & The Perfect Sidekick, LLC, Movants,
represented by David S. Preminger -dpreminger@kellerrohrback.com -
Keller Rohrback LLP.
Aldi Inc., Movant, represented by Jerome F. Buch -
jbuch@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw LLP & John Robert Schleppenbach,
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000, Chicago,
Illinois 60606-6448
Defendants in civil action Jetro Holding, Inc. et al v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc. et al, Defendant, represented by Mark E. Tully -
mtully@goodwinlaw.com - Goodwin Procter, LLP, Peter Edward Greene
-peter.greene@skadden.com - Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, William Harry Rooney - wrooney@willkie.com - Willkie Farr &
Gallagher LLP, Andrew J. McDonald , Pullman & Comley, LLC, 850 Main
Street P.O. Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601, Brian A. Herman -
brian.herman@morganlewis.com - Morgan, Lewis & Bockuis, LLP, David
Sapir Lesser -DAVID.LESSER@WILMERHALE.COM - Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP, Douglas Melamed , Eric H. Grush -
egrush@sidley.com - Sidley Austin LLP, Erica Fenby , Alston & Bird
LLP, pro hac vice, Gary R. Carney, Jr. - gcarney@paulweiss.com -
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garison, LLP
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Class Certification Hearing Set for Dec. 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TERRY HAMM and BRYCE MEEKER,
On Behalf of Themselves And All Others Similarly Situated v.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-03370-EJD (N.D Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order on July 6, 2020,
granting a stipulation to reschedule the class certification
briefing and hearing schedule.
The Stipulation provides that:
-- The deadline for MBUSA to file its opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion for MBUSA's class certification experts
shall be November 5, 2020.
-- The deadline for Plaintiff to file any reply in support of
his motion for class certification shall be November 20,
2020.
-- The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification
and any Daubert motions shall be December 17, 2020, at
9:00 a.m. or the first available Court hearing date
thereafter.
For administrative purposes only, the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, is terminated. The Plaintiff shall file a new notice
of motion (without the memorandum and supporting materials) setting
the motion for class certification for hearing on December 17, 2020
at 9:00 a.m.[CC]
The Plaintiff Terry Hamm is represented by:
Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, P.C.
2262 Carmel Valley Rd, Suite 200-D
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (619) 363-3333
E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Troy M. Yoshino, Esq.
Eric J. Knapp, Esq.
Scott J. Carr, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: +1 415 954 0200
Facsimile: +1 415 393 9887
E-mail: troy.yoshino@squirepb.com
eric.knapp@squirepb.com
scott.carr@squirepb.com
MI BARRIO MEAT: Franco Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Butchers
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS MIRANDA FRANCO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- MI BARRIO MEAT MARKET INC.
(D/B/A MI BARRIO MEAT MARKET INC.), GEORGE PORTOREAL, NEW PUBLIC
MEAT MARKET INC (D/B/A NEW PUBLIC MEAT MARKET), MARIA PEREZ,
FRANCISCO ZUNIGA, and ROBERTO PAZ, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-04983 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2020) alleges that Defendants
fail to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and the N.Y. Labor Law.
According to the complaint, Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of requiring Plaintiff Miranda and other employees to work
in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations.
Plaintiff was employed as a butcher by Defendants at Mi Barrio Meat
Market and New Public Market from approximately 2008 until on or
about June 8, 2020.
Mi Barrio Meat Market Inc., (d/b/a Mi Barrio Meat Market Inc.), and
New Public Meat Market Inc., (d/b/a New Public Meat Market), own,
operate, or control two meat market companies in New York under the
name "Mi Barrio Meat Market Inc." and "New Public Meat
Market."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Fallace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Schnapf FDCPA Class Suit in S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Cynthia Schnapf,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No.
3:20-cv-00151-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., July 3, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., is a licensed debt collector
founded in 1953. The Company's line of business includes extending
credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Constantine Vlahakis, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
MIKE & CATHY'S: Merino et al. Sue Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO MERINO and LEONEL AMIGON, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, -againstMIKE & CATHY'S
SONS, INC. d/b/a MIKE'S HINSCH'S, MGD STEWARTS ONE INC. d/b/a
STEWART'S RESTAURANT BAY RIDGE BROOKLYN, MICHAEL MOUDATSOS, ELIAS
MOUDATSOS, and MATTEO GUARINO, Jointly and Severally, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02850 (E.D.N.Y., June 26, 2020) is an action
brought by the Plaintiff to recover the unpaid minimum wage and
unpaid overtime premium pay owed to them pursuant to both the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiffs also bring claims for unpaid spread-of-hours premiums,
and failure to provide proper wage notices and wage statements
pursuant to NYLL §§ 190 et seq. and the supporting regulations.
Plaintiffs are former line cooks and dishwashers at Defendants'
restaurant located in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, New York. For their
work, throughout the relevant time period, Plaintiffs were not paid
overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. In
addition, for several years of the relevant time period, Plaintiff
Merino was not paid the legally required minimum wage for all hours
worked.
Mike & Cathy's Sons, Inc. d/b/a "Mike's Hinsch's," and MGD Stewarts
One Inc. d/b/a "Stewart's Restaurant Bay Ridge Brooklyn" are
restaurant companies based in Brooklyn, 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
Telephone: (212) 385-9700
MONSANTO CO: Baltimore County, City Lead Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Montcalmo, writing for NottinghamMD.com, reports the City of
Baltimore and Baltimore County, along with eleven other
governmental entities across the country, announced a proposed
nationwide class action settlement with Monsanto Company,
Pharmacia, LLC, and Solutia, Inc., for $550 million, resolving PCB
water contamination claims for a proposed class of 2,528
governmental entities nationwide.
"This national resolution will empower nearly 2,000 cities, towns,
counties, and independent port districts to better monitor,
mitigate, and remediate these man-made carcinogens that impair the
water quality in stormwater, sewer systems, sediments, and water
bodies," Baltimore Mayor Bernard C. "Jack" Young and Baltimore
County Executive John A. Olszewski, Jr. said in a joint statement.
"Our region is home to hundreds of miles of waterfront, including
rivers, creeks, and critical estuaries like the Baltimore Harbor,
which are a precious component of our culture. We're proud to lead
efforts to protect these natural resources and to protect waters
throughout the state and nation."
Polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, impair the water quality of
Back River, Bear Creek, Curtis Creek and the Baltimore Harbor,
which are important estuaries, as well as tidal portions of Bird
River and Gunpowder River, and the Lake Roland impoundment. PCBs
are man-made carcinogens that persist in the environment and
bioaccumulate, resulting in fish consumption advisories in these
water bodies.
Cases Were Litigated for Over Five Years
Legal motions to approve the proposed settlement class have been
filed in federal court in the Central District of California, in a
case before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. More than a dozen lawsuits
have been filed by governmental entities since March 2015, seeking
to recover the costs associated with cleaning up stormwater and
environmental contamination caused by PCBs, which Monsanto
manufactured between the 1930s and 1977. The City of Baltimore and
Baltimore County were the first East Coast governments to sue.
The named plaintiffs leading the nationwide resolution include the
City of Baltimore, Baltimore County, City of Spokane, City of
Tacoma, City of Portland, Port of Portland, City of Berkeley, City
of Oakland, City of San Jose, County of Los Angeles, City of Long
Beach, City of San Diego, and City of Chula Vista, California. The
cases were collectively litigated for over five years and were
mediated and resolved through JAMS Mediator Judge (Ret.) Jay
Gandhi.
The proposed class action must be approved by Judge Olguin prior to
providing payments to the governmental entity class members. The
proposed class action will provide all class members with a
monetary benefit and will additionally provide funds for those
governmental entities that have incurred or will incur significant
expenses to protect and remediate America's waterways.
The City of Baltimore is represented by Acting City Solicitor Dana
P. Moore and Director of Affirmative Litigation Suzanne Sangree.
Baltimore County is represented by County Attorney James R.
Benjamin, Jr. and Deputy County Attorney Gregory E. Gaskins. The
City of Baltimore and Baltimore County are also represented by
outside counsel Martin Wolf, Richard Gordon and Ben Carney of
Gordon, Wolf & Carney, as well as Kyle McGee of Grant & Eisenhofer,
and John Fiske of Baron & Budd, P.C., one of the proposed Lead
Class Counsel. [GN]
MONSANTO CO: Long Beach, et al. Seek Approval of $550-Mil. Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CITY OF LONG BEACH, a
municipal corporation; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a political
subdivision; CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation; CITY OF
SAN DIEGO, a municipal corporation; CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipal
corporation; CITY OF OAKLAND, a municipal corporation; CITY OF
BERKELEY, a municipal corporation; CITY OF SPOKANE, a municipal
corporation; CITY OF TACOMA, a municipal corporation; CITY OF
PORTLAND, a municipal corporation; PORT OF PORTLAND, a port
district of the State of Oregon; BALTIMORE COUNTY, a political
subdivision; MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE; all individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MONSANTO COMPANY;
SOLUTIA INC., and PHARMACIA LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, Case No.
2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order:
1. certifying a Settlement Class;
2. preliminary approving class action settlement;
3. approving notice plan;
4. appointing class action settlement administrator; and
5. appointing class counsel.
Brandon Richardson, writing for Long Beach Business Journal,
reports that 13 government entities, including the city of Long
Beach, have filed a motion to approve a $550 million class action
settlement with Monsanto Company, Parmacia, LLC, and Solutia, Inc.,
which would resolve five years of litigation in a water
contamination case.
“This settlement is a groundbreaking effort to protect and
restore the city’s water resources,” Long Beach City Attorney
Charles Parkin said in a statement.
Since March 2015, lawsuits have been filed by over a dozen entities
seeking cost recovery for stormwater and environmental
contamination caused by polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCB, which
St. Louis-based Monsanto manufactured between the 1930s and 1977.
The highly carcinogenic chemical was banned in the US by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
The class plaintiffs named in the nationwide resolution include the
cities of Long Beach, Tacoma, Portland, Berkeley, Oakland, San
Jose, Spokane, San Diego, Chula Vista and Baltimore, as well as the
Port of Portland, Los Angeles County, and Baltimore County. The
proposed class includes over 2,500 governmental entities.
“This national resolution will provide Long Beach [...] with
funds for monitoring, mitigation and remediation efforts to manage
PCBs in stormwater, stormwater systems, sediments and water
bodies,” Parkin said.
Long Beach is a coastal city and port in Southern California. Los
Angeles County, officially the County of Los Angeles, in the Los
Angeles metropolitan area of the U.S. state of California, is the
most populous county in the United States. Chula Vista is the
second largest city in the San Diego metropolitan area, the seventh
largest city in Southern California.
The Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural
biotechnology corporation founded in 1901. Bayer purchased
Monsanto in 2018. [CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott Summy, Esq.
Carla Burke Pickrel, Esq.
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Ave, No. 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 521-3605
E-mail: SSummy@baronbudd.com
cburkepickrel@baronbudd.com
Fiske@baronbudd.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Causes Cancer, Diaz et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------
DIONICIO O. DIAZ; and OGALIS R. DIAZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
Defendant, Case 1:20-cv-04757 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2020) is an
action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant’s negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup,
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Roundup and glyphosate
is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.
The Defendant's failure to adequately warn the Plaintiff resulted
in (1) the Plaintiff using and being exposed to glyphosate instead
of using another acceptable and safe method of controlling unwanted
weeds and pests; and (2) scientists and physicians failing to warn
and instruct consumers about the risk of cancer, including mantle
cell lymphoma (NHL), and other injuries associated with Roundup.
Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was
formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to
Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in
2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018,
Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul D. Rheingold, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PAUL D. RHEINGOLD PC
5 Manursing Way
Rye, NY 01580
Telephone: (914) 967-2215
MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Product Causes Cancer, Roden Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
THE ESTATE OF PETER RODEN, by Executor, NATHAN RODEN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case 3:20-cv-00857 (D. Conn., June 22,
2020) seeks to recover damages for the injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff's decedent as the direct and proximate result of the
wrongful conduct and negligence of the Defendant in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distributing, labeling, and
selling of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient
glyphosate.
Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Roundup or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. As a direct
and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff's
decedent was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and succumbed to
the disease.
Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was
formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to
Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in
2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018,
Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laura Ann Raymond, Esq.
THE REARDON LAW FIRM, P.C.
160 Hempstead St
New London, CT 06320
Telephone: (860) 442-0444
Facsimile: (860) 444-6445
E-mail: lraymond@reardonlaw.com
MOOREGROUP CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in Porter Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint has been filed in the case captioned JOSHUA
PORTER et al, Plaintiff, v. MOOREGROUP CORPORATION; JOHN MOORE;
GARY MOORE; MARTIN MOORE, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-07405
(KAM)(VMS), (E.D. N.Y.).
On December 20, 2017, plaintiffs Joshua Porter and Sharkey Simmons
commenced the action against defendants MooreGroup Corporation;
Martin Moore; John Moore; and Gary Moore, alleging various wage and
hour violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 201 et seq., New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), Sec. 650 et seq.,
and NYLL Sec. 190 et seq. Plaintiffs brought their FLSA claims as
a collective action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated employees of the defendants and their NYLL claims as a
class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on
behalf of themselves and all fire guards, welders, and other
construction employees working for the defendants in New York.
In a Memorandum and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yx2ylno6 from Leagle.com, the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York granted Plaintiffs'
Motion to Amend, including Plaintiffs' requests: (i) to add Rivera
as a named plaintiff, (ii) to add Baldwin as an additional
defendant, and (iii) to add retaliation claims with respect to
Rivera and Simmons.
Joshua Porter, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated & Sharkey Simmons, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Taylor B.
Graham graham@peltonlaw.com, Pelton Graham LLC & Brent E. Pelton -
pelton@peltonlaw.com - Pelton Graham LLC.
Mooregroup Corporation, Jointly and Severally, John Moore, Jointly
and Severally, Gary Moore, Jointly and Severally & Martin Moore,
Jointly and Severally, Defendants, represented by Michael
Taubenfeld , Fisher Taubenfeld LLP, 225 Broadway, Ste 1700, New
York, New York 10007, Elbert Nasis - enasis@forchellilaw.com -
Forchelli Deegan Terrana, LLP, Lisa M. Casa-lcasa@forchellilaw.com
- Forchelli Curto Deegan Schwartz Mineo & Terrana, LLP & Michael
Andrew Berger - mberger@forchellilaw.com - Forchelli Deegan Terrana
LLP.
MT. WASHINGTON PIZZERIA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Noble Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Noble, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Mt. Washington Pizzeria, Inc. d/b/a LaRosa's; Nicholas Fucito; Doe
Corporation 1-10; John Doe 1-10, Case No. 1:20-cv-00489-MWM (S.D.
Ohio, June 23, 2020), seeks relief based on the Defendants' failure
to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with
minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio
Constitution, and the Ohio Minimum Wage Fairness Act.
The Plaintiff and the similarly situated persons are current and
former delivery drivers at the Defendants' LaRosa's stores.
Mt. Washington Pizzeria operates the Defendants' LaRosa's
stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Louise M. Roselle, Esq.
Nathan B. Spencer, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 604-8759
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
pkrzeski@billerkimble.com
lroselle@billerkimble.com
nspencer@billerkimble.com
NASH EXPRESS: Rodriguez Sues Over Bounced Check & Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOEL RODRIGUEZ, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. NASH EXPRESS CARGO, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, and KOMESHWAR RAMPERSAUD, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-22687-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 29, 2020) alleges that
three checks that were paid by Defendant to Plaintiff for the
72-hour work he performed during the last three weeks of employment
with Defendant were returned, one was due to insufficient funds and
the other two due to a stop payment being placed. As a result,
Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at one and
one-half times his regular rate and/or minimum wages when Plaintiff
worked more than 40 hours per week in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt driver from on
or about January 10, 2018 through on or about June 8, 2020.
Komeshwar Rampersaud had operational control over the Defendant
corporation and is directly involved in decisions affecting
employee compensation and hours worked by employees.
Nash Express Cargo, LLC is a licensed and bonded freight shipping
and trucking company running freight hauling business from Miramar,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
2847 Hollywood Blvd.
Hollywood, FL 33020
Tel: (954) 361-8383
Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com
- and –
Isaac Mamane, Esq.
MAMANE LAW LLC
10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 650
Miami, FL 33161
Tel: (305) 773-6661
Email: mamane@gmail.com
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 11 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed appeals from the District Court's rulings in
the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).
The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on
November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.
The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in
the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant,
the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of
New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass
certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to
obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.
The appellate cases brought before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit are:
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4302;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4303;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4305;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4306;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4307;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4315;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4149;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4150;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4152;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4156; and
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4181.
Plaintiffs-Appellees Paula Murray, Mary Sampson, Ernest Brens, Rudy
Almanzar, Leora Keith, Francisco Medina, Pearl Lewis, Nereida
Valdes, Norma Lopez, Angela Diaz and Barbara Brutus are represented
by:
Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 806-1245
E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com
Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:
James Edward Johnson, Esq.
CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-2500
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 22 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed appeals from the District Court's rulings in
the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).
The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on
November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.
The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in
the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant,
the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of
New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass
certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to
obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.
The appellate cases brought before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit are:
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4095;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4097;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4098;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4106;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4109;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4112;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4113;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4115;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4116;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4117;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4120;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4121;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4124;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4125;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4126;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4127;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4129;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4131;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4132;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4133;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4134; and
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4137.
Plaintiffs-Appellees Lavoizier Saint Jean, Belkis Mejia, Veronica
Davis, Rose Amaobi, Julio Delancer, Don Marbury, Velkis Estrella,
Tracey Phillips, Gloria Jackson, Carrie Stevens, Susana Jimenez,
Rosa Marcano, Maria Merino, Myriam Caicedo, Manuela Imbert, Marie
Bernard-Campbell, Joan Hanerfeld, Nayda Solivan, Patricia Gibson,
Ana Maria Vazquez, Olga Hooker and Evelyn Cole are represented by:
Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 806-1245
E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com
Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:
James Edward Johnson, Esq.
CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-2500
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 3 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed appeals from the District Court's rulings in
the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).
The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on
November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.
The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in
the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant,
the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of
New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass
certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to
obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.
The appellate cases brought before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit are:
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4183;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4185; and
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4195.
Plaintiffs-Appellees Gianlida Abreu, Rafael Valenzuela and Mercedes
Casado are represented by:
Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 806-1245
E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com
Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:
Claude S. Platton, Esq.
ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-2500
E-mail: cplatton@law.nyc.gov
NEW YORK: Farmingdale Gym Owner Plans to File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Fanni Frankl, writing for Long Island Press, reports that a
Farmingdale gym owner plans to file what he expects will be a
class-action lawsuit to force New York State to allow gyms
statewide to reopen from the coronavirus shutdown.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo bumped gyms from phase four--which Long Island is
expected to enter on July 8--after gyms were deemed unsafe to
reopen due to fears that the air conditioning systems might
recirculate the virus and infect others. But SC Fit owner Charles
Cassara, who is filing the lawsuit, argues he is being denied the
same rights of other business owners that have been allowed to
reopen. He argues that social distancing measures can also be
applied to gyms just like retailers and restaurants.
"I am very happy that the economy is opening back up and am not
upset, but I want my opportunity to open up my business," Cassara
said. "You cannot close an entire industry with no data."
The White House has said gyms can reopen "if they adhere to strict
physical distancing and sanitation protocols" and preparedness
measures that "state and local officials may need to tailor the
application of these criteria to local circumstances." Texas,
Florida, Arizona, and Georgia have reopened gyms with added
precautions. All but Georgia are now considered coronavirus
hot-spot states.
"Logic suggests if you see a problem in other states that you
explore it before you move forward in your state, and that's what
we're doing with gyms, theaters, and malls," the governor told
reporters on June 26. "Our Department of Health is trying to
determine if there is any filtration system for an air conditioning
system that can successfully remove the virus from air
circulation."
Cassara and his Syosset-based attorney, James Mermigis, are
currently recruiting up to 2,000 gym owners statewide from Montauk
to Buffalo to join the lawsuit.
"We plan to file this case under the equal protection and due
process clauses of the 14th amendment of the constitution,"
Mermigis said. "We intend to file civil action and file an
injunction for an emergency hearing from the judge."
Nassau County Executive Laura Curran backed Cuomo's assertion that
opening gyms may be too risky.
"There are many other options for working out other than gyms," she
said, adding that the "benefits of exercise at a gym do not
outweigh the risks of the virus." [GN]
NY EDUC DEPT: Court Certifies Class in J.S.M. "Due Process" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as J.S.M., by her parent, E.M.,
et al. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; RICHARD A. CARRANZA, as
Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education; NEW YORK
STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT; and SHANNON TAHOE, as New York State
Interim Commissioner of Education, Case No. 20-cv-705-EK-RLM
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Eric R. Komitee entered an order:
1. certifying a class consisting of:
"individuals who file or have filed due process
complaints, and the children on whose behalf due process
complaints are filed, when the due process complaints are
unresolved and the decisions on such complaints have not
been timely provided under applicable federal and New York
State law";
2. appointing the New York Legal Assistance Group and
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP as class counsel pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g); and
3. directing appropriate notice to the class pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2).
The proposed class meets the requirements for class certification
under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge
Komitee says.
The Plaintiffs alleges that thousands of New York City children
with disabilities or children suspected of being children with
disabilities are being denied the free appropriate public education
to which they are entitled under federal and state law due to
pervasive delays in receiving hearings and decisions on "impartial
due process" complaints challenging the adequacy and
appropriateness of the special education services offered to them.
The Plaintiffs include E.M., individually and on behalf of J.S.M.;
B.M., by his parents, M.C. and L.M.; M.C. and L.M., individually
and on behalf of B.M.; C.G., by his parent, L.G.; L.G.,
individually and on behalf of C.G.; P.W., by his parents, T.F. and
P.R.W.; T.F. and P.R.W., individually and on behalf of P.W.; Q.T.,
by his parents, W.J.T. and W.H.T.; W.J.T. and W.H.T., individually
and on behalf of Q.T.; A.N., by her parent, T.N.; T.N.,
individually and on behalf of A.N.; A.S., by his parent, T.T.;
T.T., individually and on behalf of A.S.; K.M.E., by her parent,
E.N.; E.N., individually and on behalf of K.M.E.; S.F., by her
parent, A.F.; A.F., individually and on behalf of S.F.; S.S., by
her parent, D.C.; D.C., individually and on behalf of S.S.; and
W.W., by her parent, S.J.; S.J., individually and on behalf of
W.W.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Danielle F. Tarantolo, Esq.
Jane Greengold Stevens, Esq
Laura Davis, Esq.
Sandra Robinson, Esq
Phyllis Brochstein, Esq
NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
7 Hanover Square
New York, NY 10004-4027
Telephone: (212) 613-6551
E-mail: dtarantolo@nylag.org
- and -
William B. Monahan, Esq.
Jessica M. Klein, Esq.
Michael L. Akavan, Esq.
Catherine E. Akenhead, Esq.
Tasha N. Thompson, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004-2498
Telephone: (212) 558-4000
E-mail: kleinj@sullcrom.com
akavanm@sullcrom.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Elyce Matthews, Esq.
Alissa Wright, Esq.
Thomas Crane, Esq.
Janice Birnbaum, Esq.
CORPORATION COUNSEL FOR THE
CITY OF NEW YORK
28 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 416-8910
E-mail: elyce.matthews@ag.ny.gov
tcrane@law.nyc.gov
jbirnbau@law.nyc.gov
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Anadarko Acquisition Related Suits Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Occidental Petroleum Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the company
continues to defend putative class action suits related to its
acquisition of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation.
On May 26, 2020, a putative securities class action captioned City
of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System, et al. v.
Occidental Petroleum Corporation, et al., No. 651994/2020 ("City of
Sterling"), was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York.
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), based on
alleged misstatements in the Securities Act filings, including the
registration statement of which this prospectus supplement forms a
part, made in connection with the Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
(Anadarko) Acquisition and Occidental's related issuance of common
stock and debt securities offerings that took place in 2019.
The lawsuit was filed against Occidental, certain current and
former officers and directors and certain underwriters of the debt
securities offerings, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount,
plus attorneys' fees and expenses.
Since the filing of the City of Sterling complaint, two additional
putative class actions have been filed in the same court (together
with City of Sterling, the "State Cases").
Occidental Petroleum said, "We and our officers and directors
intend to defend ourselves vigorously in all respects in regard to
the State Cases, which the parties are seeking to consolidate.
Under certain circumstances, we may be obligated to indemnify some
or all of the defendants in the State Cases, which include certain
of the underwriters. Due to the uncertain nature of litigation, we
are currently unable to reasonably estimate our costs or any
potential liability related to the State Cases."
Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, Occidental Petroleum
Corporation is engaged in the oil and gas exploration and
production.
OCWEN LOAN: Franklin Class Cert. Bid Denied, Case Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GREGORY FRANKLIN v. OCWEN
LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-03333-SI (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Susan Illston denied, without prejudice to refiling, the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and Defendant's motion
for judgment on the pleadings.
The Court says, "The case is stayed pending the California Supreme
Court's decision in Smith. v. LoanMe, Inc., Case No.
2020-WL-1608928. The Defendant shall file a status report on
September 18, 2020, and every 90 days thereafter, on the status of
the state court proceedings. The Defendant shall file a notice to
the Court within seven days of the California Supreme Court's
resolution of Smith. After the seven-day period, the stay will be
lifted and proceedings will resume in this Court."
The Plaintiff brought suit against Ocwen Loan for the alleged
violation of California Penal Code section 632.7. This case
involves "numerous phone calls" that the Defendant, which was
servicing the plaintiff's home mortgage, placed to the plaintiff
between 2011 and 2015.[CC]
PACIFIC FERTILITY: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: PACIFIC FERTILITY CENTER
LITIGATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-01586-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of:
"all individuals, and their reproductive partners, whose
eggs or embryos were in Tank 4 at Pacific Fertility Center
in San Francisco, California on March 4, 2018"; and
2. dismissing as moot Defendant Chart Industries, Inc.'s
motion to exclude the Plaintiffs' biostatistician
expert Richard Jewell and a portion of the opinion of
the Plaintiffs' embryologist expert Christine Allen.
The Court rules that, given the privacy implications of the claims,
many absent class members would prefer to wait until the first
trial to decide whether to subject themselves to the invasion of
their privacy that coming forward would require. The Court also
holds that after a first trial these absent class members may be
able to resolve their claims against Chart without ever having to
sit for deposition. But that same result can be obtained even if
the first trial is a bellwether trial rather than a trial of
certified issues.
Nonetheless, given the lack of judicial economy and efficiency
gained by certifying the general causation issues, as well as the
serious question as to whether issue class certification is a
superior procedure, the Court in its discretion denies the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
On March 4, 2018, Pacific Fertility laboratory director Dr. Joseph
Conaghan observed liquid on the floor directly beneath one of the
clinic's storage tanks: Tank 4. After removing the lid of the tank,
the laboratory staff observed that the metal around the neck of
tank was "broken and twisted and distorted." Staff also discovered
that the "liquid nitrogen level in the tank was very low." Staff
members added liquid nitrogen to Tank 4 and moved the eggs and
embryos inside it to a back-up tank.
Pacific Fertility provides fertility services including egg and
embryo cryopreservation.[CC]
PARAGON COIN: Court Certifies Federal Claims Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ASTLEY DAVY, et al. v.
PARAGON COIN, INC., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00671-JSW (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order:
1. granting, in part, and denying, in part, the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and certifying a class on
the federal claims; and
2. directing the Plaintiffs to submit a notice plan to the
Court by no later than July 22, 2020.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs clarified they are seeking to
certify a nationwide class on their state law claims and have
responded to the Court's request to address whether they had met
their burden to show a nationwide class would be proper. The Court
concludes they have not met that burden. Furthermore, the
Plaintiffs did not ask the Court to certify a California subclass
as alternative relief. Accordingly, the Court denies in part, the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and denies the motion to
certify the state law claims. However, based on a filing submitted
by the Defendants early on in this litigation, there may be at
least 8,000 class members, and that number is reinforced by
information contained in the SEC Paragon Order. The Court concludes
the Plaintiffs have met their burden to show the class is
sufficiently numerous on the federal claims.
The suit arose from Plaintiffs' purchase of "PRG Tokens" issued as
part of Paragon's initial coin offering. The Plaintiffs contend the
PRG Tokens are unregistered securities in violatio of the
Securities Act of 1993.[CC]
PAUL F. VANEK: Polch Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE POLCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAUL F. VANEK, JR., M.D., INC. d/b/a Mentor
Plastic Surgery & MedSpa, and PAUL F. VANEK JR., Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01436 (N.D. Ohio, June 29, 2020) brings this complaint
against Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Act.
Plaintiff began working for Defendants in or around November 2018
through a staffing agency, Empro Job Network, Inc.
Plaintiff claims that she was properly paid overtime pursuant to
the FLSA while she was working for Defendants through Empro. But,
when she was hired by Defendants on a permanent basis from Empro in
or around January 2019, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff overtime
for the work she performed in excess of 40 hours per week.
Allegedly, Defendants unlawfully took Plaintiff's overtime hours
and banked them for use as Paid Time Off, comp time, and/or
vacation time.
Paul F. Vanek, Jr. is the owner and principal of Mentor Plastic
Surgery, controlled its employment and day to day operations,
including its compensation policies and practices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris P. Wido, Esq.
THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
2500 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 200
Beachwood, OH 44122
Tel: (216) 291-4744
Fax: (216) 291-5744
Email: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com
PEPPERIDGE FARM: Faces Paugstat Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL PAUGSTAT 6027 Ricky Dr. Fairfield, OH 45014 On behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PEPPERIDGE
FARM, INCORPORATED c/o Ohio Statutory Agent CT Corporation System
4400 Easton Commons Way, Suite 125 Columbus, OH 43219 Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00508-MRB (S.D. Ohio, July 1, 2020) alleges that
Defendant knowingly, willfully, and deliberately fails to
compensate Plaintiff and all others similarly situated overtime
compensation of at least one and one-half their regular rates for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek as Defendant
classifies its Sales Development Associates as so-called
"independent contractors" in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act as well as the Constitution and statutes of the State of Ohio.
Defendant Pepperidge Farm failed to make, keep and preserve
complete and accurate records of Plaintiff and other members of the
FLSA Collective and Ohio Class sufficient to determine their lawful
wages, actual hours worked, and other conditions of employment as
required by the FLSA and Ohio law. Defendant failed to keep
accurate records of hours worked. Thus, Defendant did not record or
pay all hours worked in violation of the FLSA and Ohio law.
Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant from approximately March
2007 to the present as a Sales Development Associate.
Pepperidge Farm manufactures, markets, and distributes bakery and
biscuit products, including cookies and crackers, across the United
States, including in Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
The Caxton Building 812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Facsimile: (216) 350-6313
E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
PFIZER INC: Faces Hays Suit in Colorado Alleging Personal Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pfizer Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Shawn Carstensen Hays, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pfizer Inc., Meridian
Medical Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01948 (D. Colo., July
2, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury.
Pfizer Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical corporation
headquartered in New York City. Pfizer is one of the world's
largest pharmaceutical companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel A. Lipman, Esq.
PARKER LIPMAN, LLP
3200 Cherry Creek South Drive, Suite 520
Denver, CO 80209
Phone: (720) 638-9424
Fax: (720) 638-9423
Email: dan@parkerlipman.com
PHH MORTGAGE: Torres Balks at Bankruptcy Plan Objections, Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE CARMEN TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION; OCWEN
LOAN SERVICING, LLC; ROBERTSON, ANSCHUTZ, & SCHNEID, P.L.;
ROBERTSON, ANSCHUTZ, SCHNEID & CRANE LLC; RAS CRANE, LLC; RAS
BORISKIN, LLC; and RAS CITRON, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-04370 (N.D. Cal., June 30, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of contract and violation of California
Business and Professions Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to carry out
fraudulent business practices, which include: (1) filing and
prosecuting non-meritorious Objections to Confirmation to plans of
reorganization in cases commenced under Chapter 13 of the United
States Bankruptcy Code to churn fees and then add those attorney's
fee to Class Members' loan balance; (2) failing to file notices
required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002.1(c) in cases
commenced under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code for post-petition
fees, expenses, and charges and then adding those amounts to Class
Members' loan balance; (3) failing to obtain a Certificate of
Registration from the State Bar California pursuant to the
California Professional Corporation Act to practice law as a law
corporation in the State of California and engaging in the
unauthorized practice of law; (4) authorizing and allowing
attorneys not licensed to practice law in California to file
pleadings in each District of California for the United States
Bankruptcy Court; (5) filing false and misleading pleadings in each
District of California for the United States Bankruptcy Court
regarding the corporate structure and employment of attorneys; (6)
sharing fees generated from the practice of law in California with
non-attorneys and entities owned and/or controlled by
non-attorneys; and (7) sharing fees generated from the practice of
law in California with other law firms with the informed written
consent of their clients.
The Plaintiff brings this cause of action to seek equitable and
statutory relief to stop the Defendants' misconduct and to seek
restitution of the amount the Defendants acquired through the
unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices.
PHH Mortgage Corporation is a provider of mortgage financing
solutions with its principal place of business located at 1
Mortgage Way, Mount Laurel, New Jersey.
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ocwen
Financial Corporation that offers consumer home, reverse mortgage,
and investment property loans, with its principal place of business
located at 1661 Worthington Avenue, Suite 100, West Palm Beach,
Florida.
Robertson, Anschutz, & Schneid, P.L. is a law firm with its
principal place of business was located at 6409 Congress Avenue,
Suite 100, Boca Raton, Florida.
Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid & Crane LLC is a law firm with its
principal place of business was located at 6409 Congress Avenue,
Suite 100, Boca Raton, Florida.
RAS Crane, LLC is a law firm with its principal place of business
located at 10700 Abbott's Bridge Road, Suite 170, Duluth, Georgia.
RAS Boriskin, LLC is a law firm with its principal place of
business was located at 900 Merchants Concourse LL-13, Westbury,
New York.
RAS Citron, LLC is a law firm with its principal place of business
was located at 130 Clinton Road, Suite 202, Fairfield, New Jersey.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel J. Callahan, Esq.
Edward Susolik. Esq.
Brett E. Bitzer, Esq.
CALLAHAN & BLAINE, APLC
3 Hutton Centre Drive, Ninth Floor
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Telephone: (714) 241-4444
Facsimile: (714) 241-4445
E-mail: bbitzer@callahan-law.com
- and –
Brent D. Meyer, Esq.
MEYER LAW GROUP LLP
268 Bush Street #3639
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 765-1588
Facsimile: (415) 762-5277
E-mail: brent@meyerllp.com
PLAYAGS INC: Chowdhury Sues over 17% Drop in Share
--------------------------------------------------
MANJAN CHOWDHURY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLAYAGS, INC.; DAVID LOPEZ; and
KIMO AKIONA, Defendants, Case 2:20-cv-01209 (D. Nev., June 25,
2020) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired PlayAGS securities between August
2, 2018 and August 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
On August 7, 2019, PlayAGS reported a net loss of $7.6 million for
second quarter 2019, which included a $3.5 million impairment to
goodwill and $1.3 million impairment to intangible assets of the
Company's iGaming reporting unit, due to extended regulatory
timelines which delayed revenues.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.99, or nearly 52%,
to close at $8.31 per share on August 8, 2019, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that PlayAGS was experiencing challenges in its
business in Oklahoma; (2) that, as a result, the Company's
recurring revenue would be negatively impacted; (3) that PlayAGS
was experiencing challenges in its Interactive business segment,
including delays in securing regulatory approvals and relevant
licenses; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, PlayAGS was
reasonably likely to record a goodwill impairment; and (5) that, as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
PlayAGS, Inc. manufactures and supplies electronic gaming products.
The Company focuses on providing slot and video bingo machines,
table games, and casino equipment for players and operators.
PlayAGS serves gaming market worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq.
MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD.
7915 West Sahara Ave., Suite 104
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Telephone: (702) 330-4505
Facsimile: (702) 825-0141
E-mail: andrew@mlolegal.com
PNC BANK: Class Limited to Loan Officers Employed Thru June 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TANSEER KAZI, et al. v. PNC
BANK, N.A., Case No. 3:18-cv-04810-JCS (N.D. Cal.,), the Hon. Judge
Joseph C. Spero entered an order:
1. granting PNC's motion to limit the class to mortgage loan
officers employed through June 30, 2019, because PNC
changed its compensation plan at that time and instituted
an arbitration agreement for MLOs hired after that date,
2. denying Plaintiff Scheid's motion to expand the claims
covered by the class definition to include failure to
compensate training sessions in addition to rest breaks.
The Court said, "The scope of class certification is modified to
include claims based on PNC's alleged failure to pay for rest
breaks from June 28, 2014 through June 29, 2019, and claims of
derivative of such a theory, with a class defined as all
individuals who were employed by PNC as mortgage loan officers
during that time."
The Court previously granted, in part, a motion to certify a class
of current or former MLOs represented by the Plaintiff Linda Scheid
asserting claims based on the purported failure of PNC Bank Ato
compensate rest breaks as required by California law.
PNC Bank offers saving and current account, investment and
financial services, online banking, mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans.[CC]
PRO ACTIVE SAFETY: Misclassifies HSE Specialists, Clayton Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR CLAYTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRO ACTIVE SAFETY SYSTEMS P.A.S.S. LLC d/b/a
H.S.E. SAFETY PARTNERS, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-00161 (W.D.
Tex., July 1, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought
against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an HSE Specialist from
approximately December 2018 until February 2020.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked 72 hours
each workweek. But, because Defendant allegedly misclassified
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members as exempt from the
overtime compensation requirements of the FLSA, Defendant failed to
pay them one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week.
Pro Active Safety Systems P.A.S.S. LLC d/b/a H.S.E. Safety Partners
employs and staffs certified safety professionals into large
industrial and commercial construction or maintenance jobs all
across the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: 713-352-1100
Fax: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: 713-877-8788
Fax: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
PROGRESSIVE SELECT: South Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as WILLIAM SOUTH, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE
SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-21760-WPD (S.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying this case as a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P.
23(a) and (b)(2) and (3) on behalf of the "Class" or
"Class Members" defined as:
"all individuals who: (a) on or after September 18, 2013;
(b) are or were covered by a Progressive Select Insurance
Company ("Progressive") Florida personal automobile
insurance policy; (c) made a claim under the Collision or
Comprehensive coverages of that policy for damage or loss
to a covered vehicle which Progressive accepted and
treated as a total loss claim; and (d) Progressive paid
the claim on a cash settlement basis with the actual cash
value derived from the Mitchell WorkCenter Total Loss
system. The class period will be from September 18,
2013, to the date of class certification.;
2. appointing the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel under
Rule 23(g); and
3. appointing himself as Class Representative.
The Plaintiff contends that Progressive uniformly did not pay
title/license and dealer fees to the Class, which violated Fla.
Stat. section 626.9743(5) and breached the Policy on its face and
as conformed to the Policy.
Mr. South is a Class Member, has suffered the same injury as the
other Class Members, and his claims rest on the same legal theories
for declaratory interpretation and breach of the Policy. He was
insured under Progressive's Policy and had a total loss claim
determined by Progressive using the Mitchell system, as did each
Class Member, and Progressive refused to pay him title/license and
dealer fees, just like all the other Class members.
Progressive operates as an insurance company. The Company offers
auto, trailers, motorcycles, boats, renters, condos, flood, life,
and health insurance services.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott R. Jeeves, Esq.
THE JEEVES LAW GROUP, P.A.
954 First Avenue North
St. Petersburg, FL 33705
Telephone: (727) 894-2929
E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com
khill@jeeveslawgroup.com
rmandel@jeevesmandellawgroup.com
- and -
Craig E. Rothburd, Esq.
CRAIG E. ROTHBURD, P.A.
E-mail: craig@rothburdpa.com
320 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: (813) 251-8800
- and -
Casim Adam Neff, Esq.
NEFF INSURANCE LAW, PLLC
P.O. Box 15063
St. Petersburg, FL 33733-5063
Telephone: (727) 342-0617
E-mail: cneff@neffinsurancelaw.com
- and -
Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 210
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 989-6333
E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com
mfistos@zpllp.com; ndiaz@zpllp.com
- and -
Alec H. Schultz, Esq.
Carly A. Kligler, Esq.
LEON COSGROVE, LLP
255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 740-1975
E-mail: aschultz@leoncosgrove.com
- and -
Stephen B. Murry, Jr., Esq.
MURRAY LAW FIRM
Suite 2150 Poydras Center
650 Poydras Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: 504 525-8100
Facsimile: 504 584-5249
E-mail: smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com
PROPER & WILD: Preston et al. Sue Over Tip Pooling and Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PAIGE PRESTON, STEPHANIE WALSH, RACHEL BESSER, NICOLE
HALE, ARIEL HOLTON and CAITLIN FERTIG, on behalf of themselves and
all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. PROPER & WILD, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, THE SANCTUM, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, SANCTUM COFFEE AND JUICE BAR, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, JAMIE SAVAGE, individually, and
CHELSIE SAVAGE, individually, Defendants, Case No.
6:20-cv-01137-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla., June 26, 2020) alleges that
Defendants maintained a tip pooling policy or practice, pursuant to
which some or all of the tips were pooled and divided among
employees who worked the shift during which the tips were
collected. Defendants divided and paid a portion of the pooled tips
among employees that do not serve customers, such as cooks and dish
washers. Defendants also divided and paid a portion of the pooled
tips to non-hourly supervisory personnel.
Further, Defendants did not pay overtime premiums to Plaintiffs
when they worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Rather, they
were paid a wage for only 40 hours and were offered paid time off
in lieu of overtime pay.
Plaintiffs each worked as servers and/or lead server at P&W/Sanctum
within the period commencing three years prior to the filing of
this action.
Proper & Wild, LLC, The Sanctum, LLC, and Sanctum Coffee and Juice
Bar, LLC own and operate restaurants/food service establishments in
Central Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jill S. Schwartz, Esq.
David H. Spalter, Esq.
Lauren R. Robertson, Esq.
JILL S. SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
655 W. Morse Blvd., Suite 212
Winter Park, FL 32789
Telephone: (407) 647-8911
Facsimile: (407) 628-4994
E-mail: jschwartz@schwartzlawfirm.net
dspalter@schwartzlawfirm.net
lrobertson@schwartzlawfirm.net
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Moreland Alleges Insurance Policy Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SOCORRO MORELAND, Individually, and on Behalf of the
Class; Plaintiff, vs. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
a New Jersey Corporation; PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-04336 (N.D. Cal., June
29, 2020) alleges that Prudential Insurance Company of America
refuses to comply with mandatory provisions of the California
Insurance Code as well as California common law regulating the
lapse and termination of life insurance policies.
According to the complaint, Prudential and other related entities
have systematically and purposely failed to provide certain classes
of policy owners, insureds, assignees and others, proper notices of
pending lapse or termination since January 1, 2013. Prudential has
failed to notify thousands of policy owners of their right to
designate someone to receive critical notices and information
regarding life insurance, despite being required to do so on an
annual basis.
As a result, Prudential has failed to properly administer policies,
evaluate the status of payments due under policies and pay claims
to beneficiary for policies improperly lapsed or terminated.
Indeed, thousands of policy owners and beneficiary have lost, and
continue to lose, the benefit, value and security of their life
insurance; have been, and continue to be, forced into unnecessary
reinstatements; and in many instances have lost all reasonable
access to any insurance at all. Ultimately, Defendants have robbed
thousands of their customers and beneficiary of the investment in
such policies, policy benefits as well as the security intended to
be provided from such insurance.
Plaintiff Socorro Moreland is an individual and the policy owner
and insured for the Subject Policy.
The Prudential Insurance Company of America and Pruco Life
Insurance Company are insurance services providers registered to do
business in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
- and -
Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
Georg M. Capielo, Esq.
Sarah Ball, Esq.
WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
8489 La Mesa Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
Telephone: (619) 234-9000
Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
gcapielo@einsurelaw.com
sball@einsurelaw.com
QUAPAW HOUSE: Schatz Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as AMANDA SCHATZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QUAPAW HOUSE,
INC.; and CASEY BRIGHT, Case No. 5:20-cv-05066-TLB (W.D. Ark.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a proposed Rule 23
Class Action and for all other relief to which she is entitled.
QHI is a hot springs-based substance-abuse rehabilitation and
behavioral health facility.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George M. Rozzell IV, Esq.
Kristin Pawlik, Esq.
MILLER, BUTLER, SCHNEIDER
PAWLIK, & ROZZELL PLLC
112 W. Center St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: 479 621 0006
E-mail: grozzell@arkattorneys.com
kpawlik@arkattorneys.com
QUEST NUTRITION: Jolly Sues in S.D. New York Over Fraud Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quest Nutrition, LLC.
The case is styled as Jenny Jolly, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Quest Nutrition, LLC, Case No.
7:20-cv-05125 (S.D.N.Y., July 5, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Quest Nutrition, LLC, produces and markets protein and health
products. The Company offers protein cereals, powders, chips,
cravings, and bar products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11024
Phone: (516) 303-0552
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com
QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barrett Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH BARRETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUOTEWIZARD.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case
1:20-cv-11209-LTS (D. Mass., June 23, 2020) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
QuoteWizard.com, LLC provides online insurance services. The
Company offers an insurance comparison platform for auto, home,
life, health, and renters insurances. QuoteWizard.com serves
customers in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (508) 221-1510
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
1 South Avenue, Suite 3
Natick, MA 01760
Telephone: (508) 655-1415
mccue@massattorneys.net
- and -
Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq.
CW LAW GROUP, P.C.
188 Oaks Road
Framingham, MA 01702
Telephone: (508) 309-4880
E-mail: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com
- and -
Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
99 High St., Suite 304
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 738-7080
E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
READING INTERNATIONAL: Brown & Wagner Class Suits Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Reading International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend class suits initiated by Taylor Brown and Peter M.
Wagner.
The Company is currently involved in two California employment
matters which include substantially overlapping wage and hour
claims: Taylor Brown, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated vs. Reading Cinemas (RC)
et al. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Kern, Case No. BCV-19-1000390 ("Brown v. RC," and the "Brown Class
Action Complaint" respectively) and Peter M. Wagner, Jr., an
individual, vs. Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. (CEI) et al.,
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego, Case NO. 37-2019-00030695-CU-WT-CTL ("Wagner v. CEI," and
the "Wagner Individual Complaint" respectively).
Brown v. RC was initially filed in December 2018, as an individual
action and refiled as a putative class action in February 2019, but
not served until June 24, 2019.
These lawsuits seek damages, and attorneys' fees, relating to
alleged violations of California labor laws relating to meal
periods, rest periods, reporting time pay, unpaid wages, timely pay
upon termination and wage statements violations.
Wagner v. CEI was filed as a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit
in June 2019.
The following month, in July 2019, a notice was served on the
company by separate counsel for Mr. Wagner under the California
Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (Cal. Labor Code Section 2698,
et seq) (the "Wagner PAGA Claim") purportedly asserting in a
representational capacity claims under the PAGA statute,
overlapping, in substantial part, the allegations set forth in the
Brown Class Action Complaint.
On March 6, 2020, Wagner filed a purported class action in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, again covering
basically the same allegations as set forth in the Brown Class
Action Complaint, and titled Peter M. Wagner, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated vs. Reading
International, Inc., Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. and Does 1
through 25, Case No. 37-2020-000127-CU-OE-CTL (the "Wagner Class
Action"). Neither plaintiff has specified the amount of damages
sought.
The Company is investigating and intends to vigorously defend the
allegations of the Brown Class Action Complaint, the Wagner
Individual Complaint, the Wagner PAGA Claim and the Wagner Class
Action Complaint.
Reading International said, "In addition, we have denied that a
PAGA representative action is appropriate. These matters are in
their early stages, and the putative class actions have not been
certified. As these cases are in early stages, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome of the litigation or the range of
potential loss, if any; however, the Company believes that its
potential liability with respect to such matters is not material to
its overall financial position, results of operations and cash
flows. Accordingly, the Company has not established a reserve for
loss in connection with these matters."
Reading International, Inc. (RDI), is focused on the development,
ownership, and operation of entertainment and real estate assets in
the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Currently, RDI
operates through two segments: cinema exhibition and real estate.
The cinema exhibition segment operates multiplex cinemas. RDI's
real estate segment includes real estate development and the rental
of retail, commercial and live theater assets. The Company is based
in Culver City, California.
RESTORBIO INC: Adicet Merger Deal Lacks Info, Plumley Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK PLUMLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. RESTORBIO, INC., JEFFREY A. CHODAKEWITZ,
PAUL FONTEYNE, MICHAEL GRISSINGER, CHEN SCHOR, JONATHAN
SILVERSTEIN, DAVID STEINBERG, LYNNE SULLIVAN, ADICET BIO, INC., and
PROJECT OASIS MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00858-UNA (D. Del., June 26, 2020) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other public
stockholders of resTORbio, alleging that Defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration
Statement of the Company's planned merger with Adicet Bio, Inc.
On April 28, 2020, resTORbio, Inc.'s Board of Directors caused
resTORbio to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Adicet
Bio, Inc. and Project Oasis Merger Sub, Inc.
The Merger Agreement provides for, among other things: (i) the
merger of Adicet with and into Merger Sub, with Adicet surviving as
a wholly-owned subsidiary of resTORbio; and (ii) the conversion of
each share of Adicet capital stock into 0.8559 shares of resTORbio
common stock. Upon the closing of the Proposed Transaction,
stockholders of Adicet are expected to own approximately 75% of the
outstanding common stock of resTORbio, while shareholders of
resTORbio are expected to own approximately 25%.
On June 23, 2020, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission, which recommends that the Company's stockholders vote
to approve, among other things, the issuance of stock in connection
with the Proposed Transaction.
According to the complaint, the Registration Statement omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading.
First, the Registration Statement omits the Company's and Adicet's
financial projections, including the "financial projections
provided to [JMP Securities LLC] by resTORbio relating to resTORbio
and Adicet." Second, the Registration Statement omits material
information regarding JPM's engagement. Third, the Registration
Statement omits material information regarding the process leading
up to the execution of the Merger Agreement.
Because of the false and misleading statements in the Registration
Statement, plaintiff and the Class are threatened with irreparable
harm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
E-mail: rm@maniskas.com
RITE AID: Infant Meds Has Active Compound, Ostermeier-McLucas Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
GINA OSTERMEIER-MCLUCAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02915-ARR-CLP (E.D.N.Y., July 1, 2020) alleges
that Defendant misleads customers including the Plaintiff with its
Over The Counter ("OTC") medications, the Infants' Fever Reducer &
Pain Reliever and Children's Fever Reducer & Pain Reliever, that
contain acetaminophen, an active ingredient in the Products, which
can be dangerous, and perhaps even fatal, if taken in large doses.
According to the complaint, Defendant's advertisements, marketing
representations, and placement of the Products in its
brick-and-mortar stores are misleading, untrue, and likely to
deceive reasonable consumers. Defendant purposely packages Infants'
Products with distinctive and colored lettering of the word
"infants" on the product's front-label, while packaging Children's
Products with distinctive and colored lettering of the word
"Children's" on the product's front-label. Accordingly, Defendant
distributes, markets, and sells the Products in a manner that
deceives reasonable consumers into thinking that infants cannot
safely take Children's Products.
Furthermore, despite the fact that the Products contain the same
exact amount of acetaminophen in the same dosage amounts, Defendant
markets and sells Infants' Products to consumers, such as
Plaintiff, at a substantially higher price than Children's
Products. In stores, the Infants' Products cost approximately three
times as much per ounce than Children's Products for the same
amount of medicine.
Rite Aid Corp. is an American drugstore chain with its principal
place of business in Wilmington, Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
300 S. Biscayne Blvd, #2704
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 610-5523
E-mail: Rachel@dapeer.com
- and -
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 389-0600
E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com
jbourne@pswlaw.com
SALLY WOLF GRINNELL: Toro Buying Cashiers Property for $525K
------------------------------------------------------------
Sally Wolf Grinnell asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of Texas to authorize the sale of real property described
as Lot E10 High Mountain Drive, Cashiers, Jackson County, North
Carolina to Mark C. Toro or his assigns for $525,000.
Objections, if any, must be filed within 21 days from the date of
service.
The Debtor has determined that the best and most efficient exit
strategy for their successful emergence from Chapter 11 will likely
be through a sale of substantially some of her Real Property to a
third party. She has moved expeditiously to initiate and implement
a process to identify and communicate with parties who might be
interested in acquiring the Real Property and has simultaneously
filed an application to by employ Landmark Realty Group, LLC as her
real estate broker. Landmark has actively marketed the Real
Property and several parties have expressed interest in purchasing
the Real Property under 11 U.S.C. Section 363. The Debtor, with
the assistance of her broker, has determined that the Purchaser's
offer is the best proposal that she has received for the Real
Property.
By the Motion, the Debtor asks the entry of an order following the
conclusion of the Sale Hearing authorizing her to sell the Real
Property pursuant to the provisions of Exhibit A and to consummate
such other related and necessary transactions in connection
therewith to the Purchaser, with such Real Property to be
transferred and conveyed free and clear of all liens, claims,
interests and encumbrances.
As set forth in Exhibit A, the Debtor's sale of the Real Property
to the Purchaser or his assigns for a purchase price of $525,000
and on an "as is, where is basis." The sale of the Real Property
will be free and clear of any and all liens, claims, interests and
encumbrances.
Because of the Purchaser's desire to close the transaction within
five days after the entry of the order approving the sale, the
Debtor asks that the Court orders and directs that the order
approving the Motion will not be automatically stayed for 14 days.
In connection therewith, she asks the Court to authorize the title
company assisting in the consummation of the transaction can close
the sale immediately upon the entry of the order.
A copy of the Exhibit A is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yclao5g8 from PacerMonitor.com free of
charge.
Sally Wolf Grinnell sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. W.D. Tex.
Case No. 20-50872) on May 4, 2020. The Debtor tapped Eric Terry,
Esq., as counsel.
SAN DIEGO: Guardian Ad Litem Petition Denied in J.F. Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned J.F., a minor, individually and on behalf of
a proposed class, Plaintiff, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-2495-CAB-LL. (S.D. Cal.), the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied
without prejudice the petition by Alexandra Feilis and Aron Feiles
to be appointed as guardian ad litem for minor plaintiff J.F.
A guardian ad litem is a guardian, usually a lawyer, appointed by
the court to appear in a lawsuit on behalf of an incompetent or
minor party.
The sole grounds stated in the petition for Petitioners'
appointment are that they are J.F.'s parents and are responsible
adults, and that J.F. resides with them. Yet, the petition also
states that J.F. does not have a general guardian. If J.F. resides
with Petitioners, who are his parents, and they are not his general
guardians, further information is needed about J.F.'s living
arrangements. If, on the other hand, Petitioners have custody of
J.F. and care for J.F.'s needs, it is unclear how they are not
J.F.'s general guardians who could sue on J.F.'s behalf under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(1)(A).
A full-text copy of the District Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/uzae2lf from Leagle.com.
J.F., a minor, by and through Guardians Ad Litem Aron Feiles and
Alexandra Feiles, individually on and on behalf of the proposed
class, Plaintiff, represented by David Gerald Greco -
grecod@rmolawyers.com - RMO LLP.
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Kelly Alleges Illegal Repossession of Vehicle
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HUGHKELLY and CHRISTINE KELLY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 200601926 (Pa. Common Pleas Ct.,
Philadelphia Cty., June 30, 2020) is a consumer class action
brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated people who have had their vehicle repossessed in
Pennsylvania, due to Defendant's systematic failure to comply with
the strict statutory requirements relating to Post-Repossession
Consumer Disclosure Notices a/k/a "Notices of Repossession."
In approximately June 2017, Santander caused Hugh and Christine
Kelly's 2006 Chrysler Pacifica to be repossessed. Santander then
sent them a Notice of Repossession dated June 16, 2017. After
Santander sold the vehicle, it sent them a Post-Sale Notice dated
June 24, 2018.
Santander sent a substantially similar template Notice of
Repossession and Post-Sale Notice to all Representative Plaintiffs,
excluding only differing personally identifiable information and
unique information regarding the vehicle/loan data.
Santander, however, as a matter of policy and practice, did not pay
to any third party or otherwise incur any expense for storing the
repossessed vehicles of the Representative Plaintiffs as of the
date of the Notice of Repossession. Santander did not pay any fee,
cost, or expense associated with the storage of any of the
Representative Plaintiffs' repossessed vehicles.
According to the complaint, Defendant had a secretive arrangement
with its repossessors, repossession brokers, and/or auctions to
permit it/them to assess Redemption Fees, Storage Expenses, and/or
Personal Property Fees on Representative Plaintiffs and (putative)
class members in order for them to redeem their vehicle and/or
regain possession of any of their personal belongings left in the
repossessed vehicle.
Santander Consumer USA Inc. is a Dallas, Texas-headquartered sales
financing company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard Shenkan, Esq.
SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
P.O. Box 7255
New Castle, PA 16107
Telephone: (800) 601-0808
Facsimile: (888) 769-1774
E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Saidman Sues Over Work Harassment, Bias
----------------------------------------------------------------
SARA SAIDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-02193 (S.D. Tex., June 23, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated women workers at the Defendant's oil rigs, alleges that
the Defendant is engaged in an intentional, systemic, company-wide
pattern and/or practice of discrimination by, among other things:
(1) subjecting the Plaintiff and the Class members to differential
treatment and discriminating against them in the terms and
conditions of their employment; (2) minimizing, ignoring,
mishandling, or otherwise failing to adequately respond to
complaints and incidents of sex discrimination and hostile work
environment; (3) discouraging women from reporting sex
discrimination, sexual harassment, and/or a hostile work
environment; and (4) subjecting the Plaintiff and the Class to a
hostile work environment and other forms of discrimination.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a field engineer at
the Defendant's onshore oil rigs in Texas from January 2017 until
her termination.
Schlumberger's actions and failures to act have caused the
Plaintiff to suffer harm, including, without limitation, lost
earnings, lost benefits, and other severe financial losses, as well
as humiliation, embarrassment, emotional and physical distress, and
mental anguish.
Schlumberger Technology Corporation is an oilfield services
company, with principal place of business located in Houston,
Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd Slobin, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net
marbuckle@eeoc.net
- and –
Michael D. Palmer, Esq.
Nicole E. Wiitala, Esq.
Carolin E. Guentert, Esq.
SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 402-5650
Facsimile: (646) 402-5651
E-mail: mpalmer@sanfordheisler.com
nwiitala@sanfordheisler.com
cguentert@sanfordheisler.com
SCHREIBER/COHEN LLC: Court Rules on Class Certification in Marti
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled on
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
VANESSA MARTI, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SCHREIBER/COHEN, LLC, & DAVID ROWAND
HOWARD, Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:18-40164-TSH, (D. Mass.).
Midland Funding, LLC currently holds the rights to Plaintiff's
alleged debt. Schreiber/Cohen LLC, a law firm, represents Midland.
David Rowand Howard is Schreiber/Cohen's Chief Compliance
Attorney.
Vanessa Marti commenced the putative class action against
Schreiber/Cohen, LLC and David Rowand Howard alleging that they
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA") by sending
collections letters that fail to identify the current creditor on
her debt.
Plaintiff now moves to certify two classes comprised of
Massachusetts residents receiving similar communications.
Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff meets the Rule 23(a)
requirements for class certification. The Court therefore focuses
on the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority requirements.
Predominance
Plaintiff's legal claim rests on whether the format of Exhibit A,
which Schreiber/Cohen mailed to thousands of Massachusetts
residents, sufficiently identifies the creditor for each debtor
under the FDCPA and MCPA. This issue is common among all class
members and can be resolved in a single adjudication.
Plaintiff offers to amend her class definitions to include the
further requirement that each class member have an account that
originates with Comenity Bank.
Under this formulation, the FDCPA class would comprise (i) all
persons with addresses in Massachusetts (ii) to whom Defendants
sent or caused to be sent an initial communication in the form of
Exhibit A (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged obligation
originally due to Comenity Bank (iv) which, as shown by the nature
of the alleged obligation, Defendants' records, or the records of
the original creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes (v) during the period one year prior to the date
of the filing this action.
The MCPA class would include (i) all persons with addresses in
Massachusetts (ii) to whom Defendants sent or caused to be sent an
initial communication in the form of Exhibit A (iii) in an attempt
to collect an alleged obligation originally due to Comenity Bank
(iv) which, as shown by the nature of the alleged obligation,
Defendants' records, or the records of the original creditors, was
primarily for personal, family, or household purposes (v) during
the period four years prior to the date of the filing this action.
As Defendants conceded during oral argument, if the classes include
this additional requirement, common issues will predominate over
individual issues.
Thus, Plaintiff has met her burden of demonstrating compliance with
the predominance requirement with respect to the amended class
definitions, the Court finds.
Superiority
A class action is the superior method if it will achieve economies
of time, effort, and expense, and promote uniformity of decision as
to persons similarly situated, without sacrificing procedural
fairness or bringing about other undesirable results.
Here, a class action would promote uniformity of decision and save
time and expense. The main issues in this action, i.e., whether the
form of Exhibit A violates the FDCPA or MCPA and the effect of any
arbitration provision on the ability to raise this claim are common
to all members of the classes and should be answered in the same
way. The Court also finds it significant that an individual action
likely would not be economically feasible for each putative class
member. And while a class action does admittedly reduce the
possible recovery each debtor is entitled to receive, given the
amendments to the classes, the reduction will be much less drastic
than Defendants contend.
Thus, on balance, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met her burden
of demonstrating compliance with the superiority requirement with
respect to the amended class definitions.
In sum, for the reasons stated, the Court rules that Plaintiff's
motion for class certification is denied with respect to the
original class definitions but granted with respect to the amended
definitions. Specifically, the Court certifies:
-- an FDCPA class comprising "(i) all persons with addresses in
Massachusetts (ii) to whom Defendants sent or caused to be
sent an initial communication in the form of Exhibit A (iii)
in an attempt to collect an alleged obligation originally
due to Comenity Bank (iv) which, as shown by the nature of
the alleged obligation, Defendants' records, or the records
of the original creditors, was primarily for personal,
family, or household purposes (v) during the period one year
prior to the date of the filing this action" (Docket No. 50
at 9); and
-- an MCPA class comprising "(i) all persons with addresses in
Massachusetts (ii) to whom Defendants sent or caused to be
sent an initial communication in the form of Exhibit A (iii)
in an attempt to collect an alleged obligation originally
due to Comenity Bank (iv) which, as shown by the nature of
the alleged obligation, Defendants' records, or the records
of the original creditors, was primarily for personal,
family, or household purposes (v) during the period four
years prior to the date of the filing this action."
A full-text copy of the District Court's Order and Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/wmv5lla from Leagle.com.
Vanessa Marti, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Donald A. Yarbrough , Donald A.
Yarbrough, Esq., 2601 East Oakland Park Boulevard # 402 Fort
Lauderdale, FL 33306, pro hac vice, O. Randolph Bragg , Horwitz,
Horwitz & Associates, 25 E Washington St, #900, Chicago, Illinois
60602, pro hac vice & Christopher M. Brine , Brine Consumer Law,
100 Grove Street, Suite 210, Worcester, MA, 01605
Schreiber/Cohen, LLC & David Rowand Howard, Defendants, represented
by Andrew M. Schneiderman - aschneiderman@hinshawlaw.com - Hinshaw
& Culbertson LLP.
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Garay Suit Seeks to Certify Florida Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as PEDRO GARAY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. SELECT PORTFOLIO
SERVICING, INC., a Utah Corporation, Case No. 1:19-cv-23323-JLK
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
a. certifying these Florida Classes under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(3), and/or (b)(2);
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act Class:
"all individuals in the state of Florida who, since August
8, 2017, paid a processing fee to SPS for paying over the
phone or online in connection with any residential
mortgage loan owned or serviced by SPS.
Breach of Contract Class:
"all individuals in the state of Florida who, since August
8, 2014, paid a processing fee to SPS for paying over the
phone or online in connection with any residential
mortgage loan owned or serviced by SPS.
Unjust Enrichment Class:
"all individuals in the state of Florida who, since August
8, 2015, paid a processing fee to SPS for paying over the
phone or online in connection with any residential
mortgage loan owned or serviced by SPS.
Excluded from the Florida Classes are SPS and its
officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives,
and employees, any governmental entities, any judge,
justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter
and the members of their immediate families and judicial
staff. Because the Plaintiff, like the McWhorter
plaintiffs, asserts typical claims, is more than
adequate, and is ready, willing, and able to represent the
interests of these Florida Classes, certification is
warranted and the Court should grant Plaintiff's motion
for class certification.;
b. appointing the Plaintiff Pedro Garay as Class
Representative; and
c. appointing the law firms of The Moskowitz Law Firm PLLC
and Meland Russin & Budwick, P.A. as Co-Lead Class
Counsel.
The suit alleges that the Defendant violates the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act by charging its customers extra fees to
make their mortgage payments by phone or online.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
Barbara C. Lewis, Esq.
THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 740-1423
E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
howard@moskowitz-law.com
joseph@moskowitz-law.com
barbara@moskowitz-law.com
- and -
Michael S. Budwick, Esq.
Solomon B. Genet, Esq.
MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3200 Southeast Financial Center
200 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 358-6363
Facsimile: (305) 358-1221
E-mail: mbudwick@melandrussin.com
sgenet@melandrussin.com
SK ENERGY: Carpe Carma Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as CARPE CARMA, LLC, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated v. SK ENERGY AMERICAS,
INC.; SK TRADING INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD.; VITOL INC.; DAVID NIEMANN;
AND BRAD LUCAS, Case No. 2:20-cv-04312 (Filed May 12, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Jose) on June 23, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-04138-VKDto the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi.
The Plaintiff brought this class action complaint for damages,
restitution, and injunctive relief against the Defendants for
violations of the Sherman Act, the California's Cartwright Act,
California Business and Professions Code, and the California's
Unfair Competition Law.
Carpe Carma is a tow-truck company and has been engaged in the
business of towing in California.
SK Energy is located in Houston, Texas, and is part of the
petroleum & petroleum products wholesalers industry. Vitol Inc.
operates a trading firm. Vitol charters tankers and transports
crude oil along with other oil products, as well as offers pipe
gas, fill and operate terminals, and ship coal and sugar.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: azapala@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Cadio R. Zirpoli, Esq.
SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
706 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 217-6810
Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
E-mail: cadio@saveri.com
- and -
Cornelia Ho-Chin Dai, Esq.
Randall R. Renick, Esq.
HADSELL STORMER RENICK AND DAI LLP
128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204
Pasadena, CA 91103-3645
Telephone: (626) 585-9600
Facsimile: (626) 577-7079
E-mail: cdai@hadsellstormer.com
rrr@hadsellstormer.com
- and -
R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
SAVERI AND SAVERI INC
706 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 217-6810
Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
E-mail: rick@saveri.com
- and -
Joseph Winters Cotchett, Esq.
Kelly Christina Weil, Esq.
Reid Wilson Wayman Gaa, Esq.
Sarah Van Culin, Esq.
Adam John Zapala, Esq.
COTCHETT PITRE AND MCCARTHY LLP
San Francisco Airport Office Center
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
kweil@cpmlegal.com
rgaa@cpmlegal.com
azapala@cpmlegal.com
Intervenor Pacific Wine Distributors, Inc., is represented by:
Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
Samantha Stein, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
E-mail: clebsock@hausfeldllp.com
sstein@hausfeld.com
STATE COLLECTION: Gordon Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as SARAH GORDON, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. STATE COLLECTION
SERVICE INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00923-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff
filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to
prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
her 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.
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
STATE FARM: Clippinger Insurance Suit Removed to W.D. Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jessica Clippinger, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Co., Case No. CT-1844-20, was removed from the Tennessee Court of
Common Pleas for Allegheny County to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Tennessee a on July 2, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02482 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Contract Dispute.
State Farm is a large group of insurance companies throughout the
United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington,
Illinois.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher L. Vescovo, Esq.
LEWIS THOMASON
One Commerce Square
40 S. Main St., 29th Floor
Memphis, TN 38103
Phone: (901) 525-8721
Fax: (901) 525-6722
Email: cvescovo@lewisthomason.com
STEAM GENERATING: Miller Seeks to Certify Workers Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as PAM MILLER, Individually and
for Others Similarly Situated v. THE STEAM GENERATING TEAM, LLC,
and SYSTEM ONE HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 3:19-CV-0429-RJC-DCK
(W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. granting conditional certification of a "Straight Time
Workers Class" consisting of:
"all individuals who worked for, or on behalf of, The
Steam Generating Team, LLC who were, at any point in the
last 3 years, paid the same hourly rate for hours worked
including those over 40 hours in a work week (or "straight
time for overtime");
2. approving the proposed notice and consent forms;
3. authorizing Plaintiff to send notice to the Straight Time
Workers via mail, email, and text message, along with an
identical reminder notice;
4. authorizing Class Counsel to contact certain Straight Time
Workers by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice and
Consent forms are returned as undeliverable;
5. authorizing a 60-day notice period for the Straight Time
Workers to join the case; and
6. directing SGT to produce to Class Counsel the contact
information for each of the Straight Time Workers within
10 days of the Court's order in a usable electronic
format.
SGT provides various industrial replacement services to the nuclear
industry. The company provides nuclear construction services, fuel,
engineering, and heavy components for nuclear power plants.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com
tjones@mybackwages.com
- and -
Christopher Strianese, Esq.
Tamara Huckert, Esq.
3501 Monroe Rd.
Charlotte, NC 28205
Telephone: 704-966-2101
E-mail: chris@strilaw.com
tamara@strilaw.com
STERLING HOME: Class Settlement in Darby Suit Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Order granting Settlement Agreement Final Approval
in the case captioned BEVOLYN DARBY, Individually and on Behalf of
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. STERLING HOME
CARE, INC., MARK R. ZWERGER, MATTHEW G. ANDERSON, MICHELE THOMAS
EILEEN KILLEEN, and JOHN DOES #1-10, Defendants. No. 17 Civ. 5370
(RMB). (S.D.N.Y.)
This matter came on for hearing upon the Court's Order for
preliminarily approving the Settlement in this action.
The Court approves the Class Action Settlement Agreement, subject
to modifications discussed below, as fair, adequate, and reasonable
under applicable law, including Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
and the FLSA. The Settlement Administrator and the Settling
Parties, including the Class, the Named Plaintiff, and the
Defendants, are required to perform in accordance with the terms
set forth in the Settlement Agreement, as modified by this Order.
The Court is lowering Class Counsel's requested fee from 25.1% of
the Total Settlement Amount to 20%. Pursuant to the factors set
forth in Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d
Cir. 2000), the Court awards Class Counsel a fee of 20% of the
Total Settlement Amount, or $66,174.68, as fair and reasonable.
The Court cannot determine from the time sheets submitted the
amount of time Class Counsel may have devoted to work on the
Individual Settlement between Defendants and BEVOLYN DARBY, as
opposed to how much time he worked for the Class. Class Counsel is
only entitled to be reimbursed out of the common fund for work he
performed on behalf of the class, and this is another reason his
requested fee is being reduced.
Regarding the fifth Goldberger factor, the requested fee in
relation to the settlement, a fee of 20% of the Total Settlement
Amount of $330,873.41, or $66,174.68, is reasonable and consistent
with fees granted in similar wage-and-hour class actions.
The reasonableness of a $66,174.68 fee award out of a Total
Settlement Amount of $330,873.41 is not inconsistent with a
lodestar cross-check.
Regarding the sixth Goldberger factor, public policy
considerations, a fee award of 20% balances the overarching concern
for moderation of common fund attorney's fees awards with the
principle that the attorneys whose efforts created the fund are
entitled to a reasonable fee.
As a result of the Court's downward modification of the requested
fee award, there is some $16,973.77 of the Total Settlement Amount
which is unallocated. This amount is to be redistributed to Class
Members on a pro rata basis.
Class Counsel has requested $1,526.40 in expenses reflecting, in
large measure, the costs of filing and serving the complaint,
mailing the collective action notice, and filing papers with the
Clerk of the Court. The Court approves these expenses as they
appear to be reasonable out-of-pocket expenses.
Defendants have retained the firm of Hamlin & Burton to serve as
the Settlement Administrator. Pursuant to an agreement between
Defendants and the Settlement Administrator, Defendants are solely
responsible for paying the Settlement Administrator a fee of
$15,000. See Jan. 9, 2019 Settlement Administrator Agreement,
attached as Exhibit A. This $15,000 fee is in addition to the Total
Settlement Amount of $330,873.41 being paid by Defendants. See
Settlement Agreement at Paragraph 2(a).
The Court, as described above, also notes that there is an
Individual Settlement between Defendants and BEVOLYN DARBY,
pursuant to which Ms. Darby is to receive $21,229.95 in exchange
for a release of her non-class action New York Labor Law and
contract claims against the Defendants.
A full-text copy of the District Court’s January 2, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/qlcqepz from Leagle.com
Bevolyn Darby, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by William Coudert Rand
, Law Office of William Coudert Rand, 711 Third Avenue, Suite 1505,
New York, NY 10017
Sterling Home Care, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joan M.
Gilbride - jgilbride@kbrlaw.com - Kaufman, Borgeest & Ryan, LLP,
Cara Ann O'Sullivan - COSULLIVAN@KBRLAW.COM - Kaufman, Borgeest &
Ryan, LLP & Evelyn Eva Dormer , Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP,120
Broadway14th Floor, New York, NY10271
John Does, Defendant, represented by Joan M. Gilbride , Kaufman,
Borgeest & Ryan, LLP & Cara Ann O'Sullivan , Kaufman, Borgeest &
Ryan, LLP.
Mark R. Zwerger, Mathew G. Anderson, Michele Thomas & Eileen
Killeen, Defendants, represented by Cara Ann O'Sullivan , Kaufman,
Borgeest & Ryan, LLP.
STOP N GO CORP: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Castillo Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO TORRES CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STOP N GO CORP (D/B/A STOP N GO);
BHAKTI 61 INC (D/B/A STOP N GO); NEIL PATEL aka NIRMAL PATEL; and
PIRO PATEL, Defendants, Case 1:20-cv-02779 (E.D.N.Y., June 23,
2020) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiff Torres was employed as a sandwich maker, stock worker
and porter.
Stop N Go Corp (d/b/a Stop N Go) is a family owned full service
convenience store chain based in Madison, Wisc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
604 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
TARO PHARMA: Limited Discovery Underway in Speakes Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 19,
2020, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that limited
discovery is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Speakes v.
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.
The Company and two of its former officers are named as defendants
in a putative shareholder class action entitled Speakes v. Taro
Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., filed October 25, 2016, which is
now pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") against all
defendants and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants.
It generally alleges that the defendants made material
misstatements and omissions in connection with an alleged
conspiracy to fix drug prices.
On September 24, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's motion to dismiss.
The case is proceeding with limited discovery.
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., a science-based pharmaceutical
company, engages in the development, manufacture, and marketing of
pharmaceutical products in the United States, Canada, Israel, and
internationally. The company was founded in 1959 and is based in
Haifa Bay, Israel. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a
subsidiary of Alkaloida Chemical Company Zrt.
TASTE OF NORTH CHINA: Yang Seeks FLSA Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BAO YU YANG, on his own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TASTE OF NORTH
CHINA, LTD d/b/a Taste of North China; NEW TASTE OF NORTH CHINA INC
d/b/a Taste of North China; and NORTH CHINA RESTAURANT, INC d/b/a
Taste of North China; YONGBIN SUN, QIMIN CAI, JIANGUO ZHAO, and
"JOHN" WANG, Case No. 2:19-cv-09392-KM-MAH (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:
1. granting collective action status to the case under the
Fair Labor Standards Act;
2. directing the Defendants to produce an Excel spreadsheet
containing first and last name, last known address with
apartment number (if applicable), the last known telephone
numbers, last known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID
and/or FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work
location, dates of employment and position of ALL current
and former non-exempt and non-managerial employees
employed any time from April 8, 2016, (three years prior
to the filing of the Complaint) to the date when the Court
so-orders the Notice of Pendency and Consent to
Join Form or the date when the Defendants provide the name
list, whichever is later;
3. authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in
any relevant language via mail, email, text message,
website or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all
members of the putative class within 21 days after receipt
of a complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with
affidavit from the Defendants certifying that the list is
complete and from existing employment records;
4. authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of
dissemination of the notice and its translation;
5. authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in
notice on Plaintiffs' counsel's website;
6. authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice
may also be published to social media groups specifically
targeting the Chinese-speaking American immigrant worker
community;
7. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed
Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and
unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently
employed members of the collective, and the notice shall
remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the
workplace;
8. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of
Pendency, in an abbreviated form to be approved by the
Court, at the Defendants' expense by social media and by
publication in newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish
a complete Excel list or more than 20% of the Notice be
returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address to be
published in English, and Chinese; and
9. directing the equitable tolling on the statute of
limitation on this suit be tolled for 90 days until the
expiration of the Opt-in Period.
Taste of China is a Chinese restaurant with many specialty dishes,
including dumplings.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
TEVA CORP: Ontario Teachers & Anchorage Police Seek Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: TEVA SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00558-SRU (D. Conn.), the Lead Plaintiff Ontario
Teachers' Pension Plan Board and Plaintiff Anchorage Police & Fire
Retirement System move the Court for entry of an Order:
1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23(a) and 23(b)(3);
2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives of the
Class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3); and
3. pursuant to Rule 23(g), appointing Bleichmar Fonti & Auld
LLP as Class Counsel, with Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP
as Class Liaison Counsel.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph A. Fonti, Esq.
Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
Evan A. Kubota, Esq.
Benjamin F. Burry, Esq.
Thayne Stoddard, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
7 Times Square, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 789-1340
Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
E-mail: jfonti@bfalaw.com
jbleichmar@bfalaw.com
ekubota@bfalaw.com
bburry@bfalaw.com
tstoddard@bfalaw.com
- and -
Marc J. Kurzman, Esq.
Christopher J. Rooney, Esq.
CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK & HENNESSEY LLP
707 Summer Street, Suite 300
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 252-2680
Facsimile: (203) 325-8608
E-mail: mkurzman@carmodylaw.com
crooney@carmodylaw.com
TEXAS HEALTH: Faces Strong Class Suit in Texas District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Texas Health Resources, et
al. The case is styled as William Strong, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Texas Health Resources, Texas
Health Presbyterian Hospital Plano, Case No. 366-03202-2020 (Tex.
Dist., Collin Cty., July 2, 2020).
The case type is stated as "All Other Civil Cases."
Texas Health Resources is one of the largest faith-based, nonprofit
health systems in the United States and the largest in North Texas
in terms of inpatients and outpatients served.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Blumberg, Esq.
BLUMBERG BAGLEY PLLC
2304 West Interstate 20, Suite 190
Arlington, TX 76017
Telephone: 817-277-1500
Facsimile: 817-277-1170
TIKTOK INC: Parents Sue Over Collection of Minors' Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
N.T. and L.T., minors, by and through their guardian, Darcy
Tellone, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, and S.P., J.P., K.P., G.P., minors, by and through their
guardian, Katie Patterman, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TIKTOK INC. and BYTEDANCE, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03771 (N.D. Ill., June 26, 2020)
alleges that Defendants surreptitiously collect, use, and store
users' facial geometry through their TikTok popular smartphone
application, which is considered as private, legally protected
biometric information pursuant to the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.
The TikTok app allows its users to create and share short videos.
TikTok offers a number of audio and visual features and effects
that can be applied to users' videos—including popular song
clips, moments from TV shows, stickers, animations, face filters,
and face trackers.
According to the complaint, Defendants fail to disclose or obtain
consent for this collection, use, or storage. And they further fail
to disclose why they collect, use, and store Defendants' biometric
data, who has access to the data, or how long the data will be
retained—all of which is required by law. In addition to the
personal information that users knowingly and unknowingly provide
to TikTok, the company also collects information about the user
from third parties, such as Facebook and advertising companies, as
well as information provided by other TikTok users.
Plaintiffs bring this class action against TikTok and its owner,
ByteDance, individually and on behalf of the proposed class,
seeking damages and injunctive relief for Defendants' privacy
violations.
TikTok Inc. is a video-sharing social networking service owned by
ByteDance, a Chinese company founded in 2012 by Zhang Yiming. It is
used to create short dance, lip-sync, comedy and talent
videos.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-1019
Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
E-mail: beth@feganscott.com
- and -
Melissa Ryan Clark, Esq.
Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
140 Broadway, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (332) 216-2101
Facsimile: (917) 725-9346
E-mail: melissa@feganscott.com
jonathan@feganscott.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Gendron Suit Moved From California to E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Elizabeth Gendron, Roger Carter, individually
and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Toyota Motor Corporation, a Japan corporation; Toyota Motor North
America Inc., a California corporation; Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A.,
Inc., a California corporation; Toyota Motor Engineering and
Manufacturing North America, Inc., a Kentucky corporation; Denso
Corporation, a Japan corporation; Denso International America,
Inc., a Delaware corporation; Case No. 8:20-cv-00775, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York on July 2, 2020.
The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02947-WFK-CLP to the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.
Toyota Motor Corporation is a Japanese multinational automotive
manufacturer headquartered in Toyota, Aichi, Japan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rachele R Rickert, Esq.
Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
Brittany DeJong, Esq.
Marisa C. LivesayMonesi, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street, Suite 1820
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 239-4599
Fax: (619) 234-4599
Email: rickert@whafh.com
manifold@whafh.com
dejong@whafh.com
livesay@whafh.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael Brian Shortnacy, Esq.
KING AND SPALDING LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 443-4355
Fax: (213) 443-4310
Email: mshortnacy@kslaw.com
- and -
Jacquelene Anna Marcott, Esq.
Raymond H. Hua, Esq.
YUKEVICH CAVANAUGH
355 South Grand Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
Phone: (213) 362-7777
Fax: (213) 362-7788
Email: jmarcott@yukelaw.com
rhua@yukelaw.com
TRANS WORLD: Spack et al. Seek Approval of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CAROL SPACK, TABITHA SCHMIDT,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, as
Collective representative v. TRANS WORLD ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION
and RECORD TOWN, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-01335-TJM-CFH (N.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. preliminarily approving a joint stipulation of
settlement and release;
2. provisionally certifying the settlement classes under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(a) and 23(b)
(3) and certifying the settlement collective under the
Fair Labor Standards Act for purposes of effectuating the
settlement;
3. appointing as representatives of the class Carol Spack,
Tabitha Schmidt and Natasha Roper;
4. appointing Mashel Law, L.L.C. as Class Counsel;
5. approving the notices of settlement and fairness hearing
for the opt-in and non-opt-in Plaintiffs and directing
their distribution;
6. preliminarily approving Class Counsel's requested fee
award of 33.33% of the Settlement Fund;
7. directing when Class Counsel must file a motion for final
approval of the settlement sought in the joint
stipulation; and
8. scheduling a final settlement fairness hearing.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephan T. Mashel, Esq.
MASHEL LAW, LLC
Web: mashellawllc.com
500 Campus Dr Suite 303
Morganville, NJ 0775
Telephone: 732-385-8448
TWIN STONE: Serrano Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
RIGOBERTO SERRANO, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. TWIN STONE DESIGNS AND INSTALLATION, INC., MAYRA
PARENTE, and PLINIO IGNACIO MEDINA, Defendants, Case No.
0:20-cv-61282-RS (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2020) seeks to recover money
damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by the Corporate Defendant as a construction
worker from approximately July 2012 to December 2019.
Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated construction
workers worked in excess of 40 hours per week. However, Defendant
failed to properly compensate them at one and one-half times their
regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40.
Mayra Parente and Plinio Ignacio Medina own and operate Twin
Stone.
Twin Stone Designs and Installation, Inc. is a construction
company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tanesha W. Blye, Esq.
Yadhira Ramirez-Toro, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: (305) 503-5131
Fax: (888) 270-5549
Emails: tblye@saenzanderson.com
yramirez@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
U.S. BANCORP: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Jackson et al. Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER JACKSON; and MARKELA JONES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. U.S. BANCORP,
Defendant, Case 2:20-cv-02310 (D. Kan., June 24, 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 was employed by the Defendant as call center
employee.
U.S. Bancorp is a diversified financial services company that
provides lending and depository services, cash management, foreign
exchange and trust and investment management services. The Company
also provides credit card services, mortgage banking, insurance,
brokerage, and leasing. U.S Bancorp operates in the Midwest and
Western United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
Laura C. Fellows, Esq.
PAUL LLP
601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64106
Telephone: (816) 984-8100
Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
E-mail: Rick@paullp.com
Laura@paullp.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
U.S. BANK: Fails to Timely Release Mortgage Liens, Ballard Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH BALLARD, RONALD ROCHESTER, DANIEL CULVER and NICOLE CULVER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. U.S. BANK, N.A.; OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION and
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-05129
(S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of New York Real Property Law Sec. 275 and New York
Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law Sec. 1921.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated mortgagors, allege that the Defendants
frequently fail to comply with their obligations to timely present
and file mortgage satisfactions. These failures to timely release
and discharge mortgage liens cause actual and particularized
injuries to the Plaintiffs and Class members, which include: (1)
real risk of harm caused by the Defendants clouding of titles to
the Plaintiffs' and Class members' respective properties encumbered
by the Defendants' mortgage liens; (2) difficulties and potential
difficulties in securing financing on another property after
repaying their mortgage or home equity loans; (3) difficulties and
potential difficulties in selling or encumbering the subject
property after repaying their mortgage or home equity loans; (4)
burdening property owners' rights to free alienability; (5)
frustrating the orderly transfer of property; (6) paying the filing
fees for the timely filing of a satisfaction of mortgage or
certificate of discharge that was not timely filed by Defendants;
(7) the impairment of credit and credit scores caused by failures
to timely extinguish repaid debts and credit obligations; and (8)
any and all obstacles, whether tangible or intangible, incurred by
borrowers resulting from the Defendants' failing to timely
discharge mortgage liens.
U.S. Bank, N.A. is subsidiary of U.S. Bancorp and is a
nationally-chartered bank that maintains its headquarters at 425
Walnut Street, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Ocwen Financial Corporation is a Florida-chartered corporation that
provides personal and residential lending and servicing, with its
headquarters and its principle executive offices in West Palm
Beach, Florida.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Company and
is a nationally-chartered bank that maintains its headquarters in
San Francisco, California and its principle executive offices in
Sioux Falls, South Dakota. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG P.C.
44 South Broadway, Ste. 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
E-mail: pstphillip@lowey.com
- and –
Joseph S. Tusa, Esq.
TUSA P.C.
P.O. Box 566
55000 Main Road, 2nd Floor
Southold, NY 11971
Telephone: (631) 407-5100
E-mail: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com
UNIT CORP: Appeal in Panola Independent School Suit Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs' appeal
from the court order denying class certification in the case,
Panola Independent School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum
Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma,
has been stayed.
On May 22, 2020, Unit and its wholly owned subsidiaries Unit
Drilling Company (UDC) Unit Petroleum Company (UPC), 8200 Unit
Drive, L.L.C. (8200 Unit), Unit Drilling Colombia, L.L.C. (Unit
Drilling Colombia) and Unit Drilling USA Colombia, L.L.C. (Unit
Drilling USA, together with Unit, UPC, UDC, 8200 Unit and Unit
Drilling Colombia, the Debtors) filed voluntary petitions
(Bankruptcy Petitions) for reorganization under Chapter 11 of Title
11 of the United States Code (Bankruptcy Code) in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division (Bankruptcy Court). The Chapter 11 proceedings are being
jointly administered under the caption In re Unit Corporation, et
al., Case No. 20-32740 (DRJ) (Chapter 11 Cases). The Debtors are
operating their business as "debtors-in-possession" under the
jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and under the provisions of
the Bankruptcy Code and orders of the Bankruptcy Court.
Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen
Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly,
Melody Culberson, and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs and
are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and spacing units for
which the company's exploration segment distributes royalty.
The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that the company's
exploration segment has underpaid royalty obligations by deducting
post-production costs or marketing related fees.
Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class action on behalf of
persons who receive royalty from us for our Oklahoma production.
The company had asserted several defenses including that the
deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. The company also
asserted that the case should not be tried as a class action due to
the materially different circumstances that determine what, if any,
deductions are taken for each lease.
On December 16, 2009, the trial court entered its order certifying
the class. On May 11, 2012 the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
reversed the trial court's order certifying the class. The
Plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and on
October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied.
On January 22, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a second request to certify a
smaller class of royalty owners than their first attempt.
Since then, the Plaintiffs have further amended their proposed
class to just include royalty owners under certain leases in
Latimer, Le Flore, and Pittsburg Counties, Oklahoma.
On July 29, 2019, the trial court denied the Plaintiffs' second
motion for class certification. Plaintiffs are appealing the order
denying class certification, which is now stayed due to the
bankruptcy filing.
Unit Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the
exploration, acquisition, development, and production of oil and
natural gas properties in the United States. It operates through
three segments: Oil and Natural Gas, Contract Drilling, and
Mid-Stream. Unit Corp was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
UNIT CORP: Chieftain Royalty Suit Stayed
----------------------------------------
Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the putative class action suit entitled,
Chieftain Royalty Company v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-16-230,
District Court of LeFlore County, Oklahoma, has been stayed.
On May 22, 2020, Unit and its wholly owned subsidiaries Unit
Drilling Company (UDC) Unit Petroleum Company (UPC), 8200 Unit
Drive, L.L.C. (8200 Unit), Unit Drilling Colombia, L.L.C. (Unit
Drilling Colombia) and Unit Drilling USA Colombia, L.L.C. (Unit
Drilling USA, together with Unit, UPC, UDC, 8200 Unit and Unit
Drilling Colombia, the Debtors) filed voluntary petitions
(Bankruptcy Petitions) for reorganization under Chapter 11 of Title
11 of the United States Code (Bankruptcy Code) in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division (Bankruptcy Court). The Chapter 11 proceedings are being
jointly administered under the caption In re Unit Corporation, et
al., Case No. 20-32740 (DRJ) (Chapter 11 Cases). The Debtors are
operating their business as "debtors-in-possession" under the
jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and under the provisions of
the Bankruptcy Code and orders of the Bankruptcy Court.
On November 3, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Unit Petroleum Company styled Chieftain Royalty Company v.
Unit Petroleum Company in LeFlore County, Oklahoma. Plaintiff
alleges that Unit Petroleum breached its duty to pay royalties on
natural gas used for fuel off the lease premises.
The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages, an accounting,
injunctive relief, and attorney's fees.
Plaintiff is seeking relief on behalf of Oklahoma citizens who are
or were royalty owners in our Oklahoma wells. Unit has numerous
defenses including that it has fulfilled its lease royalty
obligations with respect to gas consumed as fuel.
As to the propriety of class certification, we are defending on the
grounds that the class involves thousands of different leases that
have to be individually examined and construed, making class-wide
liability determinations impossible.
On June 26, 2019, Plaintiff moved for class certification.
On February 6, 2020, the Court entered its order certifying the
class.
Unit said, "We have appealed the Court's order, which is now stayed
due to the bankruptcy filing."
Unit Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the
exploration, acquisition, development, and production of oil and
natural gas properties in the United States. It operates through
three segments: Oil and Natural Gas, Contract Drilling, and
Mid-Stream. Unit Corp was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
UNIT CORP: Class Certification Bid in Cockerell Suit Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion for class
certification in Cockerell Oil Properties, Ltd., v. Unit Petroleum
Company, No. 16-cv-135-JHP, United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma, has been stayed.
On May 22, 2020, Unit and its wholly owned subsidiaries Unit
Drilling Company (UDC) Unit Petroleum Company (UPC), 8200 Unit
Drive, L.L.C. (8200 Unit), Unit Drilling Colombia, L.L.C. (Unit
Drilling Colombia) and Unit Drilling USA Colombia, L.L.C. (Unit
Drilling USA, together with Unit, UPC, UDC, 8200 Unit and Unit
Drilling Colombia, the Debtors) filed voluntary petitions
(Bankruptcy Petitions) for reorganization under Chapter 11 of Title
11 of the United States Code (Bankruptcy Code) in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division (Bankruptcy Court). The Chapter 11 proceedings are being
jointly administered under the caption In re Unit Corporation, et
al., Case No. 20-32740 (DRJ) (Chapter 11 Cases). The Debtors are
operating their business as "debtors-in-possession" under the
jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and under the provisions of
the Bankruptcy Code and orders of the Bankruptcy Court.
On March 11, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Unit Petroleum Company styled Cockerell Oil Properties,
Ltd., v. Unit Petroleum Company in LeFlore County, Oklahoma. The
company removed the case to federal court in the Eastern District
of Oklahoma.
The plaintiff alleges that Unit Petroleum wrongfully failed to pay
interest with respect to late paid oil and gas proceeds under
Oklahoma’s Production Revenue Standards Act.
The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages, an accounting,
disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorney fees.
Plaintiff is seeking relief on behalf of royalty and working
interest owners in the company's Oklahoma wells.
The company had asserted several defenses including that the case
cannot be properly certified as a class action because of the wide
variety of circumstances that determine whether a royalty payment
was timely made or has accrued interest under Oklahoma law.
Further, Plaintiff's requests for relief beyond payment of interest
allegedly due are barred by statute.
The company filed a summary judgment motion as to named Plaintiff's
individual claims. On February 28, 2020, the Court granted the
company's summary judgment on several of the Plaintiff's individual
claims, including standing, but found that some claims presented
fact issues. the Plaintiff filed a motion with the Court asking it
to reconsider its ruling.
On May 4, 2020, the Court reversed its summary judgment ruling on
the company's challenge to Plaintiff's standing and how interest
should be calculated.
Plaintiff subsequently filed its motion for class certifications,
which is now stayed due to the Company's bankruptcy filing.
Unit Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the
exploration, acquisition, development, and production of oil and
natural gas properties in the United States. It operates through
three segments: Oil and Natural Gas, Contract Drilling, and
Mid-Stream. Unit Corp was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Ninivaggi Class Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as PENNY NINIVAGGI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF
DELAWARE, Case No. 604688/2020, was removed from the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, County of Nassau, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on June 22, 2020.
The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-02762 to the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all people, who paid tuition
and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at and who, because
of the Defendant's response to COVID-19 pandemic, lost the benefit
of the education for which they paid, and/or the services for which
their fees were paid, without having their tuition and fees
refunded to them.
With approximately 18,500 undergraduate and 4,500 graduate
students, UD is the largest university in Delaware. UD offers
148 bachelor's programs, 121 master's programs (with 13 joint
degrees) and 55 doctoral programs across its eight colleges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christie R. McGuinness, Esq.
SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
1270 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2005
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 980-7200
URBAN COMMONS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Kandil Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PIEDAD KANDIL, as an aggrieved employee and private attorney
general v. URBAN COMMONS QUEENSWAY, LLC, a California limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV23710 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 23, 2020), is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly aggrieved
employees seeking civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor
Code, Private Attorney General Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants engaged in an ongoing
and systematic scheme of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees by failing to pay them for all hours worked,
including minimum and overtime wages.
The Defendants have employed the Plaintiff to work as a parking lot
attendant since March 2018.
The Defendants are a hotel and tourist attraction management
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Heather Davis, Esq.
Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
S. Emi Minne, Esq.
PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP
136 Main Street, Suite A
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (424) 290-3095
Facsimile: (866) 264-7880
E-mail: heather@protectionlawgroup.com
amir@protectionlawgroup.com
emi@protectionlawgroup.com
VICTOR HILL: Fails to Take COVID-19 Measures in Jail, Jones Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
RHONDA JONES, RANDOLPH MITCHELL, MICHAEL SINGLETON, and BARRY
WATKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. VICTOR HILL, in his official capacity as
Sheriff of Clayton County, Georgia; ROLAND BOEHRER, in his official
capacity as Chief Deputy; TERRANCE GIBSON, in his official capacity
as Jail Administrator; KEVIN THOMAS, in his official capacity as
Jail Security Operations Section Commander; and MAURICE JOHNSON, in
his official capacity as Jail Administrative Operations Section
Commander, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02791-ELR (N.D. Ga., July
1, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.
The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated detainees in the Clayton County Jail, allege that the
Defendants failed to implement appropriate measures to protect the
detainees and staff from the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to a
significant outbreak in the facility. These failures include: (1)
housing three or four detainees in two-person cells and have made
no effective effort at social distancing; (2) failing to provide
basic sanitation and personal hygiene; (3) failing to issue
reasonably adequate protective equipment; (4) failing to implement
a process for identifying medically vulnerable and disabled people
and taking affirmative steps for their protection; (5) failing to
implement a reasonable process for identifying, testing, and
isolating COVID-19 infections; and (6) failing to educate detainees
about COVID-19. The Defendants' inactions and omissions have put
detainees, particularly those who are medically vulnerable and
those with disabilities, at risk of serious illness or even death.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sarah Geraghty, Esq.
Jeremy Cutting, Esq.
Ryan Primerano, Esq.
SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
60 Walton Street, N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 688-1202
E-mail: sgeraghty@schr.org
- and –
Brandon Buskey, Esq.
Robert W. Hunter, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 284-7364
E-mail: bbuskey@aclu.org
- and –
Kosha S. Tucker, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF GEORGIA
P.O. Box 77208
Atlanta, GA 30357
Telephone: (678) 981-5295
E-mail: ktucker@acluga.org
- and –
Stephen L. Pevar, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
765 Asylum Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105
Telephone: (860) 570-9830
E-mail: spevar@aclu.org
- and –
David C. Fathi, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
915 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Seventh Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 548-6603
E-mail: dfathi@aclu.org
VITOL INC: Long et al. Allege Gasoline Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------
JAMES AND VANESSA LONG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VITOL INC.; SK ENERGY AMERICAS,
INC.; and SK TRADING INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD., Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-04453 (N.D. Cal., July 6, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act,
the Cartwright Act, and Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated consumers, allege that the Defendants are engaged in
anticompetitive and unlawful acts to restrain trade in the spot
market price for gasoline in California from February 18, 2015
through December 31, 2016. The Defendants took advantage of the
gasoline supply disruptions caused by an explosion at a gasoline
refinery complex located in Torrance, California in February 2015
to restrain competition in the spot market for gasoline and
gasoline components and to artificially inflate their prices. The
Defendants' coordinated trading activities include: (1) engaging in
sham transactions to obfuscate the true nature of the supply and
demand dynamic in California's gasoline market; (2) trading with
each other with the purpose and effect of creating spikes in the
spot market price; and (3) entering into prearranged, unreported
buy and sell transactions with each other to share profits from the
scheme. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful business conduct,
the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class suffered financial
damages as they paid more for gasoline than they would have paid in
a competitive market.
SK Energy Americas, Inc. is a petroleum and petroleum products
company located in Houston, Texas and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
SK Energy International.
SK Trading International Co. Ltd. is a South Korean corporation
that operates as an oil broking agency, with its head office at 26
Jongno, Jongno-gu, Seoul, South Korea.
Vitol Inc. is an energy and commodities company, with business
office located at 2925 Richmond Avenue 11th Floor Houston, Texas.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
P. Terry Anderlini, Esq.
ANDERLINI & MCSWEENEY LLC
66 Bovet Road, Suite 285
San Mateo, CA 94402
Telephone: (650) 212-0001
(650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 212-0081
(650) 697-0577
E-mail: tanderlini@amlawoffice.com
- and –
Brian D. Clark, Esq.
Simeon A. Morbey, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: bdclark@locklaw.com
samorbey@locklaw.com
WALDORF ASTORIA: Lopez Seeks Payment for Off-the-Clock Hours
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MAYRA I. LOPEZ, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. WALDORF ASTORIA EMPLOYER LLC a/k/a WALDORF ASTORIA
ORLANDO d/b/a WALDORF ASTORIA ORLANDO, Defendant, Case No.
6:20-cv-01158-cv-01158-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla., June 30, 2020) arises
from Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately May 9, 2016
to March 20, 2020 as non-exempted, full-time, hourly paid
housekeeper.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked regularly more than 40
hours every week from Wednesday to Sunday, and sometimes 6 days per
week. Also, Plaintiff was required by Defendant to begin at 7:00
a.m. until 4:30 p.m., but was not allowed to punch-in until 8:00
a.m. As a result, Plaintiff was not compensated for a minimum of 5
off-the-clock hours every week, which constitute unpaid overtime
hours.
Waldorf Astoria Employer LLC a/k/a Waldorf Astoria Orlando d/b/a
Waldorf Astoria Orlando provides hospitality services and operates
the Waldorf Astoria Orlando hotel. [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
WALGREENS BOOTS: North Las Vegas Suit Remanded to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Mahan of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada granted Plaintiff's Motion to Remand in the case captioned
CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, Plaintiff(s), v. WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE,
INC., et al., Defendant(s), Case No. 2:19-CV-2143 JCM (DJA), (D.
Nev.).
The instant action arises from the national and widely-publicized
opioid crisis. The City of North Las Vegas sued a variety of
entities and individuals responsible for manufacturing, marketing,
and selling prescription opioids, including Oxycontin, Vicodin, and
Percocet and their generic counterparts. Plaintiff groups the
defendants into drug manufacturers, wholesale distributors,
detailers, pharmacies, and health care providers.
The City filed suit in the Eighth Judicial District Court, alleging
public nuisance under Nevada and common law, negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment against all defendants. It
also alleges negligence against the distributors, pharmacies, and
health care providers. Finally, it brings a claim against certain
defendants for alleged violations of Nevada's Racketeering Act.
Defendants timely removed the action to the Nevada District Court.
Defendants removed the case on the basis of federal question
jurisdiction. Defendants contend that the complaint raises issues
under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) such that the City's
state-law claims are subject to federal jurisdiction. Defendants
also argue that the case is otherwise removable pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
On December 26, 2019, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ("JPML") entered a conditional transfer order ("CTO"),
finding that the action appears to "involve questions of fact that
are common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern
District of Ohio and assigned to Judge Polster." Defendants moved
to stay the case until the JPML renders a final decision on whether
to transfer this action to the Opiate MDL.
Presently before the Court are:
-- the City of North Las Vegas's motion to remand to state court;
and
-- Defendants' motion for a temporary stay pending likely
transfer to multidistrict litigation.
On review, the Court notes that the parties do not argue that the
CSA provides a private, federal cause of action for violations
thereof. Thus, invoking violations of the CSA as an element of a
state-law claim -- e.g., duty and standard of care in a negligence
action -- does not invoke federal question jurisdiction because it
is "insufficiently 'substantial' to confer federal-question
jurisdiction."
Even to the extent that reference to the CSA may raise a possible
federal question, it would not be "necessarily raised." The city in
this case alleges that defendants breached duties imposed by state
statutes and regulations, specifically NAC Sec. 453.400. The city
may also successfully argue that defendants breached the general
duty of reasonable care. Thus, defendants' arguments go to the
merits of the city's claims, not to the federal court's
jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the CSA is not proper grounds for the removal of this
action, the Court opines. Unless removal was appropriate pursuant
to CAFA, remand is warranted.
As to the CAFA premise, the City argues that defendants "ha[ve]
failed to satisfy CAFA's most fundamental requirement - i.e.,
showing that this case falls within CAFA's definition of a class
action and that the [city] is not the real party in interest." The
city represents that it "is not trying to collect personal damages
on behalf of North Las Vegas residents for the residents' injuries.
. . ." Instead, the city "is a single, municipal [p]laintiff
seeking damages it incurred as a result of [d]efendants'
misconduct."
Because the city is pursuing - and will only be able to recover -
its own damages, this case is not a class action and does not fall
within the purview of CAFA.
In sum, Judge Mahan (1) granted the city's motion to remand, and
(2) denied defendants' motion for a temporary stay pending likely
transfer to multidistrict litigation.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/jyH1WP https://tinyurl.com/u6tfznl from
Leagle.com
City of North Las Vegas, Plaintiff, represented by Micaela L.
Rustia Moore , North Las Vegas City Attorney Office, Richard Hy ,
Robert M. Adams , Eglet Prince & Robert T. Eglet , Eglet Prince,
400 S. 7th St., Suite 400, Las Vegas, NV 89101
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., Walgreen Co. & Walgreen Eastern
Co., Inc., Defendants, represented by Mark A. Hutchison -
mhutchison@hutchlegal.com - Hutchison & Steffen, LLC, Todd L. Moody
-tmoody@hutchlegal.com - Hutchison & Steffen, LLP, Alex J. Harris
- alex.harris@bartlit-beck.com,- Bartlit Beck LLP & Lester C. Houtz
- lester.houtz@bartlit-beck.com - Bartlit Beck LLP.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Actavis Inc.,
formerly known as Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson
Laboratories, Inc., Actavis LLC & Actavis Pharma, Inc, formerly
known as Watson Pharma, Inc., Defendants, represented by Philip M.
Hymanson , Hymanson and Hymanson, 3980 Howard Hughes Pkwy in Las
Vegas.
Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Par
Pharmaceutical, Inc. & Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Amanda C. Yen -ayen@mcdonaldcarano.com -
McDonald Carano Wilson & Patricia K. Lundvall , McDonald Carano
Wilson LLP, 100 West Liberty Street, 10TH Floor Reno , NV 89505
WALMART INC: Faces Class Action Over Dust Removal Spray
-------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Walmart Inc.
and AW Distribution Inc. are facing a proposed class action over
the sale of dust removal spray that some purchasers intentionally
inhale to get high.
The lead plaintiffs are a mother and daughter whose car was struck
by a driver who was high on Ultra Duster, a computer dust remover
spray containing difluoroethane (DFE) distributed by AW and sold by
Walmart, the complaint alleges.
Because DFE is a central nervous system depressant, when inhaled,
it causes "debilitating and impairing effects" such as
unconsciousness, drowsiness, dizziness, suffocation, and paralysis,
according to the complaint. [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Faces Mitchell Suit Over Unpaid Off-The-Clock Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER LEE MITCHELL and VIRGINIA ELLISON, Individually, and on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-02444 (W.D. Tenn., June 23, 2020), is
brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs assert claims for unpaid "off-the-clock" wages;
"miscalculated" overtime compensation; and "deducting (recapturing)
hourly wages and overtime previously paid to them in subsequent
weeks.
The Defendant is a multinational financial service headquartered in
Sioux Falls, South Dakota, with central offices throughout the
United States and the fourth largest bank in the U.S. in total
assets. The Defendant has been an employer of the Plaintiffs, who
worked as an hourly-paid home mortgage consultants.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, 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
rmorelli@jsyc.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Still Face Claims at March 29
-----------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 29, 2020, that subsidiaries Spence Engineering Company,
Inc. and CIRCOR Instrumentation Technologies, Inc. continue to face
asbestos-related product liability claims.
The Company states, "Asbestos-related product liability claims
continue to be filed against two of our subsidiaries: Spence
Engineering Company, Inc. ("Spence"), the stock of which we
acquired in 1984; and CIRCOR Instrumentation Technologies, Inc.
(f/k/a Hoke, Inc.) ("Hoke"), the stock of which we acquired in
1998. The Hoke subsidiary was divested in January 2020 through our
sale of I&S. However, the Company has indemnified the buyer for
asbestos-related claims that are made against Hoke. Due to the
nature of the products supplied by these entities, the markets they
serve and our historical experience in resolving these claims, we
do not expect that these asbestos-related claims will have a
material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity of the Company."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/77RP2S
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Talks with Fireman's Fund Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC continues to pursue discussions with Fireman's
Fund regarding insurance coverage on pending asbestos lawsuits
involving the Company, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "On February 12, 2014, counsel for Fireman's
Fund, the carrier that has been paying defense costs and
settlements for the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases, stated that it
would no longer advance fund settlements or judgments in the
Kaanapali Land asbestos cases due to the pendency of the D/C and
Oahu Sugar bankruptcies.
"In its communications with Kaanapali Land, Fireman's Fund
expressed its view that the automatic stay in effect in the D/C
bankruptcy case bars Fireman's Fund from making any payments to
resolve the Kaanapali Land asbestos claims because D/C Distribution
is also alleging a right to coverage under those policies for
asbestos claims against it. However, in the interim, Fireman's
Fund advised that it presently intends to continue to pay defense
costs for those cases, subject to whatever reservations of rights
may be in effect and subject further to the policy terms.
"Fireman's Fund has also indicated that to the extent that
Kaanapali Land cooperates with Fireman's Fund in addressing
settlement of the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases through
coordination with its adjusters, it is Fireman's Fund's present
intention to reimburse any such payments by Kaanapali Land,
subject, among other things, to the terms of any lift-stay order,
the limits and other terms and conditions of the policies, and
prior approval of the settlements.
"Kaanapali Land continues to pursue discussions with Fireman's Fund
in an attempt to resolve the issues, however, Kaanapali Land is
unable to determine what portion, if any, of settlements or
judgments in the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases will be covered by
insurance."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3M9FFc
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Still Defends Stearns PI Suits at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation still defends itself against multiple lawsuits
relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence
of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches of the Company's Stearns
division, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2020.
The Company states, "Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 300
claimants) are pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches
previously manufactured by the Company's Stearns division and/or
its predecessor owners. Invensys and FMC, prior owners of the
Stearns business, have paid 100% of the costs to date related to
the Stearns lawsuits.
"In connection with its sale, Invensys plc ("Invensys") provided
the Company with indemnification against certain contingent
liabilities, including certain pre-closing environmental
liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity
obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and indemnify the
Company with respect to the matters relating to the Ellsworth
Industrial Park Site and to various asbestos claims. The indemnity
obligations relating to the matters are subject, together with
indemnity obligations relating to other matters, to an overall
dollar cap equal to the purchase price, which is an amount in
excess of US$900 million."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/FDpg7x
*********
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 ***