/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200721.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, July 21, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 145
Headlines
1-800 CONTACTS: Fairness Hearing in Thompson Suit Set for Oct. 20
ADHEREHEALTH LLC: Hayward Slams Auto-dialed Telemarketing Calls
AGROFRESH SOLUTIONS: Investment Deal Lacks Info, Sabatini Says
AIR METHODS: Court Narrows Claims in Armato & DeQuasie Suits
ALL AMERICAN SECURITY: Haave Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALLIANZ: Faces "Junk" Car Insurance Class Action
ALLIED NEVADA: Fairness Hearing in Securities Suit Set for Nov. 16
ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Irwindale Antitrust Suit Over E-Cig Marketing
ALVARADO RESTAURANT: Faces Wallace Suit Over Wage Abuse Scheme
AMERICAN CORPORATE: Gomez Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT & Other Benefits
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Tollefson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
ANGUS PROVING: Valdivia Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
APELLES LLC: Ismani Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification
ARCHER DANIELS: Manipulates Ethanol Prices, Green Plains et al Say
ARTHUR BLASZCZYSZYN INSURANCE: Katt Files ADA Class Action
ASSET RECOVERY: Nakshin Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
ATLANTIC RECORDING: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Sosa Alleges
AUDI AG: Accused in Suit of Ignoring Start/Stop System Defect
AVIVA INSURANCE: Faces Business Interruption Class Action
BANK OF NEW YORK: Scott+Scott Files Breach of Contract Action
BAYER AG: Scraps $1.25BB Roundup Weedkiller Settlement Proposal
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Young Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
BMW: Indirect Purchasers' Federal RICO Claims Dismissed in Rickman
BUCKLES & BUCKLES: 6th Cir. Flips Merit Orders in Van Hoven Suit
CALHOUN COUNTY, MI: Court Partly Grants TRO Motion in Malam Suit
CANADA POST: Lambert Avocat Files Delivery Service Class Action
CANADA: Gowling Offers Free Legal Advice IDS Settlement Claims
CAPITAL ONE: Thongstisubskul Sues Over Unlawful Credit Inquiries
CARNIVAL CORP: O'Neill Sues Over Lack of COVID-19 Measures
CASCADE COLLECTIONS: Rodriguez Seeks to Certify Class
CBSC INC: Angeles Sues in N.D. Ohio Alleging Violation of FDCPA
CIRCLE K STORES: James Sues Over Illegal Background Check
CKF ENTERPRISES: Rule 23 Class in Ware Gets Prelim. Certification
CLARK & GENTRY: Court Narrows Claims in Avrahami RICO Suit
CLIENT SERVICES: Riccio Sues in New Jersey Over FDCPA Violation
COLONY CAPITAL: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 27 Deadline
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Barbershop Seeks Pay for COVID-19 Losses
CROSSLAND OILFIELD: Gonzales Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Welders
DALLAS, TX: Faces Dobbins Suit Alleging Violation of Civil Rights
DEUTSCHE BANK: Karimi Sues Over Decline in Share Price
DISNEY WORLD: Annual Passholders File Class Action
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Howard Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert.
ELLIOT SECURITY: Bid to Conditionally Certify FLSA Classes Denied
ENPHASE ENERGY: Hurst Suit Hits Share Price Drop
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Grauman Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Reports
ERIE INSURANCE: Salons, Resto Slam Denied Insurance Coverage
ERNIE'S AUTO: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Ortega et al. Claim
ESSENTIA HEALTH: Faces Kraft Product Liability Suit in D.N.D.
ESSEX COUNTY, NJ: $5.7MM Deal in Strip Search Class Action Okayed
FIFTH THIRD: Hartt Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Bank Accounts
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Head Suit Over Defective Sunroof Design
GEO GROUP: Kehoe Law Investigates Securities Claims
GEO GROUP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Suit
GEO GROUP: Schall Announces Filing of Class Action Lawsuit
GINO'S OF BAYSIDE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Torres Says
GOLI NUTRITION: Young Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
GOOGLE LLC: Rodriguez et al. Allege Invasion of Consumer Privacy
GOOGLE: Unlawfully Collects, Stores Facial Biometrics, Vance Says
GORDON BRUSH: Blind Can't Access Website, Tenzer-Fuchs Alleges
HAND HOSPITALITY: Vazquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
HANLEES AUTO: Cal. App. Upholds Arbitration Ruling in Jarboe Suit
HANOVER INSURANCE: Tsakos Inc Files Insurance Case in New Jersey
HILLCREST DAVIDSON: Shams Balks at Debt Collection Practices
HITACHI LTD: 1st & 2nd Round Deals in ODD Antitrust Suit Upheld
HUDSON CITY SAVINGS: Lin Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to Third Circuit
INFUSION CAPITAL: Faces Benitez Class Suit in S.D. California
J2 GLOBAL: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action
J2 GLOBAL: Rosen Files First Securities Class Action Lawsuit
J2 GLOBAL: Schall Announces Filing of Class Action Lawsuit
JAMAICA LIVE: Teixeira Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
JAMES SINGER: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Actions
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: BCBSA Sues Over Delayed Generic Drug Entry
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: GEHA Sues Over Delayed Generic Drug Entry
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Martinez Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
JP MORGAN: Fields Sues in E.D. Arkansas Alleging TCPA Violation
JP MORGAN: Tax Divas Seeks to Recover Fees for PPP Loan Agents
JRSK INC: Young Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
JWH HOLDINGS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Tenzer-Fuchs Says
KIRKLAND LAKE: Rosen Notes of Aug. 28 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS: Ruffin Files Suit under FDCPA
KROGER CO: Mislabels Products With Acetaminophen, Hartwich Claims
KROTO INC: Fails to Protect Customers' Data, Riggs Claims
LIQUID WEB: Licea Removed From Super. Court to C.D. California
LIVE OAK LANDSCAPE: Ex-Worker Files Wage and Hour Suit
LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Town Kitchen Files Class Suit in S.D. Florida
M B-REAL: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
MANHEIM, PA: T.G. Files Civil Rights Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
MASSACHUSETTS: Bail Consideration Bid in Grinis Inmates Suit Denied
MCCARTHY & BURGESS: Lindala Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
MDL 2047: Court Refuses to Strike Bid to File Additional Exhibits
MDL 2924: Leadership Structure in Zantac Liability Suit Established
MIDLAND CREDIT: Angle Sues over Debt Collection Practices
MIDLAND CREDIT: Ungar Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
MSC INDUSTRIAL: New York Court Dismisses Guglielmo Suit
MUSCULOSKELETAL INSTITUTE: Fails to Secure PII, Stoll Suit Says
NAB: 45,000+ Aussies Receive Share of $49.5MM Settlement
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Lim Asserts Breach of FDCPA
NEW YORK BUILDERS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Garcia Claims
NEW YORK, NY: D. Murray Claims Dismissed in Syville Lawsuit
NEXTIER OILFIELD: Conditional Class Cert. Sought in Kenworthy Suit
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Harris Sues over Warranty on Vehicle Parts
NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Ferretti Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
NR 1 TRANSPORT: Dawkins Sues Over Unpaid Wages
PACIFIC FOODS: Falsely Markets Hemp Drinks, Weintz Suit Alleges
PARKING REVENUE: Cope Sues in Colorado Alleging FDCPA Violation
PENN NATIONAL: McCartney Seeks Underinsured Motorist Benefits
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Howard Hits Collection Letter Settlement Offer
PLAID INC: Collects Bank Data Without Consent, Anderson et al. Say
PNC FINANCIAL: Denise M Henning CPA Seeks to Recover Agent Fees
PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Must Face Overtime Wage Class Action
PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Rodriguez Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
REHAB AMERICA: Beard and Durret Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
RICHMOND, CA: Fails to Pay Fire Inspectors Overtime, Padilla Says
RICK SNYDER: Carthan Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
RLB COLLECTIVE: Thomas-Lawson Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
ROVER INC: Faces Newbrough Civil Rights Suit in S.D. New York
SAFETY HARBOR: Hayes Suit Seeks Quiet Title to Cemetery
SEATTLE, WA: Ansa Attorney Discusses CHAZ/CHOP Takeover Lawsuits
SEQUIUM ASSET: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Davis Suit Claims
SHIRE: Rochester Drug No Longer Adequate Rep for Intuniv Class
SKIPTHEDISHES: Labor Class Suit to Move Forward in September
SOGOU INC: Frater Appeals S.D.N.Y. Orders in Luo Suit to 2nd Cir.
SPARTAN COMPANIES: Denied Welders Overtime Pay, Hernandez Claims
SPEER INSURANCE: Katt Files ADA Suit in Colorado
STILLMAN PC: Clendening et al. Allege Wrongful Debt Collections
STOCKX LLC: Esquer Sues in N.D. Calif. Over Customer Data Breach
SWIFT RESPONSE: Young Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
SYMANTEC CORP: Class in SEB Investment Securities Suit Certified
TELEDYNE DEFENSE: George Alleges Inaccurate Wage Statements
THREE SIXTY GROUP: Blinds Can't Access Web Site, Guglielmo Claims
TSG ENTERPRISES: Begg Sues in N.D. California Over ADA Violation
TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE: MARRAS 46 LLC Files Suit in New Jersey
UNITED STATES OIL FUND: Faces Wang Securities Suit in N.D. Calif.
UNITED STATES: TRO Motion in Martinez-Brooks Suit Partly Granted
US BANK: Kunzer Appeals D. Minn. Ruling in Trust Suit to 8th Cir.
UTGR INC: Faces Rose Suit Alleging Discrimination and Retaliation
VERDE ENERGY: Faces Spiesman Suit Over Unfair Pricing Practices
VERMONT: Class Certification in Mullinnex Prisoners Suit Flipped
VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Potter Sues Over 22% Share Price Decline
VOLT MANAGEMENT: Faces McCain Employment Class Suit in California
WALMART INC: First Amended Complaint Filed in Castro Suit
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Bleachtech Suit in Maryland Circuit Court
WEBER COUNTY, UT: Hobbs Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
WELLBRIDGE CLUB: Katt Alleges Violation of ADA in Colorado
WELLS FARGO: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 3 Deadline
WELLS FARGO: Pension Fund Sues Over Misleading SEC Statements
WIRECARD AG: Frank R. Cruz Announces Filing of Class Action
WIRECARD AG: Hagens Berman Intends to File Amended Complaint
WIRECARD AG: Rosen Announces Filing of Securities Class Action
XAVIER UNIVERSITY: Miranda Suit Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
[*] Carlton Fields: Latest Class Action Trends
[*] Class Action Defense Spending Expected to Rise This Year
[*] COVID-19 Pandemic Spurs 500+ Class Actions, Survey Shows
[*] New Ontario Bill Sets Higher Bar for Class Action Suits
[*] Rochester to Join Class Action Against Opioid Producers
[*] TCPA Class Action Trap Broadened for Unwary Businesses
*********
1-800 CONTACTS: Fairness Hearing in Thompson Suit Set for Oct. 20
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CPT Group, Inc. on July 8 announced proposed settlements reached
with Defendants 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Vision Direct, Inc.,
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., Walgreen Co., Arlington Contact
Lens Service, Inc., National Vision, Inc., and Luxottica of
America, Inc. (f/k/a Luxottica Retail North America, Inc.) in
Thompson v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-01183. The
lawsuit alleges that 13 contact lens retailers entered into
bilateral written agreements with 1-800 Contacts, Inc. that
affected the online retail market for contact lenses in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1.
If you purchased contact lenses online from one or more of the
Defendants between January 1, 2004 and September 12, 2019, you may
be eligible to participate in these settlements and receive a
payment.
To qualify for payment, you must submit a Claim Form to the
Settlement Administrator. You may submit a Claim Form online
through the settlement website,
www.onlinecontactlenssettlement.com. Your Claim Form will be
reviewed, and a determination will be made as to whether you have
any contact lens purchases qualifying and allowed for payment.
Claim Forms must be submitted by December 4, 2020.
For anyone unsure if they are a Settlement Class Member, more
information, including a detailed notice, is available at
www.onlinecontactlenssettlement.com, or by calling 1-888-506-0436.
Settlement Class Members who do not opt out will release certain
legal rights against the Defendants and the Released Parties, as
explained in the detailed notice and settlement agreements,
available at www.onlinecontactlenssettlement.com. Settlement Class
Members who do not want to take part in the proposed settlements
must postmark their opt out request by September 21, 2020 and mail
it to the Settlement Administrator at CPT Group, Inc., 50 Corporate
Park, Irvine, CA 92606.
Settlement Class Members who do not opt out may object to any part
of the proposed settlements. To do so, you must file your
objections by September 21, 2020.
The Court will hold a hearing on October 20, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.,
at the United States District Court for the District of Utah, 351
South West Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84101, to consider whether to
approve the proposed settlements, the Plan of Distribution, and
Co-Lead Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys'
fees, expenses, and service awards to the Class Plaintiffs.
Settlement Class Members or their lawyers may ask to appear and
speak at the hearing at their own expense, but do not have to.
More details about the settlements are available in the Settlement
Agreements. To obtain copies of the Agreements, please visit
www.onlinecontactlenssettlement.com or contact the Settlement
Administrator at 1-888-506-0436. [GN]
ADHEREHEALTH LLC: Hayward Slams Auto-dialed Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Hayward, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. AdhereHealth, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-00508 (M.D. Tenn., June 17, 2020), seeks
compensatory damages including interest, reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert
fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages and such
equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Telephone Consumers
Protection Act.
AdhereHealth is a healthcare technology solutions provider
supporting health plans, self-insured employers, and other
risk-bearing entities for medication adherence insights and
improved healthcare outcomes.
AdhereHealth attempted to contact Hayward using an automatic
telephone dialing system with a pre-recorded or artificial voices.
Hayward was never a customer of AdhereHealth, never provided his
phone number and never gave his express consent to be contacted in
such manner, says the complaint. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Yanchunis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Tel: (813) 223-5505
Fax: (813) 223-5402
Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
- and -
Kathryn E. Barnett, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN - NASHVILLE
810 Broadway, Suite 105
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 490-0943
Email: kbarnett@forthepeople.com
- and -
Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
William Peerce Howard, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
4030 Henderson Blvd
Tampa, FL 33609
Telephone: (813) 500-1500
Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
Email: Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
AGROFRESH SOLUTIONS: Investment Deal Lacks Info, Sabatini Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC SABATINI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. AGROFRESH SOLUTIONS, INC., ROBERT CAMPBELL,
DENISE L. DEVINE, NANCE DICCIANI, JORDI FERRE, GREGORY FREIWALD,
TORSTEN KRAEF, GEORGE LOBISSER, and MACAULEY WHITING JR.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00946-UNA (D. Del., July 14, 2020)
alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy
Statement filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") on July 6, 2020.
On June 13, 2020, AgroFresh Solutions, Inc.'s Board of Directors
caused AgroFresh to enter into an Investment Agreement with PSP
AGFS Holdings, L.P., an affiliate of Paine Schwartz Partners, LLC.
Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, among other things, the
Investor will purchase an aggregate of $150,000,000 of new
preferred stock of the Company.
On July 6, 2020, defendants filed a proxy statement with the SEC,
which recommends that AgroFresh's stockholders vote to approve the
issuance of shares pursuant to the Agreement at a stockholder
meeting scheduled for August 6, 2020.
According to the complaint, the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading.
The Proxy Statement fails to disclose the financial projections and
analyses that the Individual Defendants considered and relied upon
in coming to their decision to approve the Agreement; fails to
disclose the terms of BMO Capital Markets' engagement; fails to
disclose a fair summary of the process and negotiations leading up
to the execution of the Agreement; and fails to disclose whether
the Individual Defendants considered any alternatives to the
Agreement.
Plaintiff is the owner of AgroFresh common stock.
Agrofresh Solutions, Inc. is a Pennsylvania-headquartered global
innovator and provider of science-based solutions, data-driven
technologies and experience-backed services to enhance the quality
and extend the shelf life of fresh produce.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
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
AIR METHODS: Court Narrows Claims in Armato & DeQuasie Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEREMY LEE SCARLETT, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AIR METHODS CORPORATION
and ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No.
16-cv-02723-RBJ, Consolidated Cases No. 17-cv-00485, 17-cv-00502,
17-cv-00509, 17-cv-00667, 17-cv-791, 19-cv-01771, 19-cv-01951 (D.
Colo.), Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, among other things, entered rulings on
separate Motions to Dismiss the 'Armato' complaint, the 'DeQuasie'
complaint, and the 'Cowen' complaint.
The case is a consolidated multi-district litigation case before
the Court on several motions by Defendants Air Methods and Rocky
Mountain. The Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff Jonathan
Armato's Class Action Complaint, Case No. 1:19-cv-01771-RBJ
("Armato complaint,") as well as Plaintiffs Richard DeQuasie, et
al.'s Amended Class Action Complaint, Case No. 1:16-cv-02723-RBJ
("DeQuasie complaint"). The Defendants also move to strike the
class allegations from the Armato complaint, the Deqausie
complaint, and Plaintiffs Randal Cowen, et al.'s Amended Class
Action Complaint, Case No. 1:16-cv-02723-RBJ ("Cowen complaint").
These class action complaints are all brought on behalf of
patients, their legal guardians, or the estates of deceased
patients, who were charged allegedly exorbitant fees by defendants
for medical transport by helicopter.
Defendant Air Methods is an air ambulance company with a principle
place of business in Englewood, Colorado, while Defendant Rocky
Mountain is a holding company that owns Air Methods and directs
collection efforts jointly with Air Methods. Though the various
groups of Plaintiffs have slightly different legal theories, their
claims all stem from the allegedly unreasonable amounts the
Defendants charge to provide air ambulance transportation despite
there being no agreement as to price.
The Plaintiffs allege that after providing medical air transport,
the Defendants typically invoice patients upwards of $40,000 for
baseline air ambulance transportation services, excluding any
medical services provided en route. In many cases, after the
Defendants send patients an invoice, they asked them to sign an
"assignment of benefits" ("AOB") prepared by the Defendants, which
authorizes direct payment of patient's insurance benefits to
defendants and assigns them the patients' insurance coverage
rights. After patients' insurance pay what they deem to be the
reasonable value of the services, the Defendants typically demand
that patients pay the remainder of the charged amount. The
Plaintiffs claim the Defendants have initiated collection efforts
against them, and in some cases they have filed state court breach
of contract claims and other suits to collect their charges from
the Plaintiffs.
The action is now comprised of eight separate complaints. Only
three are at issue for the purposes of the motion, and Judge
Jackson contains his discussion to those three.
The Armato complaint asserts claims for declaratory and injunctive
relief as well as equitable restitution. The DeQuasie complaint
asserts only a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief.
Although the Armato and DeQuasie complaints allege similar facts,
they bring slightly different claims for relief. Both the Armato
and the DeQuasie Plaintiffs argue that no contract exists between
the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. The DeQuasie Plaintiffs seek a
declaratory judgment that no contract exists, as well as
prospective relief pursuant to that judgment. Armato, who brings a
class action but is the only named Plaintiff, asks for equitable
restitution of payments made to the Defendants in addition to
declaratory relief.
Finally, the Cowen Plaintiffs raised claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief, breach of contract, and equitable restitution.
The Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint in its entirety, and
Judge Jackson granted their motion on May 22, 2018. The Cowen
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Tenth Circuit, which
affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Tenth Circuit affirmed
the trial court's dismissal of the Cowen Plaintiffs' implied
contract and unjust enrichment claim. It then reversed the Court's
dismissal of the Cowen Plaintiffs' declaratory judgment claim
regarding the existence of enforceable express or implied-in-fact
contracts.
The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Armato and Deqausie
complaints, and to strike the class allegations from these
complaints as well as the Cowen complaint. Regarding the
Plaintiffs' requested declaratory judgment, the Defendants argue
(1) that the ADA does not create a private right of action, and (2)
that the ADA does not prevent the Defendants from receiving
payments for services.
Judge Jackson holds that the Plaintiffs' declaratory judgment claim
does not, as the Defendants would have it, attempt to create a
cause of action under the ADA. Rather it arises from the Court's
power to resolve contract disputes between airlines and customers,
which the Tenth Circuit has held are not pre-empted under the ADA.
As the Judge has dismissed the non-declaratory prospective relief
requested in the Plaintiffs' declaratory judgment claim, all that
remains is the Plaintiffs' request for an order declaring that no
contract exists between the parties. The Judge finds that contrary
to the Defendants' argument, declaratory judgment claims about the
existence of a contract neither prevent them from collecting for
their services nor improperly regulate the airline industry. The
Plaintiffs may continue to pursue a declaratory judgment, but their
requests for non-declaratory and injunctive relief under DJA
Section 2202 are dismissed.
Next, the Defendants argue that Armato's claim for equitable
restitution is preempted by the ADA. The Judge finds that
equitable restitution is a closely related equitable remedy that
"would reflect the court's policy judgment." Under the Tenth
Circuit's holding in Scarlett, the claim is pre-empted by the ADA.
The Defendants' motion is granted as to the DeQuasie and the Armato
Plaintiffs' claims for non-declaratory and injunctive relief
pursuant to DJA Section 2202, and as to Armato's claim for
equitable restitution. The motion is denied as to the Plaintiffs'
declaratory judgment claims.
Turning to their motion to strike, the Defendants argue that the
Plaintiffs cannot meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 23(a), (b)(2), or (b)(3), and therefore the class
allegations should be struck. The Judge finds that (i) because the
Defendants' theory of the case and any resultant conflicts remain
vague, and because the proposed class could easily be narrowed, he
cannot find that a conflict exists that would make class
certification impossible; (ii) because the Defendants have not
articulated their reasoning as to why the Plaintiffs' declaratory
judgment claims should fail, he does not find at this time that it
would be impossible for the Plaintiffs to satisfy the commonality
requirement; and (iii) the harm and threat of harm suffered by the
named Plaintiffs as a result of the Defendants' attempts to collect
exorbitant fees following air transport is typical of the harm and
threat of harm suffered by other members of the class.
The Judge also agrees with the Defendants that individual issues
predominate over class issues so as to rule out certification of a
class under Rule 23(b)(3), at least to the extent the question is
whether an implied-in-fact contract was formed. Rules 23(b)(1) and
23(b)(2), the Judge has the same reservations. The Court's
ultimate task is to determine whether a contract was formed, and
he's not convinced that the individual legal and factual issues
affecting that determination would disappear regardless of the
subsection of Rule 23(b) one attempts to apply. But the Judge can
only address the issues the parties have briefed, and they have not
fleshed out their positions on (b)(1) or (b)(2). The Plaintiffs
cannot satisfy the predominance requirement, and therefore he
grants the Defendants' motion regarding the Plaintiffs' allegations
under Rule 23(b)(3) with respect to whether or not an
implied-in-fact contract was formed.
In sum, Judge Jackson:
-- granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Armato Complaint. Armato's Count I is dismissed
insofar as it requests injunctive and non-declaratory relief
and Count II for equitable restitution in its entirety;
-- granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the DeQuasie Complaint. The DeQuasie Plaintiffs'
Count I is dismissed insofar as it requests injunctive and
non-declaratory relief;
-- granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Consolidated Motion to Strike Class Allegations from the
Cowen, the DeQuasie, and the Armato Complaints. The Motion
is granted insofar as it asks the Court to strike the
Plaintiffs' allegations under Rule 23(b)(3) with respect to
the existence or non-existence of implied-in-fact contracts.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/D03jQD from Leagle.com.
ALL AMERICAN SECURITY: Haave Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Haave, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. All American Security Services, Inc. and Sergio
Salas, individually, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-22477, (S.D. Fla.,
June 16, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
and the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees of this action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants owned and operated a security services business based in
Miami-Dade County, where Haave worked as an Account Manager. He
claims to be denied being paid time and one-half wages for all of
their actual hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith M. Stern, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
One Flagler, 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 901-1379
Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
ALLIANZ: Faces "Junk" Car Insurance Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Matt Johnson, writing for TheNewDaily, reports that Tracy-Ann
Fuller is one of thousands of Australians allegedly caught out by
so-called "car yard insurance".
The Melbourne woman was preparing to sign the contract for her new
Holden Trax LTZ when, she says, she was "rushed" into buying a trio
of add-on insurance products at the dealership –- including one
that claimed to cover tyre and rim damage.
Ms. Fuller says the cost of the additional policies was nearly
$6000.
But as they were bundled in with the rest of the paperwork, she
thought they were an integral part of her package, she told The New
Daily.
"Nobody told me that the products were optional -- I thought they
were part of the finance documents," Ms Fuller said.
It was only when her car sustained damage that she believed she had
been sold a furphy.
"When I tried to make a claim under my tyre-and-rim insurance for
damage to my car rim and it was rejected. Then I realised it
basically didn't cover anything," Ms Fuller said.
Now, Ms Fuller is the lead plaintiff in a class action brought
against Allianz and Allianz Life by law firm Johnson Winter &
Slattery (JWS) over the alleged sale of "junk" products, in what is
claimed to be a breach of the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission Act 2001.
The class action covers car and motorcycle customers who bought the
following Allianz products through a dealership:
-- Loan Protection Insurance
-- Motor Equity Insurance (referred to as
"GAP Insurance", "Shortfall -- Insurance" or
"Value Protect Insurance")
-- Extended Motor Warranty
-- Tyre and Rim Insurance products.
JWS practice group head of dispute resolution Paul Buitendag said
last year's Hayne Royal Commission saw a number of complainants
come out of the woodwork.
"While the Royal Commission is behind us, many consumers have
significant claims and JWS has been instructed to file these
important proceedings to take all steps available for the class to
seek redress," Mr Buitendag told The New Daily.
JWS has confirmed drivers across Australia would be eligible to
participate in the legal battle as group members.
And testimony handed to the banking royal commission suggest
hundreds of thousands of motorists could be eligible.
Documents submitted by Allianz Australia chief general manager of
retail distribution Michael Winter reveal at least 739,000 "add-on"
policies taken out between 2013 and 2018 are potentially in
question, totalling more than $600 million in premiums.
Allianz refunded $45.6 million to 68,000 customers who were sold
insurance of "little or no value" as a result of an investigation
by the corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission, in 2018.
ASIC declared add-on insurance products sold through car
dealerships were expensive, of poor value and offered little
benefit to consumers.
The firm admitted some dealer customers were sold products that may
not have been suited to their individual circumstances.
An Allianz spokesperson said the firm acknowledged the new class
action in relation to its add-on insurance products.
"In December 2017, ASIC approved an Allianz remediation program of
premium refunds for any customers that may have purchased motor
add-on insurance products that were not suitable for their needs,"
she told The New Daily.
"As this matter is now before the court, no further public comments
will be made."
Treasury last year released a proposal paper outlining reform for
the sale of add-on insurance, which would introduce an
"industry-wide deferred sales model (DSM)" to protect motorists
from tactics including "pressure-selling, poor claims ratios and
low levels of consumer engagement".
The general insurance industry representative body, the Insurance
Council of Australia, was among the respondents that support the
introduction of a DSM.
While welcoming the new class action, Consumer Action Law Centre
senior policy officer Cat Newton told The New Daily some motorists
are still being stung by dealers with "junk" car insurance
policies.
"We continue to hear from people who have been flogged junk
insurance this year, particularly in car yards [so] to prevent
ongoing harm, we need ASIC to intervene to stop the sale of junk
insurance by car dealers," Ms Newton said.
"Commissioner Hayne also recommended a 'deferred sales' model for
all add-on insurance, whether it's sold by a lender, travel agents
or retail shops.
"This reform would give people time to consider whether they want
or need the add-on insurance, free from high-pressure sales tactics
motivated by eye-watering commissions." [GN]
ALLIED NEVADA: Fairness Hearing in Securities Suit Set for Nov. 16
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Summary Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action was issued
on July 15, 2020 in In re ALLIED NEVADA GOLD CORP., SECURITIES
LITIGATION, This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS, Case No.
3:14-cv-00175-LRH-WGC (D. Nev.).
The Summary Notice is for ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED ALLIED NEVADA
GOLD CORPORATION ("ALLIED") COMMON STOCK IN THE UNITED STATES OR ON
A SECURITIES EXCHANGE IN THE UNITED STATES DURING THE PERIOD FROM
JANUARY 18, 2013, THROUGH AND INCLUDING AUGUST 5, 2013, INCLUSIVE
("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS"):
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on November 16,
2020, at 10:00 a.m. (PT), before the Honorable Larry R. Hicks at
the United States District Court, District of Nevada, Bruce R.
Thompson Federal Courthouse, 400 S. Virginia Street, Reno, NV
89501, to determine whether the Court should: (1) grant final
certification to the Class; (2) approve the proposed Settlement
(the "Settlement") of the above-captioned action as set forth in
the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation")1 for $14,000,000.00
in cash ("Settlement Amount") as fair, reasonable and adequate; (3)
enter the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation dismissing the
Litigation with prejudice; (4) approve the proposed Plan of
Allocation of the Settlement proceeds to eligible Class Members as
fair and equitable; (5) award Lead Plaintiff's Counsel attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in
the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice"), which is discussed below) and, if so, in what amount;
and (6) reimburse Lead Plaintiff for his costs and expenses in
representing the Class out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in
what amount.
IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED ALLIED COMMON STOCK IN THE UNITED
STATES OR ON A SECURITIES EXCHANGE IN THE UNITED STATES FROM
JANUARY 18, 2013, THROUGH AND INCLUDING AUGUST 5, 2013, YOUR RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.
To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail postmarked no later than
November 7, 2020 or electronically submitted online no later than
November 7, 2020. Your failure to submit or deliver your Proof of
Claim form by November 7, 2020, will subject your claim to
rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery in
connection with the Settlement of this Litigation. If you are a
Class Member and do not request exclusion from the Class, you will
be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in
the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the Judgment as
provided under the Stipulation, whether or not you submit a Proof
of Claim form.
If you have NOT received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim form, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of
the Stipulation and other settlement documents, online at
www.AlliedNevadaSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing to:
Allied Nevada Gold Securities Settlement
c/o Epiq
P.O. Box 4087
Portland, OR 97208-4087
Please do NOT direct inquiries to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim form, may be made to Lead Counsel:
CHARLES J. PIVEN, ESQ.
BROWER PIVEN,
A Professional Corporation.
3704 North Charles Street, #1301
Baltimore, MD 21218
Email: piven@browerpiven.com
If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion such that it is postmarked or delivered no
later than September 28, 2020, in the manner and form explained in
the Notice. All Class Members who have not requested exclusion from
the Class will be bound by the Settlement even if they do not
submit a timely Proof of Claim form.
If you are a Class Member, you have the right to comment or object
to final certification of the Class, the proposed Settlement, the
proposed Plan of Allocation, Lead Plaintiff's Counsel's application
for attorneys' fees not to exceed 33 1/3% of the Settlement amount
and/or reimbursement of their litigation expenses not to exceed
$450,000.00, and/or Lead Plaintiff's request for reimbursement of
his time and expenses representing the Class not to exceed
$10,000.00. Any comment or objection must be filed with the Court
and mailed or delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel
such that it is postmarked or delivered no later than September 28,
2020, in the manner and form explained in the Notice.
If you object to the final certification of the Class, the proposed
Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, Lead Plaintiff's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and/or reimbursement of
their Litigation expenses and/or Lead Plaintiff's request for
reimbursement of his expenses representing the Class, and wish to
be heard at the Settlement Hearing on November 20, 2020, you may
ask the Court to do so by including with your objection a statement
saying that it is your "notice of intention to appear in the Allied
Nevada Gold Securities Settlement." Any Class Member may enter an
appearance in the Action, individually or through counsel of their
own choice and at their own expense. If you wish to appear, you or
your counsel must file with the Clerk of the Court and deliver to
Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel a notice of such appearance no
later than September 23, 2020, in the manner and form explained in
the Notice.
The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.AlliedNevadaSecuritiesSettlement.com. [GN]
ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Irwindale Antitrust Suit Over E-Cig Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IRWINDALE FUEL STATION, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff,
v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC., ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC, and JUUL LABS, INC.,
Defendants, Case 3:20-cv-04736 (N.D. Cal., July 15, 2020) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf
of all persons in the United States which indirectly purchased Juul
e-cigarettes for resale, against Defendants Altria Group, Inc.,
Altria Enterprises LLC and Juul Labs, Inc. for damages, injunctive
relief and other relief pursuant to federal antitrust laws, state
antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws, and
the laws of unjust enrichment, and demand a trial by jury.
According to the lawsuit, horizontal competitors Juul and Altria
entered into agreements that eliminated competition by Altria in
the market for closed system electronic cigarettes in exchange for
transferring to Altria a partial ownership interest in JUUL. These
agreements effectuated a horizontal allocation of the market. JUUL
and Altria agreed that the latter would exit the e-cigarette market
entirely and instead become a minority shareholder in JUUL. This
conduct constitutes a per se violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the
Sherman Act and constituted an unlawful acquisition in violation of
Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
The agreements also provide the basis for the claims that JUUL
attempted to monopolize and monopolized the relevant market of
e-cigarettes sold in the United States and its territories in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and violated state
Antitrust and consumer protection laws.
Plaintiff and members of the proposed Classes were injured by the
elimination of the Altria Group as a competitor in the closed
e-cigarette market, paid supracompetitive prices for JUUL's
e-cigarettes as a result, and were denied the benefits of
competitive innovation that could have existed had the Altria Group
stayed in the market as an independent competitor.
Altria Group, Inc. is an American corporation and one of the
world's largest producers and marketers of tobacco, cigarettes and
related products.
Altria Enterprises LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Altria
Group based in Virginia.
Juul Labs, Inc. is the leading manufacturer of closed-system
e-cigarettes based in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Pedram Minoofar, Esq.
Navid Yadegar, Esq.
YADEGAR, MINOOFAR & SOLEYMANI LLP
1875 Century Park East Suite 1240
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 499-0140
Facsimile: (888) 534-0290
ALVARADO RESTAURANT: Faces Wallace Suit Over Wage Abuse Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Wallace, on behalf of herself and certain other current and
former non-exempt employees v. ALVARADO RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, a
Colorado limited liability company; PALO ALTO, INC., a Colorado
corporation; PALO VERDE, INC., a Colorado corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV26260 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., July 13, 2020), alleges that the Defendants are
engaged in an ongoing and systematic scheme of wage abuse against
their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, in violation of the
California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have implemented
policies and practices which failed to provide the Plaintiff with
timely and duty-free meal periods. The Defendants did not
adequately inform the Plaintiff of her right to take meal periods
under California law. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff
premium wages for meal periods that were missed, late, interrupted,
or shortened in violation of California law. The Defendants
regularly failed to pay overtime compensation to the Plaintiff when
she worked in excess of 8 hours in a single work day and/or 40
hours in a single work week, or in excess of 12 hours in a single
work day and/or 80 hours in a single work week.
The Defendants regularly failed to pay her at least minimum wages
for all hours worked, the Plaintiff alleges. She contends that the
Defendants failed to reimburse her for all necessary
business-related expenses. The Defendants knew or should have known
that they had a duty to compensate the Plaintiff pursuant to
California law. The Defendants had the financial ability to pay
such compensation, but willfully, knowingly, and intentionally
failed to do so, and falsely represented to the Plaintiff that they
paid all wages owed to her, all in order to increase the
Defendants' profits, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a team
member from September 2014 to 2019.
The Defendants are a YUM Brand franchisee operating numerous Taco
Bell, KFC, and Pizza Hut restaurants throughout the State of
California.[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
Phone: (424) 290-3095
Facsimile: (866) 264-7880
Email: heather@protectionlawgroup.com
amir@protectionlawgroup.com
emi@protectionlawgroup.com
AMERICAN CORPORATE: Gomez Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT & Other Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IGNACIO GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN CORPORATE SECURITY, INC.; and DOES
1-100, Defendants, Case No. 37-2020-00024045-CU-OE-CTL (Cal.
Super., San Diego Cty., July 13, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for several labor law violations pursuant to the
Private Attorney General Act of 2004 including failure to pay
straight, regular rate wages for all work performed; failure to pay
all overtime and double-time wages; failure to provide meal, rest,
and recovery periods; failure to pay wages due at termination and
during employment; intentional failure to comply with itemized
employee wage statements; failure to pay employees two times per
month; and failure to adopt a complaint sick pay/paid time off
policy.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a security
personnel in California.
American Corporate Security, Inc. is a company that provides
security guard service with its principal place of business located
in Stockton, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Mara, Esq.
Matthew Crawford, Esq.
MARA LAW FIRM, PC
2650 Camino del Rio North, Suite 205
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 234-2833
Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Tollefson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, JAMES TOLLEFSON, on behalf of himself and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANADARKO PETROLEUM
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-00168 (W.D. Tex., July 13,
2020) arises from Defendant's alleged willful violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an inspector from
approximately July 2019 to March 2020.
Plaintiff claims that he was required by Defendant to regularly
work over 40 hours each week, normally 5-6 days per week at 10-12
hours per day, throughout her employment with Defendant. However,
Defendant paid Plaintiff on a day rate basis without any additional
compensation for overtime wages for those hours he worked in excess
of 40.
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation operates oil and gas industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 523-0001
Fax: (713) 523-1116
Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
- and –
Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
John Neuman, Esq.
5612 Chaucer Drive
Houston, TX 77005
Tel: (281) 885-8630
Fax: (281) 885-8813
Email: bsosamorris@smnlawfirm.com
jneuman@smnlawfirm.com
ANGUS PROVING: Valdivia Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Valdivia, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ANGUS PROVING SERVICES, LLC; ANGUS MEASUREMENT
SERVICES, LP and ROBERT TONKIN, Case No. 7:20-cv-00171 (W.D. Tex.,
July 13, 2020), is brought on behalf of all current and former
employees of the Defendant, who were paid on a job-rate basis
without overtime during the past three years to recover back wages,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.
The Defendant violated the FLSA by employing the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees "for a workweek longer than
forty hours but refusing to compensate them for their employment in
excess of forty hours at a rate not less than one and one-half
times the regular rate at which they were or are employed,"
according to the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a welder from 2010
to November 2019.
Angus Proving and Angus Measurement are oilfield services
companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Centre
440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
Email: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
curt@mooreandassociates.net
APELLES LLC: Ismani Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as HASHIME ISMANI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. APELLES, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01089 (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
herself as the class representative, and appoint her attorneys as
class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY
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
ARCHER DANIELS: Manipulates Ethanol Prices, Green Plains et al Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
GREEN PLAINS TRADE GROUP LLC, GREEN PLAINS INC., GREEN PLAINS WOOD
RIVER LLC, GREEN PLAINS ORD LLC, GREEN PLAINS ATKINSON LLC, GREEN
PLAINS CENTRAL CITY LLC, GREEN PLAINS YORK LLC, GREEN PLAINS
SHENANDOAH LLC, GREEN PLAINS OTTER TAIL LLC, GREEN PLAINS FAIRMONT
LLC, GREEN PLAINS HEREFORD LLC, GREEN PLAINS MOUNT VERNON LLC,
GREEN PLAINS MADISON LLC, GREEN PLAINS HOPEWELL LLC, GREEN PLAINS
SUPERIOR LLC, GREEN PLAINS OBION LLC, GREEN PLAINS BLUFFTON LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
8:20-cv-00279 (D. Neb., July 14, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendant for violation of the Commodity Exchange Act and
tortious interference with contractual relations.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated ethanol producers, allege that the Defendant manipulated
the derivative contracts market through implementing a strategy
that aims to decline the physical prices at the Kinder Morgan Argo
Terminal in Argo, Illinois. The Defendant's strategy includes (i)
flooding the Argo Terminal with ethanol, and (ii) hurriedly
lowering offers or accepting low priced bids as the dominant seller
in the Market on Close (MOC) pricing window, which controls much of
the pricing for the physical ethanol market. The Defendant used its
size, proximity, and relationships to exploit and overwhelm the
Argo terminal and force a desired, self-serving pricing outcome
upon other financial and physical market participants. The
Defendant's downward manipulation of prices at the Argo Terminal
inevitably reduced the prices that ethanol producers received for
sales under those contracts. The foregoing targeting of producers
in the performance of their ethanol sales contracts is unlawful
tortious interference with contractual relations.
As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and
other ethanol producers are harmed by depriving them of the
benefits of a fair market, lowering the Argo Terminal-based price
index which the Defendant knew producers use as the pricing
mechanism for their sales contracts, and depriving them of the
benefits of contracting/pricing free from tortious interference.
Green Plains Trade Group LLC is an ethanol fuel producer with its
principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska.
Green Plains Inc. is an ethanol fuel producer with its principal
place of business in Omaha, Nebraska.
Green Plains Wood River LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant
that produces ethanol in Wood River, Nebraska.
Green Plains Ord LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant that
produces ethanol in Omaha, Nebraska.
Green Plains Atkinson LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant
that produces ethanol in Atkinson, Nebraska.
Green Plains Central City LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant
that produces ethanol in Central City, Nebraska.
Green Plains York LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant that
produces ethanol in York, Nebraska.
Green Plains Shenandoah LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant
that produces ethanol in Shenandoah, Iowa.
Green Plains Otter Tail LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant
that produces ethanol in Fergus Falls, Minnesota.
Green Plains Fairmont LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant
that produces ethanol in Fairmont, Minnesota.
Green Plains Hereford LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant
that produces ethanol in Hereford, Texas.
Green Plains Mount Vernon LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant
that produces ethanol in Mount Vernon, Indiana.
Green Plains Madison LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant that
produces ethanol in Madison, Illinois.
Green Plains Hopewell LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant
that produces ethanol in Hopewell, Virginia.
Green Plains Superior LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant
that produces ethanol in Superior, Iowa.
Green Plains Obion LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant that
produces ethanol in Obion, Tennessee.
Green Plains Bluffton LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant
that produces ethanol in Bluffton, Indiana.
Archer Daniel Midlands Company is a producer and seller of ethanol
in the Midwest and throughout the United States, with its global
headquarters located at 77 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David A. Domina, Esq.
DOMINA LAW GROUP PC LLO
2425 South 144th Street
Omaha, NE 68144
Telephone: (402) 493-4100
E-mail: ddomina@dominalaw.com
- and –
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
John E. Tangren, Esq.
Mark S. Hamill, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
- and –
Greg G. Gutzler, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
444 Madison Avenue, Fourth Floor
New York, NY 11022
Telephone: (646) 933-1000
E-mail: ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com
ARTHUR BLASZCZYSZYN INSURANCE: Katt Files ADA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Blaszczyszyn Insurance Agency, Inc. is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as David Katt, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Arthur Blaszczyszyn Insurance
Agency, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02052-KLM (D. Colo., July
14, 2020).
Arthur Blaszczyszyn Insurance Agency, Inc. is engaged in the
Insurance business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
Marcus & Zelman, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Tel: (732) 695-3282
Email: ari@marcuszelman.com
ASSET RECOVERY: Nakshin Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA NAKSHINI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 8:20-cv-02040-PX (D. Md., July 10, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff signed promissory notes as a
guarantor for her brother's private student loan with Doral Bank
FSB in or around January 2008 which her brother defaulted in or
before January 2015. Consequently, the servicer of the loan
contacted Plaintiff for payment, began reporting the default on
Plaintiff's credit report, and transferred the defaulted loan to
Defendant for collection.
Notwithstanding the terms of the agreement made by Plaintiff with
the servicer in or around November 2019 to reduce the amount due on
the loan from approximately $37,000 to $16,000 to be paid in
monthly installments of $500, Defendant sent collection letters to
Plaintiff dated on or about January 27, 2020, March 6, 2020, April
6, 2020, and June 8, 2020 which demanded payment for the full loan
balance without offering balance reduction or payment plan
according to the terms of the agreement.
The complaint asserts these claims:
-- Defendant sent correspondence requesting payment of a full
amount without reference to any balance reduction or payment plan
in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(2) and (10);
-- Defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive trade practice
by sending correspondence that gave the impression that Plaintiff
was required to pay the full balance of the Loan in violation of
Md. Code ann., Com. Law section 13-301(1); and
-- Defendant deprived Plaintiff and consumers of truthful
information regarding their debt obligations.
Asset Recovery Solutions LLC is a licensed collection agency in
Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Courtney L. Weiner, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC
1629 K Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: 202-827-9980
Email: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com
- and –
Ingmar Goldson, Esq.
THE GOLDSON LAW OFFICE
1734 Elton Road, Suite 210
Silver Spring, MD 20903
Tel: 240-780-8829
Email: igoldson@goldsonlawoffice.com
ATLANTIC RECORDING: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Sosa Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YONY SOSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05185-AT (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2020) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's website
-- https://www.atlanticrecords.com/ -- is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.
Atlantic Recording Corporation records and sells music. The Company
offers a portfolio of music collection sung by various artists.
Atlantic Recording serves customers in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
AUDI AG: Accused in Suit of Ignoring Start/Stop System Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP announced that a class-action
lawsuit filed July 9, 2020 accuses Audi of willfully ignoring a
defect affecting the auto start/stop system in tens of thousands of
2017 - 2020 Audi vehicles that can "cause the power steering and
brake assist to turn off while the vehicle is still moving, and
delays acceleration, steering and braking," according to attorneys
at Hagens Berman.
The defect at the center of the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, affects all 2017 - 2020
Audi vehicles, excluding electric and hybrid models. The lawsuit
states that the defect "could result in injuries or even deaths,"
yet Audi refuses to repair or replace the defective systems and
continues to sell unsafe vehicles, according to attorneys.
Owners report that Audi dealerships have been of no help, and that
in a service bulletin issued by Audi to mechanics in 2018, the
automaker acknowledged complaints, but gave no solution.
If you own a 2017 - 2020 Audi and have experienced engine shutdown
while still moving, or delays in your brakes, acceleration, power
steering when restarting from a stop, find out more about the
lawsuit and your rights.
"In its warranty to its own customers, Audi says it is dedicated to
‘exceptional quality, dependability, and peace of mind,' but it
has failed to honor its promise, choosing instead to ignore this
defect, keep it from owners and not offer repairs," said Thomas E.
Loeser, Hagens Berman partner and attorney representing the class
of vehicle owners. "Audi has historically shown its disregard for
playing by the rules in its involvement in the Dieselgate scandal
of its parent company Volkswagen, and as we did in that litigation,
we intend in this case to hold Audi to the law and accountability
it owes consumers."
The lawsuit accuses Audi of violating the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, as well as multiple state consumer-protection laws, and says
the automaker has committed fraudulent concealment. The lawsuit
seeks repayment for owners of affected Audi vehicles for repairs
they have made, and for Audi's breach of warranty and failure to
act in good faith, among other remedies.
Signs of the Audi Start/Stop Defect
When the defect manifests, owner complaints in online forums
indicate that affected vehicles sometimes flash a code for a
"start/stop" malfunction. The system installed in gasoline powered
models is designed to curtail emissions that occur while the
vehicle is stopped in traffic, parked or not moving. Yet attorneys
accuse Audi of allowing this system to "come at the cost of
reliable operation of the basic safety systems in a car, namely the
brakes, steering and acceleration."
Owners report that the defect shuts down the engine before they
have come to a complete stop, which drastically increases the force
required to turn the steering wheel and the pedal force required to
completely stop the vehicle. After the vehicle is stopped, owners
report that the defect creates a delay between when their foot is
removed from the brake and when the engine turns back on. During
this delay, the driver can't move the steering wheel or accelerate.
When the engine finally does turn back on, drivers report that the
car lurches forward, rather than accelerating gradually.
" . . . critical braking, steering and accelerating functions of
the Affected Vehicles shut off too soon and restart too late," the
lawsuit states.
Audi Owner Reports: ". . . dangerous . . ." and a "major design
defect"
Dozens of reports to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) document the start/stop defect, both
indicating that Audi has likely been made aware of the widespread
issue. The following are excerpts of owner reports filed with
NHTSA:
-- "It is dangerous...car will not respond after a few seconds.
...suddenly the car will surge ahead. This is not an
isolated incident..."
-- "This is a major design defect in the auto start/stop system
and occurs every time the system is active."
-- ". . . vehicle feels like the brakes have been artificially
and aggressively applied to bring the car to a complete stop
before the start/stop engine feature otherwise should have
engaged. ...For vehicles following close behind, the effect
will be that the Audi vehicle in front of them will appear
to lurch to a stop, thus creating a risk of rear-end
collision."
-- "I almost got hit because of this and it is very scary not
to be able to steer out of the way when necessary!!! This
is horrible function of the car which can cause a lot of
accidents!!"
Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against Audi for the
start/stop defect in its 2017 – 2020 models.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is a consumer-rights class-action
law firm with nine offices across the country. The firm's tenacious
drive for plaintiffs' rights has earned it numerous national
accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm," and
MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm
and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm
for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. [GN]
AVIVA INSURANCE: Faces Business Interruption Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Greg Meckbach, writing for Canadian Underwriter, reports that the
question of whether non-essential businesses that closed during the
pandemic are entitled to claim insurance -- specifically, for cover
arising as a direct result of an outbreak of contagious or
infectious disease within 25 kilometres that is required by law to
be reported to the authorities -- is headed before a Canadian
judge.
Nordik Windows Inc. is the representative plaintiff in a proposed
$100-million class action lawsuit against Aviva Insurance Company
of Canada announced recently.
The client's law firm, Thomson Rogers, provided the statement of
claim late on July 7 to Canadian Underwriter. Allegations that
Aviva is in breach of an insurance contract by denying coverage
have not been proven in court. Canadian Underwriter reached out to
Aviva Canada on July 6 seeking comment but has not heard back yet.
The lawsuit proposes to represent businesses that suffered business
interruption during the pandemic and were covered under very
specific Aviva Canada policies. One policy referenced in the
statement of claim is Aviva's "enterprise insurance" policy, which
includes business income under Form 912000-01 or other forms
containing "negative publicity" and/or "restricted access"
coverage, according to Thomson Rogers's court filing.
Among the policy wordings at issue in that coverage dispute is
insurance for loss of business income as a "direct result" of "an
outbreak of contagious or infectious disease within 25 kilometres
of the 'premises' that is required by law to be reported by
government authorities."
Other policy wording includes loss of business income "when ingress
or egress . . is restricted whole or in part . . . by order of
civil authority . . [by] an outbreak of a contagious or infectious
disease that is required by law to be reported to government
authorities."
When a court is hearing a coverage dispute over business
interruption arising from COVID-19, the specifics of that client's
policy wording will be critical in determining whether the client
is entitled to coverage, insurance defence lawyers have told
Canadian Underwriter.
Nordik windows Inc. has three locations in the Ottawa area -- two
in Ontario and another in Aylmer, on the Quebec side of the Ottawa
River.
The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic Mar. 11.
Later that month, the Ontario government ordered all businesses to
close unless they were on a list of "essential" workplaces.
Essential workplaces included insurance companies and brokerages,
supermarkets, convenience stores, and collision repair centres.
Nordik Windows' workplaces were not considered essential, the firm
said in its statement of claim against Aviva.
The lawsuit is one of several business interruption coverage
disputes filed so far in Canada.
In Britain, the Financial Conduct Authority recently filed a test
case with the High Court of England and Wales. FCA is scheduled to
serve arguments July 10.
The court's ruling in that test case will be binding in Britain on
the insurers that are parties to that test case in respect of the
policy wordings considered by the court. It will not necessarily be
binding outside of Britain but could set a precedent for Canadian
courts, said Eric Charleston, Toronto-based associate with Miller
Thomson LLP, in an earlier interview with Canadian Underwriter.
Among the 17 policy wordings the British test case will consider
are:
-- any occurrence of a notifiable human disease within a
radius of 25 miles of the premises
-- your inability to use the insured premises due to
restrictions imposed by a . . . public authority during the
period of insurance following . . . an occurrence of any
human infectious or human contagious disease, an outbreak
of which must be notified to the local authority. [GN]
BANK OF NEW YORK: Scott+Scott Files Breach of Contract Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
securities and consumer rights litigation firm, on July 8 disclosed
that it has filed a class action lawsuit against the Bank of New
York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee of the Pacific Coast
Oil Trust ("the Trustee") and Pacific Coast Energy Company LP
("PCEC").
The action, which was filed in California Superior Court, Los
Angeles County, and is captioned Evergreen Capital Management LLC
v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, asserts claims for breach
of contract against the Trustee and breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing against PCEC, on behalf of Trust
Unitholders of Pacific Coast Oil Trust (the "Trust").
The lawsuit alleges that PCEC has improperly deprived the Trust and
Trust Unitholders of revenue by incorrectly calculating current
asset retirement obligations ("ARO") based on future oil and well
abandonment costs in violation of GAAP and industry practices. The
lawsuit also alleges that the Trustee has been grossly negligent by
taking inadequate actions to respond to PCEC's conduct.
By bringing this lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks an order forcing PCEC to
stop its improper calculations, which have prevented the Trust and
Unitholders from receiving the revenue that they are due.
Plaintiff also seeks consequential and compensatory damages arising
from Defendants' conduct.
If you wish to discuss this action, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Jing-Li Yu of Scott+Scott at (646) 992-4755 or via email
at jyu@scott-scott.com.
About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the
United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations,
individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York,
London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Ohio, and Virginia.
[GN]
BAYER AG: Scraps $1.25BB Roundup Weedkiller Settlement Proposal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Randazzo, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Bayer AG is scrapping a $1.25 billion proposal for resolving future
lawsuits over whether its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer,
highlighting the difficulty of settling litigation over a product
still on the market.
The snag doesn't affect deals worth up to $9.6 billion that Bayer
reached with lawyers representing tens of thousands of plaintiffs
who blame Roundup for making them sick. [GN]
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Young Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., BJ's
Wholesale Club, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05416 (S.D. N.Y.,
July 14, 2020).
BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., commonly referred as BJ's, is
an American membership-only warehouse club chain based in
Westborough, Massachusetts, operating on the East Coast of the
United States and the states of Ohio and Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
BMW: Indirect Purchasers' Federal RICO Claims Dismissed in Rickman
------------------------------------------------------------------
James Bogan III of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP wrote an
article on JD Supra titled "RICO class actions: District of New
Jersey dismisses with prejudice federal RICO claims asserted by
indirect purchasers":
Takeaway: Class actions brought under federal RICO present
significant risk, because they present the opportunity for
certification of a nationwide class under a federal statute and the
remedies provided under federal RICO - similar to federal antitrust
remedies - include treble damages and attorneys' fees.
Accordingly, attorneys defending such class actions usually seek
the dismissal of RICO claims at the earliest possible opportunity.
A recent decision by the District of New Jersey in one of the
"clean diesel/defeat device" series of class actions reinforces the
principle that, because federal RICO was modeled on the federal
antitrust laws (the Clayton Act), the "indirect purchaser" standing
rule applies and will support the early dismissal of RICO claims by
indirect purchasers.
In Rickman v. BMW of North America, Civ. No. 18-4363(KM) (JBC),
2020 WL 3468250, at *1 (D.N.J., June 25, 2020), over forty named
plaintiffs filed a putative class action against BMW and Robert
Bosch entities for their alleged participation in the "clean-diesel
emissions scandal." Their amended complaint asserted one claim
under federal RICO and seventy-eight counts under the statutes and
common law of various states.
But none of the named plaintiffs' automobiles were purchased
directly from BMW or Bosch (Bosch allegedly controlled the "defeat
device" software). Rather, the named plaintiffs alleged that they
purchased their cars from either a BMW dealer, a private party, or
at auction. Moreover, the allegations showed that most of the cars
were purchased on the secondary market and not from any authorized
BMW dealer.
In Holmes v. Sec. Inv'r Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (1992), the
Supreme Court held that because 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) – the
provision granting a private right of action under RICO - was
modeled on the Clayton Act, federal antitrust principles govern
civil RICO claims. In McCarthy v. Recordex Service, Inc., 80 F.3d
842 (3d Cir. 1996), the Third Circuit applied Holmes when it
dismissed, for lack of standing, antitrust and RICO claims asserted
by plaintiffs who were not the direct purchasers of allegedly
overpriced photocopies.
Applying the indirect purchaser rule, as applied in Holmes,
McCarthy, and number of district court decisions in the Third
Circuit (including several by the District of New Jersey), the
district court dismissed the named plaintiffs' RICO claims. 2020
WL 3468250, at *8-10. Further, because any further amendment would
be futile, the district court specified that the dismissal was with
prejudice. Id. at *17.
But because federal subject matter jurisdiction was not eliminated
by the dismissal - the plaintiffs' claims gave rise to both regular
diversity jurisdiction as well as diversity jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act – the plaintiffs were free to prosecute
their seventy-eight claims under state law. Id. at *4. And the
district court rejected all of the defendants' challenges to the
plaintiff state-law claims, deferring several arguments for later
consideration at the class certification phase. Id. at *10-17.
[GN]
BUCKLES & BUCKLES: 6th Cir. Flips Merit Orders in Van Hoven Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated a district
court ruling on damages award and attorneys' fees in the case
captioned MAUREEN VAN HOVEN, FOR HERSELF AND CLASS MEMBERS,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BUCKLES & BUCKLES, P.L.C.; GERALDINE C.
BUCKLES; MICHAEL H.R. BUCKLES, Defendants-Appellants, Case Nos.
18-2399, 19-1078, (6th Cir.).
Maureen Van Hoven, a Michigan attorney, defaulted on a credit card
debt with Discover several years ago. Discover hired Buckles &
Buckles, a law firm, to collect the debt. The law firm filed a
debt collection lawsuit in state court and won. Van Hoven didn't
pay. Buckles & Buckles invoked the procedure to collect this debt,
filing four requests for a writ of garnishment over the course of a
year. Buckles added the costs of prior failed garnishments, those
that didn't result in any money changing hands.
Van Hoven didn't object to the law firm's garnishment requests in
Michigan state court, as the Rules permit. She instead filed a
class action lawsuit in federal court under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which prohibits debt collectors
from making false statements in their dunning demands.
Van Hoven won her class action. The court found that Buckles &
Buckles owed 168 class members $3,662 in damages, $22 per person on
average. Van Hoven's attorneys sought $186,680 in attorney's fees,
and the court granted their request in full.
Buckles & Buckles appealed the merits ruling and the attorney's fee
award.
The Appellate Court notes that Van Hoven claims that Buckles &
Buckles made two types of "false, deceptive, or misleading
representation[s]" under the Act when they presented their
garnishment requests to the state court clerk: (1) they sought the
costs of each garnishment request under Michigan law, and (2) they
sought the costs of prior failed garnishments under Michigan law.
15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692e.
* Current Garnishment Costs.
The Sixth Circuit note that when when Buckles & Buckles asked for
all total costs, including those of any garnishment request to
date, it did not make a "false, deceptive, or misleading
representation" and therefore did not violate the Act. 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1692e. It was a reasonable request at the time - and thus not
false at the time - and by the Sixth Circuit's lights reflected the
best interpretation of the Rules anyway.
* Failed Garnishment Costs.
The decision of Buckles & Buckles to include the cost of prior
failed garnishments is another matter. In these instances, the law
firm included the costs of garnishments that failed because the
garnishee did not owe the debtor any money, did not hold any
property subject to garnishment, or was not the debtor's employer.
MCR 3.101(R)(2) (2014). At the time of this lawsuit, the Rules
made clear that creditors were "not entitled to recover the costs
of [the] garnishment" when that happened. That makes including
them a false representation under the Act.
But the Act does not punish every factual and legal
misrepresentation, only culpable ones. Debt collectors are
protected from liability if they can show that their "violation was
not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding
the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such
error." 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692k(c). Buckles & Buckles claims to have
just such a procedure for potential factual misrepresentations.
But Buckles & Buckles never had a chance to prove that its
procedure sufficed given the way the case proceeded below. It
deserves that chance. The Sixth Circuit thus remands the case to
allow the district court to determine whether Buckles & Buckles
made "bona fide" mistakes of fact in including certain costs of
prior failed garnishments and whether its procedure for preventing
such mistakes suffices. To the extent the record needs development
on this issue, the parties are free to seek additional discovery.
Moreover, the Sixth Circuit notes that with the case trimmed down,
the class may need to be trimmed down or decertified. Because the
merits remain an open question, it's likewise an open question
whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages and whether their
attorneys are entitled to fees. The Sixth Circuit leaves these
matters to the district court in the first instance.
In sum, the Sixth Circuit reverses the district court's orders on
the merits, vacate the orders on class certification, damages, and
attorney's fees, and remand for proceedings consistent with its
opinion.
A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's January 16, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/rzvgoag from Leagle.com
ARGUED: Roger L. Premo ,30300 Northwestern Highway, Farmington
Hills, Michigan 48334, for Appellants.
Michael O. Nelson , 1104 Fuller NE, Grand Rapids, MI, for
Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Roger L. Premo , Farmington Hills, Michigan, for
Appellants.
Michael O. Nelson , Grand Rapids, Michigan, Kevin J. Rogers ,
Phillip C. Rogers , 40 Pearl St NW Ste 336, Grand Rapids, MI
49503-3026, for Appellee.
Jeffrey A. Topor - jtopor@snllp.com - SIMMONDS & NARITA LLP, San
Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae in 18-2399.
CALHOUN COUNTY, MI: Court Partly Grants TRO Motion in Malam Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Janet Malam, Petitioner-Plaintiff, and Judith E. Levy
Qaid Alhalmi, et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, Mag. v. Rebecca
Adducci, et al., Respondent-Defendants, Case No. 20-10829 (E.D.
Mich.), Judge Judith E. Levy of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as a
Preliminary Injunction.
The opinion marks the seventh time the Court has assessed the
constitutionality of continued detention of medically vulnerable
non-citizen civil detainees at the Calhoun County Correctional
Facility during the pendency of the COVID-19 pandemic. The legal
issues before the Court are narrow: whether four civil detainees
face a high risk of irreparable injury from COVID-19, whether the
Defendants have shown deliberate indifference to the medical needs
of these Plaintiffs in crafting and implementing their response to
the pandemic, and whether the public interest favors the
Plaintiffs' release.
So too is the relief requested: the Plaintiffs do not, at this
time, seek sweeping injunctive relief that would insert the Court
into the day-to-day management of either U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement ("ICE") or the Michigan Department of
Corrections ("MDOC"); instead, the Plaintiffs request the immediate
release of four individuals currently detained at the Calhoun
County Correctional Facility.
On March 30, 2020, Petitioner Janet Malam filed an Emergency
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. On April 3, 2020, the Court
allowed Plaintiff-Intervenors Amer Toma and Ruby Briselda Escobar
to intervene. On April 5, 2020, Plaintiffs Toma and Escobar filed
an Emergency Petition for Habeas Corpus and Complaint for
Injunctive Relief. On April 26, 15 named Plaintiffs filed an
amended class action complaint.
The Plaintiffs' proposed class consists of all noncitizens who are
detained in ICE custody at Calhoun. The putative class seeks
declaratory relief that continued detention under current
conditions at the Calhoun County Correctional Facility constitutes
impermissible punishment under the Fifth Amendment. The Named
Plaintiffs additionally seek injunctive relief.
The Plaintiffs also seek certification of a subclass of "medically
vulnerable individuals," defined as all non-citizens who are
detained in ICE custody in the Calhoun County Correctional Center,
and who have one or more risk factors placing them at heightened
risk of severe illness or death if exposed to COVID-19. The
subclass seeks habeas relief and declaratory relief that continued
confinement at the Calhoun County Correctional Facility constitutes
impermissible punishment and cannot guarantee reasonable safety for
medically vulnerable detainees. Named Plaintiffs Alhalmi, Cardona
Ramirez, Escobar, Medina Euceda, Rodriguez Salabarria, Rosales
Borboa, Toma, and Zhang additionally seek injunctive relief on this
claim.
Also on April 26, 2020, six named Plaintiffs filed an emergency
motion for a temporary restraining order. Four of these six
Plaintiffs -- Qaid Alhalmi, Tomas Cardona Ramirez, Damary Rodriguez
Salabarria, and Emanuel Rosales Borboa -- claim that because of
their age and/or underlying medical conditions, their continued
civil detention violates their Fifth Amendment rights by exposing
them to a substantial risk of serious illness and death related to
COVID-19. Accordingly, these Plaintiffs seek a temporary
restraining order requiring their immediate release from
confinement. Two Plaintiffs -- Julio Fernando Medina Euceda4 and
Min Dan Zhang -- seek alternative forms of relief.
The Defendants responded on April 29, 2020, and the Plaintiffs
replied on May 5, 2020. The Court granted the Defendants leave to
file a sur-reply, which the Defendants filed on May 6, 2020. On May
7, 2020, the Court held a hearing by video teleconference and heard
oral argument on the Plaintiffs' motion.
Because she finds that Plaintiffs Alhami and Cardona Ramirez have
shown a high risk of irreparable injury absent relief, a likelihood
of success on the merits, and that the public interest favors their
release, Judge Levy grants in part the Plaintiffs' motion. The
Judge orders supplemental briefing with respect to Plaintiffs
Rodriguez Salabarria and Rosales Borboa's health conditions and the
applicability of a punishment standard to the Plaintiffs' claims.
The Judge denies the Plaintiffs' new requests for additional relief
not contained within the Plaintiffs' motion.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Levy granted a preliminary
injunction requiring Plaintiffs Alhalmi and Cardona Ramirez'
immediate release from ICE Custody. The Plaintiffs will be subject
to the following restrictions: The Plaintiffs are subject to 14
days of home quarantine; the Plaintiffs must comply with all
Michigan Executive Orders; and the Plaintiffs must appear at all
hearings pertaining to their removal proceedings. The Respondents
may impose other reasonable nonconfinement terms of supervision.
The Respondents are further restrained from arresting Petitioner
for civil immigration detention purposes until the State of
Emergency in Michigan (related to COVID-19) is lifted or until
further Court Order stating otherwise.
The Judge ordered supplemental briefing with respect to Plaintiff
Salabarria and Plaintiff Borboa's health conditions and the
applicability of a freedom from punishment standard to the
Plaintiffs' claims. The parties may each submit a responsive
filing.
The Court denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' requests for
relief other than immediate release.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 12, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/pYTzEz from Leagle.com.
CANADA POST: Lambert Avocat Files Delivery Service Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Meagher, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that a Montreal
law firm has filed an application to launch a class action against
Canada Post.
Lambert Avocat Inc. filed the application in Superior Court on July
6, seeking to offer compensation for those who paid for an
accelerated delivery service offer by Canada Post. The proposed
class action alleges that Canada Post failed to meet guaranteed
delivery deadlines.
The class action aims to claim a full refund for "every person
whose delivery date failed to be met by Canada Post, but also $100
in compensatory damages as well as $300 in punitive damages."
In a statement, Lambert Avocat said it found Canada Post at fault
for offering accelerated services "under false or misleading
representations" despite being aware that the COVID-19 pandemic was
causing additional delivery delays.
"While Canada Post is currently warning its customers against
possible delays in delivery through a banner at the top of their
website, their warning does not mention unequivocally that their
on-time delivery guarantee is presently suspended," the statement
noted.
"Furthermore, Canada Post continues to charge their customers full
price for their accelerated delivery services and refuses to issue
refunds for late deliveries, and this, while knowing they currently
cannot guarantee their delivery dates." [GN]
CANADA: Gowling Offers Free Legal Advice IDS Settlement Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nic Meloney, writing for CBC News, reports that following a June 17
Federal Court order, it is now easier for the former students of
Indian and federal day schools to get legal advice from lawyers of
their choice when applying for the Indian Day Schools (IDS) class
action settlement.
Free legal advice on settlement claims is being offered by Gowling
WLG, the legal firm handling the settlement. Prior to this motion,
if day school survivors wanted independent legal representation,
their lawyer was required to first obtain permission from the
Federal Court to act on their behalf, and often had no assurance
their services would be paid for through compensation money.
The restrictions discouraged lawyers from taking on claims and
created "a barrier to justice" for the former students, said a
Saskatchewan lawyer involved in the case.
"It was too much of a risk for many good, trauma-informed lawyers
who've had a great deal of experience working with residential
school survivors," said Saskatoon lawyer Nicholas Racine, who is
representing around 100 former IDS students from Alberta and
Saskatchewan for their claims.
"It became apparent to me that there was an access to justice issue
if you have a process that has a chilling effect on experienced
lawyers to participate."
The new process allows independent lawyers to submit claim
application forms on a survivor's behalf, and accept their
compensation money in trust. The process requires the lawyer to
provide the Federal Court with copies of the agreement with their
client, detailing what percentage of the potential compensation
money the lawyer will receive for their services.
"These are claims brought by victims of childhood physical and
sexual abuse . . . so filling out this claim form is reopening old
wounds," said Racine.
"To have the option of having a lawyer who will look you in the
eyes while you tell them your story . . . and to have someone there
physically in your presence while that's occurring -- to many, that
is very important."
Face-to-face option
Racine made the motion on behalf of his client Mary Rose Naytowhow,
a residential and day school survivor from Sturgeon Lake First
Nation, about 150 kilometres north of Saskatoon. He worked with
Naytowhow on her participation in the residential school settlement
as well.
Nayhowtow said she believes that in some situations, independent
lawyers will be more effective than Gowling's class counsel lawyers
because they can offer more face-to-face contact, services that are
specific to the community or nation, and a focus on "healing."
"I don't know anything about the other lawyers; I've never worked
with somebody like that just by phone," she said.
"I was traumatized . . . and I have to relive it now. Having to
work with somebody that I never met is not something that I want to
do, and I'd sooner work with a lawyer face to face. I would
recommend that to my relatives, too."
Naytowhow also voiced concern about a lack of mental health
supports in the process and said more consideration should be given
to helping survivors cope with trauma, "rather than just giving
them money."
Despite the out-of-pocket cost, Naytowhow said she believes
choosing an independent lawyer meant she received more attention
and better communication.
"I thought . . . I'd sooner pay somebody five or 10 per cent of
what I'm getting than work with somebody I don't know."
Overcharging for residential schools settlement claims
In consideration of the motion by Racine and Naytowhow, Justice
Michael Phalen noted the efforts of the plaintiffs and Gowling WLG
to avoid "well-recognized problems" stemming from the Indian
Residential School (IRS) settlement, where hundreds of lawyers were
found to have overcharged or misrepresented residential school
survivors during the process.
The new process "seeks a balance" between those problems from the
IRS process and the survivors' rights to seek their own legal
counsel, said Phalen, according to the court documents.
Phalen also outlined that survivors must be made aware that free
legal services are available prior to engaging another lawyer, and
that all of their lawyer's fees and transfers of money still have
to be approved by the court. [GN]
CAPITAL ONE: Thongstisubskul Sues Over Unlawful Credit Inquiries
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Thongstisubskul, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A. & CAPITAL ONE,
N.A., Case No. 3:20-cv-01306-JLS-BGS (S.D. Cal., July 10, 2020), is
brought to enjoin the deceptive business practices of the
Defendants and for damages arising out of their systematic
unauthorized credit inquiries, in violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
In 2010, the Plaintiff opened a credit card account with Capital
One Bank (USA), N.A. In 2017, Plaintiff also acquired an auto loan
from Capital One, N.A. dba Capital One Auto Finance. On August 14,
2018, the Plaintiff filed Chapter Seven Bankruptcy in San Diego
under case number 18-04845. Both the 2017 auto-loan and the 2010
credit card accounts were included in the Plaintiff's bankruptcy
petition.
On November 14, 2018, the Plaintiff's debts were discharged
pursuant to a court order that was sent electronically to the
Defendants by the bankruptcy court. The order advised the
Defendants that the Plaintiff's debts had been discharged. The
Plaintiff did not reaffirm the debts to make them survive the
bankruptcy. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's debts to the Defendants
were discharged through bankruptcy, and the accounts were closed.
Following November 2018, the Plaintiff no longer had any open
accounts with the Defendants.
Nevertheless, on January 16, 2019, Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.
accessed the Plaintiff's Experian credit report alleging it had a
permissible purpose as an account review inquiry. On January 25,
2019, Capital One, N.A. dba Capital One Auto Finance accessed the
Plaintiff's Experian credit report as an alleged account review
inquiry. On May 28, 2019, Capital One, N.A. conducted an account
review or "AR" inquiry of the Plaintiff's Equifax credit report.
The Defendants' inquiries and access to the Plaintiff's credit
reports for "account reviews" facilitated by Experian and Equifax
were entirely unauthorized and without a permissible purpose, the
Plaintiff contends.
After the discharge order was entered, the Plaintiff did not owe
the Defendants any debts, and the Plaintiff's accounts with the
Defendants were closed by operation of the bankruptcy discharge,
according to the complaint. The Defendants repeatedly accessed the
Plaintiff's private and confidential information without his
consent or a permissible purpose, thereby, invading his privacy.
Much like trespass to real property, which has been unlawful for
hundreds of years, an invasion of privacy may not cause monetary
damages--but it's an invasion nonetheless, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff is a natural person, who resides in the County of San
Diego, State of California.
The Defendants are a national banks headquartered in Glen Allen and
McLean, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yana A. Hart, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (619) 233-7770
Fax: (619) 297-1022
Email: yana@kazlg.com
- and -
Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (619) 222-7429
Fax: (866) 431-3292
Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com
CARNIVAL CORP: O'Neill Sues Over Lack of COVID-19 Measures
----------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN O'NEILL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC and
PRINCESS CRUISE LINES LTD., Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-06218-GW-MRW (C.D. Cal., July 13, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
infliction of emotional distress.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to take
appropriate actions and necessary precautionary measures to prevent
the outbreak of COVID-19 aboard the Coral Princess cruise ship
despite knowledge of the dangers and prior experiences of outbreaks
on Diamond Princess and Grand Princess ships. The Defendants'
decision to allow the departure of the Coral Princess on March 5,
2020, without implementing precautions or extra sanitization
measures showed that they did not learn from the previous outbreaks
on their ships, thus unnecessarily risking the health and safety of
all passengers and crew on the vessel.
As a result of the Defendants' omissions and negligence, the
Plaintiff and Class members were placed in actual physical danger
of contracting a deadly virus, kept that information from them as
long as they could, and then forced them stay in their cabins for
weeks until the vessel docked in Miami, Florida.
Carnival Corporation & PLC is a British-American cruise operator
and travel leisure company, with its headquarters in Miami,
Florida.
Princess Cruise Lines Ltd. is a cruise line owned by Carnival
Corporation & PLC, incorporated in Bermuda, with its worldwide
headquarters located in Santa Clarita, California within the County
of Los Angeles, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alison E. Chase, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
E-mail: achase@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
CASCADE COLLECTIONS: Rodriguez Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. CASCADE COLLECTIONS,
LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00120-JNP-DBP (D. Utah, Filed Feb. 21, 2020),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying this action as a hybrid class action on behalf
of:
"all persons with addresses within Utah; who were sent any
communication on behalf of Astor Brothers & Co.; to
recover a consumer debt; which were not returned
undelivered by the United States Postal Service; from
February 21, 2019 until February 21, 2020; in which the
communication provided the following language:
"If you dispute the validity of this debt or any part
of it, you must notify us either by writing to
Cascade Collections, LLC, P.O. Box 970547, Orem, UT
84097, or by calling toll-free 855-978-7184 or
locally (801) 900-3328 within thirty (30) days of the
date of this letter; otherwise we will consider this
debt to be valid and proceed accordingly. Please pay
the Amount Due. We would like to collect the Amount
Due in an efficient and convenient way. If you are
able to pay the Amount Due in full at once please do
so. On the other hand, if you are unable to pay the
amount in full at once, we are able to set up a
payment plan so that the Amount Due is paid gradually
over time. Please note that the Amount Due is the
balance as of the date listed above and may or may
not include interest, accruing interest, costs, or
other fees. Please contact this office to determine
how the Amount Due is calculated and to determine the
balance.""
2. appointing himself as the class representative; and
3. appointing his attorneys, David J. McGlothlin and Ryan L.
McBride as class counsel.
The proposed class, which consists of 188 individuals receiving the
same allegedly defective letters, meets the requirements of Rule
23(a) as well as Rule 23(b)(3) and (b)(2. The suit alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Cascade Collections is owned by Rob Robertson, who has over 40
years experience in the collection business.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: david@kazlg.com
ryan@kazlg.com
CBSC INC: Angeles Sues in N.D. Ohio Alleging Violation of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CBSC, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Sarah Angeles, a/k/a Sarah Faber,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CBSC, Inc., d/b/a Centralized Business Solutions Company, and John
Does 1 - 25, Case No. 5:20-cv-01540 (N.D. Ohio, July 10, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
CBSC, Inc. provides service in recovering the assets entrusted to
it by its clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amichai E. Zukowsky, Esq.
23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160
Beachwood, OH 44122
Phone: (216) 800-5529
Fax: (216) 514-4987
Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com
CIRCLE K STORES: James Sues Over Illegal Background Check
---------------------------------------------------------
Samuel James, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Circle K Stores Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01406, (M.D. Fla., June 17, 2020), seeks
statutory damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and relief
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970.
Defendant operates convenience stores across the United States and
are users of consumer reports for employment purposes. It obtains
background checks on job applicants for employment purposes as part
of its regular screening process. It allegedly procured consumer
reports on James for employment purposes, without providing a
lawful disclosure before obtaining a copy of the consumer report.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N. Franklin Street, #600
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Fax: (813) 257-0572
Email: Medelman@forthepeople.com
CKF ENTERPRISES: Rule 23 Class in Ware Gets Prelim. Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JULIA WARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CKF ENTERPRISES,
INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5: 19-183-DCR (E.D.
Ky.), Judge Danny C. Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, granted
in part and denied in part Plaintiffs Ware and Edwards' unopposed
motion for conditional certification of the FLSA collective,
preliminary certification of the Rule 23 class, and preliminary
approval of a settlement agreement.
The action involves the alleged failure of the Defendants to
classify consultants as employees rather than independent
contractors in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act ("KWHA"), Kentucky Revised
Statutes ("KRS"). Plaintiffs Ware and Edwards have filed one claim
individually and on behalf of a collective for violation of the
FLSA. Ware also proceeds with two claims for violation of the KWHA
individually and on behalf of a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The parties initially reached a settlement in principle in late
2019. In line with that development, the Plaintiffs previously
filed an unopposed motion for, inter alia, conditional
certification of the FLSA collective, preliminary certification of
the Rule 23 class, and preliminary approval of a settlement
agreement. The Court denied that motion without prejudice on March
11, 2020.
The Plaintiffs have now renewed their unopposed motion and have
tendered an amended proposed settlement agreement. Specifically,
they request: (1) preliminary approval of the proposed agreement;
(2) conditional certification of the FLSA collective for the
purposes of settlement; (3) preliminary certification of the Rule
23 class ("Kentucky class") for the purposes of settlement; (4)
preliminary appointment of Ware and Edwards as the class
representatives; (5) preliminary approval of the Plaintiffs'
counsel as the class counsel; (6) approval of the FLSA collective
settlement notice; (7) approval of the class settlement notice; and
(8) approval of their proposed schedule and procedure for final
approval of the agreement.
The parties have agreed to a $595,000 gross settlement amount. The
Plaintiffs' counsel variably estimate that the figure represents
approximately 60% or 70%-80% of the alleged damages suffered by
consultants working for CKF who were not paid appropriate wages
under the FLSA and Kentucky law.
The consultants form the pool of possible Settlement Participants
eligible to receive a settlement award and release claims under the
proposed agreement. They are the individuals who: (i) personally
or through a corporation or other business entity owned in whole or
in part by the Consultant, contracted directly with CKF
Enterprises, Inc., to perform go-live consulting work for customers
of CKF; (ii) worked more than 40 hours in at least one (l) workweek
while performing such work between April 25, 2016, and Dec. 23,
2019 anywhere in the United States, or between April 25, 2014 and
Dec. 23, 2019 if in Kentucky; and (iii) were classified by CKF as
an independent contractor while performing such work. The
Plaintiffs have indicated that approximately 652 consultants stand
to benefit from the agreement according to records produced by the
Defendants.
Of these 652 consultants, 530 are putative members of the FLSA
collective, i.e. individuals who performed worked for CKF somewhere
in the United States between April 25, 2016 and Dec. 23, 2019.
About 381 of the 652 consultants are putative members of the
Kentucky class, as they performed work for CKF in Kentucky between
April 25, 2014 and Dec. 23, 2019. And 122 of the consultants are
only members of the Kentucky class and are not members of the
collective because they did not work for the defendants between
April 25, 2016 and Dec. 23, 2019. Thus, 259 consultants are
putative members of the FLSA collective and the Kentucky class.
The 530 putative FLSA collective members will receive a FLSA
collective settlement notice and a FLSA opt-in consent and claim
form subsequent to preliminary approval of the proposed agreement.
It will allow individuals who have not yet opted into the
collective action to opt-in. Any individual who submits an opt-in
form will be considered an opt-in Plaintiff regardless of whether
such a form was submitted prior to or after preliminary approval of
the proposed agreement. The 122 consultants who are only putative
members of the Kentucky class will receive "Kentucky Class Only"
settlement notices and claim forms.
The proposed agreement outlines the notice process. Within 10
business days of receiving this information from CKF, the
Plaintiffs' counsel will make the initial mailings.
Several payments and costs are deducted from the $595,000 gross
settlement amount to determine the net settlement amount of the
proposed agreement, i.e. the amount which will be allocated to
consultants who decide to participate in the settlement. $10,000
is allocated to Ware and Edwards ($5,000 apiece) as service awards
for their efforts as named Plaintiffs. Up to $198,333.33,
one-third of the gross settlement amount, in attorney's fees plus
the Plaintiffs' counsel's out-of-pocket costs currently estimated
to be $5,652.68 are deducted from the gross settlement amount.
Settlement administration costs are also deducted from the gross
settlement amount, and they are not expected to exceed $6,000.
Estimating that administration costs are $6,000, Ware and Edwards
take $5,000 service awards, and the Plaintiffs' counsel takes
$198,333.33 while expending $5,652.68 out-of-pocket, the net
settlement amount to be paid out to individual claimants under the
proposed agreement would be approximately $375,013.99.
Consultants who decide to participate in the settlement will
receive per capita and pro rata allocations from the net settlement
amount. Each participating consultant will receive a per capita
$100 award in exchange for the applicable release of claims. The
remaining money from the net settlement amount will then be divided
pro rata among consultants participating in the settlement "based
on the actual number of uncompensated overtime hours" as determined
by the Defendants' timekeeping and payroll records. Each such
uncompensated overtime hour paid will be equal to one settlement
share.
The total number of settlement shares for such Settlement
Participants will be added together and the Net Settlement Amount
remaining after the per capita share allocations will be divided by
the resulting sum to reach a per share dollar figure. That figure
will then be multiplied by the number of settlement shares for each
Settlement Participant to determine that individual's pro rata
component.
The "effective date" of the proposed agreement is one business day
after the Court's final approval of the agreement reaches finality
and is no longer appealable. The Plaintiffs' counsel will mail
settlement checks to participating consultants within 15 calendar
days of the effective date. The checks will remain valid and
negotiable for 180 calendar days from their issuance dates. The
proposed agreement provides that any funds remaining from uncashed
checks at the end of 180 days will go to their chosen cy pres
recipient, Hope Center, Inc., a Kentucky nonprofit that provides
services for homeless and at-risk persons in Kentucky, including
employment services.
Finally, the proposed agreement provides for the release of certain
claims by participating consultants effective upon final approval
of the agreement.
Judge Reeves concludes that conditional certification of the
collective and preliminary certification of the Rule 23 Kentucky
class is appropriate at this time. And while he agrees that most
provisions of the proposed agreement are sufficient, the Judge
declines to preliminarily approve the settlement until the
identified deficiencies are remedied.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Reeves granted in part and denied in
part Plaintiff Ware and Edwards' unopposed motion. The Judge
conditionally certified the FLSA collective, and preliminarily
certified the Rule 23 class.
Ware is appointed as the Kentucky class representative; and Harold
Lichten and Olena Savytska of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Sarah
Schalman-Bergen and Alexandra Piazza of Berger Montague PC, and
David Blanchard and Frances Hollander of Blanchard & Walker, PLLC,
as the class counsel.
The attorney's fees, costs, and service awards provided for in the
proposed agreement, and the cy pres beneficiary are preliminarily
approved.
The Court declines to approve the notices to the putative
collective and class members, and to preliminarily approve the
proposed agreement in its entirety at this time.
Should the Plaintiffs renew their motion to correct any
deficiencies and proceed with the notice process, they are directed
to propose an appropriate date for a hearing on final certification
of the FLSA collective, final certification of the Kentucky class,
and final approval of the proposed agreement.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 12, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/SrwTyW from
Leagle.com.
CLARK & GENTRY: Court Narrows Claims in Avrahami RICO Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Benyamin Avrahami, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Celia Clark,
et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-19-04631-PHX-SPL (D. Ariz.), Judge
Steven P. Logan of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona:
(a) granted in part and denied in part (i) Clark Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss and Strike; (ii) the Hiller Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss; and (iii) the ACR Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss;
(b) struck as untimely the McEntee Defendants' Joinder; and
(c) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Take
Jurisdictional Discovery.
The case arises from the Plaintiffs and the Defendants creating and
operating a "microcaptive insurance company." A microcaptive
insurance company is created when the insurer and insured are
related by ownership. Under Section 831 of the Internal Revenue
Code ("IRC"), in a legal microcaptive insurance arrangement, the
insurance premiums paid by the insured subsidiaries are tax
deductible by both the insurer and the insured, resulting in
significant tax savings.
The Avrahami Plaintiffs own several jewelry stores and other
properties in Arizona through their corporation American Findings.
The Insured Plaintiffs are subsidiaries of American Findings. In
2007, the Avrahami Plaintiffs consulted with their accounting firm,
the McEntee Defendants, about ways to reduce their businesses' tax
burdens. The McEntee Defendants recommended the Hiller Defendants
and the Clark Defendants to help the Avrahami Plaintiffs save
significantly on their taxes. The Avrahami Plaintiffs ultimately
retained the Hiller Defendants and the Clark Defendants to help
form a microcaptive insurance company.
In November 2007, the Avrahami Plaintiffs entered into a retainer
agreement by which Celia Clark and Neil Hiller were to act as
co-counsel to provide all legal services to form a microcaptive
insurance company so that American Findings and the Insured
Plaintiffs could receive several tax deductions. The parties
created Feedback in 2007.
In 2009, Celia Clark began to use the ACR Defendants' actuary
services to assess the premiums that needed to be paid by the
Insured Plaintiffs in order to adequately spread the risk of
Feedback's operation - as required by IRC Section 831(b). The
Insured Plaintiffs payed insurance premiums to Feedback from
2007-2015. As the overall manager of Feedback's operation, Celia
Clark procured Defendant Heritor to manage Feedback during that
time. Celia Clark also hired Defendant Pan America to issue
premiums to Feedback in order to further "spread the risk" for the
microcaptive insurance business.
However, in May 2013, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") sent
Feedback a statutory notice of deficiency determining that Feedback
was not a valid insurance company and that the amounts
characterized as insurance premiums were really income to Feedback.
Celia Clark and Neil Hiller advised the Plaintiffs that Feedback
was operating as a legal entity and that the Plaintiffs should
challenge the notice of deficiency in federal tax court. The
Plaintiffs did challenge the notice, and ultimately, the tax court
determined that the Plaintiffs improperly took several tax
deductions and owed over $1 million in back taxes, penalties, and
interest.
On July 3, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the class action lawsuit on
behalf of themselves and others, asserting 13 claims arising from
the Defendants' creation and management of microcaptive insurance
companies. The claims include violations of: the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act 18 U.S.C. Section
1962(c) (Count I); Conspiracy to Violate Federal RICO 18 U.S.C.
Section 1962(d) (Count II); Arizona RICO A.R.S. Section 13-2312
(Count III); Conspiracy to Violate Arizona RICO (Count IV); Breach
of Fiduciary Duty (Count V); Negligence/Professional Malpractice
(Count VI); Negligent Misrepresentation (Count VII); Disgorgement
(Count VIII); Rescission (Count IX); Breach of Contract (or in the
alternative) Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
(Count X); Fraud (Count XI); Aiding and Abetting (Count XII); and
Civil Conspiracy (Count XIII).
The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants fraudulently created a
scheme to develop, promote, sell, and implement faulty captive
insurance products by giving improper legal, tax, and investment
advice to individuals and businesses. They allege that the
fraudulent scheme caused damages by exacerbating their tax burdens.
The Defendants have filed a series of motions to dismiss, which
are fully briefed and ready for review.
The Clark and Hiller Defendants assert similar arguments regarding
dismissal of Counts I-IV, VIII, IX, and XI-XIII.
Judge Logan finds that:
(1) A.R.S. Section 13-2314.04(O) is inapplicable and cannot bar
the Plaintiffs' claims;
(2) the Plaintiffs have adequately pled their allegations of fraud
against the Clark and Hiller Defendants;
(3) the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged aiding and abetting,
civil conspiracy, rescission and disgorgement;
(4) the Plaintiffs have asserted a claim for breach of contract
that is plausible on its face;
(5) because preparatory offenses are included under A.R.S. Section
13-2312, the Plaintiffs do not and cannot state a separate
claim for any statutory conspiracy to violate Section 13-2312;
(6) the Complaint does not adequately describe the relationship
between each individual Defendant and the Plaintiffs and how
that relationship formed a fiduciary duty;
(7) the Plaintiffs' claim for professional malpractice is overly
broad in violation of Rule 9(b), and Count VI will be
dismissed without prejudice; and
(8) the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a claim for negligent
misrepresentation and apprised each applicable Defendant of
their part in making the allegedly false representations.
The ACR Defendants argue that: (1) the Complaint fails to state any
claim against them; (2) the statute of limitations has expired on
all the claims asserted against them; and (3) the Plaintiffs failed
to establish personal jurisdiction over them.
Judge Logan finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations against the ACR
Defendants do support a claim for RICO violations (Counts I-IV) and
fraud (Count XI). However, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs
fail to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, professional
malpractice, disgorgement, and breach of contract (Counts V, VI,
VIII, and X). Importantly, the Plaintiffs fail to allege an
underlying contractual relationship or other direct relationship
with the ACR Defendants. Therefore, the Court dismisses Counts V,
VI, VIII, and X as to the ACR Defendants without prejudice.
The Judge further finds that because the Clark and Hiller
Defendants (acting as the Plaintiffs' attorneys) made repeated
assurances that that the ACR Defendant's services were legal, the
fact-based inquiry to the discovery rule is applicable to the ACR
Defendants. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' claims are not time barred
under A.R.S. Section 12-548.
Because he finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pled a federal
RICO claim against the ACR Defendants, the Judge finds that the
Plaintiffs have established personal jurisdiction (and thereby
supplemental jurisdiction) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1965(b).
Therefore, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion to conduct
jurisdictional discovery.
On Sept. 6, 2019, the McEntee Defendants filed a Joinder to the
Clark and Hiller Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. In response, the
Plaintiffs argue that the joinder is untimely and should be
stricken. The Court finds that the McEntee Defendants' joinder is
untimely. Therefore, the Court strikes the joinder. However, to
the extent that the Plaintiffs' amended complaint changes the
allegations made against the McEntee Defendants, they are free to
request leave to amend their answer. Otherwise, the Court will
grant the McEntee Defendants leave to file a Rule 12(c) motion once
the Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint.
The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiffs will
have 30 days from the date of the Order to file an amended
complaint. If no amended complaint is filed within 30 days, the
Clerk of the Court shall, without further Court order, dismiss the
case with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 8, 2020 Amended Order
is available at https://is.gd/uz6Dfh from Leagle.com.
On further developments, the Plaintiffs have since filed a first
amended complaint on the matter.
CLIENT SERVICES: Riccio Sues in New Jersey Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services,
Inc., et al. The case is captioned as JOANNE RICCIO, ON BEHALF OF
HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC.,
and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-07974-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., June
30, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Freda L. Wolfson.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act regarding consumer credit.
Client Services offers collection services. The Company provides
accounts receivable management, debt collection services, and
customer care solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Telephone: (973) 227-5900
Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
COLONY CAPITAL: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 27 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Investors have until the deadlines
listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company (NYSE: HBB)
Class Period: February 27, 2020 - May 8, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 21, 2020
The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Hamilton had
inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control
over financial reporting, particularly with respect to one of its
Mexican subsidiaries; (2) consequently, the Company's accounting
included certain irregularities with respect to the timing of
recognition of selling and marketing expenses and the
classification of certain expenditures within the statement of
operations at this Mexican subsidiary, as well as potential
misconduct with respect to the realizability of certain assets of
the Mexican subsidiary; (3) as a result of all the foregoing,
Hamilton could not accurately attest to its financial results,
particularly with respect to these metrics, and was consequently at
an increased risk of delaying the filing of its period reports with
the SEC; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Colony Capital, Inc. (NYSE: CLNY)
Class Period: August 9, 2019 and May 7, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that Colony's sale of its industrial real estate portfolio and
the bifurcation of Colony Credit Real Estates portfolio were
foreseeably likely to negatively impact Colony's financial and
operating results; (2) that certain of Colony's remaining portfolio
companies carried unsustainable levels of debt secured by hotels
and healthcare-related properties and were thus at significant risk
of default; and (3) that as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
Carnival Corporation (NYSE: CCL)
Class Period: September 26, 2019 and May 1, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that the Company's medics were reporting increasing events of
COVID-19 illness on the Company's ships; (2) that Carnival was
violating port of call regulations by concealing the amount and
severity of COVID-19 infections on board its ships; (3) that in
responding to the outbreak of COVID-19, Carnival failed to follow
the Company's own health and safety protocols developed in the wake
of other communicable disease outbreaks; (4) by continuing to
operate, Carnival ships were responsible for continuing to spread
COVID-19 at various ports throughout the world; 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.
Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC)
Class Period: April 5, 2020 and May 5, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 3, 2020
Shareholders with $50,000 in losses or more are encouraged to
contact the firm
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that Wells Fargo planned to, and did, improperly allocate
government-backed loans under the PPP, and/or had inadequate
controls in place to prevent such misallocation; (2) that the
foregoing foreseeably increased the Company's litigation risk with
respect to PPP allocation, as well as increased regulatory scrutiny
and/or potential enforcement actions; and (3) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Barbershop Seeks Pay for COVID-19 Losses
--------------------------------------------------------------
LEGACY SPORTS BARBERSHOP LLC n/k/a LEGACY BRAND ENTERPRISES LLC
d/b/a LEGACY SPORTS BARBERSHOP, and LEGACY BARBER ACADEMY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-04149 (N.D. Ill., July 14, 2020) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiffs for the failure of the Defendant to pay for their
loss of business income occasioned directly by being unable to use
their property due to COVID-19.
To protect their businesses in the event that they suddenly had to
suspend operations for reasons outside of their control, or if they
had to act in order to prevent further property damage, the
Plaintiffs obtained insurance coverage from the Defendant, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of CNA Financial Corporation ("CAN"),
including special property coverage, as set forth in Defendant's
Businessowners Special Property Coverage Form (SB146801I), the
endorsement for Business Income and Extra Expense (SB146802E) and
the endorsement for Civil Authority (SB146826B).
Plaintiffs were forced to suspend or reduce their business due to
COVID-19 and the resultant closure orders issued by civil
authorities in Virginia.
According to the complaint, the Defendant refused to pay its
insureds under its Business Income, Civil Authority, Extra Expense,
and Sue and Labor coverages for losses suffered due to COVID-19,
any orders by civil authorities that have required the necessary
suspension of business, and any efforts to prevent further property
damage or to minimize the suspension of business and continue
operations. Indeed, Defendant has denied Plaintiffs' claim under
the policy.
Plaintiff Legacy Sports Barbershop LLC n/k/a Legacy Brand
Enterprises LLC, owns and operates Legacy Sports Barbershop &
Salon, which is a full service, sports-themed and family-oriented
barbershop and salon, located in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Plaintiff Legacy Barber Academy prepares students to pass the
Virginia State Board Licensing Examination and to enter the
barbering profession skilled in client retention, professionalism,
customer service, budgeting and team building.
Continental Casualty Company is an insurance company with its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
Mark Hamill, Esq.
Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
dferri@dicellolevitt.com
mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
lreasons@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Mark Lanier, Esq.
Alex Brown, Esq.
Skip McBride, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC
10940 West Sam Houston Parkway North Suite 100
Houston, TX 77064
Telephone: (713) 659-5200
E-mail: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com
- and -
Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 286-2302
E-mail: tburns@bbblawllp.com
jbowen@bbblawllp.com
jbair@bbblawllp.com
fbowen@bbblawllp.com
- and -
Douglas Daniels, Esq.
DANIELS & TREDENNICK
6363 Woodway, Suite 700
Houston, TX 77057
Telephone: (713) 917-0024
E-mail: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com
- and -
C. Calvin Warriner III, Esq.
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, PA
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Telephone: (561) 285-4670
E-mail: CCW@SearcyLaw.com
CROSSLAND OILFIELD: Gonzales Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Welders
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAUL GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CROSSLAND OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC and DREW A.
CROSSLAND, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00829 (W.D. Tex., July 15,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated welders
and oilfield workers for all hours worked or overtime compensation
at the required rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked over
40 hours each workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and Texas Common Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a welder in Texas
and Mississippi oilfield locations from approximately October 2016
until November 2019.
Crossland Oilfield Services, LLC is an oilfield pipeline service
company that provides services for its clients in the oil and gas
industry throughout Texas and Mississippi. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, 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
lauren@a2xlaw.com
cgordon@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
DALLAS, TX: Faces Dobbins Suit Alleging Violation of Civil Rights
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Dallas, et
al. The case is captioned as Yolanda Dobbins, Lily Godinez, and
Megan Nordyke, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. The City of Dallas, and Dallas County, Case No.
3:20-cv-01727-K (N.D. Tex., June 30, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ed Kinkeade.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Dallas, a modern metropolis in north Texas, is a commercial and
cultural hub of the region.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Warren Henderson, Esq.
Jay D. Ellwanger, Esq.
ELLWANGER LAW LLLP
400 S. Zang Blvd., Suite 1015
Dallas, TX 75208
Telephone: (737) 808-2260
E-mail: dhenderson@equalrights.law
jellwanger@equalrights.law
DEUTSCHE BANK: Karimi Sues Over Decline in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------
ALI KARIMI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. DEUTSCHE BANK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, JOHN
CRYAN, CHRISTIAN SEWING, and JAMES VON MOLTKE, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-08978 (D. N.J., July 15, 2020) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
Deutsche Bank securities between November 7, 2017, and July 6,
2020, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Bank
and certain of its top officials.
According to the complaint, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Bank's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Deutsche
Bank had failed to remediate deficiencies related to anti-money
laundering, its disclosure controls and procedures and internal
control over financial reporting, and its U.S. operations' troubled
condition; (ii) as a result, the Bank failed to properly monitor
customers that the Bank itself deemed to be high risk, including,
among others, the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and two
correspondent banks, Danske Estonia and FBME Bank, which were both
the subjects of prior scandals involving financial misconduct;
(iii) the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have
a material negative impact on the Bank's financial results and
reputation; and (iv) as a result, the Bank's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Then, on July 7, 2020, the Federal Reserve's criticism of Deutsche
Bank's failure to address its AML and other issues was reaffirmed
when the New York State Department of Financial Services fined the
Bank $150 million for neglecting to flag numerous questionable
transactions from accounts associated with Epstein and with two
correspondent banks, Danske Estonia and FBME Bank, both of which
were the subjects of prior scandals involving financial
misconduct.
On this news, the value of Deutsche Bank's ordinary shares fell
$0.13 per share, or 1.31%, to close at $9.82 per share on July 7,
2020.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Bank's securities,
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.
Plaintiff acquired Deutsche Bank securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft is a Frankfurt am Main,
Germany-headquartered company that provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
DISNEY WORLD: Annual Passholders File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Russon, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that two
Disney annual passholders have filed a lawsuit seeking class action
status after Disney mistakenly charged them before the parks
officially reopened from the coronavirus pandemic shutdown.
Disney's error happened on July 3, prompting a blaze of complaints
on social media from passholders who were normally billed monthly
but now had unexpectedly had lump-sum bills pending in their bank
accounts. In April, Disney had promised not to bill passholders on
the monthly payment plan until the parks were back open.
Sarah Heinman and Liza Bertran, both from Miami-Dade County, said
they are among those passholders and filed an Orange Circuit Court
lawsuit that day, seeking more than $30,000. They accused Disney of
breach of contract.
Disney charged Heinman $905 and Bertran $520, the equivalent of
four months of payments "in one fell swoop," the lawsuit said.
At the time, Disney acknowledged it was a glitch and apologized.
The charges will be reversed, the company said, although it will
depend on each passholder's bank how long it would take.
Disney did not provide a comment on July 8. Francesco Zincone and
Armas Bertran Pieri, two Miami-based attorneys handling the suit,
also did not respond.
Disney World's theme parks shut down March 16 from the coronavirus
pandemic.
The Magic Kingdom and the Animal Kingdom are reopening up again,
first to employees, then to passholders on Thursday and Friday,
then finally to the general public on Saturday, although people are
required to have advance reservations, a move meant to limit
crowds.
Elsewhere in Orlando, SeaWorld and Universal Orlando are both back
in business and, like Disney, are requiring visitors and employees
to wear masks as well as other safety precautions.
In California, a San Diego resident sued SeaWorld for charging her
annual pass while the parks were closed from the pandemic. That
lawsuit also is seeking class-action status. [GN]
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Howard Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CAROL HOWARD, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. DYNAMIC RECOVERY
SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01085-SCD (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
herself as the class representative, and appoint her attorneys as
class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY
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
ELLIOT SECURITY: Bid to Conditionally Certify FLSA Classes Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as DAPHNE FLEMING AND BRINTNEY
JONES v. ELLIOT SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC, IAN KENNARD, AND DARRIN
ELLIOT, SR., Case No. 2:19-cv-02348-GGG-KWR (E.D. La.), the Hon.
Judge Greg Gerard Guidry entered an order on July 16, 2020, denying
the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify Fair Labor
Standards Act collective action classes and to facilitate notice
under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):
Deductions/Kickback Class:
"all persons employed by Defendants as security guards since
May 2017 who had deductions made from their pay to purchase
from the Defendants certain items such as uniforms, equipment
and other miscellaneous expenses for the primary benefit of
the Defendants, which resulted in them earning less than the
federal minimum wage and/or less than the mandatory one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay during weeks when
they worked in excess of 40 hours per week, in direct
violation of the antikickback provisions of the FLSA";
Overtime Class:
"all persons employed by the Defendants as security guards
since May 2017 who were paid at a straight time or flat rate
of pay for hours that they worked in excess of 40 per week,
in direct violation of the FLSA"; and
Late Payment Class:
"all persons who worked for Defendants as security guards
since May 2017 and who received one or more paychecks late
due to the Defendants' failure to pay them timely, but did
not receive liquidated damages due to the Defendants' late
payment, in direct violation of the FLSA.
The Court finds that conditional certification is not appropriate
in this case because the Plaintiffs have failed to meet the
threshold requirement of showing that similarly-situated
individuals exist. At the notice stage, the plaintiffs bear the
burden to demonstrate that "(1) there is a reasonable basis for
crediting the assertion that aggrieved individuals exist; (2) those
aggrieved individuals are similarly situated to the plaintiff in
relevant respects given the claims and defenses asserted; and (3)
those individuals want to opt in to the lawsuit."
The Plaintiffs assert a FLSA collective action claim on behalf of
themselves and similarly-situated "security guard" employees of the
Defendants seeking damages for unpaid minimum wages, overtime
wages, and liquidated damages.
Between 2017 and 2019, the Plaintiffs worked as security guards for
Defendants.
The Defendants provide security guard services to the Greater New
Orleans area. The Defendants employ security guards and pay them
hourly.[CC]
ENPHASE ENERGY: Hurst Suit Hits Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------
Gregory A. Hurst, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Enphase Energy, Inc.,
Badrinarayanan Kothandaraman and Eric Branderiz, Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-04036 (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2020), seeks compensatory
damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses in this litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees
and experts' fees and other costs and disbursements and such other
relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Enphase is a global energy technology company that manages solar
generation, storage and communication on one platform. Enphase's
premier product is a fully integrated solar-plus-storage using
microinverter technology.
Enphase Energy allegedly failed to disclose that its U.S. and
international revenues were inflated, that it engaged in improper
deferred revenue accounting practices and that its reported base
points expansion in gross margins were overstated.
On this news, the stock plummeted from its June 16, 2020 closing
price of $52.76 per share to a June 17, 2020 closing price of
$39.04 per share, a one day drop of $13.72 or approximately 26%.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jake Walker, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
155 Federal Street, Suite 400
Boston, MA 02110
Tel: 617-398-5600
Fax: 617-507-6020
Email: Jake@blockesq.com
- and -
Whitney Erin Street, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
520 Third Street, Suite 108
Oakland, CA 94109
Tel: (415) 968-8999
Email: whitney@blockesq.com
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Grauman Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT GRAUMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; TRANS
UNION, LLC; and VANTAGESCORE SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-03152 (E.D.N.Y., July 15, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated consumers, alleges that the Defendant failed to adopt
reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of consumer credit
reports. The Defendants' negligent and willful acts include: (1)
inaccurately reported the status of the Plaintiff's and other Class
members' Wells Fargo home mortgages; (2) continued to include
inaccurate information in their reports, including, but not limited
to, in the credit score itself, rather than correcting the
inaccurate reports; and (3) failed to take appropriate steps to
ensure that the mortgage information provided was accurate.
As a result of the Defendants' unlawful practices, the consumer
credit scores of the Plaintiff and Class members had dropped and
their access to credit is jeopardized during a time of increasing
financial insecurity due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Equifax Information Services, LLC is a consumer credit reporting
agency, with its principal place of business in Atlanta Georgia.
Trans Union, LLC is a consumer credit reporting agency, with its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.
VantageScore Solutions LLC is a consumer credit reporting agency,
with its headquarters in Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: bscott@bursor.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
BARBAT MANSOUR SUCIU & TOMINA PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd. Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyer.com
ERIE INSURANCE: Salons, Resto Slam Denied Insurance Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------
High Tech Hair LLC, Capucinno Pizzeria Ristorante and Rose Glam
Hair Studio, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Erie Insurance Exchange,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02895 (E.D. Pa., June 17, 2020), seeks
injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the
maximum rate, attorney's fees and costs and such other relief for
breach of contract.
High Tech Hair owns and operates High Tech Hair Salon, a hair salon
and spa, located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. La Villa owns and
operates La Villa Pizza & Family Restaurant, a family style Italian
restaurant, located in Morrisville, Pennsylvania. Rose Glam owns
and operates Rose Glam Hair Studio, a salon located in Colonial
Heights, Virginia.
To protect their businesses in the event that it suddenly had to
suspend operations for reasons outside of their control, or if they
had to act in order to prevent further property damage, Plaintiffs
purchased insurance coverage from Erie, including commercial
property coverage, as set forth in Erie's Ultrapack Plus Commercial
Property Coverage Form that provides "Income Protection" coverage,
which promises to pay for loss of income sustained due to partial
or total interruption of business resulting directly from loss or
damage to property on the insured premises. But during the COVID-19
pandemic, Erie Insurance denied coverage despite that the policy
does not contain an exclusion for pandemic and/or virus-related
losses, asserts the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Mongeluzzi, Esq.
Jeffrey P. Goodman, Esq.
Samuel B. Dordick, Esq.
SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY P.C.
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-8282
Email: rmongeluzzi@smbb.com
jgoodman@smbb.com
sdordick@smbb.com
- and -
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ MONGELUZZI BENDESKY, PC
120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218
Horsham, PA 19044
Tel: (215) 496-8282
Email: phoward@smbb.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
Mark Hamill, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
lreasons@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
dferri@dicellolevitt.com
mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
7556 Mentor Avenue
Mentor, OH 44060
Tel: (440) 953-8888
Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com
kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com
mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Mark Lanier, Esq.
Alex Brown, Esq.
Skip McBride, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC
10940 West Sam Houston Parkway North, Suite 100
Houston, TX 77064
Telephone: (713) 659-5200
Email: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com
- and -
Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 286-2302
Email: tburns@bbblawllp.com
jbowen@bbblawllp.com
jbair@bbblawllp.com
fbowen@bbblawllp.com
- and -
Douglas Daniels, Esq.
DANIELS & TREDENNICK
6363 Woodway, Suite 700
Houston, TX 77057
Telephone: (713) 917-0024
Email: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com
ERNIE'S AUTO: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Ortega et al. Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE ALMONTE ORTEGA; JOEL URENA; MANUEL DIAZ-MINAYA; ODALIS BERROA
HERNANDEZ; and VICTOR MORENO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ERNIE'S AUTO DETAILING
INC.; ERNESTO DECENA; and BAY RIDGE AUTOMOTIVE MANAGEMENT CORP.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03007 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2020) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs Ortega, Urena, Diaz-Minaya, were employed by the
Defendants as driver. The Plaintiffs Hernandez, and Moreno were
employed as detailers.
Ernie's Auto Detailing Inc. manufactures and distributes automotive
detailing and cleaning products. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Stein, Esq.
AMUEL & STEIN
38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com
ESSENTIA HEALTH: Faces Kraft Product Liability Suit in D.N.D.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Essentia Health, et
al. The case is styled as Jessica Kraft, individually and as parent
to minors L.K., S.K., and O.K.; Shelli Schneider, individually and
as parent of minors A.S and W.S.; and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Essentia Health, John Doe Manufacturers, John
Doe Distributor, Case No. 3:20-cv-00121-PDW-ARS (D.N.D., July 10,
2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
Essentia Health is an integrated healthcare system with facilities
in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
McLain J. Schneider, Esq.
SCHNEIDER, SCHNEIDER & SCHNEIDER
815 3rd Ave. S.
Fargo, ND 58103
Phone: (701) 235-4481
Email: mac@schneiderlawfirm.com
ESSEX COUNTY, NJ: $5.7MM Deal in Strip Search Class Action Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
in Newark has approved a $5.7 million settlement in a class action
against Essex County over illegal strip searches at its
correctional facility for people arrested on non-indictable
offenses.
The Essex County counsel said the actual payout will likely come in
at around $1.3 million. [GN]
FIFTH THIRD: Hartt Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Bank Accounts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HARTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIFTH THIRD BANCORP, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00547-SJD (S.D. Ohio, July 14, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and violations of the
Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated consumers, alleges that the Defendant is engaged in an
ongoing pattern of deception and fraud including (1) opening bank
accounts in customers' names without customer approval; (2)
applying for credit cards in customers' names without their
knowledge; (3) enrolling customers in payday loan and online
banking services that they did not request; (4) charging customers
fees on accounts that the customer had never applied for or
approved; and (5) transferring funds from customers' authorized
existing accounts to new, fraudulently opened accounts. These
illegal practices are a direct result of the Defendant's
cross-selling sales strategy which aims to grow the bank's revenue
by requiring employees to sell increasing numbers of products to
customers. The toxic high-pressure sales environment triggered the
bank's employees to engage in unethical sales practices.
The Plaintiff and Class members have suffered actual damages and
ascertainable loss including but not limited to fees and charges
imposed on unauthorized accounts, negative credit reports, and
unauthorized access of personal financial information.
Fifth Third Bancorp is a diversified financial services company
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alyson Beridon, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
425 Walnut St., Suite 2315
Cincinnati, OH 45212
Telephone: (513) 381-2224
E-mail: alysonb@bsjfirm.com
- and –
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Ave. Suite 200
Nashville TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
- and –
Elaine S. Kusel, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (908) 285-6802
E-mail: esk@mccunewright.com
- and –
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
- and –
Eric B. Abramson, Esq.
Philip J. Goodman, Esq.
SERLING & ABRAMSON, P.C.
280 N. Old Woodward Ave., Suite 406
Birmingham, MI 48009
Telephone: (248) 647-6966
E-mail: eabramson@serlinglaw.com
pjgoodman1@aol.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Head Suit Over Defective Sunroof Design
-------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE HEAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-11915-DPH-DRG (E.D. Mich.,
July 15, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff for herself
and on behalf of all persons wherever located in the United States,
or at minimum in the state of Illinois, who purchased or leased new
or pre-owed model year 2010-2013 Cadillac SRX vehicles with
defective sunroof design, materials, and/or workmanship which were
manufactured, distributed, warranted, and/or sold by Defendant.
Defendant has had actual knowledge the sunroofs leak causing water
to intrude into the passenger compartment of the vehicles because
of a defect in the design and/or manufacture of the sunroofs and
their component parts since shortly after commencing manufacture of
2010-2013 model year Cadillac SRX vehicles. The water intrusion
causes water damage to electronic components of the Class Vehicles
and creates safety concerns by damaging wiring and electrical
modules, including but not limited to the sensing and diagnostic
module (SDM) and the SDM harness connector (which control the safe
operation and deployment of the vehicle's air bag system) resulting
in Class Vehicles and their important electronic component parts
not operating properly and creating a known safety hazard that can
result in personal injuries.
According to the complaint, despite this knowledge, Defendant
actively concealed, refused and/or failed to disclose the existence
of this defect to Plaintiff, members of the class, and the public
who were considering purchasing or did purchase a new or pre-owned
Class Vehicle which was still covered by the original GM
manufacturer's warranty period.
As a result of Defendant's alleged misconduct, Plaintiff and the
class members were harmed and suffered actual harm and damages in
that they purchased Class Vehicles which they would not otherwise
have purchased had they known the material fact the vehicle they
were considering and did purchase were within the class of vehicles
that suffered from the Leaking Sunroof Defect, or they paid more
for Class Vehicles than they were worth given the existence of the
Leaking Sunroof Defect, and/or they parted with their own money for
inspection, diagnoses and/or repairs caused by the Leaking Sunroof
Defect.
General Motors LLC engages in the business of designing,
manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, warranting,
distributing, selling, leasing, and/or servicing Cadillac
automobiles, including the Class Vehicles, and other Cadillac motor
vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert A. Waller, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT A. WALLER, JR.
P.O. Box 999
Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007
Telephone: (760) 753-3118
Facsimile: (760) 753-3206
E-mail: robert@robertwallerlaw.com
GEO GROUP: Kehoe Law Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of The GEO Group, Inc. ("GEO Group" or the
"Company") (NYSE: GEO) to determine whether GEO Group may have
violated federal securities laws.
Investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, securities of GEO
Group between February 27, 2020 and June 16, 2020, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), and suffered losses greater than
$50,000 are encouraged to complete Kehoe Law Firm's Securities
Class Action Questionnaire or contact Kevin Cauley, Director,
Business Development, (215) 792-6676, Ext. 802,
securities@kehoelawfirm.com, info@kehoelawfirm.com, to discuss the
investigation or potential legal claims.
According to a class action lawsuit filed on July 7, 2020 in United
States District Court on behalf of GEO Group investors, throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Defendants, allegedly, made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) GEO Group
maintained woefully ineffective COVID-19 response procedures; (ii)
those inadequate procedures subjected residents of the Company's
halfway houses to significant health risks; (iii) accordingly, the
Company was vulnerable to significant financial and/or reputational
harm; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duties, and corporate misconduct. Combined, the partners at Kehoe
Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases
that have recovered more than $10 billion dollars on behalf of
institutional and individual investors.
This notice may constitute attorney advertising. [GN]
GEO GROUP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 8
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of The GEO Group, Inc. (NYSE: GEO)
between February 27, 2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for GEO investors
under the federal securities laws.
To join the GEO class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1894.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) GEO maintained ineffective COVID-19 response procedures;
(2) those inadequate procedures subjected residents of the
Company's halfway houses to significant health risks; (3)
accordingly, the Company was vulnerable to significant financial
and/or reputational harm; and (4) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
8, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1894.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has
secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Contacts:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com [GN]
GEO GROUP: Schall Announces Filing of Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against The GEO
Group, Inc. (NYSE: GEO) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
27, 2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 8, 2020.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. GEO's COVID-19 response procedures were
ineffective. The Company's failure to maintain appropriate response
procedures placed the residents of its halfway houses at risk.
Placing its residents at significant health risk in turn made the
Company vulnerable to financial and reputational harm. Based on
this news, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market
learned the truth about GEO, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
Contact:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
E-mail: info@schallfirm.com [GN]
GINO'S OF BAYSIDE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Torres Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Porfirio Torres, Mauricio Torres, Herman Zavala, and Oscar Salazar,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. GINO'S OF
BAYSIDE, LLC d/b/a TRATTORIA 35, and MICHAEL MOLINARI, Case No.
1:20-cv-03083 (E.D.N.Y., July 10, 2020), alleges that pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensations, unpaid "spread of
hours" premium for each day their work shift exceeded 10 hours,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide the
Plaintiffs with a written wage notice/"tip credit" notification.
The Plaintiffs worked over 40 hours per week but work performed
above 40 hours per week was not paid at the statutory rate of time
and one-half as required by state and federal law. The Plaintiffs
were not paid for an extra hours of work at the statutory minimum
wage for each day that the number of hours between the beginning
and end of their work shift exceeded 10 hours.
The Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendants as a non-exempt busboy,
food preparer/kitchen helper, pizza maker and dishwasher at the
Defendants' Restaurant.
GINO'S OF BAYSIDE owns and operates an Italian restaurant, doing
business as Trattoria 35, located in Bayside, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
10 Grand Central
155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 209-3933
Fax: (212) 209-7102
Email: info@jcpclaw.com
GOLI NUTRITION: Young Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Goli Nutrition Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Goli Nutrition Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05423 (S.D. N.Y., July 14, 2020).
Goli Nutrition Inc. is an inventive, people-focused nutrition
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
GOOGLE LLC: Rodriguez et al. Allege Invasion of Consumer Privacy
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ and JULIEANNA MUNIZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET
INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-04688 (N.D. Cal., July 14, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendants for invasion of privacy
and violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, the California Invasion
of Privacy Act, and the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated consumers, allege that the Defendants are engaged in
unlawful practices of collecting, intercepting, tracking, and
selling consumer mobile browsing history and activity data
regardless of consumers' action to protect their privacy by turning
off Web & App Activity tracking on their Privacy Settings and
selecting private mode on their browsers. The Defendants' practices
infringe upon consumers' privacy, intentionally deceive consumers,
and give Google and its employees power to learn intimate details
about individuals' lives, interests, and app usage. Google's
tracking of app activity occurs not only in its own apps, which
utilize Firebase and AdMob, but also on third-party apps that have
no formal association or affiliation with Google other than simply
utilizing a software development kit called Firebase.
The Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered loss by reason of
these violations, including, but not limited to, violation of their
rights to privacy and loss of value in their personally
identifiable information.
Google LLC is a technology company that specializes in
Internet-related services and products, with a principal place of
business located at The Googleplex, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway,
Mountain View, California.
Alphabet Inc. is a holding company and parent company of Google
LLC, with a principal place of business located at The Googleplex,
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark C. Mao, Esq.
Beko Reblitz-Richardson, Esq.
Alexander J. Konik, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
44 Montgomery St., 41st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 293-6800
Facsimile: (415) 293-6899
E-mail: mmao@bsfllp.com
brichardson@bsfllp.com
akonik@bsfllp.com
- and –
James Lee, Esq.
Rossana Baeza, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
100 SE 2nd St., 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 539-8400
Facsimile: (303) 539-1307
E-mail: jlee@bsfllp.com
rbaeza@bsfllp.com
- and –
Jesse Panuccio, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
1401 New York Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 237-2727
Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
E-mail: jpanuccio@bsfllp.com
GOOGLE: Unlawfully Collects, Stores Facial Biometrics, Vance Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, STEVEN VANCE and TIM JANECYK, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-04696 (N.D. Cal., July 14, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act and
unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, Google is engaged in unlawful practices
of collecting, obtaining, storing, using, possessing and profiting
from the biometric identifiers and information of the Plaintiffs,
particularly their facial geometric scans. Google obtained access
to the biometric identifiers and information of the Plaintiffs and
Class members through the Diversity in Face Dataset developed by
IBM. Google profited from the biometric identifiers and information
contained in the Diversity in Faces Dataset because those
information allowed Google to improve its facial recognition
products and technologies. Google's practices exposed the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated residents in Illinois
to ongoing privacy risks.
Google LLC is a technology company that specializes in
Internet-related services and products, with a principal place of
business located at The Googleplex, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway,
Mountain View, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Megan Pierce, Esq.
Michael Kanovitz, Esq.
Scott R. Drury, Esq.
LOEVY & LOEVY
311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60607
Telephone: (312) 243-5900
Facsimile: (312) 243-5902
E-mail: megan@loevy.com
mike@loevy.com
drury@loevy.com
- and –
Gary Lynch, Esq.
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
Nicholas R. Lange, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
111 West Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312)750-1265
E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com
nlange@carlsonlynch.com
GORDON BRUSH: Blind Can't Access Website, Tenzer-Fuchs Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE TENZER-FUCHS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GORDON BRUSH MFG. CO., INC., d/b/a
THE FOOTMATE SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-03151-JS-ARL
(E.D.N.Y., July 15, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant
for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's website,
www.footmate.com, is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff. The website
contains various and multiple access barriers that make it
extremely difficult, if not impossible, for blind and
visually-impaired consumers to attempt to complete a transaction.
The common access barriers on the website include, but not limited
to: (1) title frames with text are not provided for identification
and navigation; (2) videos that do not maintain audio descriptions;
(3) web pages do not have titles that describe the topic or
purpose; (4) the default human language of each web page cannot be
programmatically determined; and (5) inaccessible Portable Document
Format (PDFs). These access barriers effectively denied the
Plaintiff the ability to use and enjoy the Defendant's web services
the same way sighted individuals do. The Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to initiate a change in the Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.
Gordon Brush Mfg. Co., Inc., d/b/a The Footmate System, is a health
product retailer specializing in foot care products in California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
SHALOM LAW, PLLC
105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Telephone: (718) 971-9474
E-mail: Jshalom@JonathanShalomLaw.com
HAND HOSPITALITY: Vazquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Vazquez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. HAND HOSPITALITY LLC (D/B/A HAND HOSPITALITY), HER NAME
IS HAN LLC (D/B/A HER NAME IS HAN), ON (D/B/A ON), MADANGSUI INC.
(D/B/A MADANGSUI), KI HYUN LEE, JINYOUNG Y CHOI, and CHO DANG GOL
LLC (D/B/A CHO DANG GOL), Case No. 1:20-cv-05328 (S.D.N.Y., July
10, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The lawsuit is also brought for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law,
and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked, according to the
complaint. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked, at either the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for
any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants
maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff 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.
The Plaintiff was employed as a dishwasher worker, a food preparer,
and a cook at the Defendants' restaurants.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a chain of Korean
restaurants located in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
HANLEES AUTO: Cal. App. Upholds Arbitration Ruling in Jarboe Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS JARBOE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HANLEES
AUTO GROUP et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. A156411
(Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the First
District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court's order granting
in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to compel Jarboe
to arbitrate claims and declining to stay the Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") claim.
Plaintiff Jarboe was hired by DKD of Davis, Inc., doing business as
Hanlees Davis Toyota. Shortly after he began working, Jarboe was
transferred to Leehan of Davis, Inc., doing business as Hanlees
Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram Kia. Following his termination at Leehan
of Davis, Jarboe brought the wage and hour action against the
Hanlees Auto Group, its 12 affiliated dealerships, including DKD of
Davis and Leehan of Davis, and three individual defendants, Dong K.
Lee, Kyong S. Han, and Dong I. Lee.
The Defendants moved to compel arbitration based on an employment
agreement between Jarboe and DKD of Davis. The trial court granted
the motion as to 11 of the 12 causes of action against DKD of
Davis, but denied the motion as to the other Defendants. The trial
court also allowed Jarboe's claim under the PAGA, Labor Code
section 2698 et seq. to proceed in court against all the
Defendants. The trial court refused to stay the causes of action
allowed to proceed in litigation pending arbitration of Jarboe's
claims against DKD of Davis.
Hanlees, its affiliated dealerships, and the individual Defendants
contend that the trial court erred by concluding the arbitration
provision in the Employment Agreement was limited to its
signatories. They argue that Hanlees, its affiliated dealerships,
and the individual owners were entitled to compel arbitration
either under the terms of the agreement, as third party
beneficiaries or under the theory of equitable estoppel.
On review, the Appellate Court finds that even if the individual
Defendants have standing to compel arbitration as "owners" of the
company, it is in the limited context of their ownership of DKD of
Davis, the "Company" named in the Employment Agreement. Jarboe's
claims against DKD of Davis were ordered to arbitration. Also,
even assuming for the sake of argument that the Defendants'
construction of the Aug. 4, 2017 Application is correct, the
Application was superseded by the Aug. 10, 2017 Employment
Agreement. There is no basis to conclude that Jarboe intended the
arbitration provision in the Employment Agreement would apply to
all the Defendants.
The Appellate Court also finds that Jarboe is not seeking to obtain
benefits under his employment agreement with DKD of Davis against
Hanlees and the other dealerships under the Employment Agreement,
as there are none, and he is arbitrating the claims against his
employing company. Simply put, the inequities that the doctrine of
equitable estoppel is designed to address are not present.
The Defendants argue that the trial court erred in refusing to stay
both Jarboe's PAGA claim and his remaining wage and hour claims
against the nonsignatory defendants, while his individual claims
against DKD of Davis are being arbitrated. The Appellate Court
holds that because a PAGA claim is representative and does not
belong to an employee individually, an employer should not be able
dictate how and where the representative action proceeds. The
trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to stay the
PAGA action pending the arbitration of Jarboe's individual claims.
The Defendants contend that they requested a stay of all
non-arbitrable claims not just the PAGA claims. But the trial
court's order does not address the wage and hour claims. The
Appellate Court cannot review the propriety of a non-existent
ruling. The proper vehicle for raising the claim of error was a
motion for reconsideration. As the Defendants' time to seek
reconsideration has long since passed, the Appellate Court deems
the issue forfeited on appeal.
Finally, Jarboe argues the trial court should have ruled that the
Arbitration Agreements were unenforceable in their entirety due to
both procedural and substantive unconscionability. Jarboe,
however, has not appealed from the trial court's order compelling
arbitration of his individual claims against DKD of Davis. Nor
could he, because an order compelling arbitration is not
appealable. Moreover, the general rule is that a respondent who
has not appealed from a judgment may not assert error on appeal.
Accordingly, the Appellate Court does not address Jarboe's claim
that the Arbitration Agreements were unenforceable due to
unconscionability.
Based on the foregoing, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial
court's order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants'
motion to compel Jarboe to arbitrate claims and declining to stay
the PAGA claim. Jarboe will recover his costs on appeal.
A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's May 8, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/trz0ys from Leagle.com.
HANOVER INSURANCE: Tsakos Inc Files Insurance Case in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hanover Insurance
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Tsakos, Inc., on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated trading as Hanover Manor,
Plaintiff v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. and Citizens
Insurance Company of America, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-08889-ES-CLW (D.N.J., July 14, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance filed
pursuant over Breach of Insurance Contract.
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., based in Worcester,
Massachusetts, is one of the oldest continuous businesses in the
United States still operating within its original industry.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Tel: (973) 994-1700
Fax: (973) 994-1744
Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
HILLCREST DAVIDSON: Shams Balks at Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Imran Shams, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. Hillcrest Davidson and
Associates, Boss Exotics, LLC, and Hartford Casualty Insurance
Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01871-N (N.D. Tex., July 15,
2020) arises from the alleged Consumer Debt obligation of the
Plaintiff to purchase a specific vehicle from Boss Exotics, a car
dealer, which uses the Internet to reach customers all over the
country.
On or about May of 2020, Plaintiff paid a deposit of $2,000 to hold
the car, as the purchase was contingent upon the vehicle passing
inspection, and not having any "major mechanical issues". As the
Plaintiff resided out of state, Boss itself suggested an
independent car inspection service located in Dallas, Texas. Due to
"major mechanical issues" with the car the Plaintiff requested the
return of his $2,000 deposit and Boss denied it. Boss then
threatened to credit report a past due collection account through
Hillcrest on Plaintiff's credit reports for an alleged $20,000
balance.
On or about late May of 2020, Hillcrest started making phone calls
to Plaintiff. On a phone call between Hillcrest and Plaintiff, the
Plaintiff told Hillcrest that he does not owe Boss any money and
instead Plaintiff should have been refunded his $2,000.
To this day the Defendants have attempted to collect a debt that
was not authorized and have threatened to credit report a past due
collection account in the amount of $20,000.00 on Plaintiff's
credit reports.
Plaintiff has suffered mental anguish, frustration, injury to his
credit rating and ability to obtain credit at reasonable terms and
an informational injury from Defendant Hillcrest and Defendant Boss
debt collection actions.
Hillcrest Davidson and Associates is a debt collector that
regularly collects or attempts to collect debts due to
third-parties, directly or indirectly from consumers in the state
of Texas.
Hartford Casualty Insurance Company is an insurance company that
conducts business in Texas.
Boss Exotics, LLC is a car dealer based in Dallas, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn Jaffer, Esq.
Shayan Elahi, Esq.
SHAWN JAFFER LAW FIRM PLLC
13601 Preston Rd E770
Dallas, TX 75240
Telephone: (214) 494-1668
Facsimile: (469) 669-0786
E-mail: shawn@jaffer.law
shayan@jaffer.law
HITACHI LTD: 1st & 2nd Round Deals in ODD Antitrust Suit Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (i) affirmed the
district court's approval of the first- and second-round
settlements; and (ii) vacated the awards of fees and litigation
expenses in the Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation.
The cases are IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE PRODUCTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. INDIRECT PURCHASER CLASS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CONNER
ERWIN, Objector-Appellant, v. PANASONIC CORPORATION; PANASONIC
CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA; NEC CORPORATION; SONY CORPORATION;
SONY OPTIARC, INC.; SONY OPTIARC AMERICA, INC.; SONY NEC OPTIARC,
INC.; HITACHI LTD.; HITACHI-LG DATA STORAGE, INC.; HITACHI-LG DATA
STORAGE KOREA, INC., Defendants-Appellees. IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE
PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. INDIRECT PURCHASER CLASS,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER ANDREWS, Objector-Appellant, v.
PANASONIC CORPORATION; PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA; NEC
CORPORATION; SONY CORPORATION; SONY OPTIARC, INC.; SONY OPTIARC
AMERICA, INC.; SONY NEC OPTIARC, INC.; HITACHI LTD.; HITACHI-LG
DATA STORAGE, INC.; HITACHI-LG DATA STORAGE KOREA, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees. IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE PRODUCTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. INDIRECT PURCHASER CLASS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
BARBARA COCHRAN, Objector-Appellant, v. PANASONIC CORPORATION;
PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA; NEC CORPORATION; SONY
CORPORATION; SONY OPTIARC, INC.; SONY OPTIARC AMERICA, INC.; SONY
NEC OPTIARC, INC.; HITACHI LTD.; HITACHI-LG DATA STORAGE, INC.;
HITACHI-LG DATA STORAGE KOREA, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case
Nos. 17-15065, 17-17439, 17-15067, 17-17436, 17-15143 (9th Cir.),
In 2009, the Department of Justice disclosed that it was conducting
a criminal investigation into possible antitrust violations based
on price-fixing within the optical disk drive ("ODD") industry. As
a result of the federal criminal investigation, Hitachi-LG Data
Storage and several of its senior officials pleaded guilty to
criminal antitrust violations. The DOJ investigation resulted in
significant fines and at least four prison terms.
Several putative class claims were filed alleging civil antitrust
violations arising from the same activity that was the focus of the
DOJ investigation, and in April 2010, the panel on multidistrict
litigation consolidated the claims. The consolidated case was
assigned to Judge Vaughn Walker in the Northern District of
California. Two groups of plaintiffs sought class
certification—direct purchaser plaintiffs ("DPPs") and indirect
purchaser plaintiffs ("IPPs"). The former prospective class
comprised individuals and entities who purchased ODDs directly,
such as personal computer manufacturers; the latter included
plaintiffs who purchased products containing ODDs. The IPPs
alleged that eleven groups of associated corporate defendants had
conspired to restrain competition for ODDs. The Objectors in the
matter now are members of the IPP class.
As firms jockeyed to represent the putative class of IPPs in the
consolidated action, the district court ordered prospective class
counsel to provide information on any subject pertinent to the
appointment and to propose terms for attorney fees and costs in
representing a prospective class. The court reasoned that it was
appropriate to consider the matter of fees and costs at the outset.
Three groups of attorneys, including Hagens Berman, applied for
appointment as interim class counsel and the district court granted
their motions to seal their respective bids. The court explained
that because their applications contain attorney work product, all
three groups requested that the precise terms of their applications
remain confidential during the pendency of thE litigation.
Hagens Berman proposed a sliding-scale award for both fees and
costs based on the percentage-of-recovery method, specifically
citing the district court's earlier decisions endorsing this
approach. The firm's sealed bid included a grid with a
sliding-scale fee calculated as a percentage of the class recovery.
One axis of the grid comprised four stages of litigation. The
grid called for lower fees for earlier-stage recovery scenarios,
and higher fees if the case proceeded to trial and/or appeal. The
grid's other axis depicted the size of the class recovery and
showed a lower fee percentage as the overall class recovery
increased. The grid's maximum fee award was 14% of the class
recovery from each Defendant.
In June 2010, the district court appointed Hagens Berman interim
class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3).
The appointment order explained that the competing the firm's
applications focused primarily on their respective fee and cost
proposals and an analysis of the prospects for a recovery. Without
revealing the actual fee percentages in Hagens Berman's grid, the
court's appointment order concluded that the fee proposals favored
Hagens Berman, and explained that the firm proposed declining fees
for larger recoveries, and its proposal entailed one fee that
covers both compensation of attorneys fees and reimbursement of
attorneys' out-of-pocket expenses. The court's order specifically
observed that Hagens Berman had proposed folding expense recovery
into the fee.
The IPPs' putative class action was reassigned to Judge Seeborg in
October 2010, and the parties began extensive discovery and
litigation practice. Four years later, the district court denied
the motions for class certification filed by the IPP and DPP
putative classes. After the Court denied interlocutory review,
DPPs obtained certification of a settlement class and entered into
settlement agreements resolving their claims. Hagens Berman
continued litigating on behalf of the putative IPP class, and
eventually prevailed on its renewed motion for class certification
in February 2016. The Court denied the Defendants' request for
interlocutory review in June 2016.
During the period immediately before and after class certification,
the IPP class reached tentative settlement agreements with four
groups of affiliated corporate entities (Hitachi, NEC, Panasonic,
and Sony) that yielded a common fund totaling $124.5 million. In
its first motion for fees, Hagens Berman requested 25% of the total
first-round recovery as attorneys' fees, or $31.125 million, and
separately requested $3,704,323.97 for litigation expenses. The
motion for fees and litigation expenses was filed six years after
the district court's appointment order. The class members objected
that the requested fee was excessive because the common fund
constituted a "megafund," and objector Conner Erwin asked the
district court to unseal the class counsel's fee bid so the class
could learn what fee arrangement the firm proposed when it sought
appointment.
The district court held a fairness hearing in December 2016 to
consider the first-round settlements. With minor modifications,
the court adopted class counsel's proposed order granting final
approval of the $124.5 million settlement, as well as the requested
fees and separate litigation expenses. One objector appealed the
approval of the first settlement: Christopher Andrews. Three
objectors appealed the order awarding fees and expenses for the
first settlement: Erwin, Andrews, and Barbara Cochran.
While the appeal of the first-round settlements was pending, the
underlying ODD litigation continued, and in 2017, the class entered
into a second round of tentative settlement agreements with three
additional groups of affiliated Defendants (PLDS, Pioneer, and
Teac). The second-round settlements resulted in an additional
$55.5 million common fund. The class counsel moved for a fee award
of twenty-one percent of the common fund, or $11.655 million.
Several objections were filed.
A second fairness hearing was held in September 2017, and the
district court largely adopted class counsel's proposed order
approving its second motion for fees and expenses. The district
court again denied Erwin's request to unseal class counsel's fee
bid, along with all other objections. The court relied on class
counsel's lodestar cross-check, which used the cumulative lodestar
(all time invested) measured against the total recovery ($180
million), but the court acknowledged that if the second settlement
were viewed in isolation, the multiplier would be in line with
Erwin's calculation.
Erwin timely appealed the district court's order awarding fees and
expenses for the second-round settlements. Andrews objected to the
second-round settlement agreements, but did not assert specific
objections to Hagens Berman's motion for fees and expenses arising
from those settlements. Cochran did not object to the second-round
fee award.
The class counsel filed a third motion for fees in 2018 after the
IPP class reached settlement agreements with two additional
Defendant groups (Samsung and Toshiba). At the third fairness
hearing, the district court stated that it had been unable to find
Hagens Berman's bid in the court files and directed the firm to
submit a copy of the bid for in camera review. The order approving
Hagens Berman's third fee request was issued two weeks later, and
it acknowledged that the previous awards had been substantially
higher than the terms of the firm's proposal. The third order
observed that Hagens Berman's original bid offered to accept
representation on the terms that no separate expense award would be
made on top of any percentage-based fee award, and denied the class
counsel's request for expenses. The order approved the requested
21%, an additional $5 million.
Six months later, Hagens Berman filed on the public docket the
single page of its bid showing the fee grid, but other portions of
its fee application remain under seal. The objectors who appealed
the firm's fee and expense awards arising from the first- and
second-round settlements did not have access to the sliding-scale
fee grid when they briefed the issues on appeal, but they did have
the grid by the time oral argument was held before our court.
The Ninth Circuit now holds that when the class counsel secures
appointment as the interim lead counsel by proposing a fee
structure in a competitive bidding process, that bid becomes the
starting point for determining a reasonable fee. The district
court may adjust fees upward or downward depending on circumstances
not contemplated at the time of the bid, but the court must provide
an adequate explanation for any variance. The Ninth Circuit does
not endeavor to create a comprehensive list of circumstances that
may warrant departure from a fee bid, but he notes that a district
court would likely not abuse its discretion by departing from a bid
based on circumstances the bid did not contemplate.
Conversely, departure from a bid based on circumstances that were
known at the time the bid was filed may be an abuse of discretion
given the court's fiduciary duty to members of the class. The
class counsel argues that an upward departure from its bid was
warranted in part because it did not anticipate the need to
litigate a second class certification motion or interlocutory
appeals. Without more, these factors are insufficient to justify a
variance of the magnitude approved in the first- and second-round
fee awards. The bid to become the interim class counsel clearly
contemplated that Hagens Berman would move to certify the Plaintiff
class and it is not unusual for the interim class counsel to have
to take more than one run at class certification. Finally, the
proposed fee structure in the case explicitly contemplated
appellate litigation.
The Ninth Circuit next turns to the district court's award of
litigation-related expenses. The district court awarded
$5,073,042.92 in litigation expenses for the first- and
second-round settlements. The Ninth Circuit holds that though it
agrees with the part of the court's interpretation of the bid, the
record is unclear about whether the district court had the
opportunity to take it into account when it reviewed the expense
requests associated with the first two settlement rounds. The
Objectors did not have the information necessary to squarely raise
the issue before the district court, but the fiduciary duty the
Court owes to the class requires that the case be remanded so the
class may be assured the issue is considered.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district courts enjoy broad
discretion to determine reasonable fee awards, but the size of the
variance between the bid and the awards in the case requires more
explanation. More detailed findings are particularly important
because the bid remained under seal, putting objectors at a
disadvantage in trying to assess the reasonableness of the fees.
Separately, the Ninth Circuit rejects the class counsel's assertion
that it did not offer to absorb litigation expenses. Therefore,
the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's award of fees and
litigation expenses arising from the first- and second-round
settlements, and remanded to the district court for further
proceedings consistent with its Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's May 15, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/usI8WC from Leagle.com.
Robert Clore (argued) and Christopher A. Bandas, Bandas Law Firm
P.C., Corpus Christi, Texas, for Objector-Appellant Connor Erwin.
George W. Cochran , Law Office of George W. Cochran, Streetsboro,
Ohio, for Objector-Appellant Barbara Cochran.
Christopher Andrews (argued), Livonia, Michigan, pro se
Objector-Appellant.
Kevin Kamuf Green (argued) -- keving@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, San Diego, California; Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle,
Washington; Jeff D. Friedman and Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Berkeley, California; for Plaintiff-Appellee
Indirect Purchaser Class.
No appearance by Defendants-Appellees.
HUDSON CITY SAVINGS: Lin Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to Third Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jay J. Lin, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Jay Lin, et al. v. Hudson City
Savings Bank, et al., Case No. 3-18-cv-15387, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court issued an Opinion granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
in the case.
The Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in which they sought class action
certification against the Defendants asserting causes of action
for: violations of the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. Section
362(a) (Count One), violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) (Count Two), violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA) (Count Three) and unjust enrichment
(Count Four).
The Defendants argue this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over this action pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; this
Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction pursuant to the
Colorado River abstention doctrine; Plaintiffs' claims are barred
by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata; and that
notwithstanding these doctrines, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim
for which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs argue this Court should
deny Defendants' Motions to Dismiss because neither Defendant
submitted Corporate Disclosure Statements as required by Rule 7.1
and Defendants' reliance on Rule 12(b)(1) is wholly without merit
in the absence of existing state court judgment[s] subject to
relitigation in federal court.
The appellate case is captioned as Jay Lin, et al. v. Hudson City
Savings Bank, et al., Case No. 20-2390, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Plaintiffs-Appellants JAY J. LIN and IRENE H. LIN of Edison, New
Jersey, appear pro se.[BN]
Defendants-Appellees HUDSON CITY SAVINGS BANK, M&T BANK, and PARKER
MCCAY PA are represented by:
James P. Berg, Esq.
Scott W. Parker, Esq.
PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP
270 Davidson Avenue, 5th Floor
Somerset, NJ 08873
Telephone: (908) 333-6219
E-mail: james.berg@piblaw.com
scott.parker@piblaw.com
- and -
Fred W. Hoensch, Esq.
PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP
1635 Market Street
7 Penn Center, 11th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 908-9888
E-mail: fred.hoensch@piblaw.com
- and -
Andrew C. Sayles, Esq.
CONNELL FOLEY LLP
56 Livingston Avenue
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 535-0500
E-mail: asayles@connellfoley.com
INFUSION CAPITAL: Faces Benitez Class Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Infusion Capital LLC.
The case is styled as Mariano Benitez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Infusion Capital LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-01314-BEN-BGS (S.D. Cal., July 10, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for FCC-Unsolicited
Telephone Sales.
Infusion Capital, LLC, is an investment banking firm that
specializes in microcap companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (877) 206-4741
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
J2 GLOBAL: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investors rights
law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased J2 Global, Inc. ("J2" or "the
Company") (NASDAQ: JCOM) securities between October 5, 2015 and
June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). J2 investors have
until September 8, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
If you suffered a loss on your J2 investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/j2-global-inc/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On June 30, 2020 Hindenburg Research released a report claiming
"J2's opaque acquisition approach has opened the door to egregious
insider self-enrichment, which we approximate totals $117 million
to $172 million based on publicly available information."
Hindenburg Research alleges, "We uncovered that J2 acquired a newly
formed entity based out of its own VP of Corporate Development's
personal residence for an estimated $20 million. The entity had
undefined 'intellectual property' and no employees or apparent
assets. No conflict was disclosed." The research report also
claimed that, "Despite J2's proxy describing all but one of its
board members as 'independent,' we found decades of intertwined
financial interests between board members and executives, calling
that independence into question."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $6.29, or over 9%, to
close at $63.21 per share on June 30, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that J2 Global engaged in undisclosed related party
transactions; (2) that J2 Global used misleading accounting to hide
requisite impairments and underperformance in acquisitions; (3)
that several so-called independent members of the Company's board
of directors and audit committee were not disinterested; and (4) as
a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times.
If you purchased J2 securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than September 8, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan,
Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by
email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
Contact:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan
Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com/[GN]
J2 GLOBAL: Rosen Files First Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of J2 Global, Inc. (NASDAQ: JCOM) between October 5,
2015 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for J2 Global investors under the federal
securities laws.
To join the J2 Global class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1893.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) J2 Global engaged in undisclosed related party
transactions; (2) J2 Global used misleading accounting to hide
requisite impairments and underperformance in acquisitions; (3)
several so-called independent members of the Company' board of
directors and audit committee were not disinterested; and (4) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
8, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1893.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.
Contact:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/[GN]
J2 GLOBAL: Schall Announces Filing of Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against J2 Global,
Inc. (NASDAQ: JCOM) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between October 5,
2015 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 8, 2020.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. J2 participated in undisclosed
related-party transactions. The Company hid impairments and
underperformance in acquisitions by using misleading accounting
techniques. Members of the Company's board of directors and audit
committee that were described as independent were not in fact
disinterested. Based on this news, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
When the market learned the truth about J2, investors suffered
damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
Contact:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
E-mail: info@schallfirm.com [GN]
JAMAICA LIVE: Teixeira Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Camila Teixeira, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. JAMAICA LIVE POULTRY CORP. and OMAR HUSSEIN a/k/a Omar
Thabet, ALI AHMED HUSSEIN and ABDULLAH K. AWADH, Case No.
1:20-cv-03104 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2020), is brought for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week without appropriate overtime
compensation for the hours she worked each week over 40 hours.
Further, the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff with the
proper wage notices and statements under the NYLL. The Defendants
maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and other
employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing
them the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal
and state law and regulations.
The Plaintiff was employed as a butcher and general laborer from
April 2018 until December 14, 2019.
The Defendants own, operate, and/or control an abattoir located in
Queens, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Colin Mulholland, Esq.
30-97 Steinway, Ste. 301-A
Astoria, NY 11103
Phone: (347) 687-2019
JAMES SINGER: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
King & Spalding, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on May 29,
Judge Davila of the Northern District of California granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss two putative class actions filed
against James Singer -- the alleged perpetrator of the highly
publicized "Varsity Blues" college admissions bribery scandal --
and several universities where students were allegedly admitted
after paying bribes.
In Bendis v. Singer and Tamboura v. Singer, 30 plaintiffs sued
Singer, several entities he allegedly controlled, and eight
universities: the University of Southern California, Stanford
University, the University of California-Berkeley, the University
of San Diego, the University of Texas at Austin, Wake Forest
University, Yale University, and Georgetown University.
[Disclosure: King & Spalding represented Yale University in this
litigation.]
The plaintiffs were (i) prospective students who were denied
admission to the universities, and (ii) parents who allegedly paid
their application fees. They asserted various claims for
violations of state consumer protection laws and negligence. The
plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that they would not have
paid an application fee to apply to the universities had they known
the admissions process was tainted by bribery. They sought to
represent a putative nationwide class of all individuals who paid
application fees (but were denied admission) to the defendant
universities between 2012 and 2018.
Two of the university defendants (the University of San Diego and
the University of Texas at Austin) were voluntarily dismissed at an
early stage of the case. The remaining defendants moved to
dismiss, contending among other things that the plaintiffs lacked
standing to sue and otherwise failed to plead viable claims.
Plaintiffs responded that they suffered both economic harms (i.e.,
paid application fees) and ideological harms (i.e., the lack of a
fair and objective application process).
Judge Davila granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding
that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, as they could not show
that they were affected in a particularized way by the alleged
bribery scheme.
* Even accepting as true the allegation that Singer bribed
university officials and manipulated the college admissions
process, the court recognized "the clear standing principle
that an injury in fact cannot just be based on some morally
reprehensible act." Rather, there must be a link between
the bad act and the plaintiff to avoid the "generalized
grievance" that courts have routinely rejected for purposes
of Article III standing.
* Significantly, to the extent Singer was able to obtain
admission for individuals who would not have otherwise been
admitted, the slots that were "compromised" were slots
reserved for student athletes. None of the named
plaintiffs, however, alleged that they were seeking
admission as student athletes. Thus, the required "link"
between Singer's alleged actions and the plaintiffs
themselves was lacking.
Notably, Judge Davila dismissed the plaintiffs' claims without
leave to amend, holding that repleading would be futile because
additional allegations supporting the plaintiffs' theory would not
change the underlying fatal flaw: that the named plaintiffs
conceded that the bribery scheme involved slots reserved for
college athletes, while the general admission slots were
unaffected.
* Moreover, because the original named plaintiffs lacked
standing, the court could not grant leave to add a new
plaintiff. As the court explained, when subject-matter
jurisdiction is lacking at the commencement of the suit,
a court cannot cure the jurisdictional defect by
allowing the intervention of a substitute plaintiff who
does have standing. [GN]
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: BCBSA Sues Over Delayed Generic Drug Entry
----------------------------------------------------------------
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION, IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE
CARRIER FOR THE SERVICE BENEFIT PLAN, A/K/A THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE
PROGRAM, A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS ACT PLAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAZZ
PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JAZZ
PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED; HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; ROXANE
LABORATORIES, INC.; HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC.; EUROHEALTH
(USA), INC.; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.;
LUPIN LTD.; LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; and LUPIN INC., Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-04667 (N.D. Cal., July 13, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2,
monopolization and monopolistic scheme under state law, conspiracy
and combination in restraint of trade under state law, and unjust
enrichment.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated consumers, alleges that Defendant Jazz Pharmaceuticals,
the manufacturer of sodium oxybate drug called Xyrem, is engaged in
anticompetitive schemes to impair and delay generic competition in
the market for sodium oxybate oral solution. These schemes include:
(1) acquiring and enforcing bogus patents, (2) prosecuting citizen
petitions before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that had no
realistic likelihood of success, (3)and abusing the Risk Evaluation
and Mitigation Strategy (REMS)-related FDA approval conditions for
Xyrem to frustrate efforts by would be generic competitors to gain
FDA approval for their own generic versions of the product.
Defendant Jazz Pharmaceuticals initiated a series of unlawful
market allocation agreements with its would-be generic competitors
to ensure the continued high prices for Xyrem through
volume-limited supplies that it provided to them. In exchange,
generics drug competitors dropped their patent challenges against
Jazz Pharmaceuticals and agreed to postpone generic entry for
years.
As a result of the illegal monopolization and market restriction
agreements of Defendant Jazz Pharmaceuticals and other Defendant
conspirators, the Plaintiff and Class members are forced to pay
artificially-inflated, supracompetitive prices for Xyrem.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) is a national
association of 36 independent and locally operated Blue Cross and
Blue Shield companies providing health plans to over 107 million
members nationwide, with principal place of business located at 225
North Michigan Ave., Chicago, Illinois.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals PLC is an Ireland public limited
biopharmaceutical company organized and existing under the laws of
Ireland, with its principal place of business at Waterloo Exchange,
Waterloo Road, Dublin 4, Ireland. It is the parent company of Jazz
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited.
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.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. is a pharmaceutical corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware,
with its principal place of business at 246 Industrial Way West,
Eatontown, New Jersey. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hikma
Pharmaceuticals PLC.
Eurohealth (USA), Inc. is a pharmaceutical manufacturing company
with its principal place of business at 401 Industrial Way West,
Eatontown, New Jersey.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC is a limited liability company that
manufactures and supplies generic pharmaceuticals organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its
principal place of business at 400 Crossing Boulevard, Bridgewater,
New Jersey.
Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. is a pharmaceutical corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its
principal place of business at One Ram Ridge Rd., Chestnut Ridge,
New York.
Lupin Ltd. is a public limited company organized and existing under
the laws of India, with its principal place of business at B/4
Laxmi Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051,
India.
Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lupin
Ltd., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 111
South Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland.
Lupin Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lupin Ltd., is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Delaware, with its principal place of business at 111 South Calvert
Street, Baltimore, Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina C. Sharp, Esq.
Scott Grzenczyk, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California St., Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com
scottg@girardsharp.com
- and –
Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
Lauren G. Barnes, Esq.
Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
Cambridge, MA 02142
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
lauren@hbsslaw.com
bradleyv@hbsslaw.com
- and –
Brendan G. Stuhan, Esq.
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION
1310 G Street, N.W., 10th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 942-1069
Facsimile: (202) 942-1143
E-mail: brendan.stuhan@bcbsa.com
- and –
Mark Fischer, Esq.
Jeffrey Swann, Esq.
Robert C. Griffith, Esq.
RAWLINGS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1 Eden Parkway
La Grange, KY 40031
Telephone: (502) 814-2139
E-mail: mdf@rawlingsandassociates.com
js5@rawlingsandassociates.com
rg1@rawlingsandassociates.com
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: GEHA Sues Over Delayed Generic Drug Entry
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HEALTH ASSOCIATION, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JAZZ
PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JAZZ
PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED; HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; ROXANE
LABORATORIES, INC.; HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC.; EUROHEALTH
(USA), INC.; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.;
LUPIN LTD.; LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; and LUPIN INC., Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-04671 (N.D. Cal., July 13, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' violations of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2,
monopolization and monopolistic scheme under state law, conspiracy
and combination in restraint of trade under state law, and unjust
enrichment.
According to the complaint, Defendant Jazz Pharmaceuticals, the
manufacturer of sodium oxybate drug called Xyrem, is engaged in
anticompetitive practices and unlawful payoffs to its would-be
competitors in order to delay and impair generic competition in the
market for sodium oxybate oral solution, perhaps as long as until
the end of 2025. The anticompetitive acts committed by Defendant
Jazz Pharmaceuticals with the help of other Defendant conspirators
include acquiring and enforcing bogus patents, prosecuting citizen
petitions before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that had no
realistic likelihood of success, and abusing the Risk Evaluation
and Mitigation Strategy (REMS)-related FDA approval conditions for
Xyrem to frustrate efforts by would be generic competitors to gain
FDA approval for their own generic versions of the product.
Defendant Jazz Pharmaceuticals also maintained its monopoly power
in the market by initiating a series of unlawful market allocation
agreements with its would-be generic competitors to ensure the
continued high prices for Xyrem and at the same time settle various
patent challenges filed against it by other generic drug
manufacturers.
As a result of the Defendants' market restriction agreements, the
Plaintiff and Class members are forced to pay
artificially-inflated, supracompetitive prices for Xyrem.
Government Employees Health Association, Inc. (GEHA) is a
not-for-profit association that provides health and dental plans to
federal employees and retirees, with a principal place of business
is located at 310 NE Mulberry Street, Lee's Summit, Missouri.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals PLC is an Ireland public limited
biopharmaceutical company organized and existing under the laws of
Ireland, with its principal place of business at Waterloo Exchange,
Waterloo Road, Dublin 4, Ireland. It is the parent company of Jazz
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited.
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.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. is a pharmaceutical corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware,
with its principal place of business at 246 Industrial Way West,
Eatontown, New Jersey. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hikma
Pharmaceuticals PLC.
Eurohealth (USA), Inc. is a pharmaceutical manufacturing company
with its principal place of business at 401 Industrial Way West,
Eatontown, New Jersey.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC is a limited liability company that
manufactures and supplies generic pharmaceuticals organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its
principal place of business at 400 Crossing Boulevard, Bridgewater,
New Jersey.
Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. is a pharmaceutical corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its
principal place of business at One Ram Ridge Rd., Chestnut Ridge,
New York.
Lupin Ltd. is a public limited company organized and existing under
the laws of India, with its principal place of business at B/4
Laxmi Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051,
India.
Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lupin
Ltd., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 111
South Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland.
Lupin Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lupin Ltd., is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Delaware, with its principal place of business at 111 South Calvert
Street, Baltimore, Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina C. Sharp, Esq.
Scott Grzenczyk, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California St., Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com
scottg@girardsharp.com
- and –
Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
Lauren G. Barnes, Esq.
Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
Cambridge, MA 02142
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
lauren@hbsslaw.com
bradleyv@hbsslaw.com
- and –
Mark Fischer, Esq.
Jeffrey Swann, Esq.
Robert C. Griffith, Esq.
RAWLINGS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1 Eden Parkway
La Grange, KY 40031
Telephone: (502) 814-2139
E-mail: mdf@rawlingsandassociates.com
js5@rawlingsandassociates.com
rg1@rawlingsandassociates.com
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Martinez Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DOLORES MARTINEZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01087-LA (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class
certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a
tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent
a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by
attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the
plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
herself as the class representative, and appoint her attorneys as
class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY
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
JP MORGAN: Fields Sues in E.D. Arkansas Alleging TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JP Morgan Chase Bank
National Association. The case is styled as Jason Fields,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JP
Morgan Chase Bank National Association, Case No. 4:20-cv-00823-BSM
(E.D. Ark., July 10, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., doing business as Chase Bank or often as
Chase, is a national bank headquartered in Manhattan, New York
City, that constitutes the consumer and commercial banking
subsidiary of the U.S. multinational banking and financial services
holding company, JPMorgan Chase.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Andrew Bright, Esq.
TAYLOR KING LAW, P.A.
320 Main Street
Arkadelphia, AR 71923
Phone: (870) 246-0505
Email: richardbright@taylorkinglaw.com
JP MORGAN: Tax Divas Seeks to Recover Fees for PPP Loan Agents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tax Divas, LLC and Williams and J Bookkeeping, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK
and CITIBANK, N.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-05311 (S.D.N.Y., July 10,
2020), asserts claims for declaratory relief, unjust enrichment,
conversion, money had and received, and breach of contract; seeks
to vindicate the Plaintiffs' rights and those of other agents
similarly situated; and seeks to recover the Agent Fees to which
they are entitled.
In March of 2020, as the SARS-CoV-2 virus--the virus that causes
the COVID-19 disease--spread across the United States, the Congress
passed and President Donald J. Trump signed the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act"), a $2 trillion
coronavirus response bill intended to speed relief across the
American economy. Along with other provisions, the CARES Act
created the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") to funnel
forgivable loans to small businesses. The CARES Act initially
authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable loans; that money
quickly ran out, and Congress later authorized an additional $310
billion to the program.
Small businesses were invited to apply for PPP funds starting April
3, 2020. Applicants could seek PPP loan funding through certain
pre-approved Small Business Administration ("SBA") lenders or
through any federally insured depository institution, federally
insured credit union, or Farm Credit System institution that chose
to participate. The amount of money offered to small business
applicants was based on applicants' historical payroll information
with specific limitations. But because the purpose of the program
was to make money available quickly, lending institutions were not
required to independently verify applicants' representations.
Instead, small businesses seeking PPP funding were required to make
specific attestations and certifications under penalty of serious
civil and criminal penalties, including imprisonment and hefty
fines.
Mary Fries, Tax Divas' owner and founder, assisted her small
business clients with preparing and submitting PPP loan
applications to the Defendants. She helped one client apply for
funding with Chase, securing a PPP loan in the amount of $200,000;
and helped another client apply for funding with Citibank, securing
a PPP loan of $5,000. Jenene Williams, the owner and founder of
Williams and J Bookkeeping, assisted her small business client with
preparing and submitting a PPP loan application to Defendant Chase.
She helped her client secure a PPP loan in the amount of $67,417
through Chase.
According to the complaint, despite clear direction from the SBA
that the Agent fees "will be paid by the lender out of the fees the
lender receives from the SBA," and despite certifying under penalty
of perjury that it was in compliance and would remain in compliance
with PPP regulations, neither of the Defendants has remitted any
Agent Fees to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs are not alone in their
predicament. Each Defendant has enacted a companywide policy to
deny Agents the Agent Fees to which they are entitled. Not one of
the Defendants implemented any process for identifying the Agents
who assisted borrowers in obtaining PPP loans—likely hoping that
the absence of such records would relieve them of the obligation to
pay Agents their mandatory fees.
Plaintiff Tax Divas is an accounting firm located in Las Vegas,
Nevada. Plaintiff Williams and J Bookkeeping is a bookkeeping firm
located in Texas.
The Defendants are national banks headquartered in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
agold@tzlegal.com
kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
JRSK INC: Young Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
JRSK, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Lawrence
Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JRSK, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05419 (S.D. N.Y., July 14, 2020).
JRSK, Inc., doing business as Away, is an American online and
storefront retailer. It is best known as a luggage designer,
manufacturer and retailer, and led by founders, Steph Korey and Jen
Rubio, in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
JWH HOLDINGS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Tenzer-Fuchs Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE TENZER-FUCHS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JWH HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a J.W.
HULME CO. Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-03149-GRB-ARL (E.D.N.Y., July
15, 2020) is a civil rights action brought by the Plaintiff, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, against Defendant
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
company website in a way that is fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired consumers.
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and the
resulting denial of equal access to the goods and services offered
thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"). Defendant's website contains
various and multiple access barriers that make it extremely
difficult -- if not impossible -- for blind and visually-impaired
consumers to attempt to complete a transaction.
Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
suffers from what constitutes a "qualified disability" under the
ADA.
JWH Holdings, LLC, d/b/a J.W. Hulme Co., is a Minnesota-based
company whose line of business includes the manufacturing of
luggage from leather.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
SHALOM LAW, PLLC
105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Telephone: (718) 971-9474
E-mail: Jshalom@JonathanShalomLaw.com
KIRKLAND LAKE: Rosen Notes of Aug. 28 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. between
January 8, 2018 and November 25, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important August 28, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline
in securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages
for Kirkland investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Kirkland class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1892.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Kirkland lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting, especially as it relates to its projections of risks,
reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs; (2) as a result of the
known, but undisclosed, impending acquisition of Detour Gold
Corporation, Kirkland's projections relating to its risks, reserve
grade, and all-in sustaining costs were false and misleading; (3)
Kirkland's financial statements and projections were not fairly
presented in conformity with International Financial Reporting
Standards; and (4) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about Kirkland's
business, operations, and prospects and/or lacked a reasonable
basis and omitted material facts. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 28,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1892.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.
Contact:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/[GN]
KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS: Ruffin Files Suit under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kirschenbaum &
Phillips, P.C. The case is styled as Ronald Ruffin, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C., LVNV Funding, LLC, Resurgent Capital
Services Limited Partnership agent of, a/k/a Resurgent Capital
Services LP, f/k/a Alegis Group Limited Partnership and Sherman
Financial Group LLC, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-05422 (S.D. N.Y.,
July 14, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act.
Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C. is a debt-collection law firm located
at 40 Daniel Street, Suite 7, Farmingdale, NY 11735-9806.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Adam Schlanger, Esq.
Schlanger Law Group, LLP
80 Broad Street, Suite 1301
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 500-6114
Fax: (646) 612-7996
Email: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net
KROGER CO: Mislabels Products With Acetaminophen, Hartwich Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REYNOLDS HARTWICH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. THE KROGER CO. and RALPHS
GROCERY COMPANY, a division of the Kroger Company, Defendants, Case
No. 8:20-cv-01253 (C.D. Cal., July 14, 2020) alleges that
Defendants' advertisements, marketing representations, and
placement of their pain reliever and fever reducer products for
children that contain acetaminophen are misleading, untrue, and
likely to deceive reasonable consumers.
Ralphs Grocery is a division of the Kroger Company, and sells a
brand of pain reliever and fever reducer under the "Kroger" label,
including Infants' Pain & Fever Acetaminophen -- Kroger and
Children's Pain & Fever Acetaminophen -- Kroger, two well-known
brand-name Over The Counter medications.
According to the complaint, the products contain an active
ingredient known as acetaminophen, which can be dangerous, and
perhaps even fatal, if taken in large doses. The potential risks
associated with an acetaminophen overdose terrifies parents and
caregivers and causes them to be extra careful when buying medicine
for their children. Defendants exploit this fear by misleading
consumers.
Kroger purposely distributes and packages Infants' Products with
distinctive lettering of the word "infants'" on the product's
front-label, while packaging Children's Products with distinctive
lettering of the word "Children's" on the product's front-label.
Accordingly, Defendants distribute, market, and sell the Products
in a manner which deceives reasonable consumers into thinking that
infants cannot safely take Children's Products.
Furthermore, Defendants market and sell Infants' Products to
consumers, such as Plaintiff, at a substantially higher price than
Children's Products, despite the fact that the Products contain the
same exact amount of acetaminophen in the same dosage amounts.
The Kroger Company is an Ohio-based retail company.
Ralphs Grocery Company is an American supermarket chain in Southern
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
Naveed Abaie, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
nabaie@pswlaw.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
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- 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
KROTO INC: Fails to Protect Customers' Data, Riggs Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
The case WILLIAM RIGGS, an individual and Florida resident, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs.
KROTO, INC., D/B/A ICANVAS, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-04705 (N.D.
Cal., July 14, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff against
Defendant for its failure to protect its customers' personal and
payment information.
On or about June 24, 2020, iCanvas began notifying customers and
state Attorneys General about a data breach that occurred from May
10 to 28, 2020. Hackers not only "scraped" many of iCanvas'
customers' names from Defendant's website by infecting the
ecommerce platform with malware, hackers also stole customers'
payment card numbers, CVV security codes, credit card expiration
dates, addresses, telephone numbers and email addresses ("PII").
The criminals obtained everything they needed to illegally use
iCanvas' customers' payment cards to make fraudulent purchases, and
to steal the customers' identities.
According to the complaint, because of Defendant's Data Breach,
customers' PII is still available on the dark web for criminals to
access and abuse. iCanvas' customers face a lifetime risk of
identity theft.
Plaintiff and similarly situated iCanvas customers have suffered
injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include:
(i) lost or diminished value of PII; (ii) out-of-pocket expenses
associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from
identity theft, tax fraud, and/or unauthorized use of their PII;
(iii) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate
the actual consequences of the Data Breach, including but not
limited to lost time, (iv) deprivation of rights they possess under
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; and (v) the
continued and certainly an increased risk to their PII, which: (a)
remains available on the dark web for individuals to access and
abuse; and (b) remains in Defendant's possession and is subject to
further unauthorized disclosures so long as Defendant fails to
undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect the PII.
Kroto, Inc., d/b/a iCanvas, specializes in selling canvas image and
art prints through its website, www.icanvas.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Leslie Guillon, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 777-7777
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
E-mail: ABerry@Justice4You.com
LGuillon@Justice4You.com
LIQUID WEB: Licea Removed From Super. Court to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS LICEA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIQUID WEB, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV18957 (Filed May 15, 2020), was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on June 30, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-05957-JFW-MRW to the proceeding.
According to the complaint, the Defendant made automatic renewal
offers for its website hosting subscription plans and related
products to consumers, including to the Plaintiff and putative
class members without setting forth the Defendant's full
cancellation policy as set forth in the Defendant's terms and
conditions in a "clear and conspicuous manner" as required by Cal.
& Bus. Prof. Code section 17602(a)(1).
Liquid Web provides managed hosting solutions for mission critical
sites & apps.[BN]
Defendant Liquid Web is represented by:
Michael L. Mallow, Esq.
Robert E. Feyder, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 424 285 8330
Facsimile: 424 204 9093
E-mail: mmallow@shb.com
rfeyder@shb.com
LIVE OAK LANDSCAPE: Ex-Worker Files Wage and Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Maximino Herrera, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Live Oak Landscape Contractors, Inc. and
all other affiliated entities and/or joint employers and Michael
Sidlowski, individually, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-07330 (D. N.J.,
June 16, 2020), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime
compensation, liquidated damages and costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, and redress for retaliation.
Herrera was employed full time by Live Oak and performed
landscaping and snow removal duties from 1998 to March 26, 2020.
Herrera claims to have routinely worked well in excess of forty
hours in a workweek with appropriate overtime premiums. After
twenty-two years of working for Live Oak, Herrera was terminated as
a result of his objections to unfair pay practices. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
33 State Road, Suite A-1
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (201) 687-9977
Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
Email: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Town Kitchen Files Class Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Certain Underwriters
at Lloyd's, London, et al. The case is styled as Town Kitchen LLC,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Known As Syndicate ENH 5151, NEO
2468 XLC 2003, TAL 1183, TRV 5000, AGR 3268, ACS 1856, NVA 2007,
HDU 382, PPP 1980, AMA 1200, ASC 1414 and VSM 5678; Indian Harbor
Insurance Company; Case No. 1:20-cv-22832-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 10,
2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.
Lloyd's of London is a British insurance market where members
operate as syndicates to insure and spread out the risks of
different businesses, organizations, and individuals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Bruce Love, Esq.
Lindsey Caryn Grossman, Esq.
Michael Elliot Criden, Esq.
CRIDEN & LOVE PA
7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
South Miami, FL 33143
Phone: (305) 357-9000
Fax: 357-9050
Email: klove@cridenlove.com
lgrossman@cridenlove.com
mcriden@cridenlove.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jason Alexander Pill, Esq.
Sarah Beth Van Schoyck, Esq.
John David Mullen, Esq.
PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 472-7550
Fax: (813) 472-7570
Email: Pillj@phelps.com
sarah.vanschoyck@phelps.com
john.mullen@phelps.com
M B-REAL: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. M B-REAL, INC. D/B/A AMERICAN LENDING CO.,
and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06281 (C.D.
Cal., July 15, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
According to the complaint, the Defendants contacted the cellular
phone numbers of the Plaintiff using an automatic telephone dialing
system in an attempt to promote and sell the Defendants' services.
The Defendants placed multiple calls on the Plaintiff's cellular
telephones without obtaining prior express consent in violation of
the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA.
M B-Real, Inc., d/b/a American Lending Co., is a lender providing
business loans, lines of credit and other financial products, with
a principal place of business in Santa Ana, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 619-8966
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
MANHEIM, PA: T.G. Files Civil Rights Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manheim Township, et
al. The case is styled as T.G., individually and as parent of minor
A.M.; A.M., a minor; C.T., as parent of minors N.T. and C.T.; N.T.,
a minor; C.T., a minor; and/or on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. Manheim Township, Kristal Narkiewicz, John/Jane Does
#1-50 Case No. 2:20-cv-03378 (E.D. Pa., July 10, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Manheim Township is a township in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania,
established in 1729. Manheim's southernmost border meets the city
limits of Lancaster. Manheim's population, as of the 2010 census,
was 38,133.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Conor Corcoran, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF J. CONOR CORCORAN
1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 620
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (215) 735-1135
Fax: (215) 735-1175
Email: conorcorcoran@yahoo.com
MASSACHUSETTS: Bail Consideration Bid in Grinis Inmates Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEXANDER GRINIS, MICHAEL GORDON, and ANGEL SOLIZ, on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Petitioners, v.
STEPHEN SPAULDING, Warden of Federal Medical Center Devens, and
MICHAEL CARVAJAL, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, in
their official capacities, Respondents, Civil Action No.
20-10738-GAO (D. Mass.), Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr. of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the
Petitioners' Motion for Immediate Bail Consideration, Temporary
Restraining Order, and Preliminary Injunctive Relief.
The Petitioners, Grinis, Gordon and Soliz, inmates now in custody
at Federal Medical Center Devens ("FMC Devens"), bring what they
characterize as a class action habeas petition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 2241 against respondents Stephen Spaulding, Warden
at FMC Devens, and Michael Carvajal, Director of the Bureau of
Prisons ("BOP").
The Petitioners seek to represent: (1) a subclass of all persons
who, according to applicable CDC guidelines, are at high risk of
injury or death from COVID-19, due to their advanced age or medical
condition(s) ("Medically Vulnerable Subclass"); and (2) a subclass
of all persons who are appropriate candidates for early transfer to
home confinement ("Home Confinement Appropriate Subclass").
The Petitioners allege that their detention is in violation of the
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution because of the
threat of infection by the virus COVID-19. Pending before the
Court is their Motion for Immediate Bail Consideration, Temporary
Restraining Order, and Preliminary Injunctive Relief.
The Petitioners request an order of the Court releasing sufficient
Class Members on bail to ensure effective social distancing at FMC
Devens in compliance with CDC guidelines. They also seek a
temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction ordering the
Respondents to comply with CDC guidelines and best practices to
prevent the spread of COVID-19, including, without limitation, by
reducing the prisoner population at FMC Devens sufficiently to
permit effective social distancing. The Court heard oral argument
from both the Petitioners and the Respondents.
Separately, the Petitioners filed a Motion for Class Certification
or Representative Habeas Action. The parties have briefed but have
not yet been heard in argument on that motion.
Judge O'Toole holds that the Petitioners have not demonstrated that
they have a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their pleaded
claims. They have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on
their underlying theory of liability: that by failing to release a
significant number of inmates as they demand, the respondents have
subjected them to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. Both the BOP and FMC Devens have made
significant changes in operations in response to COVID-19. The
Respondents' papers outline the steps taken by them at both the
national and institutional levels.
The Attorney General has instructed BOP facilities to transfer
appropriate qualifying inmates from institutional incarceration to
home confinement pursuant to the recently enacted "CARES Act."
Indeed, the Court was informed at the hearing on the present motion
that FMC Devens was preparing to transfer petitioner Grinis to home
confinement in early May, but that he had objected to one of the
steps in the process, completion of a fourteen-day quarantine
period. It is not clear what his status is now. Unlike petitioner
Grinis, however, Petitioners Gordon and Soliz are serving lengthy
sentences for serious drug offenses. T hey have not shown that it
is likely that they would qualify for transfer from incarceration
to home confinement under the current BOP eligibility requirement,
and therefore they have not shown that they personally have a
likelihood of success in obtaining the relief prayed for in their
petition.
Finally, the Petitioners' request to be admitted to bail also lacks
merit. While a district court may have "inherent power" to release
a habeas petitioner pending determination of the merits of the
petition, a bail decision is a highly particularized one, involving
detailed consideration of factors such as the nature and
circumstances of the offense of conviction, the history and
characteristics of the petitioner, and the nature or seriousness of
any danger to the community from the release of the prisoner. The
Petitioners do not address such considerations, instead basing
their request for bail on the circumstances of their confinement
alone, rather than on the particular factors as applied to each of
them. So even if the action is properly characterized as a habeas
petition, which is subject to doubt, the basis for making a
considered bail decision is lacking.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge O'Toole denied the Motion for
Immediate Bail Consideration, Temporary Restraining Order, and
Preliminary Injunctive Relief.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 8, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/LOsbw3 from Leagle.com.
MCCARTHY & BURGESS: Lindala Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as WILLIAM LINDALA, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MCCARTHY,
BURGESS & WOLFF, INC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01080-PP (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
himself 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.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY
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
MDL 2047: Court Refuses to Strike Bid to File Additional Exhibits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Elizabeth Bennett, et al. v.
Gebr. Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, et al., No. 14-2722.,
SECTION L (2), Civil Action MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La.), Judge Eldon E.
Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana denied the Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs'
Motion for Leave to File Additional Exhibits in Support of
Opposition to Summary Judgment.
From 2004 through 2006, the housing boom in Florida and rebuilding
efforts necessitated by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina led to a
shortage of construction materials, including drywall. As a
result, drywall manufactured in China was brought into the United
States and used to construct and refurbish homes in coastal areas
of the country, notably the Gulf Coast and East Coast. Sometime
after the installation of the Chinese drywall, homeowners began to
complain of emissions of foul-smelling gas, the corrosion and
blackening of metal wiring, surfaces, and objects, and the breaking
down of appliances and electrical devices in their homes. Many of
these homeowners also began to complain of various physical
afflictions believed to be caused by the Chinese drywall.
These homeowners then began to file suit in various state and
federal courts against homebuilders, developers, installers,
realtors, brokers, suppliers, importers, exporters, distributors,
and manufacturers who were involved with the Chinese drywall. As a
result, many homebuilders also filed suit seeking to recoup their
damages. Because of the commonality of facts in the various cases,
the litigation was designated as a multidistrict litigation.
Pursuant to a Transfer Order from the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation on June 15, 2009, all federal cases
involving Chinese drywall were consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in MDL 09-2047 before the Court. Since that date,
numerous cases have been consolidated, involving thousands of
individua l claims; over 20,000 documents have been entered into
the record, millions of documents have been exchanged in discovery,
depositions have been taken in the United States and in China, and
over 30 Pretrial Orders have been issued; the Court has appointed
steering committees and liaison counsel for the Plaintiffs,
homebuilders, insurers, installers, and manufacturers, and it has
presided over monthly status conferences, hearings, and several
bellwether trials.
The Chinese drywall at issue was largely manufactured by two groups
of Defendants: (1) the Knauf Entities and (2) the Taishan Entities.
The litigation has focused upon these two entities and their
downstream associates and has proceeded on strikingly different
tracks for the claims against each group.
The Knauf Entities are German-based, international manufacturers of
building products, including drywall, whose Chinese subsidiary,
Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. ("KPT"), advertised and sold
its Chinese drywall in the United States. The Knauf Entities are
named Defendants in numerous cases consolidated with the MDL
litigation and litigation in state courts.
On Dec. 20, 2011, the Knauf Entities and the PSC entered into a
global, class Settlement Agreement, which was designed to resolve
all Knaufrelated, Chinese drywall claims. In addition to the Knauf
Settlement Agreement and after a jury trial in a bellwether case,
numerous defendants in the chain-of-commerce with the Knauf
Entities have entered into class settlement agreements, the effect
of which settles almost all of the Knauf Entities'
chain-of-commerce litigation. The total amount of the Knauf
Settlement is approximately $1.1 billion.
The instant matter is a purported class action filed on Nov. 13,
2014 by Ms. Bennett in the Northern District of Alabama. Ms.
Bennett raised claims on her own behalf and on the behalf of a
nationwide class of similarly situated homeowners who allegedly
suffered damages due to the presence of defective Chinese drywall
in their homes. The Plaintiffs raised claims against the Knauf
Entities for negligence, negligence per se, strict liability,
breach of express and/or implied warranty, redhibition, violations
of the Louisiana Products Liability Act, private nuisance,
negligent discharge of a corrosive substance, unjust enrichment,
violations of consumer protection laws, and equitable and
injunctive relief and medical monitoring with respect to the
manufacture of allegedly defective Chinese drywall. In January
2015, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred
the case to the Eastern District of Louisiana and consolidated it
with the In re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Liability Litigation,
MLD 09-2047, currently pending before the Court.
On Oct. 31, 2019, the Court granted leave for the Plaintiffs to add
several new Plaintiffs to the action. The case now involves
approximately 130 affected properties. With discovery complete,
the Knauf Defendants have begun to file dispositive motions
targeting the claims of several individual Plaintiffs.
On March 31, 2020, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
and Alternative Motion for Adverse Inference, targeting the claims
of Byron and Fern Robbins. R. Doc. 22686. Specifically, Defendants
explained that at their depositions, the Robbinses alluded to the
existence of a pre-purchase home inspection report and a lab
report. However, despite Defendants' request, these documents were
not produced before the close of discovery on December 31, 2019.
Plaintiffs oppose the motion for summary judgment. R. Doc. 22795.
On May 12, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an ex-parte Motion for Leave to
File Additional Exhibits in support of their opposition, explaining
that they had located the two outstanding documents upon which
Defendants' motion was based, in addition to other exhibits
"germane to the issues raised by Defendants." R. Doc. 22820 at 1.
On May 12, 2020, the Defendants filed the instant motion, seeking
to strike the Plaintiffs' Motion to File Additional Exhibits and
preclude the Court from considering the documents the Plaintiffs
intend to introduce. They characterize the introduction of these
exhibits as "trial by ambush," as they had no opportunity to depose
the Robbinses regarding these documents nor the opportunity to
address the documents in their summary judgment briefing as their
underlying motion for summary judgment was set for May 13, 2020,
the day after the Plaintiffs' motion was filed.
The Plaintiffs' opposition was due on May 19, 2020. No such
opposition was filed.
Judge Fallon holds that despite the significant obstacles caused by
the Plaintiffs' behavior in the matter, he declines to strike the
motion at this time. Instead, in the interest of justice to both
parties,he will allow the Defendants to re-depose the Plaintiffs
with respect to these newly-produced documents and supplement their
Motion for Summary Judgment to reflect any additional facts or
arguments developed in light of the deposition. Because the
Plaintiffs caused hardship to the Defendants by claiming that the
documents had been discarded and then producing them at the
eleventh hour, rendering the Defendants unable to examine them or
make use of their contents, the deposition is to be at the
Plaintiffs' cost. In the event that the Plaintiffs fail to abide
by the Order, the Judge will strike the Plaintiffs' motion and
prohibit them from filing these additional documents.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Fallon denied Defendants' Motion to
Strike Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Additional Exhibits in
Support of Opposition to Summary Judgment without prejudice to the
right to refile the motion in the event the Plaintiffs fail to
abide by the Order.
The parties were ordered to arrange a second deposition of the
Robbinses to discuss the documents attached to the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Leave to File Additional Exhibits in Support of
Opposition to Summary Judgment, at the Plaintiffs' cost, by June
17, 2020.
The submission date on the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
and Alternative Motion for Adverse Inference was continued to early
July 2020.
The Judge denied as moot the Defendants' Motion to Expedite Hearing
of the Knauf Defendants' Motion to Strike Supplemental Claims in
Amended Complaints.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 22, 2020 Order &
Reasons is available at https://is.gd/Vjyyiq from Leagle.com.
MDL 2924: Leadership Structure in Zantac Liability Suit Established
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2924, No. 20-MD-2924 (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robin
L. Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida has issued the Court's Pretrial Order No. 20,
establishing the Plaintiffs' leadership structure, appointing the
leadership members, and designating the leadership duties and
responsibilities.
In early May 2020, the Court held interviews of 62 applicants for
leadership positions in the multi-district litigation (MDL).
Having reviewed all submissions by the counsel, and having
considered the interviews conducted by videoconference, due to the
inability of the Court to conduct the interviews in person in light
of the coronavirus pandemic, Judge Rosenberg issues the Order to,
among other things, (1) establish the Plaintiffs' leadership
structure; (2) appoint the Plaintiffs' leadership members; and (3)
designate their leadership duties and responsibilities.
The Court hopes and assumes that the counsel appointed to
leadership positions will take full advantage of the range of
talent among other counsel, whether through the formation of
appropriate subcommittees or otherwise with both creative and
diverse ideas, and yet a common vision. The Court hopes the Lead
Counsel will consider drawing upon the resources of the many
excellent firms not selected in this order as they build those
subcommittees, in furtherance of their vision for the litigation.
The Court will consider additional Steering Committee appointments
as the litigation advances, recognizing the work performed by
subcommittee members. The quality of the litigation will be
greatly enhanced by the collective input of the talent of all of
the attorneys in the litigation, guided and supported by the
leadership team. Many attorneys gain invaluable experience and
earn outstanding reputations from the work that they contribute to
an MDL, without any formal leadership position, and it does not go
unnoticed by their colleagues and the Court.
The Court puts the following leadership structure in place based on
all of the available information that the Court has at this time.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' leadership should be
structured as follows, which includes a brief description of the
leadership duties and responsibilities:
(a) Co-Lead Counsel - The Judge appoints four Co-Lead Counsel for
all economic loss, medical monitoring and injury/wrongful
death cases. The Lead Counsel will have the duties outlined
in the Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) ("MCL Fourth")
Section 10.221, which include formulating (in consultation
with other counsel) and presenting positions on substantive
and procedural issues during the litigation.
(b) Steering Committee - The Judge establishes a Steering
Committee for all economic loss, medical monitoring, and
injury/wrongful death cases. The Steering Committee will
have the duties outlined in the MCL Fourth Section 10.221,
which include preparing briefs or conducting portions of
the discovery program. The Steering Committee is
established to ensure that all group members' interests
and positions are represented in decision making.
(c) Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel - The Judge previously appointed
Francisco Maderal as the Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, in
PTO #5. The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel will be responsible
for facilitating communications with the Court and counsel
in the action. The Liaison counsel will also assist all
counsel in complying with the rules and procedures of the
Court. In addition, Mr. Maderal will serve in an ex-officio
capacity on the Steering Committee; in this role he will
have the same responsibilities as all other members of the
Steering Committee.
(d) Leadership Development Committee - The Judge is keenly aware
of the concerns raised in recent years about the challenges
faced by less experienced attorneys in obtaining leadership
appointments in MDL proceedings. He establishes a Leadership
Development Committee ("LDC"). The LDC consists of attorneys
who applied for leadership positions in the MDL, but whom the
Court did not select for appointment to the PSC. It is the
Judge's expectation that the PSC members will actively mentor
and work closely with the attorneys appointed to the LDC so
they have the opportunity to play a meaningful role in
various aspects of the MDL, including subcommittee
assignments, and thereby gain further experience in
preparation for future service on steering committees.
He also directs that Special Master Dodge will meet
periodically with LDC members individually, and with the
Co-Chairs of the LDC, to ensure that they are receiving
appropriate opportunities for their ability and skills,
including the opportunity to present before this Court.
The Court makes the following appointments:
a. Lead Counsel:
Tracy A. Finken
ANAPOL WEISS
One Logan Square 130 North 18th Street, Suite 1600
Philadelphia, PA 19103,
Telephone: (215) 735-1130,
Email: tfinken@anapolweiss.com;
Robert C. Gilbert
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1100
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 384-7269
Email: gilbert@kolawyers.com
Michael L. McGlamry
POPE McGLAMRY, P.C.
3391 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 523-7706
Email: efile@pmkm.com
Adam Pulaski
PULASKI KHERKHER, PLLC
2925 Richmond Avenue, Suite 1725
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 664-4555
Email: adam@pulaskilawfirm.com
b. Steering Committee:
Rosemarie Riddell Bogdan
MARTIN, HARDING & MAZZOTTI
1222, Troy-Schenectady Road
PO Box 15141
Albany, NY 12212
Telephone: (518) 862-1200
Email: rosemarie.bogdan@1800law1010.com
Mark J. Dearman
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Email: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
Elizabeth A. Fegan
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 South Wacker Drive, 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-1019
Email: beth@feganscott.com
Marlene J. Goldenberg
GOLDENBERGLAW, PLLC
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-4662
Email: mjgoldenberg@goldenberglaw.com
Roopal P. Luhana
CHAFFIN LUHANA LLP
600 3rd Avenue, Floor 12
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (888) 480-1123
Email: luhana@chaffinluhana.com
Ricardo M. Martinez-Cid
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
SunTrust International Center One SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 358-2800
Email: rmcteam@podhurst.com
Lauren S. Miller
CORY WATSON, P.C.
2131 Magnolia Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-2200
Email: lmiller@corywatson.com
Melanie H. Muhlstock
PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
6 Harbor Park Drive Port
Washington, NY 11050
Telephone: (516) 466-6500
Email: mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com
Daniel A. Nigh
LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A.
316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 435-7013
Email: dnigh@levinlaw.com
Carmen S. Scott
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Boulevard
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 216-9160
Email: cscott@motleyrice.com
Mikal C. Watts
WATTS GUERRA LLP
Four Dominion Drive Building Three, Suite 100
San Antonio, TX 78257
Telephone: (210) 447-0500
Email: mcwatts@wattsguerra.com
Sarah N. Westcot
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
2665 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 220
Miami, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Email: swestcot@bursor.com
Conlee S. Whiteley
KANNER & WHITELEY, L.L.C.
701 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 524-5777
Email: c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
R. Brent Wisner
BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
10940 Wilshire Boulevard, 17th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 207-3233
Email: rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
Frank Woodson
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
218 Commerce Street PO Box 4160
Montgomery, AL 36106
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
Email: frank.woodson@beasleyallen.com.
c. Leadership Development Committee:
Paige Boldt
WATTS GUERRA LLP
Four Dominion Drive Building Three, Suite 100
San Antonio, TX 78257
Telephone: (210) 447-0500
Email: pboldt@wattsguerra.com
Je Yon Jung
MAY LIGHTFOOT, PLLC
3200 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE 3rd Floor
Washington, DC 20032
Telephone: (202) 918-1824
Email: jjung@maylightfootlaw.com
Adam William Krause
KRAUSE AND KINSMAN, LLC
4717 Grand Avenue, Suite 250
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 760-2700
Email: adam@krauseandkinsman.com
Nicola Larmond-Harvey
SAUNDERS & WALKER, P.A.
3491 Gandy Boulevard North, Suite 200
Pinellas Park, FL 33781
Telephone: (727) 579-4500
Email: nicola@saunderslawyers.com
Bradford B. Lear
LEAR WERTS LLP
103 Ripley Street
Columbia, MO 65201
Telephone: (573) 875-1991
Email: lear@learwerts.com
The Court declines to appoint an Executive Committee at this time;
in lieu of such an appointment, it makes the following
designations:
(i) Roopal Luhana as the Chair of the ESI/Document Production
Committee;
(ii) Ashley Keller as the Chair and Frederick Longer as
Co-Chair of the Law & Briefing Committee;
(iii) Melanie Muhlstock and Carmen Scott as Co-Chairs of the
Leadership Development Committee;
(iv) Daniel Nigh as the Chair of the Science & Experts
Committee; and
(v) Mikal Watts as the Chair and Brent Wisner as the Co-Chair
of the Bellwether & Trial Team.
The Court leaves designation of other committee co-chairs,
subcommittee membership, and creation of any other committees to
the full discretion of Lead Counsel, including the timing of such
decisions. The Court also directs the Lead Counsel to consider
what structure will be most useful with respect to state/federal
coordination, and to report on its recommendation at an upcoming
status conference.
In PTO #15, the Court ordered that the deadline for the first
tranche of Census Plus Forms would be 60 days from the date of the
Order. The Judge extends the deadline for submission of the Census
Plus Forms for both filed and unfiled cases by 14 days. The
extension will only apply to those forms for cases filed in the MDL
on May 22, 2020, or cases for which retention agreements are signed
on May 22, 2020. The deadlines for cases filed or retained after
May 22, 2020 are not extended by the Order.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 8, 2020 Pretrial Order
is available at https://is.gd/iTsXEL from Leagle.com.
MIDLAND CREDIT: Angle Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
KRISTINA M. ANGLE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01500 (N.D. Ohio, July 7, 2020) seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect
a debt.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. was founded in 1953. The company's
line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises
for relatively short periods. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 575 – 8181
E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Ungar Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Menachem Ungar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No.
7:20-cv-05361-VB (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2020), is brought under the
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act to seek damages and declaratory
and injunctive relief as a result of the Defendant's deceptive,
misleading and unfair debt collection practices.
On June 17, 2020, the Plaintiff incurred an obligation to Citibank,
N.A. The obligation arose out of transactions in which money,
property, insurance or services, which are the subject of the
transaction, are primarily for personal, family or household
purposes, specifically through a Costco Anywhere Visa Card by Citi
Acq. The Citibank, N.A. obligation is a "debt." Citibank, N.A. is a
"creditor." Citibank, N.A. or a subsequent owner of the debt
contracted the Defendant MCM to collect the alleged debt.
On June 17, 2020, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection
letter regarding the alleged Citibank, N.A. debt. The letter in the
top right corner states, "Extra Flexibility in Light of Recent
Events Stop the Pre-Legal Review. The phrase "Pre-Legal" indicates
that the review would not be done by an attorney, but rather
through a "Pre-Legal" process, i.e., a review before the file
reaches an attorney. The letter further states "We know times are
tough. That's why we are offering you additional flexibility--and
more time--to avoid the planned attorney review."
The language "attorney review" implies that an actual attorney will
be reviewing the file, according to the complaint. The letter makes
a statement that can have two meanings only one of which can be
true. The consumer does not know if making a payment as provided in
the letter would avoid actual legal review by an attorney which
would mean the possibility of litigation is imminent or if a
payment would be avoiding a pre-legal review which means that
litigation is less imminent and therefore would have an impact on
whether and when the consumer would make payments provided for in
the letter. As a result of the Defendant's deceptive, misleading
and unfair debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been
damaged.
Plaintiff Menachem Ungar is a resident of the State of New York.
MCM is a "debt collector."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
MSC INDUSTRIAL: New York Court Dismisses Guglielmo Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed the case, JOSEPH GUGLIELMO,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. MSC INDUSTRIAL DIRECT CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 20 CV
31-LTS-KNF (S.D. N.Y.).
The attorneys for the parties have advised the Court that the
putative class action has been or will be settled. Accordingly,
the action is dismissed with prejudice as to the named Plaintiff
and without prejudice as to all the other Plaintiffs and without
costs to either party, but without prejudice to restoration of the
action to the calendar of the undersigned if settlement is not
achieved within 60 days of the date of the Order. If a party
wishes to reopen the matter or extend the time within which it may
be settled, the party must make a letter application before the
60-day period expires.
The parties are advised that if they wish the Court to retain
jurisdiction in this matter for purposes of enforcing any
settlement agreement, they will submit the settlement agreement to
the Court to be so ordered.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/f3dIkZ from Leagle.com.
MUSCULOSKELETAL INSTITUTE: Fails to Secure PII, Stoll Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAY STOLL and HEIDI IMHOF, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MUSCULOSKELETAL INSTITUTE, CHARTERED d/b/a
FLORIDA ORTHOPAEDIC INSTITUTE, Case No. 109606945 (Fla. Cir.,
Hillsborough Cty., June 30, 2020), arises from the Defendant's
failure to properly secure and safeguard protected health
information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act, medical information, and other personally
identifiable information.
The PII includes names, social security numbers, dates of birth,
addresses, diagnosis codes, financial information, and treatment
information. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant failed to
comply with industry standards to protect information systems that
contain that PII, and failed to provide timely, accurate, and
adequate notice to the Plaintiffs and other Class Members that
their PII had been compromised.
The Plaintiffs seek orders requiring the Defendant to fully and
accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been
compromised, to adopt reasonably sufficient security practices and
safeguards to prevent incidents like the disclosure in the future,
and to provide for the lifetimes of the Plaintiffs and Class
Members identity theft protective services as the Plaintiffs and
Class Members will be at an increased risk of identity theft due to
the conduct of the Defendant.
On April 9, 2020, FOI experienced a ransomware attack which
resulted in exposure of sensitive and private PII of at least
100,000 patients, and potentially in excess of 150,000 patients of
Defendant (the "Data Disclosure").
The Plaintiffs were customers and patients of FOI, whose PII was
disclosed without authorization to an unknown third party as a
result of the Data Disclosure.
Founded in 1989, FOI has grown from twelve orthopaedists working in
one office and one hospital to over forty physicians, twenty-five
mid-level providers, fifteen Fellows, and a professional staff of
more than 700, working in nine offices and nineteen regional
hospitals, two Surgery Centers and two Orthopaedic Urgent Care
centers. FOI offers a comprehensive range of specialized orthopedic
services involving, bones, muscles or joints, including foot and
ankle, hand and write, joint arthroplasty, oncology, orthopaedic
trauma, pain management, rehabilitation medicine, shoulder and
elbow, spine surgery and sports medicine.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
rmcgee@ForThePeople.com
- and -
William 'Billy' Peerce Howard, Esq.
Heather H. Jones, 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: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
NAB: 45,000+ Aussies Receive Share of $49.5MM Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Marsh, writing for 9News, reports that almost 50,000
Australians was set to receive their share of a $49.5 million class
action settlement against consumer bank NAB on July 9.
Law firm Slater and Gordon settled the action against the bank in
November last year, following allegations NAB had sold insurance
policies that were effectively useless in practice.
Details of the insurance policies came to light during the banking
royal commission, in which it was revealed many customers did not
know they were paying for insurance policies, or were ineligible to
ever claim.
Slater and Gordon's Senior Associate David Barda said it was a good
result for the average Australian involved in the class action.
"We are pleased we can finally mark the end of this class action
against NAB with a positive result for tens of thousands of
Australians who will wake up with a bit of extra money in their
bank accounts," Mr Barda said.
"Class actions are often the only way people have the means through
which to take on big business when they have been hurt or ripped
off; the NAB class action has meant almost 50,000 people have
received what was rightfully owed to them, without having to do
much more than fill out a couple of short forms."
In May this year the Federal Court approved the settlement, which
related to two policies including NAB Credit Card Cover and NAB
Personal Loan Cover.
Both of these products are no longer sold by NAB.
At the time, NAB's Chief Legal and Commercial Counsel Sharon Cook
said the bank was happy to have resolved the issue for affected
customers.
"We are pleased with the Federal Court's decision and to be able to
resolve this matter for our customers and shareholders," Ms Cook
said in May.
"As we have acknowledged, it is important to resolve past issues so
that we can rebuild trust with our customers and the community."
Mr Barda said Slater and Gordon were currently awaiting the
resolution of three more class actions against ANZ, Westpac and
Commbank.
"The members of the class action haven't had to battle through
court, or take on huge financial risk, and have still been
vindicated at the end of the day," Mr Barda said.
"The banking royal commission revealed reprehensible behaviour from
large corporations and big banks; we will continue to fight on
behalf of those affected and give them back their voice." [GN]
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Lim Asserts Breach of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc. The case is styled as Philip Lim, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nationwide Credit,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03126 (E.D. N.Y., July 14,
2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Nationwide Credit, Inc. provides customer relationship and accounts
receivable management services. The Company offers outsourcing,
including contingency collections, first and third party, customer
relationship management, attorney network, and skip program
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
- and -
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
NEW YORK BUILDERS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Garcia Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK BUILDERS OF STAIRS INC.; and EDWARD
BARAN, Defendants, Case 1:20-cv-02993 (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 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 Garcia was employed by the Defendants as laborer.
New York Builders of Stairs Inc. specializes in design, manufacture
and installation of custom wood stairs and railings. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 571-0700
NEW YORK, NY: D. Murray Claims Dismissed in Syville Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SYVILLE et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et
al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-570-LTS (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Laura
Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York entered an order denying the claims of Dexter Murray,
et al.
By order dated Feb. 25, 2020, Chief Judge McMahon denied the
Plaintiffs permission to prosecute the case as a class action,
dismissed all claims of Plaintiff Syville that were purportedly
asserted on behalf of other individuals, and stated that the claims
of the 28 other named Plaintiffs would be dismissed without
prejudice if those individuals failed to file declarations
confirming their assent to the complaint and intention to proceed
as Plaintiffs in the action within 30 days.
On May 4, 2020, Plaintiff Syville filed a letter which included the
required declarations signed by Donald Lord, Anthony McDonald,
Raymon Dash, Anthony Ashley, Issac Dickerson, Eugene Davis, and
Alfred Wilder.
Judge Swain accepted these declarations as timely in light of the
current public health crisis and the reasons stated in Plaintiff
Syville's letter. The claims of all other named Plaintiffs,
including those of Dexter Murray, are dismissed without prejudice.
The application of Dexter Murray for a temporary restraining order
is denied without prejudice, as his claims are dismissed without
prejudice.
The Chambers will mail a copy of the Order to Alphonso Syville,
Donald Lord, Anthony McDonald, Raymon Dash, Anthony Ashley, Issac
Dickerson, Eugene Davis, and Alfred Wilder.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/Ng72TD from Leagle.com.
NEXTIER OILFIELD: Conditional Class Cert. Sought in Kenworthy Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE KENWORTHY, CHAD HENSLEY,
STEPHEN MAKANJU, TED WILLIAMS and MICHAEL SPERLING, Each
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
NEXTIER OILFIELD SOLUTIONS, INC., NEXTIER COMPLETION SOLUTIONS,
INC., and C&J ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 7:20-cv-00111-DC-RCG
(W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order
conditionally certifying a class of:
"all salaried Field Supervisors, Field Engineers and
Specialists II employed by Defendants since May 7, 2017."
The Plaintiffs brought this suit on behalf of certain salaried
employees of the Defendants, who uniformly denied overtime wages to
Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Nextier provides oilfield services. The Company offers drilling and
other related solutions such as developing, delivering, management,
and engineering activities.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Corey E. Devine, Esq.
R. John Grubb II, Esq.
MUSKAT, MAHONY & DEVINE, LLP
1201 Louisiana Street, Suite 850
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 987-7850
Facsimile: (713) 987-7854
E-mail: cdevine@m2dlaw.com
jgrubb@md2law.com
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Harris Sues over Warranty on Vehicle Parts
----------------------------------------------------------------
BOBBY HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06021 (C.D.
Cal., July 7, 2020) arises out of Nissan's failure to accurately
and comprehensively identify the vehicle parts that should properly
be classified as emissions warranty parts and high-cost emissions
warranty parts under California's emission control system warranty
requirements and covered under the emissions warranty for 7-years
and 70,000 miles.
According to the complaint, in order to minimize Nissan's warranty
exposure, Nissan has unilaterally limited the parts that should be
covered under the emissions warranty, and has limited the parts
that are designated as high-cost emissions warranty parts, covered
for 7-years and 70,000 miles, including the parts specifically
identified by the Plaintiff. By not comprehensively identifying the
parts that should be included as emissions warranty parts and
high-cost warranty parts, Nissan is able to limit the warranty
coverage for those parts.
The fuel pump installed in the Class Vehicles is an emissions part
and a high-cost warranty part. Nissan has wrongfully failed to
identify the fuel pump installed in the Class Vehicles as an
emissions part and as a high-cost emissions part.
Nissan North America Inc. operates in the automotive industry. The
Company designs, develops, and manufactures Nissan vehicles and
distributes them through dealers in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 432-8492
E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com
abasser@pomlaw.com
- and -
Robert L. Starr, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072
Calabasas, CA 91302
E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com
NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Ferretti Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LEO FERRETTI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-61431-RAR (S.D. Fla., July 15, 2020),
arises from the Defendant's breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
and conversion.
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated persons, alleges that he and other students who paid
tuition and fees to Nova Southeastern University (NSU) did not
receive their bargained-for educational and other services and
experiences, for which they paid and have not been refunded a
properly prorated portion of their tuition and fees after NSU
abruptly ceased providing such services to students during the
spring of 2020 due to the spread of COVID-19.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek proper, prorated refund or
reimbursement for the unused services for which they already paid
in the form of various university fees and the decreased value of
the education they received as a result of classes transitioning
from in-person/on-campus instruction to an entirely remote, virtual
learning format.
Nova Southeastern University, Inc., is a private corporation that
owns and operates Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida, as well as regional campuses across Florida and in Puerto
Rico. Its principal place of business is located at 3301 College
Ave., Fort Lauderdale, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew D. Schultz, Esq.
Rebecca K. Timmons, Esq.
Brenton J. Goodman, Esq.
LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR,
P.A.
316 S. Baylen St., Suite 600
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 435-7140
Facsimile: (850) 436-6140
E-mail: mschultz@levinlaw.com
btimmons@levinlaw.com
bgoodman@levinlaw.com
- and –
Patrick Madden, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: pmadden@bm.net
NR 1 TRANSPORT: Dawkins Sues Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------
STEFANEE DAWKINS, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NR 1 TRANSPORT, INC., ZBA, INC., and NERIJUS
ZITKEVICIUS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04063 (N.D. Ill., July
10, 2020) alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
Plaintiff worked as a truck driver for Defendants for approximately
4 months -- for ZBA from approximately September 2018 to November
2018 and for NR 1 from approximately November 2018 to January
2019.
According to the complaint, Defendants make regular deductions from
truck drivers' weekly paychecks for insurance payments, office fee,
and to be held in "escrow" as funds which Defendants agreed to be
paid to truck drivers within 45 days of their termination. However,
when Plaintiff was terminated at ZBA to begin driving for NR 1 in
November 2018 as well as when she voluntarily terminated her
employment with NR 1 in January 2019, Plaintiff was never paid any
of the wages Defendants held in escrow.
Additionally, Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff her last weekly
paycheck in her last workweek dated January 7, 2019 through January
13, 2019, and refused to return any of the wages held in escrow.
Nerijus Zitkevicius owns and operates NR1 Transport, Inc. and ZBA,
Inc.
NR 1 Transport, Inc. and ZBA, Inc. are freight shipping and
trucking companies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
Justin Tresnowski, Esq.
HUGHES, SOCOL, PIERS, RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: 312-580-0100
Emails: cwilmes@hsplegal.com
jtresnowski@hsplegal.com
PACIFIC FOODS: Falsely Markets Hemp Drinks, Weintz Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Weintz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pacific Foods of Oregon, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05385
(S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2020), seeks an injunction to stop the
Defendant's false and misleading marketing practices with regards
to its hemp beverages purporting to be flavored only with vanilla
under the Pacific Foods brand.
The relevant front label representations include "Pacific Foods,"
"Hemp," "Plant- Based Beverage," "Vanilla," hemp seeds and several
cured vanilla beans. The Plaintiff alleges that the unqualified,
prominent and conspicuous representation of the Product's flavor as
"Vanilla" is false, deceptive and misleading because the Product
contains non-vanilla, artificial flavors, which imitate, resemble
and extend vanilla's taste but are not derived from vanilla beans,
yet these flavors are not disclosed to consumers on the front label
as required and expected. The Product's front label of "Vanilla"
without qualification gives reasonable consumers the impression
that only vanilla ingredients provide its taste. However, the
Product contains non-vanilla flavors, indicated on the ingredient
list as "Natural Vanilla Flavor With Other Natural Flavors."
The Defendant's branding and packaging of the Product is designed
to--and does--deceive, mislead, and defraud the Plaintiff and
consumers, according to the complaint. The Defendant sold more of
the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the absence
of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense
of consumers like the Plaintiff. The value of the Product that the
Plaintiff purchased and consumed was materially less than its value
as represented by the Defendant.
Had the Plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not
have bought the Product or would have paid less for them, says the
complaint. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$4.79 for cartons of 32 OZ (946 ML), excluding tax, compared to
other similar products represented in a non-misleading way.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product within her district and/or
State for personal consumption.
Pacific Foods of Oregon, LLC, manufactures, distributes, markets,
labels and sells hemp beverages purporting to be flavored only with
vanilla under the Pacific Foods brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
PARKING REVENUE: Cope Sues in Colorado Alleging FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parking Revenue
Recovery Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Franklyn
Cope, Rebecca Cope, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc., a
Colorado corporation; Beyer & Associates, LLC, a Colorado limited
liability company; Case No. 1:20-cv-02014-KMT (D. Colo., July 10,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc. specializes in Parking
Enforcement and Collections.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Phone: (720) 213-0676
Fax: (303) 927-0898
Email: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
PENN NATIONAL: McCartney Seeks Underinsured Motorist Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MCCARTNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PENN NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case ID: 200700849 (Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia
Cty., July 14, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for
denial of underinsured motorist coverage under the Motor Vehicle
Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL).
According to the complaint, the Defendant denied the consent to
settlement of tort claims filed by the Plaintiff following a motor
vehicle accident on the basis that it does not provide coverage for
underinsured motorist benefits since the Plaintiff signed a
Rejection of Underinsured Motorist Coverage Protection form. The
Plaintiff argues that the Defendant is required to provide
underinsured motorist benefits under the Penn National Policy
because it failed to specifically comply with the statutory mandate
of the MVFRL. The Defendant failed to include the word "all" in the
phrase "all losses and damages" in its Rejection of Underinsured
Motorist Coverage Protection form, thereby rendering the form
signed by the Plaintiff invalid.
The Plaintiff seeks underinsured motorist benefits in an amount
equal to the liability limits of coverage.
Penn National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company is an insurance
company with its principal place of business located at Two North
Second Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Haggerty, Esq.
HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH, P.C.
1835 Market Street, Suite 2700
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 350-6000
- and -
Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
SCHMIDT KRAMER P.C.
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Telephone: (717) 232-6300
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM
134 Kings Highway East, 2nd Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 772-7200
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Howard Hits Collection Letter Settlement Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Howard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. and
Portfolio Asset Group, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00907, (E.D.
Wis., June 16, 2019), seeks damages, restitution, and all other
relief resulting from violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Phillips & Cohen Associates is engaged in the business of a
collection agency. Portfolio Asset Group is engaged in the business
of collecting debts owed to others and acquired after default. On
or about May 13, 2020, Phillips and Cohen mailed a debt collection
letter to Howard regarding an alleged debt owed to Portfolio Asset
Group with a settlement offer that falsely stated or implied that
the settlement offer is valid only if accepted within a certain
period of time. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Tel: (414) 482-8000
Fax: (414) 482-8001
Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
PLAID INC: Collects Bank Data Without Consent, Anderson et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
CARRIE ANDERSON; BRIAN McCRUDDEN; and JEFFREY SCHWEDOCK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. PLAID INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-04480 (N.D.
Cal., July 7, 2020) is an action seeking declaratory and injunctive
relief requiring Plaid to cease its misconduct, purge the data it
has unlawfully collected, notify consumers of its misconduct, and
inform consumers of the steps they can take to protect themselves
from further invasions.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that Plaid takes consumers'
financial account login credentials, accesses their banking and
other financial accounts several times per day, and then sells and
otherwise misuses the highly personal and private information it
has wrongfully obtained. Plaid discloses none of this to
consumers.
Plaid exploits its ill-gotten information in a variety of ways,
including marketing the data to its app customers, analyzing the
data to derive insights into consumer behavior, and, most recently,
selling its collection of data to Visa as part of a multi-billion
dollar acquisition. Plaid has unfairly benefited from the personal
information of millions of Americans and wrongfully intruded upon
their private financial affairs.
Plaid Inc. offers application programming interface that allow
developers to programatically interact with banks and credit cards,
giving them access to account and transactional data, including
merchant names, street addresses, and geocoordinates. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Hartley, Esq.
Jason Lindner, Esq.
HARTLEY LLP
101 W. Broadway, Suite 820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-5822
E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com
lindner@hartleyllp.com
- and -
William G. Caldes, Esq.
Jeffery L. Spector, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
Diana J. Zinser, 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
JKodroff@srkattorneys.com
DZinser@srkattorneys.com
- and -
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
REINHARDT WENDORF &
BLANCHFIELD
332 Minnesota Street, Suite W-1050
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651) 287-2100
Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
r.yard@rwblawfirm.com
PNC FINANCIAL: Denise M Henning CPA Seeks to Recover Agent Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Denise M. Henning, CPA LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The PNC Financial Services
Group, Inc., PNC Bank, N.A. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00905 (W.D. Penn., June 17, 2020), seeks
compensation for processing PPP loans, for services rendered on
behalf of recipients of Small Business Administration loans under
the CARES Act, for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and
conversion.
On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the
COVID-19 crisis, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. This legislation
included $377 billion in federally-funded loans to small businesses
and a $500 billion governmental lending program, administered by
the United States Department of Treasury to provide support to
entrepreneurs and small businesses. Part of the CARES Act is the
"Paycheck Protection Program" (PPP) that provides small businesses
with loans to provide small businesses with eight weeks of
cash-flow assistance to fund payrolls. Said loans are administered
by Treasury, backed by the Federal Government, but funded by
private lenders, including the Defendants.
Denise M. Henning, CPA LLC, is a professional service corporation
and CPA firm. It sought to obtain PPP loans through the Defendants
on behalf of its clients and expected to be paid agent fees from
the Defendants upon funding of its clients' loans under the PPP.
However, it was denied these fees after the loans were released.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq.
GOLOMB & HONIK
1835 Market St., Suite 2900
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 985-9177
Fax: (215) 985-4169
Email: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
- and -
Elaine S. Kusel, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
18565 Jamboree Road, Ste. 550
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
Email: esk@mccunewright.com
- and -
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
Tuan Q. Nguyen, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
18565 Jamboree Road, Ste. 550
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
Email: rdm@mccunewright.com
mmv@mccunewright.com
tqn@mccunewright.com
PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Must Face Overtime Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that collateral
estoppel and res judicata don't bar the claims of a former class
member who, electing to pursue her claims individually, withdrew
from a now-defeated overtime wage class action against Public
Partnerships, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania held.
A defendant can't use final judgment in a class suit against a
party who withdrew from it before judgment, Judge R. Barclay
Surrick said in the July 7 order rejecting Public Partnerships' bid
to end the suit. [GN]
PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Rodriguez Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Publishers Clearing House LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Publishers
Clearing House LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03120 (E.D. N.Y.,
July 14, 2020).
Publishers Clearing House LLC operates as a multi-magazine
subscription agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Tel: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
REHAB AMERICA: Beard and Durret Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE BEARD; and MONICA DURRETT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REHAB AMERICA, INC.;
TRUADVANTAGE MISSOURI LLC; ANNETTE BAGWELL; ANNETTE MCCLARY; and
JOHN DOES 1 – 5, Defendants, Case 3:20-cv-00578 (M.D. Tenn., July
6, 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 Beard was employed by the Defendants as occupational
therapist. The Plaintiff Durrett was employed as speech therapist.
Rehab America, Inc. offers physical, speech and occupational
therapies in partnership with skilled nursing facilities and other
healthcare providers. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter F. Klett, Esq.
Joshua Burgener, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
424 Church Street, Suite 800
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-6538
Facsimile: (844) 670-6009
E-mail: pklett@dickinsonwright.com
jburgener@dickinsonwright.com
- and -
Trevor Howell, Esq.
HOWELL LAW, PLLC
Trevor Howell, TN Bar # 9496
P.O. Box 158511
Nashville, Tennessee 37216
Telephone: (615) 406-1417
E-mail: Trevor@howelllawfirmllc.com
RICHMOND, CA: Fails to Pay Fire Inspectors Overtime, Padilla Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS PADILLA, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF RICHMOND, Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-04597 (N.D. Cal., July 10, 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 Fire Inspector with the
Richmond Fire Department.
According to the complaint, Defendant impermissibly excluded all
statutorily required forms of compensation in the regular rate of
pay when computing Plaintiff's and other similarly situated
employees' overtime pay. As a result, Defendant failed to fully
compensate them for all overtime hours worked at one and one-half
times their accurate regular rate of pay pursuant to the FLSA.
City of Richmond is a city in western Contra Costa County,
California, United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David E. Mastagni, Esq.
Isaac S. Stevens, Esq.
Tashayla D. Billington, Esq.
MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
1912 "I" Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Tel: (916) 446-4692
Fax: (916) 447-4614
Emails: davidm@mastagni.com
istevens@mastagni.com
tbillington@mastagni.com
RICK SNYDER: Carthan Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as Elnora Carthan, et al., v.
Rick Snyder, et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM (E.D. Mich.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. certifying class and subclasses pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and 23(c)(4):
Class:
"all current and former residents of the City of Flint
who, for any period of time between April 25, 2014 and
October 16, 2015, received drinking water supplied by the
City of Flint regardless of whether the resident purchased
the water from the City";
Minors Subclass:
"all children who, during the period from May 1, 2014 to
January 5, 2016, were (a) in utero or between the ages of
0 to 10 years old, (b) lived in an identified residence or
attended an identified school or day care, and (c) were
exposed through ingestion to unfiltered Flint public water
at such residence, school or day care for at least 14 days
within a 90 day period;
Residential Property Subclass:
"all persons and entities who, from April 25, 2014 to
present, owned residential property within the City of
Flint; and
Business Subclass:
"all persons and entities, who, as of April 25, 2014 owned
and operated a business within the City of Flint";
2. appointing Plaintiffs as Class representatives;
3. appointing Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel Theodore J.
Leopold and Michael L. Pitt as Co-Lead Class Counsel
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g); and
4. appointing of the Executive Committee to serve the Class.
This case asserts two types of liability claims:
-- claims against the Government Defendants for violations
of the right to bodily integrity guaranteed by the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and
-- claims for professional negligence against two
professional engineering firms, LAN and Veolia.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
Kit A. Pierson, Esq.
Emmy L. Levens, Esq.
Jessica B. Weiner, Esq.
Alison S. Deich, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 220
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Telephone: (561) 515-1400
E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com
jsellers@cohenmilstein.com
kpierson@cohenmilstein.com
elevens@cohenmilstein.com
jweiner@cohenmilstein.com
adeich@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Vineet Bhatia, Esq.
Shawn Raymond, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P.
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 651-3666
E-mail: vbhatia@susmangodfrey.com
sraymond@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Stephen Morrissey, Esq.
Jordan Connors, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P.
1201 Third Ave., Suite 3800
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 516-3880
E-mail: smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com
jconnors@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
Shimon Yiftach, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &
GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
shimony@bgandg.com
- and -
Bradford M. Berry, Esq.
Anson C. Asaka, Esq.
NAACP
4805 Mt. Hope Dr.
Baltimore, MD 21215
Telephone: (410) 580-5777
E-mail: bberry@naacpnet.org
aasaka@naacpnet.org
- and -
Kathryn P. Hoek, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
E-mail: khoek@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Neal H. Weinfield, Esq.
THE DEDENDUM GROUP
Telephone: (312) 613-0800
E-mail: nhw@dedendumgroup.com
- and -
Cirilo Martinez, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CIRILO
MARTINEZ, PLLC
3010 Lovers Lane
Kalamazoo, MI 49001
Telephone: (269) 342-1112
E-mail: martinez_cirilo@hotmail.com
- and -
David J. Shea, Esq.
SHEA AIELLO, PLLC
26100 American Drive, 2nd Floor
Southfield, MI 48034
Telephone: (248) 354-0224
E-mail: david.shea@sadplaw.com
- and -
Mark L. McAlpine, Esq.
Jayson E. Blake, Esq.
MCALPINE PC
3201 University Drive, Suite 100
Auburn Hills, MI 48326
Telephone: (248) 373-3700
E-mail: mlmcalpine@mcalpinelawfirm.com
jeblake@mcalpinelawfirm.com
- and -
Michael L. Pitt, Esq.
Cary S. McGehee, Esq.
PITT MCGEHEE PALMER &
RIVERS, P.C.
117 West 4th Street, Suite 200
Royal Oak, MI 48067
Telephone: (248) 398-9800
E-mail: mpitt@pittlawpc.com
cmcgehee@pittlawpc.com
- and -
Paul Novak, Esq.
Diana Gjonaj, Esq.
Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
3011 West Grand Boulevard, Suite 2150
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 800-4170
E-mail: pnovak@weitzlux.com
dgjonaj@weitzlux.com
gstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com
- and -
Robin L. Greenwald, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 558-5500
E-mail: rgreenwald@weitzlux.com
- and -
Esther E. Berezofsky, esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
210 Lake Drive East
Suite 101
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: (856) 667-0500
E-mail: eberezofsky@motleyrice.com
- and -
Teresa Caine Bingman, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF TERESA
A. BINGMAN, PLLC
120 N. Washington Square, Suite 327
Lansing, MI 48933
Telephone: (877) 957-7077
E-mail: tbingman@tbingmanlaw.com
- and -
William Goodman, Esq.
Julie H. Hurwitz, Esq.
Kathryn Bruner James, Esq.
GOODMAN & HURWITZ PC
1394 E. Jefferson Ave.
Detroit, MI 48207
Telephone: (313) 567-6170
E-mail: bgoodman@goodmanhurwitz.com
jhurwitz@goodmanhurwitz.com
kjames@goodmanhurwitz.com
- and -
Deborah A. LaBelle, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH A. LABELLE
221 N. Main St., Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 996-5620
E-mail: deblabelle@aol.com
- and -
Trachelle C. Young, Esq.
TRACHELLE C. YOUNG &
ASSOCIATES PLLC
2501 N. Saginaw St.
Flint, MI 48505
Telephone: (810) 239-6302
trachelleyoung@gmail.com
- and -
Brian McKeen, Esq.
Claire Vergara, Esq.
McKEEN & ASSOCIATES, PC
645 Griswold Street, Suite 4200
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 961-4400
E-mail: bjmckeen@mckeenassociates.com
cvergara@mckeenassociates.com
- and -
Cynthia M. Lindsey, Esq.
Shermane T. Sealey, Esq.
CYNTHIA M. LINDSEY &
ASSOCIATES, PLLC
8900 E. Jefferson Avenue, Suite 612
Detroit, MI 48214
Telephone: (248) 766-0797
E-mail: cynthia@cmlindseylaw.com
shermane@cmlindseylaw.com
- and -
Andrew P. Abood, Esq.
ABOOD LAW FIRM
246 East Saginaw Street, Suite One
East Lansing, Michigan 48823
Telephone: (517) 332-5900
E-mail: andrew@aboodlaw.com
RLB COLLECTIVE: Thomas-Lawson Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Thomas-Lawson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RLB COLLECTIVE, INC., d/b/a HAVEN SOCIETY,
Case No. 8:20-cv-01212 (C.D. Cal., July 10, 2020), is brought for
damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant in negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby, invading the Plaintiff's privacy.
The Defendant utilizes automated telemarketing text messages to
market and advertise the Defendant's business and services,
including at least 2 messages to the Plaintiff over the past year
including twice on February 27, 2020. At no time did the Plaintiff
provide the Plaintiff's cellular number to the Defendant through
any medium, nor did the Plaintiff consent to receive such
unsolicited text messages, according to the complaint. The
Plaintiff has never signed-up for, and has never used, the
Defendant's services, and has never had any form of business
relationship with the Defendant.
The Plaintiff's domicile is in Durham, North Carolina.
The Defendant is a California Profit Corporation and citizen of the
state of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-524-2820
Facsimile: 954-524-2822
Email: seth@epllc.com
- and -
Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: 305-975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
ROVER INC: Faces Newbrough Civil Rights Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rover, Inc. The case
is captioned as M.K. Newbrough, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Rover, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05009-NRB
(S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the civil rights-related laws.
Rover operates an online community for finding pet sitters.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 west 24th Street, Ste., 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1180
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com
SAFETY HARBOR: Hayes Suit Seeks Quiet Title to Cemetery
-------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline L. Hayes, Louis Claudio, Bruce Hadburg, Reverend Lee
Hall-Perkins, Dionne Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated and Whispering Souls African American
Cemetery, Inc., Petitioners, v. The St. Paul Home Helping Hand
Society of Safety Harbor, Florida, Safety Harbor African American
Community, The Safety Harbor African American Cemetery,
Respondents, Case No. 20-002883 (Fla. Cir., June 16, 2020), is an
action to Quiet Title pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections
65.011-65.061 over a parcel of real estate, the Safety Harbor
African American Cemetery.
Petitioners and the community seek a Declaratory Judgment that the
St. Paul Society is a Charitable Trust so that the legal title of
the cemetery can be established, permitting it to be maintained for
the benefit of the community. Safety Harbor Colored Community is
referenced as the grantee in a deed executed by St. Paul Society in
August 1953 concerning the Cemetery. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Herbert R. Donica, Esq.
DONICA LAWFIRM, P.A.
238 East Davis Boulevard, Suite 209
Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: (813) 878-9790
Facsimile: (813) 878-9746
E-mail: herb@donicalaw.com
- and -
T. AndrewZodrow, Esq.
1406 Westley St.
Safety Harbor, FL 34695
Telephone: (727) 459-2620
e-mail: azodrow@hotmail.com
SEATTLE, WA: Ansa Attorney Discusses CHAZ/CHOP Takeover Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roman T. Galas, Esq., of Ansa, reported that imagine a world where
an unelected political action group commandeers a six-block area of
public city space that encompasses a public park and numerous
residential and commercial properties. Imagine this group then sets
up barricades at borders and entry points, with armed security
"sentinels" patrolling the area, restricting vehicular traffic from
entering (specifically including law enforcement and first
responders), and interrogating residents, workers, and delivery
drivers who attempt to enter. It re-purposes public grounds by,
e.g., planting makeshift gardens in a public park, erecting
temporary housing units, and creating un-regulated food and medical
dispensaries. Presentation of opposing political and social
viewpoints is barred. Speeches, music, and fireworks are blared at
all hours of the night. Trash and feces build up all over.
Residents who try to take pictures are threatened with having their
phone stolen.
Imagine that, amidst this chaos, private business activity is
curtailed, if not closed outright. Access to a physical therapy
provider is blocked for its disabled clientele in violation of ADA
regulations. Theft, destruction, and vandalism of property in turn
run rampant, with graffiti sprayed onto nearly every private
building, and quickly re-sprayed if painted over by the property
owner (with threats of retaliation against the property owner).
Imagine that, during this takeover, violence flares regularly. With
police and first responders delayed from entering, 911 response
times triple. Drugs and guns are carried openly and visibly. A
garbage dumpster is stolen from a local condo development, and the
condo president who attempts to retrieve the bin is physically
assaulted. An auto repair shop is broken into, with the armed
intruder using Purell to light a fire inside then attacking the
arriving owner with a knife and a spike before being subdued but,
with police barred from entering and an angry mob demanding his
release, the intruder is allowed to go free. A sign language-using
female is sexually assaulted, and fires run rampant. And two young
men are shot in a single weekend, one fatally, and at least four
more shooting victims are reported in the following days.
Class Action Suits vs. City of Seattle
These hardly seem the images of a dreamer's utopia. Yet two class
action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington allege that the events described above are
exactly what took place beginning June 8, 2020, in Seattle's
so-called "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" (CHAZ) or "Capitol Hill
Organized Protest" (CHOP). The first, Hunter's Capital LLC, et al
v. City of Seattle, No. 2:20-cv-00983-TSZ, was filed against the
city on behalf of 16 businesses and individuals. The second,
Bozeman et al v. Durkan, et al, No. 2:20-cv-00984-JLR, was filed by
Jacob Bozeman, a solo practitioner, on behalf of himself and
another man with the same last name, against the city, the mayor,
the state, and the governor.
Together, the suits allege that the above-described takeover
occurred with the explicit approval of Seattle's city leaders,
including Mayor Jenny Durkan, who alternately referred to it as "a
peaceful expression" of community grief, a "gathering place for
community to demand change," a "block party atmosphere," and even
"the Summer of Love." The suits allege the city aided the takeover,
not just by so publicly voicing approval, but actively abandoning
the Seattle Police Department's East Precinct (not only emptying
the building, but barring law enforcement from entering the area);
allowing protesters to take possession of police barriers and,
later, providing replacement concrete barriers to fortify the
original wooden barriers; providing portable toilets and regular
service of same; providing medical beds and supplies for a
makeshift "medical tent"; blocking/re-routing vehicular traffic in
a manner that perpetuated the protesters' continued dominion over
the commandeered space; and regularly meeting and coordinating
logistics with protest leaders.
The Hunters Capital action alleges five discrete causes of action:
Procedural Due Process under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (infringing on
Plaintiffs' constitutional rights without notice or hearing),
Nuisance under RCW 7.48.010 (interfering with Plaintiffs' use and
enjoyment of their properties by blocked access and unreasonable
noise/sanitary conditions), Substantive Due Process under 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1983 (violation of right to be protected from state-created
danger), Unlawful Gift under Article VIII, Section 7 of Washington
State Constitution (granting without consideration and with
donative intent to favored political group the right to occupy
public properties and premises to the exclusion of other members of
the public), and Taking under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (depriving access
to and encouraging invasion of private properties, without just
compensation).
The Bozeman action generally seeks: a declaratory judgment finding
the defendants violated the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth
Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; an injunction barring further
such violations; an injunction barring the defendants from ceding
control of the public geographic CHAZ/CHOP zone to any person,
group, or entity to the detriment of other members of the public;
and an injunction barring the defendants from abdicating their
lawful police/law enforcement powers to any person/entity other
than duly-elected/appointed police/law enforcement authorities.
While the CHAZ/CHOP zone was dismantled by police pursuant to Mayor
Durkan's executive order on July 1, both lawsuits remain pending.
No answers or motions have been filed to date, and the most recent
docket action in either is an entry of appearance filed by
Assistant City Attorneys in the Hunters Capital action. While the
injunctive relief is arguably mooted, the Hunters Capital action
seeks actual damages for property damage, lost property value, and
loss of business revenue. Both actions also seek to recoup the
costs of filing suit. As such, we do not anticipate these legal
issues falling by the wayside any time soon, and will monitor
further developments.
A Cautionary Tale
Other American municipalities would do well to heed Seattle's
cautionary tale. Portland did just that in quickly dismantling an
attempt to re-create the Seattle takeover. Atlanta, on the other
hand, is only now ejecting protesters from commandeered space
surrounding the Wendy's site of a controversial fatal police
shooting after the tragic fatal shooting of an 8-year old girl,
apparently, by protesters enforcing illegal barricades. City
leaders should consider not just the social and political costs of
allowing (let alone enabling) any political action group to take
over a public space, but also the costs of defending such actions
in court. [GN]
SEQUIUM ASSET: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Davis Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
JASON DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS, LLC; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case 2:20-cv-06009 (C.D. Cal.,
July 6, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.
Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC is a debt collection agency. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
SHIRE: Rochester Drug No Longer Adequate Rep for Intuniv Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Rochester
Drug Co-Operative Inc. is no longer an adequate class
representative for direct purchasers in antitrust litigation
alleging that pharmaceutical companies Shire and Actavis conspired
to delay the entrance of generic versions of Shire's ADHD
medication Intuniv, according to a federal court ruling on July 8.
RDC may have been an adequate representative initially, but once it
declared bankruptcy and became a debtor-in-possession, that ceased
to be the case, Judge Allison D. Burroughs decided for the U.S.
District Court of Massachusetts. [GN]
SKIPTHEDISHES: Labor Class Suit to Move Forward in September
------------------------------------------------------------
Aisha Malik of Mobile Syrup reports that a proposed class-action
lawsuit against SkipTheDishes is allowed to move forward after it
was on hold pending a decision in a case regarding an Uber Eats
driver. The CBC reports that the case can now move through Manitoba
courts since the Supreme Court of Canada made a ruling in a similar
case involving Uber Eats. A former courier for the service is
arguing that SkipTheDishes avoided labour laws that cover minimum
wage and other benefits by classifying its workers as independent
contractors as opposed to employees. The courier is seeking
class-action certification, but the case was put on hold in order
to await the Supreme Court's handling of the Uber case. An Uber
Eats driver arguing the same thing is also seeking class-action
certification. The court ruled that couriers don't have to go
through an arbitration process mandated by Uber. SkipTheDishes had
changed its contract to require couriers to go through arbitration
as opposed to the courts when attempting to resolve a dispute. The
revised contracts also stated that any action could not be taken as
part of a class action. Since the Supreme Court has made a decision
regarding the Uber case, the Skip the Dishes case will go forward
later this year. [GN]
SOGOU INC: Frater Appeals S.D.N.Y. Orders in Luo Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiffs Mark S. Frater, et al., and Movants Lizhen Zhang,
et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order
dated June 8, 2020, and Judgment dated June 10, 2020, entered in
the lawsuit entitled JIAJIA LUO, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. SOGOU INC, SOHU.COM, INC., TENCENT
HOLDINGS LIMITED, XIAOCHUAN WANG, CHARLES (CHAOYANG) ZHANG, YUXIN
REN, JOANNA (YANFENG) LU, BIN GAO, JOSEPH CHEN, JANICE LEE, JAMES
(XIUFENG) DENG, CHI PING MARTIN LAU, DONALD J. PUGLISI, J. P.
MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, GOLDMAN
SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., and CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION
HONG KONG SECURITIES LTD., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00230-LJL,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.
Sogou is an Internet search company, which is a subsidiary of Sohu,
a Beijing-based search engine in the People's Republic of China. On
November 9, 2017, Sogou declared its initial public offering of
45,000,000 American Depository Shares (ADS) at a price of US$13 per
ADS and announced that its ADSs were approved to be listed on New
York Stock Exchange.
However, it failed to disclose that Sogou merchants where under
investigation for sales of counterfeit goods; that its existing
software, advertising procedures, personnel and audit procedures
were insufficient to safeguard against compliance violations with
governing Chinese regulations; Sogou's cost of revenues were
skyrocketing primarily because of significant increases in Traffic
Acquisition Cost which is its primary driver of cost of revenues as
it was dealing with significant price inflation from increased
competition; that it had decided to phase out non-AI-enabled
hardware products, which it hoped would reduce its hardware
revenues in the second half of 2018. Following this announcement,
the price of Sogou ADSs fell $0.78, or 7.55%, to close at $9.55 on
July 30, 2018.
The appellate case is captioned as Luo v. Sogou Inc. et al., Case
No. 20-2188, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]
Lead Plaintiffs-Appellants Mark S. Frater and Ketan Patel are
represented by:
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363−7500
Facsimile: (212) 363−7171
E-mail: ek@zlk.com
- and -
Shannon Lee Hopkins, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1111 Summer Street Suite 403
Stamford, CT 06905
Telephone: (203) 992−4523
E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
Movants-Appellants Lizhen Zhang, Juean Xu, Yuehua Ding, and Maggie
Xu are represented by:
Jacob Alexander Goldberg, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
101 Greenwood Avenue, Ste. 440
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Telephone: (215) 600−2817
E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com
- and -
Jing Chen, Esq.
Phillip C. Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686−1060
Facsimile: (212) 202−3827
E-mail: jchen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
- and -
Shannon Lee Hopkins, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1111 Summer Street Suite 403
Stamford, CT 06905
Telephone: (203) 992−4523
E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
Defendants-Appellees Sogou Inc. and Sohu, Inc. are represented by:
Nicholas Cutaia, Esq.
GOULSTON & STORRS PC
885 Third Avenue, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 878−6900
Facsimile: (212) 878−6911
E-mail: ncutaia@goulstonstorrs.com
- and -
Joshua Looney, Esq.
Richard J. Rosensweig, Esq.
GOULSTON & STORRS, P.C.
400 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 574−2245
Facsimile: (617) 482−1776
E-mail: jlooney@goulstonstorrs.com
rrosensweig@goulstonstorrs.com
SPARTAN COMPANIES: Denied Welders Overtime Pay, Hernandez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronnie Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Spartan Companies, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00581 (D. N.M., June 16, 2020), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.
Spartan provides services to the oil and gas industry in Texas, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana
and North Dakota. Hernandez worked for Spartan as a welder. Spartan
allegedly misclassified welders as independent contractors instead
of as employees, thus in effect denying them compensation at time
and one half their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over
40 in a workweek. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
SPEER INSURANCE: Katt Files ADA Suit in Colorado
------------------------------------------------
Speer Insurance Services, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as David Katt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Speer Insurance Services, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02053-CMA (D. Colo., July 14, 2020).
Speer Insurance Services, LLC provides insurance for auto, home,
motorcycle, watercraft, RV and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
Marcus & Zelman, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Tel: (732) 695-3282
Email: ari@marcuszelman.com
STILLMAN PC: Clendening et al. Allege Wrongful Debt Collections
---------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEE CLENDENING; and ASHLEE CLENDENING, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STILLMAN,
P.C. d/b/a STILLMAN LAW OFFICE, f/k/a LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL R.
STILLMAN, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-11820-BAF-APP (E.D.
Mich., July 6, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.
Stillman, P.C. is a law firm engaging in collection of debt. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Evancheck, Esq.
KELLEY & EVANCHEK PC
43695 Michigan Ave.
Canton, MI 48188
Telephone: (734) 397-4540
E-mail: john@kelawpc.com
STOCKX LLC: Esquer Sues in N.D. Calif. Over Customer Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA ESQUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. STOCKX, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-11760-MAG-APP (N.D. Cal.,
June 30, 2020), seeks a public injunction after StockX failed to
secure and safeguard its customers' private information, including
the names, shipping addresses, e-mail addresses, and passwords of
those who created accounts on the StockX Web site.
In August 2019, several media outlets reported that a hacker had
stolen more than 6.8 million customer records from the Defendant's
Web site in May 2019 (the "Data Breach").
The Plaintiff contends that despite knowing its records had been
hacked, the Defendant failed to inform its users and instead tried
to hide the fact by sending out a notification telling its users to
reset their passwords, under the guise of "system updates." The
Plaintiff suffered actual injury from having her Customer Data
compromised and stolen as a result of the StockX data breach.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of California and a
resident of San Jose, California. In early to mid-2019, the
Plaintiff created an account with StockX, providing her email
address and creating a password for login.
StockX operates an online marketplace via its Web site,
http://www.StockX.com/.StockX is an e-commerce platform on which
consumers throughout California, can buy and sell new merchandise,
including sneakers, watches, handbags and street wear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
Joshua Nassir, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (424) 256-2884
Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
jnassir@faruqilaw.com
SWIFT RESPONSE: Young Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Swift Response, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, Individually And On
Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Swift Response,
LLC, Swift Response Holdings LLLP, Case No. 1:20-cv-05343
(S.D.N.Y., July 12, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Swift Response, LLC, is an American company specializing in
adhesive bonding products based in Weston, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
SYMANTEC CORP: Class in SEB Investment Securities Suit Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SEB INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AB, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SYMANTEC
CORPORATION and GREGORY S. CLARK, Defendants, Case No. C 18-02902
WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification.
The action stems from allegations that Defendant Symantec and its
former executive officers defrauded shareholders by manipulating
Symantec's financial reports to create the illusion of
stronger-than-actual financial performance and outlook for fiscal
years 2017 and 2018.
Symantec, a company that sold cybersecurity products and services,
emerged as an industry leader in the 1990s. By 2016, however, the
company found itself at the end of a 10-year period of
disappointing financial results. In early 2016, Symantec divested
Veritas Software, a major acquisition it had made in 2005, aiming
to save $400 million in costs by the end of fiscal year 2018.
Symantec also announced two acquisitions: Blue Coat Systems, Inc.,
in June 2016, and Lifelock, Inc., in November 2016. When the Blue
Coat deal closed, Blue Coat's management team took control of
Symantec, with Defendant Gregory Clark and now-dismissed Defendant
Nicholas Noviello taking over as Symantec's CEO and CFO,
respectively. everal other members of Blue Coat's top management
team also assumed high-level roles at Symantec. Mark Garfield,
Symantec's Chief Accounting Officer prior to Symantec's acquisition
of Blue Coat, continued on in his role as Symantec's CAO. Symantec
described both acquisitions as transformative, promising that cost
savings and revenue growth would come. To that end, Symantec
increased its revenue and income targets for executive
compensation.
In May 2017, Symantec filed its Forms 8-K and 10-K with the SEC
announcing its quarterly results for the fourth quarter and for
fiscal year 2017, its fiscal year ending March 31. Symantec's
reported revenue and operating margin appeared to confirm the
revenue growth and costs savings Symantec had led its investors to
expect, following the Blue Coat and Lifelock acquisitions.
Publicly, in a press release and earnings call, CEO Clark
attributed Symantec's increased revenue to cost-saving initiatives
and synergies related to the Blue Coat and LifeLock acquisitions.
Behind the scenes, however, the new leadership had allegedly began
inflating recognized revenue in violation of GAAP and
misclassifying ordinary operating expenses as "transition costs."
Despite these alleged concerns, the Defendants continued to report
Symantec's strong financial performance and the success of the Blue
Coat and LifeLock acquisitions throughout fiscal year 2018.
Starting on May 10, 2018, however, the Defendants began to reveal
the alleged fraud publicly. After market close on May 10, Symantec
issued a press release announcing that its audit committee had
commenced an internal investigation and had voluntarily contacted
the SEC after a former employee raised unspecified concerns. The
press release, which also announced Symantec's fourth quarter
results for fiscal year 2018, stated the following regarding the
investigation.
When the market reopened on Friday, Symantec's stock plummeted by
over 33%, erasing roughly $6 billion of market apitalization before
the weekend. At least 15 Wall Street analysts cut their price
targets by Friday morning and market commentators noted the
puzzling lack of detail and Symantec's decision to completely
forego the question and answer portion of the conference call.
Before the markets opened Monday morning, May 14, Symantec
announced that it would hold an "investor briefing call" in the
afternoon to provide more information regarding the investigation.
Prior to the conclusion of the investigation, individuals filed two
lawsuits in the district on behalf of themselves and a putative
class of similarly situated investors. An August 2018 order
consolidated the two actions and appointed SEB Investment
Management AB as the Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated action.
The Order pauses to note that up to this point, the proposed class
period ran from May 19, 2017 to May 10, 2018. When the Lead
Plaintiff filed the operative complaint in October 2019, however,
the complaint extended the proposed class period to Aug. 2, 2018,
the date of the second alleged "corrective disclosure."
On Aug. 2, 2018, Symantec released its earnings for the first
quarter of fiscal year 2019. Following the August 2 disclosure,
Symantec's stock price dropped another 8% on August 3. Although
the investigation ended in September 2018, the proposed class
period ends following the August 2 disclosure.
The Lead Plaintiff now seeks to certify the following class:
All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly-traded Symantec common stock during the period from May
11, 2017 to Aug. 2, 2018, inclusive, and who were damaged
thereby.
In its motion, the Plaintiff notes that its proposed class
definition includes all investors who purchased Symantec
common stock contemporaneously with sales made or caused by CEO
Clark during the class period. In other words, the proposed class
includes those with insider-trading claims under Section 20A.
In opposing class certification, the Defendants contend that
individual issues predominate because the Plaintiff is not entitled
to the presumption of class-wide reliance under its "fraud on the
market" theory and that the Plaintiff fails to provide a viable
damages model. The Defendants also contend that the Plaintiff is
an inadequate and atypical class representative. An order vacated
the hearing in light of the national health emergency and the
motion's suitability for submission on the papers.
Accordingly, Judge Alsup granted the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, and certified the quoted class.
SEB Investment Management AB will serve as the Lead Plaintiff, and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP is appointed as the class
counsel.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff showed that the four
prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been meet, and the Plaintiff has
established that for a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), the
questions of law or fact common to the class members predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a
class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
Without delay, all parties were directed to submit jointly an
agreed-upon form of notice. The Plaintiff along with the
Defendants must also submit a joint proposal for dissemination of
the notice, and the timeline for opting out of the action. The
Plaintiff must bear the costs of the notice, which will include
mailing by first-class mail.
Furthermore, all parties are ordered to appear before Magistrate
Judge Ryu for the September 14 settlement conference.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/C0IPF2 from Leagle.com.
TELEDYNE DEFENSE: George Alleges Inaccurate Wage Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, JAMEEL GEORGE, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TELEDYNE DEFENSE
ELECTRONICS, LLC, a Limited Liability Company and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV26198 (Cal. Sup. Ct.,
July 10, 2020) challenges Defendants' alleged systemic illegal
employment practices in violations of the California Labor Code and
the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.
Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly non-exempt employee
from in or around June 2017 to on or about April 11, 2020.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants issued them wage statements in
the final pay period which failed to identify all applicable hourly
rates used to compute the overtime wages in violation of Labor Code
section 226(a)(9). Also, the wage statements failed to identify the
correct inclusive dates of the pay period in violation of Labor
Code section 226(a)(6).
Moreover, the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency
(LWDA) has not responded to Plaintiff's written notice sent on or
about May 8, 2020 concerning Defendants' violations of the
California Labor & Workforce Development agency (LWDA).
Teledyne Defense Electronics, LLC offers engineering solutions to
Defense, Space and Commercial sectors worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 488-6555
Fax: (213) 488-6554
Emails: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
kagnew@diversitylaw.com
nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com
THREE SIXTY GROUP: Blinds Can't Access Web Site, Guglielmo Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THREE SIXTY GROUP, L.L.C., Case No. 1:20-cv-05371-JPO
(S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site,
http://www.faoschwarz.com/and, therefore, denial of its goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the
complaint. Because the Defendant's Web site is not equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using his
computer.
The Defendant is a toys, plush, and gifts company that owns and
operates the Web site that offers features, which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David P. Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
TSG ENTERPRISES: Begg Sues in N.D. California Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TSG Enterprises, LLC.
The case is styled Bruce Begg, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. TSG Enterprises, LLC, Case No.
5:20-cv-04633-NC (N.D. Cal., July 12, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
TSG Enterprises, LLC, doing business as Pure Hockey, retails
sporting equipment. The Company offers hokey, sporting equipment,
parts, and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ
11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 750
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE: MARRAS 46 LLC Files Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Twin City Fire
Insurance Company. The case is styled as MARRAS 46 LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-08886-SRC-CLW (D. N.J., July 14, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance filed
over Breach of Insurance Contract.
Twin City Fire Insurance Company offers property and casualty
insurance products and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Barry, Esq.
Locks Law Firm LLC
801 N. Kings Highway
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
Tel: (856) 663-8200
Fax: (856) 661-8400
Email: jbarry@lockslaw.com
UNITED STATES OIL FUND: Faces Wang Securities Suit in N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Momo Wang, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated
investors v. UNITED STATES OIL FUND, LP, UNITED STATES COMMODITY
FUNDS LLC, JOHN P. LOVE, STUART P. CRUMBAUGH, NICHOLAS D. GERBER,
ANDREW F NGIM, ROBERT L. NGUYEN, PETER M. ROBINSON, GORDON L.
ELLIS, MALCOLM R. FOBES III, ABN AMRO, BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES
CORP., CITADEL SECURITIES LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.,
CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES USA LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.,
GOLDMAN SACHS & COMPANY, JP MORGAN SECURITIES INC., MERRILL LYNCH
PROFESSIONAL CLEARING CORP., MORGAN STANLEY & COMPANY INC., NOMURA
SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, SG AMERICAS
SECURITIES LLC, UBS SECURITIES LLC, and VIRTU FINANCIAL BD LLC,
Case No. 3:20-cv-04596 (N.D. Cal., July 10, 2020), is brought on
behalf of all persons, who purchased Fund shares pursuant to or
otherwise traceable to the Fund's March 19, 2020 registration
statement, as amended, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Act of 1933 as a result of the Defendants' material
misrepresentations in and omissions from the Registration
Statement.
USO is an exchange traded fund ("ETF") purportedly designed to
track the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of
West Texas Intermediate ("WTI") light, sweet crude oil delivered to
Cushing, Oklahoma. Because retail investors are generally not
equipped to buy and sell barrels of oil or authorized to trade oil
futures, ETFs, such as USO, provide one of the primary means that
such investors can gain exposure to fluctuations in oil prices. USO
stated that it would achieve its investment objective by investing
substantially all of its portfolio assets in the near month WTI
futures contract. However, unbeknownst to investors, extraordinary
market conditions in early 2020 made USO's purported investment
objective and strategy unfeasible, the Plaintiff contends. Oil
demand fell precipitously as governments imposed lockdowns and
businesses halted operations in response to the coronavirus
pandemic.
The Defendants, as the creators, issuers, operators, and/or
underwriters of the largest oil-related ETF in existence and active
market-making players in the complex commodities and futures
markets that determined the Fund's performance, should have known
about the negative consequences to the Fund as a result of these
converging adverse events, the Plaintiff says. However, rather than
disclose the known impacts and risks to the Fund as a result of
these exceptional threats, the Defendants instead conducted a
massive offering of USO shares, ultimately selling billions of
dollars' worth of USO shares to the market, the Plaintiff asserts.
He adds that the offering exacerbated the undisclosed risks to the
Fund by magnifying trading inefficiencies and causing USO to
approach position and accountability limits as a result of the
Fund's massive positions in the WTI futures market.
In the days that followed, USO quickly deteriorated. Ultimately,
the Fund suffered billions of dollars in losses and was forced to
abandon its investment strategy. Through a series of rapid-fire
investment overhauls, USO transformed from the passive ETF designed
to track spot oil prices that Defendants had pitched to investors
to an almost unrecognizable actively managed fund struggling to
avoid a total implosion.
In April and May 2020, USO belatedly acknowledged the extreme
threats and adverse impacts that the Fund had been experiencing at
the time of the March offering, but which defendants had failed to
disclose to investors. As a result of Defendants' material
misrepresentations in and omissions from the Registration
Statement, the Plaintiff and members of the Class suffered billions
of dollars in losses, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Momo Wang purchased USO shares pursuant to or otherwise
traceable to the Registration Statement.
United States Oil Fund, LP, is a commodity pool operator that
provides investment exposure to oil markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
Brett M. Middleton, Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1400
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 230-0063
Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
Email: frankj@johnsonfistel.com
brettm@johnsonfistel.com
UNITED STATES: TRO Motion in Martinez-Brooks Suit Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DIANTHE MARTINEZ-BROOKS et al., Plaintiffs, v. D.
EASTER & MICHAEL CARVAJAL, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00569 (MPS)
(D. Conn.), Judge Michael P. Shea of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut (i) denied the Respondents' motion to
dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); and (ii) granted in part
and denied in part the motion for temporary restraining order.
On March 27, 2020, Congress gave federal prison officials an
extraordinary tool to confront the extraordinary threat posed by
the novel coronavirus within prison walls: the authority to
transfer any federal inmate from prison to confinement in his or
her home. A week later, the Attorney General of the United States
urged the Director of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to "maximize"
the use of that tool as soon as possible, stating in an April 3
memorandum that given the speed with which the disease has spread
through the general public, and the Bureau's profound obligation to
protect the health and safety of all inmates, it is clear that time
is of the essence.
The Attorney General's memo was triggered by an outbreak of
COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, at the
Danbury Federal Correctional Institution ("FCI Danbury"), a low
security prison in Danbury, Connecticut, and two other federal
prisons; the memo directed the BOP to immediately review all
inmates who have COVID-19 risk factors for potential placement in
home confinement, "starting with inmates incarcerated at FCI
Danbury and the other two facilities.
On April 27, the inmates ("Petitioners") filed a petition for writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 against the Warden of
FCI Danbury and the Director of the Bureau of Prisons
("Respondents"). They sought to represent a class consisting of
all inmates in the men's prison and the two women's prisons making
up FCI Danbury, as well as a "medically vulnerable" subclass
consisting of those inmates with COVID-19 risk factors.
They alleged that the only effective way to minimize the potential
devastation from COVID-19 in BOP facilities generally and FCI
Danbury in particular is to downsize immediately the incarcerated
population and, for the prisoners who remain at the institution, to
undertake aggressively the detection, prevention, and treatment
measures that public health and medical experts have recommended,
including effective social distancing. They further alleged that
the Respondents were violating the Eighth Amendment by failing to
use the BOP's available statutory authority to reduce the
population of FCI Danbury to mitigate the severe risk posed by
COVID-19, and by failing to take adequate safety measures to
protect inmates during the outbreak.
The Petition seeks a wide range of relief, including an order
requiring Respondents to release from custody or to home
confinement members of the medically vulnerable Subclass and
requiring Respondents to provide medically adequate social
distancing and health care and sanitation for members of the Class
who remain.
On April 30, the Petitioners filed an emergency motion for
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, seeking an
order requiring the Respondents to enlarge [i.e., transfer] to home
confinement all women currently housed in the satellite camp at FCI
Danbury, enlarge to home confinement all members of the medically
vulnerable Subclass, and implement appropriate measures to maximize
social distancing and improve hygiene" for the remaining inmates or
transfer them to safer BOP facilities. Together with their
Petition and motion, Petitioners filed declarations from inmates
housed at each of the three prisons within FCI Danbury, as well as
declarations from experts and other evidence.
On May 5, the Respondents filed a joint motion to dismiss the
habeas petition under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and an
opposition to the motion for temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction. The Respondents argued that the Court
lacked jurisdiction over the habeas petition, that it failed state
a claim, and that the Petitioners' motion should be denied. With
regard to jurisdiction, the Respondents argued, among other things,
that the Court was prohibited from entertaining the Petitioners'
requests for "enlargement", because doing so would exceed the
limited authority of district courts to modify sentences once they
are imposed; that the Prison Litigation Reform Act, foreclosed such
relief; and that the Petitioners had failed to exhaust
administrative remedies.
The Respondents also submitted a lengthy declaration by the Warden
and defended her efforts to combat the COVID-19 crisis on the
merits, detailing safety measures the Warden had imposed at FCI
Danbury, including enhanced sanitation, quarantine of inmates,
isolation of groups of inmates, the provision of masks and other
protective equipment to inmates and staff, and delivery of food and
programming directly to the living units. Finally, the Respondents
argued that this habeas petition cannot be maintained as a class
action.
The Court held oral argument on May 6, 2020. The Respondents have
filed both a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) and a response to the Petitioners motion for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction.
Judge Shea denies the Rule 12(b)(1) motion because he finds that
the Warden's jurisdictional challenges lack merit; he grants in
part and denies in part the motion for temporary restraining order
and orders expedited discovery and an evidentiary hearing to
adjudicate the motion for preliminary injunction; and he denies the
Rule 12(b)(6) motion because he finds that the Petition states a
claim under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Shea granted in part and denies in
part the Petitioners' motion for temporary restraining order. The
temporary restraining order is aimed at accelerating the process
for evaluating inmates for home confinement and compassionate
release, and focusing that process on achieving a "reasonable"
balance between the risks to inmate safety and the risks to public
safety.
Without delay, Respondent Warden will file on the docket, under
seal, a list of medically vulnerable inmates at Danbury FCI,
consisting, more specifically, of the following: All individuals
in custody at FCI Danbury who are aged 65 or over and/or who have
any of the following conditions specifically identified by the
United States Centers for Disease Control as putting them at higher
risk for severe illness from COVID-19: (a) chronic lung disease
including moderate to severe asthma, COPD, emphysema, chronic
bronchitis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and/or cystic fibrosis;
(b) immunocompromised status, including status as a transplant
recipient, on chemotherapy, HIV positive, prolonged use of
corticosteroids, using immunosuppressive medication, and/or having
an immune deficiency; (c) severe obesity (BMI of 40 or higher); (d)
diabetes mellitus Type I or Type II, (e) gestational diabetes
mellitus; (f) chronic kidney disease on dialysis; (g) chronic liver
diseases, cirrhosis; and/or (g) serious heart conditions, including
congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, congenital heart
disease, cardiomyopathy, and/or pulmonary hypertension.
Without delay, the counsel for the Petitioners and the Respondents
will confer with each other about how to identify promptly the
inmates who fit the criteria listed, including, if feasible,
through the use of ICD codes, as discussed during the recent
teleconference. The list referred to will include the identity of
the inmate, the inmate's sentencing court, and the case number of
the inmate's underlying criminal conviction but will not include
information about the specific medical condition suffered by each
inmat. It will be organized by facility within Danbury FCI (i.e.,
one list for the men's facility, one list for the women's satellite
prison, and one list for the women's camp). The list will
indicate, as to each inmate, whether that inmate (a) has submitted
a request for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. Section
3582(c)(1)(A), and (b) has been reviewed for home confinement since
March 26, 2020, and if so, whether the inmate has been designated
for home confinement.
If compiling the information described will significantly delay the
creation and filing of a list setting forth just the information
described, then the Respondents may initially, within three days of
the Order, file a list including only the information set forth,
and then, within seven days of the Order, file a second version of
the list including all of the information described.
The Respondent will provide the list to the Petitioners' counsel,
and the list will be marked Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only and
be treated accordingly under the Protective Order entered in the
case. The Respondent will file on the docket with the list a
declaration setting forth the process used to identify those
persons described, including a description of the databases
searched.
Without delay, the Respondent shall:
a. Finalize and implement a process that makes full and speedy
use of the home confinement authority under 18 U.S.C. Section
3624(b) and the CARES Act and, as directed by the Attorney
General's April 3, 2020 Memorandum, immediately maximizes
appropriate transfers to home confinement for all appropriate
inmates held at FCI Danbury.
b. File a statement on the docket explaining why the Court
should not also require the review process described to eliminate
or modify the requirements that the PATTERN risk score be MIN and
that the Mental Health Care Level be less than IV.
c. Publish to inmates the factors to be considered in the
revised home confinement review process developed by the Warden in
accordance with the Order.
Without delay, the Respondent shall:
a. Provide written notice of either (a) a referral of the
matter in writing with recommendation of approval of the request,
or (b) a denial of the request, together with the appropriate
appeal form, to each inmate described who has made a written
request for compassionate release based on COVID-19 under 18 U.S.C.
Section 3582(c)(1)(A) but has not yet received a decision.
b. Finalize and implement a process whereby each inmate
described who makes a written request for compassionate release
based on COVID-19 receives notice of either the referral of their
request, with a recommendation of approval, or its denial, with the
appropriate appeal form, within deven days of the date the request
is received by a member of the Danbury FCI staff.
c. File a statement on the docket explaining whether and how
the criteria in the BOP's Program Statement governing compassionate
release have been updated to take account of the COVID-19 crisis
and, if they have not been, showing cause why the Court should not
require the Warden to promulgate revised compassionate release
criteria for use at FCI Danbury that take full and appropriate
account of the threat posed by COVID-19 to medically vulnerable
inmates.
Within 13 days of the Order, as to each person described, the
Respondent Warden will complete the home confinement review process
described and will either (a) approve such person for home
confinement and (i) place him or her on home confinement or (ii)
place him or her in quarantine within the facility for 14 days
before placing him or her on home confinement, or (b) deny such
person home confinement.
Within 13 days of the Order, the Respondent Warden will provide to
the Court (under seal) an individualized explanation for each
denial of home confinement as to an inmate described, and will show
cause why each such inmate should not be transferred to another
facility within the BOP where adequate social distancing is
possible.
Within 13 days of the Order, the Respondent will file a status
report describing her efforts to comply with the Order.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 12, 2020 Ruling is
available at https://is.gd/IDAf6b from Leagle.com.
US BANK: Kunzer Appeals D. Minn. Ruling in Trust Suit to 8th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kenneth R. Kunzer filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in his lawsuit entitled Kenneth Kunzer v. Lisa Hiniker, et
al., Case No. 0:20-cv-00882-JRT, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.
Lisa A. Hiniker is sued as an individual predicate actor in schemes
violating federal laws providing that fraud and embezzlement are
malum in se offenses, and employee of U.S. Bank and as Trustee of
Trust A & B under the Last Will and Testament of Albert P.
Herschler.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from the Defendants' violations of the Racketeering and
Corrupt Practices Act.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated beneficiaries, alleges that the Defendants
violate the terms of Albert P. Herschler's Codicil by refusing to
notify the survivors/heirs of Helen A. Herschler that they are
beneficiaries of Albert P. Herschler's trusts, referred to as Trust
A and Trust B. The Plaintiff claims that U.S. Bank concealed the
true beneficiaries of Trust B and made fraudulent representations
to the court about the distribution of the assets of Trust A with
the help of the law firm of Meier, Kennedy and Quinn and its
attorneys, together with the remaining Defendants, to execute an
artifice and/or scheme to defraud the heirs of the Herschler Estate
in order to obtain monies for their own use and conversion.
The appellate case is captioned as Kenneth Kunzer v. Lisa Hiniker,
et al., Case No. 20-2386, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.
Plaintiff-Appellant Kenneth R. Kunzer, of Woodbury, Minnessota,
appears pro se.[BN]
Defendants-Appellees Robins Kaplan LLP, An enterprise affecting
interstate commerce, and 18 U.S.C. 1961(4) association-in-fact;
Denise S. Rahne, Esq., Individually and employee of Robins Kaplin;
and Ena M. Kovacevic, Esq., Individually and employee of Robins
Kaplin, are represented by:
Richard Bruce Allyn, Esq.
ROBINS & KAPLAN
2800 LaSalle Plaza
800 LaSalle Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
Telephone: (612) 349-8500
Facsimile: (612) 349-8571
E-mail: rallyn@robinskaplan.com
UTGR INC: Faces Rose Suit Alleging Discrimination and Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lia Rose f/k/a Taner Munsif, on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated employees v. UTGR, INC. d/b/a TWIN RIVER CASINO,
alias, Case No. 1:20-cv-00301 (D.R.I., July 10, 2020), arises out
of the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Rhode Island Payment of Wages Act, the Family Medical Leave Act,
the Rhode Island Parental and Family Medical Leave Act, and the
Rhode Island Whistleblower Protection Act.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges retaliation under the FLSA and
RIPWA for the Defendants' issuing written warnings for conduct that
was neither fairly attributed to the Plaintiff nor violations of
the Defendants' policies and for punishing the Plaintiff by denying
her raises during annual performance reviews and prohibiting her
from applying for promotions due to those baseless written warnings
following her initiation and participation in a prior FLSA
lawsuit.
Additionally, the Plaintiff alleges interference, discrimination,
and retaliation under the FMLA and RIPFMLA for issuing disciplinary
points for taking intermittent leave to attend to her mother's
serious medical conditions, and subsequently suspending and
terminating the Plaintiff pursuant to those deliberate and
erroneously issued disciplinary points.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant on May 22, 2013, as a
full-time Floor Supervisor.
UTGR, doing business as Twin River Casino, alias, is a corporation
organized under the laws of Delaware and doing business in the
State of Rhode Island.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard A. Sinapi, Esq.
Chloe A. Davis, Esq.
SINAPI LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD.
2374 Post Road Suite 201
Warwick, RI 02886
Phone: (401) 739-9690
Fax: (401) 739-9490
Email: ras@sinapilaw.com
VERDE ENERGY: Faces Spiesman Suit Over Unfair Pricing Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joanna Spiesman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. VERDE ENERGY USA, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01543-SO (N.D.
Ohio, July 13, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged
deceptive, bad-faith, unconscionable and unfair pricing practices
that have caused thousands of consumers to pay considerably more
for electricity than they should have.
Deregulation changed the way electricity is sold to consumers. When
utility companies were the sole players in the market, they
supplied and distributed electricity to consumers and set the
retail rates. Now, consumers can choose from an array of
electricity suppliers other than their local utility company.
Unfortunately, some unscrupulous electricity suppliers have taken
advantage of deregulation. Certain suppliers exploit the lack of
regulatory oversight by engaging in deceptive marketing practices
and price gouging to profiteer at the expense of unsuspecting
consumers. The Defendant is one such supplier, the Plaintiff
alleges.
The Defendant purchases electricity supply from the wholesale
market and resells that electricity to retail consumers. The
Defendant does not produce electricity and it does not distribute
it to consumers. In order to lure consumers into purchasing its
electricity supply, the Defendant promises to offer variable rates
that will vary based on market conditions. In reality, the
Defendant's variable rates are substantially higher than those
otherwise available in the electricity market, and do not reflect
wholesale costs or market conditions, the Plaintiff contends. As a
result, unsuspecting consumers have been fleeced out of millions of
dollars in exorbitant charges for electricity, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Ms. Spiesman signed up for electricity supply with Verde
in July 2016.
Verde Energy USA, Inc., is a participant in the retail electricity
market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William F. Cash III, Esq.
Matthew D. Schultz, Esq.
Brenton J. Goodman, Esq.
LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY
& PROCTOR, P.A.
316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: 850-435-7059
Email: bcash@levinlaw.com
mschultz@levinlaw.com
bgoodman@levinlaw.com
- and -
D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
445 Hamilton Ave., Suite 605
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone 914-298-3290
Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
VERMONT: Class Certification in Mullinnex Prisoners Suit Flipped
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harold Eaton, Jr. of the Supreme Court of Vermont reversed
the trial court's decision to certify the class in the case,
Patrick Mullinnex et al., v. Lisa Menard et al, Case No. 2019-180
(Vt.).
Defendants Michael Touchette and Centurion Healthcare bring the
interlocutory appeal from the trial court's certification of a
class of Plaintiffs in a Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 75 action.
The class certified is comprised of persons in the custody of the
Vermont Department of Corrections ("DOC"), each of whom suffers
from opioid-use disorder and alleges that te Defendants'
medication-assisted treatment ("MAT") program does not meet
prevailing medical standards of care as required by Vermont law.
Pursuant to 28 V.S.A. Section 801(a), the DOC must provide health
care for inmates in accordance with the prevailing medical
standards. In 2017, the Legislature added a provision requiring
that: (1) inmates receiving MAT prior to entering a correctional
facility be continued in that treatment so long as medically
necessary; (2) inmates who screen positive for opioid-use disorder
while incarcerated may elect to receive MAT if it is deemed
medically necessary; and (3) inmates who so elect will be
authorized to receive the medication as soon as possible and for as
long as medically necessary. The Plaintiffs allege that the MAT
program established by the Defendants following the amendments to
Sections 801 and 801b does not meet prevailing medical standards of
care.
An inmate who believes he or she is not receiving medical care
comporting with the requirements of Sections 801 or 801b may seek
redress through the DOC's grievance process. The DOC has fulfilled
its legislative directive to establish procedures to review the
grievances of inmates.
The record reveals that the instant proceeding finds its inception
in a DOC grievance form submitted by Plaintiff Patrick Mullinnex on
Sept. 20, 2018, following an informal complaint to "medical" the
day before. Therein, Mullinnex alleged that, although he had "been
approved for MAT," he would not be induced until 30 days prior to
his release from the facility despite having a medical need now for
MAT and a desire to get help with his addiction and be induced. At
some point during the following month, Mullinnex appealed the local
response to his grievance to the corrections executive. Finally,
Mullinnex filed an appeal to the Commissioner indicating his
dissatisfaction with a grievance response from the corrections
executive, which Mullinnex indicated was dated Oct. 30, 2018.
Although the form providing for an appeal to the Commissioner
contained a line designated for the date the appeal was submitted,
this line was left blank. However, the form was filed with the
civil division of the superior court on Nov. 2, 2018, together with
Mullinnex's request for emergency injunctive relief naming "Lisa
Menard et al." as the Defendants. Although the court received
Mullinnex's filing several days later, he signed and dated it on
October 30. Given the timing, it is clear that Mullinnex filed his
administrative appeal to the Commissioner and his civil action
contemporaneously.
Several days later, an attorney from the Prisoners' Rights Office
entered an appearance on Mullinnex's behalf in the civil case. The
Defendants then moved to dismiss the case as moot, indicating that
Mullinnex had been prescribed MAT and began receiving it on Nov. 7,
2018. The trial court declined to dismiss, instead directing
Mullinnex to file an amended petition. Mullinnex accordingly filed
an amended petition, this time through the counsel, and joined as
named Plaintiffs John Jarvis, Shawn Gagnon, and Gregory Paradi s,
"on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated." In
the amended petition, Michael Touchette and "Centurion Healthcare"
were named as Defendants.
The amended petition was accompanied by a motion to maintain a
class action on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging
the existence of three questions of law and fact common to the
putative class.
The trial court issued a decision in which it held that both venue
and subject-matter jurisdiction were proper. It held that the
putative class had satisfied the exhaustion requirements through
Mullinnex's efforts. It then noted that it could not yet determine
whether the Plaintiffs met the prerequisites for the class
certification and set the matter for oral argument. Following the
hearing, the trial court issued another ruling on April 26, 2019,
certifying the class as to issues with the MAT induction process
and disciplinary actions taken against inmates who divert their MAT
medication, but declining to certify the class as to the
legal-status question. Defendants then brought the interlocutory
appeal. Because the vicarious-exhaustion doctrine applies only
where one or more class members has exhausted his administrative
remedies with respect to each claim raised by the class, the
appellate court must first consider whether the trial court was
correct in concluding that Mullinnex had done so.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Supreme Court cannot now take up
the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction because: (1) the
Defendants did not timely appeal from the trial court's decision
not to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;
(2) pursuant to Rule 23(f), the only issue the Supremem Court may
consider in relation to this interlocutory appeal is the merits of
class certification; and (3) the Defendants bore the burden of
showing failure to exhaust, and did not do so.
The Defendants, the former Commissioner of the DOC and its contract
healthcare provider, argue that the trial court erred both in
finding that Plaintiff Mullinnex exhausted his administrative
remedies before filing suit and in adopting the
vicarious-exhaustion doctrine favored by several federal circuits
in order to conclude that Mullinnex's grievances satisfied the
exhaustion requirement on behalf of the entire class. They also
contend that the trial court's decision to certify the class was in
error because plaintiffs did not meet Rule 23's numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy-of-representation
requirements.
On review, the Supreme Court concludes that the trial court abused
its discretion in determining, on the record before it, that
Mullinnex exhausted his administrative remedies. As a result, the
threshold requirement of the vicarious-exhaustion doctrine --
exhaustion by at least one member of the class -- is unmet.
Therefore, the question of whether the doctrine is appropriately
applied in the jurisdiction is not properly before the Court. And
because he determines that the courts are thus without
subject-matter jurisdiction, the Supreme Court does not reach the
Defendants' challenges to the merits of the trial court's class
certification. The Supreme Court reversed the class certification
ruling.
A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's May 8, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/KPa9XQ from Leagle.com.
Matthew Valerio, Defender General, and Kelly Green, Prisoners'
Rights Office, Montpelier, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Stephen J. Soule -- SSoule@pfclaw.com -- and Pamela L.P. Eaton --
PEaton@PFClaw.com -- of Paul Frank + Collins P.C., Burlington, and
Michael Bentley and Molly Walker of Bradly Arant Boult Cummings
LLP, Jackson, Mississippi, for Defendants-Appellants.
VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Potter Sues Over 22% Share Price Decline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ISAIAH POTTER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., TED WHITE,
and BRIAN DAVIS, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03447 (E.D. Pa., July
14, 2020) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Verrica securities between
September 16, 2019 and June 29, 2020, inclusive, seeking to pursue
claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
According to the complaint, on June 29, 2020, Verrica disclosed
receipt of a letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") regarding the Company's New Drug Application ("NDA") for
VP-102 for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum. The letter
identified certain deficiencies that preclude discussion of
labeling and post-marketing requirements. Moreover, according to
the Company, the FDA's information requests have included "specific
request related to a potential safety issue with the applicator
that could arise if the instructions for use were not properly
followed."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.06, or nearly 22%,
to close at $11.01 per share on June 30, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The complaint asserts that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company's proprietary applicator used for
VP-102 posed certain safety risks if the instructions were not
properly followed; (2) that, as a result, Verrica would incorporate
certain user features to mitigate the safety risk; (3) that the
addition of the user feature would require additional testing for
stability supportive data; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
regulatory approval for VP-102 was reasonably likely to be delayed;
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.
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages as a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.
Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Inc. operates as a clinical-stage medical
dermatology company based in West Chester, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee Albert, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com
- and -
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
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
VOLT MANAGEMENT: Faces McCain Employment Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volt Management
Corp., et al. The case is captioned as Sedrick McCain, on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Volt Management Corp., a Delaware
Corporation; Pegatron Technology Service, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; Volt Information Sciences, Inc., a New York
Corporation; Volt Workforce Solutions; and Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2020-00281278-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., June 30,
2020).
The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws.
Volt Management provides recruitment and staffing services. The
Company offers consulting, direct hire, temporary staffing,
training, direct placement, contract employees, and payroll
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Martin Sullivan, Esq.
Laura M. Supanich, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1180 S Beverly Dr., Ste. 610
Los Angeles, CA 90035-1158
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
E-mail: ms@melmedlaw.com
lms@melmedlaw.com
WALMART INC: First Amended Complaint Filed in Castro Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
A first amended complaint has been filed in the case, MARTHA
CASTRO, individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. WALMART INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-CV-00928-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal.).
In a May 8, 2020 Order available at https://is.gd/Mt2ezC from
Leagle.com, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted Plaintiff leave to file a first amended
complaint by May 22, 2020.
The putative class action complaint was originally filed on March
24, 2020 in Placer County Superior Court (Case No. SCV0044650). On
May 6, 2020, the Defendant filed a Notice of Removal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1453, and 1711 in the Eastern District of
California.
Walmart has filed a Motion to Dismiss in early June 2020. The
matter is to be heard on July 28, 2020.
Paloma P. Peracchio -- paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE,
DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Los Angeles, CA.
Mitchell A. Wrosch -- mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE,
DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Costa Mesa, CA, Attorneys for
Defendant Walmart Inc.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP, Marcus J. Bradley --
mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com -- Kiley L. Grombacher --
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com -- Lirit King --
lking@bradleygrombacher.com -- Attorneys for Plaintiff Martha
Castro.
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Bleachtech Suit in Maryland Circuit Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WASTE MANAGEMENT OF
VIRGINIA, INC. The case is styled as Bleachtech LLC, Aliases:
Business: Itself and all Others Similarly Situated v. WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF VIRGINIA, INC., Case No. C-13-CV-20-000530 (Md. Cir.,
Howard Cty., July 10, 2020).
The case type is stated as "Contract-Breach."
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF VIRGINIA, INC., is a provider of comprehensive
waste management in North America, offering services that range
from collection and disposal to recycling and renewable energy
generation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jean Evelyn Lewis, Esq.
James P. Ulwick, Esq.
KRAMA & GRAHAM, P.A.
One South Street, Suite 2600
Baltimore, MD 21202
WEBER COUNTY, UT: Hobbs Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arbon, et al. The
case is styled as Taylor William Hobbs, Antonio Velasquez, Juan
Sandoval-Pasos, Jackson Stuart Tamowski Patton, Gregorio Ramirez
Frias, Zachary Robert Babcock, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Ryan Arbon, Weber County Sheriff; Matt
Harris United States Marshal for the District of Utah; Donald W.
Washington, Director of the United States Marshal Service, Case No.
1:20-cv-00085-DBB (D. Utah, July 10, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus.
Ryan Arbon is the current Sheriff of Weber County, Utah.[BN]
The Petitioners are represented by:
Benjamin C. McMurray, Esq.
Emily A. Stirba, Esq.
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER DISTRICT OF UTAH
46 W Broadway, Ste. 110
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Phone: (801) 524-4010
Email: benji_mcmurray@fd.org
emily_stirba@fd.org
The Respondents are represented by:
David F. Backman, Esq.
US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
111 S. Main St., Ste. 1800
Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2176
Phone: (801) 524-5682
Email: david.backman@usdoj.gov
WELLBRIDGE CLUB: Katt Alleges Violation of ADA in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------
Wellbridge Club Management, L.L.C. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as David Katt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Wellbridge Club Management, L.L.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02054-MEH (D. Colo., July 14, 2020).
Wellbridge Club Management LLC provides fitness management
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
Marcus & Zelman, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Tel: (732) 695-3282
Email: ari@marcuszelman.com
WELLS FARGO: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 3 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP reminds investors of the upcoming
August 3, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC)
investors who purchased securities between April 5, 2020 and May 5,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Wells Fargo investments or would
like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your
loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/wells-fargo-company/. You can also
contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn
more about your rights.
On April 19, 2020, after at least one lawsuit was filed against the
Company, reports surfaced that Wells Fargo may have unfairly
distributed government-backed loans under the Paycheck Protection
Program ("PPP").
On this news the Company's share price fell $1.54, or over 5%, over
two consecutive trading sessions to close at $26.84 per share on
April 21, 2020, thereby injuring investors.
Finally, on May 5, 2020, the Company revealed that "it has . . .
received formal and informal inquiries from federal and state
governmental agencies regarding its offering of PPP loans."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.74, or over 6%,
over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $25.61 per share
on May 6, 2020, thereby injuring investors further.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that Wells Fargo planned to, and did, improperly allocate
government-backed loans under the PPP, and/or had inadequate
controls in place to prevent such misallocation; (2) that the
foregoing foreseeably increased the Company's litigation risk with
respect to PPP allocation, as well as increased regulatory scrutiny
and/or potential enforcement actions; and (3) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Wells Fargo securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than
August 3, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
Contact:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan
Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com/[GN]
WELLS FARGO: Pension Fund Sues Over Misleading SEC Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 449 PENSION & RETIREMENT SECURITY FUNDS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, CHARLES W. SCHARF, C. ALLEN
PARKER, TIMOTHY J. SLOAN, and JOHN R. SHREWSBERRY, Defendants, Case
No. 3:20-cv-04674 (N.D. Cal., July 13, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, alleges that the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements about Wells Fargo's business, operations, and risk and
compliance policies and procedures in order to assure the investing
public that the company was developing and implementing its reform
efforts in compliance with the Federal Reserve's Consent Orders.
Under the said orders, the Federal Reserve restricted Wells Fargo's
total asset growth until the company improves its governance and
risk controls. The statements released by the Defendants failed to
disclose that: (1) Wells Fargo's plans to enhance oversight and
governance, improve compliance and operational risk management, and
remediate harmed customers were incomplete and inadequate to
prevent future consumer harms; (ii) therefore, Wells Fargo was not
in compliance with the Consent Orders; (iii) as a result of Wells
Fargo's extended noncompliance with the Consent Orders, the Federal
Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)
threatened to impose additional supervisory and/or enforcement
actions and penalties; and, (iv) additionally, Wells Fargo's
remedial measures and operational and compliance risk management
remained inadequate to prevent future consumer abuses.
The Plaintiff and Class members suffered financial losses and
damages as they purchased Wells Fargo common stock at artificially
inflated prices due to the Defendants' omissions and
misrepresentations.
Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security Funds is a
provider of pension funds for retired members of the Steamfitters
Local 449, a union located in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.
Wells Fargo & Company is an American multinational financial
services company with its corporate headquarters and principal
place of business in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter E. Borkon, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
555 12th Street, Suite 1600
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (415) 445-4003
Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
E-mail: pborkon@bfalaw.com
- and -
Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
Nicholas J. Dennany, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
7 Times Square, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 789-1340
Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
E-mail: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com
nkulesa@bfalaw.com
ndennany@bfalaw.com
WIRECARD AG: Frank R. Cruz Announces Filing of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Wirecard AG (OTC: WCAGY, WRCDF)
securities between August 17, 2015 and June 24, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Wirecard investors have until September 8,
2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/wirecard-ag/ to participate.
On June 18, 2020, the Company announced the need to further delay
publication of its financial results and revealed that about EUR1.9
billion ($2.1 billion) in cash had gone missing. The Company also
warned that loans up to EUR2 billion could be terminated.
Additionally, the Company stated that Ernst & Young was unable to
confirm the location of the cash in certain trust accounts and
there was evidence that "spurious balance confirmations" had been
provided.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $69.74, or over 69%,
to close at $29.90 per share on June 18, 2020.
On June 23, 2020, CNN reported that Wirecard's former CEO, Markus
Braun, was arrested "after a $2.1 billion hole exploded in
[Wirecard's] accounts." The article further stated that "Munich
prosecutors confirmed that Braun, Wirecard's former CEO, was
arrested on suspicion of having inflated the digital payment
company's balance sheet and sales through fake transactions in
order to make it more attractive to investors and customers."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.85, or over 34%, to
close at $11.41 on June 23, 2020, thereby injuring investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Wirecard overstated its cash balances during
the Class Period, falsely claiming €1.9 billion of cash in a
trust account that was missing; (2) that Wirecard overstated its
financial results during the Class Period, including revenue and
EBITDA; (3) that Wirecard did not have adequate risk management or
countermeasures; (4) that EY failed to audit Wirecard in accordance
with applicable auditing principles; and (5) as a result,
Defendants' statements about Wirecard's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased Wirecard securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than September 8, 2020 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased Wirecard securities, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
Contact:
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz
Tel: 310-914-5007
E-maiL: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
Web site: http://www.frankcruzlaw.com/[GN]
WIRECARD AG: Hagens Berman Intends to File Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman, who on May 6, 2019 was appointed Lead Counsel in the
securities class action brought on behalf of investors in Wirecard
American Depository Shares (ADS) before Hon. Fernando M. Olguin,
DelPoggetto v. Wirecard AG et al., 2:19-cv-00986-FMO-SK (C.D.
Cal.), notifies investors in Wirecard ADS purchased in the United
States with tickers WCAGY or WRCDF, that it will be filing an
amended complaint on Aug. 14, 2020, as directed by the court, to
include additional disclosures related to the original and amended
complaints.
The amended complaint will expand the alleged fraudulent period to
end June 24, 2020 or shortly thereafter and name the company's
auditor, Ernst & Young, as an additional defendant. The amendments
will include the recent events, including ex-Wirecard CEO Markus
Braun's reported arrest and the widening criminal probes amid the
disclosed $2.1 billion missing from the company's balance sheet.
Lead counsel may add further parties and amendments.
Hagens Berman urges investors in Wirecard securities traded in the
United States, and persons with knowledge of the alleged fraud or
who could otherwise further assist with the investigation to
contact the firm:
WRCDF@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Lead Counsel's & Lead Plaintiff's Pending Wirecard (WCAGY; WRCDF)
Securities Fraud Class Action:
The pending securities fraud case concerns Defendants' deliberate
use of improper accounting designed to inflate sales and profits.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly affirmed the
effectiveness of Wirecard's internal controls and processes for
financial reporting. In truth, Defendants were fabricating
financial results by, among other things, inflating receivables.
The truth emerged through a series of exposé articles published by
the Financial Times beginning on Jan. 30, 2019, revealing an
elaborate accounting fraud orchestrated at the highest levels of
Wirecard.
On May 6, 2019, the Court appointed an individual Wirecard investor
Lead Plaintiff for the Class and Hagens Berman as Lead Counsel.
On Feb. 14, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a first amended class action
complaint.
Since this time, revelations about the full extent of the alleged
accounting fraud continued and became worse. On June 18, 2020,
Wirecard disclosed that its external auditor was unable to confirm
the existence of $2.1 billion in cash balances on trust accounts.
Moreover, Wirecard warned that a failure to provide certified
annual and consolidated financial statements by June 19, 2020 would
allow appx. $2 billion worth of loans to be terminated. The scandal
intensified when it was reported Markus Braun, the CEO who left the
company on June 19, was arrested in Germany, accused of inflating
the company's balance sheet. Altogether, this news has sent the
price of Wirecard securities traded in the United States crashing
by over 80%.
The court has granted Lead Plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint on Aug. 14, 2020, which will expand the alleged
fraudulent period to cover recent stock drops caused by the
revelation of Wirecard's financial fraud, including the company's
June disclosures, the recent arrest of former CEO Markus Braun and
the apparent reckless audit failures of Ernst & Young (Germany).
"Wirecard has long lied about its finances and almost fooled
investors that information to the contrary was false. We are
focusing our investigation on who knew what and when, including
their accountants," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein.
For more information about the case, visit:
https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/WRCDF
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a national law firm
with nine offices in eight cities around the country and eighty
attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers
and consumers in complex litigation.
Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 510-725-3000 [GN]
WIRECARD AG: Rosen Announces Filing of Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Wirecard AG (OTC: WCAGY, WRCDF) between August 17,
2015 and June 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Wirecard investors under the federal
securities laws.
To join the Wirecard class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1880.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants, including the Company's
auditor, throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Wirecard overstated
its cash balances during the Class Period, falsely claiming EUR1.9
billion; (2) Wirecard overstated its financial results, including
revenue and EBITDA; (3) Wirecard did not have adequate risk
management or countermeasures; (4) Wirecard's auditor failed to
audit the Company in accordance with applicable auditing
principles; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about
Wirecard's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
8, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1880.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.
Contact:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/[GN]
XAVIER UNIVERSITY: Miranda Suit Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ximena Miranda, On behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. XAVIER UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00539-TSB (S.D. Ohio, July
10, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to seek reimbursement
of tuition and fees, and for breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
and promissory estoppel because the Plaintiff did not receive the
full value of the services paid for and did not receive the
benefits of in-person instruction.
The Defendant's College of Nursing Accelerated Bachelor of Science
in Nursing ("ABSN") curriculum contains three key parallel learning
components: online classes, lab simulation, and actual clinical
training. These parallel components are set up to complement each
other as each goes from basic to more advanced. Put another way, a
student completing only one or two of the parallel components
misses crucial nursing education.
For such comprehensive training, the Plaintiff paid approximately
$13,500 per semester, in addition to a variety of fees, including
student activity fees and professional liability insurance, for the
onsite curriculum. In March 2020, Xavier stopped providing its
onsite curriculum and switched to a fully remote learning
experience that involves no hands-on training.
While students enrolled and paid Xavier for a comprehensive
academic experience, Xavier instead offers the Plaintiff something
far less: a limited online experience presented by Google or Zoom,
devoid of face-to-face faculty and peer interaction, separated from
program resources, and barred from facilities vital to study,
according to the complaint. The Plaintiff did not bargain for such
an experience. Despite no longer providing the important "onsite
curriculum" that students are promised, Xavier did not reduce its
tuition. In fact, starting in May 2020, Xavier increased tuition
for ABSN students.
The Plaintiff contends that Xavier's actions have financially
damaged her. Moreover, by switching to online in lieu of onsite
courses, while increasing tuition costs for the summer semester,
Xavier is being unjustly enriched by students, who have paid Xavier
money that equity demands should rightfully belong to the
Plaintiff, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a student at Xavier where she is enrolled in
Xavier's College of ABSN program.
Xavier University is a private university incorporated as a
non-profit corporation in the State of Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
W.B. Markovits, Esq.
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Zachary C Schaengold, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DeMARCO, LLC
3825 Edwards Rd., Suite 650
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Phone: (513) 665-0200
Fax: (513) 665-0219
Email: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com
tcoates@msdlegal.com
zschaengold@msdlegal.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Phone: (513) 381-2333
Fax: (513) 721-1178
Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
[*] Carlton Fields: Latest Class Action Trends
----------------------------------------------
Julianna Thomas McCabe of Carlton Fields wrote on JDSupra an
article titled "From COVID-19 to Defense Strategies: The Latest
Class Action Trends":
As we head to print on the ninth annual Carlton Fields Class Action
Survey, the unprecedented COVID-19 health and related economic
crisis has wrought permanent change to business practices
worldwide. There is little doubt that litigation management and, as
relevant to this publication, the management and risk reduction
strategies for classwide litigation will also change. Already,
corporate America faces a rising tide of more than 500 new class
action matters stemming from the coronavirus outbreak, and as the
country cautiously takes steps to reopen, new risks emerge. We hope
that this year's survey serves as a resource while you navigate
these changes. As in past years, this report provides an overview
of important issues and practices related to class action matters
and management. It summarizes historical trends captured since the
inception of the survey and includes information related to
emerging issues in class action litigation.
Even before the recent spike in class action filings related to the
pandemic, corporations reported yet another annual increase in
class action spending. Spending has increased for five consecutive
years, and it likely will continue to rise in 2020. Companies are
also handling a higher volume of class action matters than ever
before, with complex and high-risk matters making up the bulk of
existing cases.
The 2020 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey is based on interviews
with general counsel or senior legal officers at more than 400
Fortune 1000 and other large companies across a variety of
industries. We thank you for taking the time to review our report,
and trust you will find valuable information that helps your
company and its legal department manage these prevalent, costly
lawsuits both effectively and efficiently.
Executive Summary
In 2019, class action spending rose yet again, reaching $2.64
billion. The average number of matters per company increased from
7.8 in 2018 to 10.2 in 2019. Before the COVID-19 pandemic,
companies reported that spending and matters were expected to
increase again in 2020. In the second quarter of 2020, that
expectation has become a reality. Facing a rash of new matters, 70
percent of legal decision-makers now expect an increase in class
litigation this year, while virtually none report an expected
decrease.
Insurance class actions are on the rise, accounting for 10.7
percent of matters and 14 percent of spending. As in past years,
however, the highest percentage of matters and spending are
attributable to labor and employment and consumer fraud actions.
Labor and employment cases account for 26.9 percent of matters and
26.4 percent of spending. In the past five years, more than
two-thirds of companies have faced at least one labor and
employment class action, and, in this year's survey, contractor
misclassification and employee data privacy matters emerged as new
concerns on the labor and employment front.
The percentage of companies predicting data privacy and security as
the next wave of class actions increased from last year's survey,
from 54.3 percent to 58.2 percent. Companies point to new and
anticipated state privacy legislation as an area fraught with class
action risk. More than three-fourths of companies reported concern
about the California Consumer Privacy Act (the CCPA), a data
privacy law that went into effect in January 2020. One such survey
respondent referred to the CCPA as a "walking lawsuit." The
percentage of companies concerned about exposure resulting from the
European Union's privacy regulation (the GDPR) increased by
one-third. The overwhelming majority of companies, 93.8 percent,
have not faced a class action lawsuit related to a data breach, and
all have a data breach action plan either in place or in the
works.
The percentage of companies facing class actions categorized as
lower exposure matters increased to 63.5 percent, nearly 10
percentage points higher than last year's survey, and per company,
the percentage of lower exposure class actions increased for the
first time in three years. Fewer companies were facing actions
classified as complex, high-risk, or bet-the-company, with the
percentage of companies facing bet-the-company cases declining to
10.6 percent, its lowest level since 2015. Insurance coverage for
class litigation decreased this year, with only 22.2 percent of
companies reporting that some portion of their class action defense
costs were covered by insurance. Companies carrying insurance
reported that higher deductibles and various exclusions limited
coverage. With respect to staffing, an uptick in in-house resources
reported in last year's survey was partially reversed this year as
companies reported going from an average of 4.5 to 4.2 in-house
lawyers dedicated to class action defense. Those attorneys spent an
average of 12 hours per week managing class actions.
In weighing the variables they consider most important in
evaluating class action risk, companies ranked exposure as 9.1 on a
1 to 10 scale of importance. Year over year, companies have
consistently ranked exposure as having the highest level of
importance over other risk factors. Assessing the risks early was a
theme that resonated throughout this year's survey, with
approximately 62 percent of companies reporting that they conduct
an early exposure analysis to defend class action matters "at the
right cost." Only 12.7 percent prefer to settle such matters early,
while 10.9 percent reported a "defend at all costs" philosophy.
While most class actions are eventually settled, often on an
individual basis, companies reported that 8.5 percent of cases
originally filed with class allegations are litigated through
trial. This is a substantial increase over the 2 percent reported
last year.
For many reasons, companies often favor individualized arbitration
over class action litigation and, where possible, include
arbitration clauses in their contracts as a "best practice." The
percentage of companies that included arbitration clauses in their
contracts increased to 77.1 percent this year, and 55 percent of
those companies include class action waivers in their arbitration
provisions.
The two most important elements identified by companies to control
costs and manage class action risk are an early analysis of case
facts and, based on those facts, a preliminary calculation of
potential exposure. Companies also seek to control costs with
alternative fee arrangements (AFAs), and AFA usage was up 13
percentage points over the prior year. As in past years, companies
reported that they prefer fixed and phased AFAs, but they have also
used caps, success awards, blended rates, and more sophisticated
arrangements tailored to a specific case. Companies reported a more
robust approach to controlling discovery costs in their class
actions. Nearly 73 percent responded that bifurcating discovery is
a beneficial class action management strategy. A higher percentage
than in past years also reported using motion practice, an
aggressive negotiation of search terms, and similar tools to combat
overly broad or disproportionate discovery demands.
Finally, we asked companies participating in this year's survey to
identify areas in which outside counsel can improve their
performance and provide innovative solutions to class action
management. Thirty-one percent identified excellent client service
as an area for improvement, and 45.3 percent mentioned
understanding the client's business risks as important to outside
counsel's role. Companies also identified and elaborated on five
sources of innovation for class action management: aggressiveness,
strategic planning, immediate early case evaluation, scenario
planning, and the implementation of thoughtful cost management
strategies. [GN]
[*] Class Action Defense Spending Expected to Rise This Year
------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Mitchell, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a big Law
firm that got millions of dollars from a federal program aimed at
protecting jobs in the Covid-19 crisis is laying off associates;
dozens of law firms and a dozen legal education organizations,
including law schools, got money from the program; half of U.K. law
firm leaders responding to a recent survey said they expect to make
staff cuts this year; the grand jury process is set to resume in
New York City state courts in a few days; two Big Law firms have no
Black equity partners, while several firms have only one;
Amazon.com named a former federal prosecutor to lead its
counterfeit crimes unit.
* Leading off, corporate in-house legal departments initially
underestimated Covid-19's impact on class action litigation they
will have to defend against, but now over 70% say they expect an
increase in such litigation and virtually none expect a decrease,
according to Carlton Field's 2020 class action survey report, its
ninth annual edition. The report is based on interviews with
general counsel, chief legal officers and direct reports to general
counsel, at 415 Fortune 1000 and other large companies across
various industries. It says spending on class action defense,
increasing for the last five years, rose 7.3% to hit $2.64 billion
in 2019 and is likely to increase this year. By the end of May
2020, more than 560 Covid-19 class actions had been filed
nationwide, it says. (ClassActionSurvey.com)
* New York City-based Hughes Hubbard & Reed, which had $288 million
in gross revenues last year according to American Lawyer, in April
got between $5 million-$10 million from the federal Paycheck
Protection Program, aimed at helping companies save jobs during the
economic crisis set off by the Covid-19 pandemic. According to
reports, the firm is laying off an unspecified number of
associates, to which it is offering severance pay and training. A
firm statement attributed the cuts to court closures and a
slow-down in deal activity. (AbovetheLaw.com)
* Hughes is among at least nine Big Law firms that got multimillion
dollar loans from the PPP but cut salaries or jobs this year
anyway, a report says. (American Lawyer) Dozens of Big Law firms,
including Boies Schiller Flexner, Stroock; and Sullivan & Worcester
got money from the program. (BLAW)
* Half of U.K. law firm leaders responding to a recent Managing
Partners Forum survey said they expect to make staff cuts this
year. and half also said they anticipate a steep decline in
revenues because of the crisis. (Law.com International)
* As the pandemic forces law firms forced to adapt their offices to
keep lawyers and staff safe during the pandemic, some are
rethinking their plans designing new spaces. (American Lawyer)
* As Covid-19 cases pile up in California, recent law graduates
used a Zoom session to urge state officials to make a decision
about the state's bar exam. (BLAW)
* Grand juries are set to resume in New York City's state courts on
Aug. 10, but it's not clear how many grand jurors will actually be
willing to show up. (New York Law Journal)
* Management-side worklaw firm Littler and ComplianceHR launched an
automated employee screening tool to help companies manage the
reopening of their workplaces after Covid-19 shutdowns.
ComplianceHR is a joint venture of Littler and artificial
intelligence platform Neota Logic Inc. (Littler.com)
Lawyers, Law Firms
* Cravath Swaine & Moore and Haynes and Boone still have no Black
equity partners, while several firms have only one, according to a
diversity inventory. (American Lawyer)
* The general counsel of The Hershey Co., Damien Atkins, says he's
a "Black male in a profession where there's not many of us. That's
an opportunity for me to shine." He talked recently about what top
lawyers can do to boost diversity in the legal profession.
(Corporate Counsel)
* Marriott Hotels, which was sued last year for allegedly ignoring
sex trafficking at three of its Philadelphia hotels, can bring
third-party defendants into the litigation, a federal judge ruled.
(Legal Intelligencer)
* Fenwick & West represented pharmacy-management startup ZipDrug on
its acquisition by IngenioRx, a wholly owned subsidiary of Anthem,
Inc. (Fenwick.com) (MedCityNews.com)
Laterals, Moves
* McDermott Will & Emery is adding a five-lawyer group from Katten
Muchin Rosenman to its restructuring and insolvency practice in
Dallas, led by Katten partner Charles "Chuck" Gibbs, who will now
head McDermott's practice. Mark Patterson and Eric Seitz are also
making the move, as counsel, along with two associates. (BLAW)
* Buchalter said it hired former California federal prosecutor
Joshua Robbins as chair of its new white collar & investigations
practice, working out of its Los Angeles and Orange County offices.
According to his LinkedIn, Robbins has been a Washington,
D.C.-based Baker & Hostetler counsel and Sidley Austin associate,
and he most recently led the white-collar defense practice at
boutique firm Greenberg Gross LLP. (Buchalter.com)
* Akin Gump hired back international trade lawyer Matthew Nicely as
a partner in Washington. According to his LinkedIn, Nicely arrives
from Hughes Hubbard, was international trade and practice group
leader at Thomson Hine, spent time at Vinson & Elkins and Willkie
Farr & Gallagher, after working as an associate at Akin Gump early
in his career. (AkinGump.com)
* Duane Morris recruited corporate lawyer Anastasia Kaup as a
partner in Chicago. She was previously a banking and finance
associate at Mayer Brown. (DuaneMorris.com)
* K&L Gates' Washington office hired health care regulatory and
compliance lawyer Andrew Ruskin as a partner. He arrives from
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, where he was a partner advising on
Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement and compliance. (KLGates.com)
* Haynes and Boone grabbed veteran patent lawyer Philip Albert as a
partner in San Francisco, getting him from Davis Wright Tremaine.
Albert previously spent 21 years at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton,
including 15 as partner. He was an engineer in NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory and founded a company that produced
semi-custom software and turnkey computer systems for accounting
tasks and bank operations. (HaynesBoone.com)
* Offshore firm Appleby Global appointed Tim Faries, managing
partner of its Bermuda office and head of its insurance practice,
to serve as chief executive officer of its year-old fiduciary
services unit. (ApplebyGlobal.com)
In-house
* Amazon.com named associate general counsel and director Cristina
Posa, a former federal prosecutor, to head the counterfeit crimes
unit it launched in June. (BLAW)
* Velocity Financial hired former Securities and Exchange
Commission lawyer Roland Kelly, a financial industry in-house
veteran, as general counsel and corporate secretary. A Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius associate early in his career, Kelly arrives most
recently from Jefferies Financial Group Inc. where he was managing
director, associate GC, and assistant secretary. (Yahoo! Finance)
Legal Education
* A dozen legal education organizations, including law schools and
the maker of the LSAT test, got forgivable emergency loans of
$150,000 or more from the Small Business Administration's Paycheck
Protection Program, SBA data show. (Law.com)
* A proposed New York state bill would create an emergency diploma
privilege. (Law.com) [GN]
[*] COVID-19 Pandemic Spurs 500+ Class Actions, Survey Shows
------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Cueto, writing for Law360, reports that the COVID-19 pandemic
and associated shutdowns and economic fallout have led to more than
500 class action lawsuits, particularly insurance-related and
education refund suits, according to a new survey from Carlton
Fields.
In the ninth annual Carlton Fields Class Action Survey, researchers
found that the number of class action lawsuits had been continuing
to trend upward even before the pandemic, but that COVID-19 brought
on a sharp increase in new filings.
The report was compiled based on interviews with chief legal
officers, general counsel and direct reports to general counsel at
400 large companies across industries.
"Obviously the fact that this class action litigation has continued
to rise for five years in a row now is notable," said Julianna
Thomas McCabe, a shareholder at Carlton Fields who worked on the
report, "and the fact that companies were expecting that trend to
continue into next year even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit [is
notable]."
Researchers found that in the early days of the pandemic, about
half of in-house counsel expected that it would not have an impact
on class action litigation, and about 10% expected to see a decline
in cases due to lack of funding. By mid-May, however, hundreds of
cases had been filed, and 70% of survey respondents said that they
expected the pandemic to drive more class actions.
In addition, 40% said the COVID-19-related class actions could
drive companies to settle preexisting cases. McCabe noted that
plaintiffs might also have a similar pressure to settle, which
could lead to an upcoming wave of settlements, both those favorable
to companies and those favorable to plaintiffs.
"We haven't seen it yet, but it's certainly possible," she said.
Overall, the report identified 560 COVID-19-related class actions
filed by the end of May 2020, with more than 100 in California
alone. About 25% are against insurance companies regarding business
interruption coverage, and another 25% concern education refunds,
according to the survey.
Other common types of class actions include refund suits against
gyms and entertainment venues and suits against airlines and
government entities, the report found.
McCabe added that she expects the number of employment and labor
class actions sparked by the pandemic might also increase in the
coming months.
"Historically, in our survey, the top category of class actions is
usually labor and employment cases, and we haven't seen the breadth
of those cases that I think are going to come out of this," she
said. "There have been layoffs in many, many industries. There are
changes in work practices in virtually every industry. And I think
companies are concerned about that."
Other research has shown that there has been an uptick in workplace
lawsuits, especially in California and Texas, but so far that
increase does not seem to be driven by class actions. However, new
COVID-19-related lawsuits continue to be filed, and litigation
connected to the pandemic is becoming more and more common.
Beyond COVID-19 suits, the Carlton Fields researchers found that
2020 was already on track to see an increase in class action
activity, continuing a trend that has been going on for years.
The report projects that companies will spend $2.73 billion on
class action litigation in 2020, up from $1.92 billion in 2006. In
addition, while the number of companies facing a class action has
remained relatively flat since 2011, fluctuating between about 50%
and 60%, the number of class actions companies are handling in any
given year has more than tripled in the same period, from an
average of 4.4 to an average of 15.1.
This is partly due to a sharp spike in the number of new matters
filed in the past three years, increasing from an average of 1.7
new matters per company in 2017 to 3.1 in 2018, 3.3 in 2019 and a
projected 5.4 in 2020.
The report also found that companies looking for outside counsel to
handle class actions place a premium on client service and
attorneys who understand the risks to the business.
About 1 in 3 survey respondents named "excellent client service" as
the top area in which outside counsel needs to improve, followed by
aggressively pursuing a favorable outcome, which was selected by
26% of respondents. Forty-five percent of the
in-house counsel in the survey also said that the most important
factor for an outside attorney on a class action case was an
understanding of the business risks at stake.
"There's a desire out there for the best they can get, and maybe
sometimes they're not getting it," said Michael Wolgin, another
Carlton Fields shareholder who worked on the report. "Especially
when it comes to class action defense when there's a lot on the
line, they want to see excellent client service . . . and want to
see that the business risk is understood." [GN]
[*] New Ontario Bill Sets Higher Bar for Class Action Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anita Balakrishnan, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
Ontario lawmakers approved a bill on July 8 that sets a higher bar
for class action suits, and experts say it will be harder for
consumers to sue businesses.
"Because the test is more challenging now, many cases will get
dropped. Businesses could likely defeat them," says Toronto lawyer
Margaret Waddell. "Now if a company acts badly, that behaviour will
go unchecked -- and consumers won't have remedy for the harms they
suffered."
Currently, a judge must approve or "certify" that a class action
meets minimum legal requirements for it to proceed. Under the new
law, judges would have to consider stricter guidelines before
permitting a group to sue a company.
That means businesses could successfully bat away more potential
lawsuits before they go forward, Waddell says.
The new standard, similar to what is used in the U.S., is not easy
for the average consumer to meet. Successful class actions on
residential schools, environmental tragedies such as the E. coli
outbreak in Walkerton, Ont. and tainted blood would not have made
it past this new test, the Law Commission of Ontario has
estimated.
To get a class action to court, a group would now have to prove
that the class action is better than any other way of resolving the
dispute -- for example, an individual lawsuit, tribunal complaint
or "remediation" outside the legal system. The group must also
prove that the greatest harms they suffered, individually -- often
at the hands of a company — also impacted everyone in the group.
Bill 161, which now awaits royal assent, alters more than 15 other
provincial acts, with the bulk of changes aimed at modernizing the
outdated justice system.
The office of Ontario Attorney General Doug Downey says the bill
actually promotes fairer settlements and quick resolutions where
"interests of Ontarians are at the heart."
Press secretary Jenessa Crognali says the bill includes the first
comprehensive updates to class actions in a quarter-century.
"They are designed to help Ontarians resolve their legal issues
faster and receive meaningful access to justice," Crognali says.
But Waddell says that since lawyers are only paid when a class
action concludes, it may also become more difficult to convince
them to take on risky cases that could take years to fight.
"Our courts simply aren't equipped," Waddell says. "What they have
done is slam the door, in particular, on personal injury types of
cases, and haven't opened any other doors."
Downey's office says people are free to pursue other paths to
resolve disputes, and the new system makes sure that a class action
is "the most appropriate procedure."
"These improvements address issues that clog the system and slow
down justice for everyone," says Crognali.
But, says Waddell, many class actions exist to benefit people who
could not afford to hire a lawyer and sue a company on their own.
"It's not economically feasible," Waddell says. [GN]
[*] Rochester to Join Class Action Against Opioid Producers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tanner Jubenville, writing for WHAM, reports that Rochester school
board President Van White believes opioid addiction has directly
impacted parents, and their kids, in the district.
"You're talking about lost opportunities, additional challenges,
many of these children are being raised by parents with a vicious
addiction, so they are missing school, they are coming to school
with significant trauma," said White.
On July 8, the board voted on a resolution giving the district
permission to join the multi-state lawsuit, which includes school
districts from around the country, alleging opioid producing
pharmaceutical companies damaged school districts, parents, and
children.
"These large pharmaceuticals that took advantage of the
vulnerabilities of many parents that go to our schools should pay
the cost for those additional burdens we must bear as a district,"
said White.
White says opioid addiction has cost some students a chance at a
proper education. He says the district has also been forced to drum
up resources to make up for students being traumatized by
addiction.
"I don't think there's anybody that's going to doubt those are
mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles of students of the Rochester City
School District," said White.
White says the idea was first brought up by RCSD board commissioner
Ricardo Adams at the July 7 meeting. White says there's little to
no cost associated with the district joining the lawsuit.
"For us, it just made sense to join in this litigation," said
White.
He says if there's a chance for the district to get a calculated
payout based on estimated losses, money could go toward addiction
resources and education, or help fund positions which may deal with
such issues, like social workers.
That would come at a time when many social workers have been laid
off due to budget cuts.
"Social workers are the bridge between schools and what is
happening at home," said White. [GN]
[*] TCPA Class Action Trap Broadened for Unwary Businesses
----------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer Riley of Seyfarth Shaw LLP wrote
on JDSupra an article titled "The U.S. Supreme Court Broadens The
TCPA Class Action Trap For Unwary Businesses":
Seyfarth Synopsis: While many businesses hoped that the U.S.
Supreme Court would blow up the ban on autodialed calls in the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), on July 6, 2020, the
nation's highest court issued its long-anticipated decision in Barr
v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., No. 19-631
(July 6, 2020), and accomplished the opposite. Although the
Supreme Court agreed that an exception allowing government
debt-related robocalls was unconstitutional because it favored
debt-collection speech, the Supreme Court merely struck down the
carve out, effectively broadening the TCPA and reaffirming the
law's importance.
The ruling clears the way for a flood of TCPA-related lawsuits, as
members of the plaintiffs' bar move forward with TCPA-related
lawsuits against those who use autodialers to collect debts, such
as student loans or mortgages guaranteed by the federal government,
and move forward with claims they previously put "on hold" pending
the Supreme Court's decision. As a result, businesses that
communicate with employees and customers via telephone and text
message must continue to be cautious of the TCPA's prohibitions.
Background
In response to consumer complaints, Congress passed the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act in 1991 to prohibit, among other things,
robocalls to cellular and residential telephone lines. In 2015,
Congress amended the robocall restriction and carved out calls made
solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United
States.
The American Association of Political Consultants, Inc. and other
political and non-profit organizations ("Plaintiffs") filed a
declaratory judgment action against the U.S. Attorney General and
the FCC (the "Government"), arguing that the government-debt
exception to the TCPA violated the First Amendment because it
favored debt-collection speech over political and other speech.
Plaintiffs sought to invalidate the entire TCPA (rather than simply
invalidate the government-debt exception).
Even though the district court identified the government-debt
exception as a content-based restriction on speech, the district
court held that the exception survived strict scrutiny because of
the Government's compelling interest in collecting debt. Id. On
appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated
the district court's order. Id. (citing Am. Ass'n of Political
Consultants, Inc. v. FCC, 923 F.3d 159, 167 (4th Cir. 2019)). The
Fourth Circuit agreed that the government-debt exception was a
content-based restriction on speech, but it held that the exception
failed a strict scrutiny review and severed the exception. Id. at
5-6. The Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit's ruling. As an
initial matter, the Supreme Court found the TCPA's robocall
restriction, with the government-debt exception, a content-based
restriction because it favors speech made for the purpose of
collecting government debt over political and other speech. As the
Supreme Court explained, "A robocall that says, ‘Please pay your
government debt' is legal. A robocall that says, ‘Please donate
to our political campaign' is illegal. That is about as
content-based as it gets." Id. at 7. As such, the Supreme Court
found it subject to a strict scrutiny review.
The Supreme Court rejected the Government's arguments to the
contrary. First, it noted that the TCPA does not draw any
distinction based on the speaker, rather than the content, and,
even if it did, that would not automatically render the distinction
content neutral. Id. at 8. Second, it noted that the TCPA focuses
on whether the caller is speaking about a particular topic and not,
as the Government contended, on whether the caller is engaged in a
particular economic activity. Id.
Next, the Supreme Court held that the robocall restriction with the
government-debt exception could not satisfy strict scrutiny. It
noted that the Government failed sufficiently to justify the
differentiation between government-debt collection speech and other
important categories of robocall speech, such as political speech,
issue advocacy, commercial advertising, and the like. Id. at 9.
Having so concluded, the Supreme Court then turned to the question
of whether it should invalidate the entire TCPA or whether it could
cure the problem by severing the government-debt exception from the
remainder of the TCPA. Because the TCPA was an amendment to the
Communications Act, which contains an express severability clause,
the Supreme Court concluded that it was required to sever the
offending provision. Id. at 18.
The Supreme Court noted that its "precedents reflect a decisive
preference for surgical severance rather than wholesale
destruction, even in the absence of a severability clause." Id. at
15. Applying that preference, the Supreme Court explained it would
sever the exception from the remainder of the TCPA because the
remainder of the law "is capable of functioning independently" and
in fact "function[ed] independently . . . 20-plus years before the
government-debt exception was added in 2015." Id. at 18.
Implications Of The Supreme Court's Ruling
Although many businesses hoped that the Supreme Court would
invalidate the TCPA, the ruling in Barr gives it a boost.
Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh noted that, while
"Americans passionately disagree about many things," they "are
largely united in their disdain for robocalls" and he quoted
legislative history that described robocalls as the "scourge of
modern civilization." Id. at 1, 3.
As such, businesses should brace for a renewed flurry of
TCPA-related class action lawsuits, as the plaintiffs' bar moves
forward with TCPA-related lawsuits against debt collectors and
other businesses previously put "on hold" pending the Supreme
Court's decision, aided by Plaintiff-friendly "gems" from the
opinion in Barr.
That said, the Supreme Court's opinion opens the door to new
defenses, including challenges to other portions of the TCPA. The
Supreme Court ruled that Plaintiffs "still may not make political
robocalls to cell phones, but their speech is now treated equally
with debt-collection speech." The TCPA and FCC regulations,
however, provide for other exceptions that may be equally
problematic and subject to challenge in that they similarly fail to
treat speech equally. Thus, as TCPA litigation gets a boost, the
Supreme Court's decision may provide a roadmap for new angles of
attack. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***