/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200727.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, July 27, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 149
Headlines
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Malone Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
ALLIED NEVADA: November 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Buero Labor Suit
AMAZON: Must Face Class Action Over Post-Shift Security Screening
AMERICAN ART: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
AMSTERDAM GOURMET: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Dominguez Claims
ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS: Files 8th Cir. Appeal in Knowlton ERISA Suit
APPLE INC: December 4 iPhone Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
APPLE INC: October 6 Throttle Gate Claims Filing Deadline Set
ARCHER DANIELS: Sued Over Alleged Ethanol Pricing Manipulation
AT&T: Dorsey & Whitney Blog Post on Class Action Not Defamatory
BETHLEHEM LANDFILL: 3rd Cir. Revives Class Suit Over Noxious Odors
BIRDDOGS INC: Rodriguez Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
BMW: Averts Class Action Over Defective M3 Engines
BRENNTAG NORTH: Settles Class Action Over Retirement Plan Fees
BROPHY BROS: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA and NYLL, Lima Says
BURBERRY LTD: Castillo Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
CARNIVAL CORP: Cruise Ship Passengers File Class Action
CASPER SLEEP: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 18 Deadline
CLEAN SLATE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA & NJWHL, Diaz Says
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Jones Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
CORVIAS: Fort Bragg Families File Class Action Suit
CVS PHARMACY: Lokey Personal Injury Suit Moved to N.D. California
DADE COUNTY FEDERAL: Lopez FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Howarth Suit Claims
DEUTSCHE BANK: Kehoe Law Files Securities Class Action
DEVRY UNIVERSITY: August 24 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Rickenbaker Suit Moved From D.S.C. to E.D. Pa.
EAST SIDE TOP: Perez Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of FLSA
ENERGY STAR: Faces Stiroi Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
ENPHASE ENERGY: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 17 Deadline
FAIRVIEW ARCHITECTURAL: Faces Vitrabond Cladding Class Action
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Giannini Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
FIRST CITIZENS: Pinehurst Suit Removed to M.D. North Carolina
FIRST COMMUNITY: Peay Suit Removed to District of South Carolina
GOODNIGHT GROUP: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Ruiz Suit Claims
GPB CAPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
GREATS SNEAKER: Young Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
HANSEN & ADKINS: Faces Williams Employment Suit in California
HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Motorcyle Fees Suit Belongs in Fed. Ct.
HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Judge Rejects Proposed Class Action Settlement
HENRY SCHEIN: September 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
HOMEDICS USA: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
HUNTER WARFIELD: Francis Sues in W.D. Texas Over FDCPA Violation
IDEANOMICS INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of August 27 Deadline
INTERSECT GROUP: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Randolph Says
IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Makris Files Suit in Delaware Chancery Ct.
J2 GLOBAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of September 8 Deadline
JERSEY CITY, NJ: Faces Avenir Suit Over Tax Assessments Increase
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Potts Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
JP MORGAN: Proctor Suit Moved From N.D. Illinois to S.D. New York
JP MORGAN: Robert Charles Suit Moved From Illinois to New York
KANE SOCKS: Faces Young Suit in New York Alleging ADA Violation
KIA: Ct. Says Attys. Used Wrong Method in Calculating Brake Damages
KROGER CO: Hunton Andrews Attorney Discusses PFAS Class Actions
LMS REINFORCING: Employees File Wage-Theft Class Action
MARRIOTT INT'L: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Alleges
MED-TRANS CORPORATION: Faces Bradley Class Suit in South Carolina
MERCHANT SOLUTIONS: Faces Popov TCPA Suit in C.D. California
MIDLAND CREDIT: Ramirez Sues in S.D. Texas Over FDCPA Violation
MISSISSIPPI: Department of Corrections Faces Class Action
MONETARY FINANCIAL: Whitehurst Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
MYLAN NV: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of August 25 Deadline
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Faces Class Action Over Disability Benefits
NEVADA: Findings in PUA Class Action Set to Be Released
NOTAX4NASH: Brasfield Sues in M.D. Tennessee Over TCPA Violation
NRC ENVIRONMENTAL: Musolf Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
OOFOS INC: Kiler Sues in E.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
ORLANDO, FL: Jones ERISA Suit vs. OHA Removed to M.D. Florida
PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Washington Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of Sept. 4 Deadline
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
POLDER PRODUCTS: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
PREMIER NUTRITION: 9th Cir. Affirms Consumer Class Action Dismissal
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Files Cert. Petition in Laurent Suit
PRIMEX INC: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
RIDE TELEVISION: Young Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
ROYAL APPLIANCE: Faces Paguada ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
RSL FUNDING: Benhayon Suit Removed From Cir. Ct. to S.D. Florida
SACCANI DISTRIBUTING: Faces Burns-Robinson Suit in California
SCOTT FETZER: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
SIEMENS MOBILITY: Keopadubsy Labor Suit Moved to E.D. California
SOLAR SENIOR: Faces Wilson Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
SOUTH BEACH: Espinoza Suit Moved From County Ct. to S.D. Florida
SPLASH WINES: Young Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
STEARNS BANK: Chestnut Files Suit in Connecticut District Court
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Carter Labor Suit Removed C.D. California
TALENT.COM INC: Abitbol Sues in California Over Violation of TCPA
TERRAFORM POWER: Faces Post Securities Suit Over Merger With BEP
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Husarsky Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
TUCKERNUCK INC: Faces Rodriguez Class ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TVI INC: Melead Labor Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to C.D. California
UNITED COLLECTION: Faces Husarsky FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
UNITED COLLECTION: Kahn Sues in New York Alleging FDCPA Violation
VERRICA PHARMA: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action
WAGAN CORPORATION: Faces Paguada ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
WALMART INC: Gardiner Sues in Calif. Over Customer Data Breach
WAYFAIR INC: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Bleichmar Fonti Files Securities Class Action
WESTPAC: May Face Suit Over Exorbitant Interest Rates on Car Loans
WHOLE FOODS: Coconut Drinks Have Non-Vanilla Flavor, Fisher Says
WHOLESALE INTERIORS: Paguada Sues in New York Over ADA Violation
[*] Class Actions Related to Racial Discrimination Rise in Canada
[*] Securities Class Action Filings v. Tech Cos. Up 50% in 2019
*********
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Malone Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
---------------------------------------------------------------
SALLY MALONE v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN,
INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:20-cv-08615
(D.N.J., July 10, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated alleging that the Defendants' BIOCELL
textured implants are defective.
The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a
worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) called for the action following new
information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of
breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma
("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants.
Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the
breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that
has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast
implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a
permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in
breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and
can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly
treated.
The FDA determined the risk of developing BIA-ALCL was six times
higher with Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants when compared with
textured implants from other manufacturers, the lawsuit says.
In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases
of BIA- ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as
a result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are
as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants;
Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants;
Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled
Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL
texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander
(K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs
(K102806).
On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL
Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL
textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that
Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the
BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will
not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the
surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them
with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months,
until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on
or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019.
As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the
removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of
developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiff contends she will be forced to
expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs associated
with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost opportunity
costs associated with post-surgery recovery time.
The Malone case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN RE: ALLERGAN
BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Sally Malone is a patient, who had Allergan's BIOCELL breast
implants implanted into her body. Evidence has emerged over time
that these implants cause a form of cancer known as Breast- Implant
Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).
Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and
silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or
"BIOCELL textured implants").[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew J. Geiger, Esq.
Allan Berger, Esq.
ALLAN BERGER & ASSOCIATES
4173 Canal Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
Telephone: (504) 526-2222
Facsimile: (504) 483-8130
E-mail: ageiger@bergerlawnola.com
aberger@bergerlawnola.com
ALLIED NEVADA: November 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
A Summary Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action has been
entered in the case, In re ALLIED NEVADA GOLD CORP., SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 3:14-cv-00175-LRH-WGC, This Document Relates
To: ALL ACTIONS (D. Nev.).
The Summary Notice is addressed to 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").
The Summary Notice dated July 15, 2020 provides that:
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. [GN]
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Buero Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lindsey Buero filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in her lawsuit entitled Lindsey Buero v. Amazon.com Services, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00974-MO, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon, Portland.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was removed from the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, County
of Multnomah (Case No. 19cv22979), to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon on June 21, 2019. The Clerk of Court for the
District of Oregon assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00974-BR to the
proceeding and to the Hon. Michael W. Mosman.
Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc., provides e-commerce services.
The Company retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics,
appliances, apparels, and accessories. Amazon Fulfillment Services
distributes its products worldwide.
The appellate case is captioned as Lindsey Buero v. Amazon.com
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-35633, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant Lindsey Buero's opening brief is due on
September 14, 2020;
-- Appellees Amazon.com Services, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc.
answering brief is due on October 14, 2020; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant LINDSEY BUERO, Individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated, is represented by:
Lisa Terra Hunt, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LISA T. HUNT, LLC
5854 Lakeview Boulevard
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Telephone: (503) 515-8501
E-mail: lthunt@lthuntlaw.com
- and -
David A. Schuck, Esq.
SCHUCK LAW, LLC
208 E. 25th Street
Vancouver, WA 98663
Telephone: (360) 566-9243
E-mail: dschuck@wageclaim.org
Defendants-Appellees AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., a foreign
corporation, DBA Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc.; and AMAZON.COM,
INC., a foreign corporation, are represented by:
Sarah Jean Crooks, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1120 N.W. Couch Street
Portland, OR 97209-4128
Telephone: (503) 727-2000
E-mail: SCrooks@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Michael E. Kenneally, Esq.
David Bruce Salmons, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 739-5893
E-mail: michael.kenneally@morganlewis.com
david.salmons@morganlewis.com
- and -
Richard G. Rosenblatt, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
502 Carnegie Center
Princeton, NJ 08540-6241
Telephone: (609) 919-6600
E-mail: richard.rosenblatt@morganlewis.com
AMAZON: Must Face Class Action Over Post-Shift Security Screening
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian McKeegan, Esq.--bmckeegan@genovaburns.com--of Genova Burns
LLC, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on June 29, 2020, the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled that
Amazon must face a proposed class action alleging violations of New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL), which seeks compensation for time
spent undergoing mandatory post-shift security screenings and for
time spent during meal breaks. In Vaccaro v. Amazon.com.dedc LLC,
the District Court held that while time spent during meal breaks is
not compensable, time spent undergoing post-shift screenings was
compensable work time under the NJWHL.
Facts
Dianne Vaccaro started as a warehouse worker for Amazon in June
2017. According to the complaint, at the end of the workday,
Vacarro was required to undergo a mandatory security screening
before she could physically exit Amazon's premises. The lawsuit
alleges that the security screening requires employees to wait
among hundreds of other warehouse employees to pass through
security. The security measures allegedly include walking through a
metal detector and placing personal items on a conveyer belt to be
scanned via x-ray. According to the complaint, if Amazon determines
that additional scrutiny is necessary, an employee must then submit
to a mandatory "secondary screening," which involves reporting to
the secondary screening area so that a security guard can search
the employee.
The lawsuit also alleged that the mandatory screenings, vastness of
Amazon's parking lot, and remoteness of its premises effectively
prevented the employees from leaving the place of work during meal
breaks. Amazon requires a 30-minute unpaid meal break during each
workday and requires employees to punch in and out for each meal
break. The complaint also alleges that, before employees are
permitted to leave Amazon's "premises" for a meal break, employees
must undergo the same security screening process as is required at
the end of the workday. Thus, the lawsuit alleged that Amazon
similarly violated the NJWHL by failing to count time spent on meal
breaks during the course of the workday as "hours worked" for
purposes of calculating wages.
The District Court's Rulings
Acknowledging that such screenings were not compensable under the
FLSA, the court determined whether it nevertheless must be
compensated under the NJWHL. Since neither the New Jersey Supreme
Court nor any State courts had addressed the issue, the court was
required to predict how the state's highest court would decide the
matter. The District Court predicted that time spent in post shift
screenings would be held compensable while the meal breaks would
not be.
In coming to its determination, the District Court relied partly on
New Jersey regulations, which defined hours worked as all the time
the employee is required to be at his or her place of work or on
duty. Citing to precedent under the FLSA, which is analogous with
the NJWHL, the court concluded that a "place of work" is any place
where an activity is performed that is controlled or required by
the employer and such activity serves to primarily benefit the
employer. The court ruled that the security screenings alleged meet
that criteria because the activity is controlled by and is for the
primary benefit of Amazon.
The District Court, however, did rule in Amazon's favor on the
matter of meal breaks and held that unlike the post-shift
screenings, the act of undergoing the screening during the workday
is a result of the employee's choice to take their meal outside the
premises and serves primarily to benefit the employee. Since
Vaccaro did not sufficiently allege that she is required to exit
Amazon's premises in order to take meal breaks, or that the
consequences of such a choice primarily benefited Amazon, the court
held that any time spent during meal breaks is not time spent at
the place of work.
Bottom Line
New Jersey employers seeking to implement pre- or post- shift
screenings must be mindful to count that time as hours worked, but
employees need not be paid if they need to be screened when leaving
for or returning from meal breaks. Employees utilizing time clocks
should allow employees to clock in before the pre-shift screening
and after the post-shift screening. [GN]
AMERICAN ART: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Art Clay Co.
Inc. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. American Art Clay Co Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05513 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
American Art Clay Co Inc. (AMACO) manufactures art and craft
products. The Company offers ceramic and glass kilns, potters
wheels, modeling clays, and glazes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
AMSTERDAM GOURMET: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Dominguez Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO DOMINGUEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. AMSTERDAM GOURMET FOODS, INC. d/b/a AMSTERDAM GOURMET,
WASDI MALAEB, WASSIM MALAEB, and RAFIK ELKANTAR, Case No.
1:20-cv-05305 (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2020), seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that beginning January 2016 and continuing
through December 2019, he was not paid proper overtime
compensation. During this period, he was paid, in cash, at the rate
of $610 per week straight time for all hours worked, and worked 58
hours per week (and sometimes in excess thereof).
In 1999, the Defendants hired the Plaintiff to work at their
Restaurant as a non-exempt cashier, customer attendant, and
sandwich maker.
Amsterdam Gourmet owns and operates a gourmet grocery store and
delicatessen known as Amsterdam Gourmet located at 403A Amsterdam
Avenue, in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
1O Grand Central
155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: info@jcpelaw.com
ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS: Files 8th Cir. Appeal in Knowlton ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan, et al., filed an
appeal from the District Court's Memorandum and Order dated June 8,
2020, and Addendum to Judgment dated June 24, 2020, entered in the
lawsuit styled Brian Knowlton, et al. v. Anheuser-Busch Companies
Pension Plan, et al., Case No. 4:13-cv-00210-SNLJ, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, St. Louis.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern
Division, issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendants' Motion
for Approval of Form of Judgment in the case.
Nearly four years ago, the District Court granted judgment on the
pleadings to the Plaintiffs, who claimed that, as salaried
participants in the Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan (Pension
Plan), they were entitled to certain enhanced retirement benefits
under Section 19.11(f) of the Plan.
The Defendants responded that the Plaintiffs never sought to
resolve the motion without the Court's involvement, as required by
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and represent that they have
now provided the information in question. Moreover, the Plaintiffs
filed no reply to argue otherwise.
The Plaintiffs object to Defendants' proposal on several grounds.
First, they insist that the Court must make the necessary damages
calculations, not the Plan. This Court understands the Eighth
Circuit to require that the judgment includes the amount of the
damages awards for the class. But nothing prevents the Plan from
performing the calculations, as it is equipped to do and providing
that information for the Court's review and approval. Moreover, it
appears that the Plaintiffs' actuary has already approved the
calculations as they were run the first time. There is no reason
that the parties cannot confer on the damages awards before the
schedules are submitted to the Court for final judgment.
Next, the Plaintiffs articulate that they do object to the
Defendants' calculations in that the Defendants do not plan to
provide a benefits calculation for the Group B class members. But
Group B members have not elected benefits, and they have not been
damaged. When they do elect benefits, they will receive the
enhanced pension benefit of Section 19.11(f) pursuant to the
judgment in this case. Plaintiffs argue that the Group B members'
future pension benefits should be calculated as of the date on
which each member would first be eligible to elect to receive full
retirement benefits.
The appellate case is captioned as Brian Knowlton, et al. v.
Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan, et al., Case No. 20-2457, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Brief of Appellants Nancy J. Anderson, Richard F. Angevine,
Andy Fichthorn, Brian Knowlton, Gary Lensenmayer, Donald W.
Mills Jr., Douglas Minerd, Joe Mullins and Charles R.
Wetesnik, is due on August 17, 2020;
-- Appendix is due on August 17, 2020; and
-- Appellee/cross Appellant brief is due 30 days from the date
the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
appellant's brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees Brian Knowlton, individually, and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated; Douglas Minerd, individually, and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; Gary Lensenmayer,
individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated;
Charles R. Wetesnik, individually, and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated; Nancy J. Anderson; Richard F. Angevine; Joe
Mullins; Andy Fichthorn; and Donald W. Mills, Jr., are represented
by:
Karl A. Bekeny, Esq.
Christine M. Snyder, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
Cleveland, OH 44113-7213
Telephone: (216) 696-2699
E-mail: karl.bekeny@tuckerellis.com
christine.snyder@tuckerellis.com
- and -
Joseph R. Dulle, Esq.
Paul J. Puricelli, Esq.
STONE, LEYTON & GERSHMAN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 500
Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000
Telephone: (3140 721-7011
E-mail: jdulle@stoneleyton.com
ppuricelli@stoneleyson.com
- and -
Charles Grebing, Esq.
Andrew Servais, Esq.
WINGERT, GREBING, BRUBAKER & JUSKIE, LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 1200
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 232-8151
E-mail: cgrebing@wingertlaw.com
aservais@wingertlaw.com
- and -
Joe David Jacobson, Esq.
JACOBSON PRESS P.C.
222 S. Central Avenue, Suite 550
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: 314-899-9789
E-mail: Jacobson@ArchCityLawyers.com
- and -
Scott J. Stitt, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
175 S. Third Street, Suite 520
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 358-9717
E-mail: scott.stitt@tuckerellis.com
Defendants-Appellants Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan,
Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension
Plan Appeals Committee, Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan
Administrative Committee, are represented by:
Jennifer L. Aspinall, Esq.
James F. Bennett, Esq.
DOWD BENNETT LLP
7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1900
Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000
Telephone: (314) 889-7300
E-mail: jbennett@dowdbennett.com
- and -
Jessica Anne Frogge, Esq.
Albert L. Hogan, III, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
155 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60606-1720
Telephone: (312) 407-0700
E-mail: jessica.frogge@skadden.com
al.hogan@skadden.com
- and -
Peter B. Morrison, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90071-0000
Telephone: (213) 687-5000
E-mail: peter.morrison@skadden.com
APPLE INC: December 4 iPhone Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Trujillo, writing for ABC Action News, reports that Apple is
paying former iPhone users after a class action lawsuit.
The suit claims Apple would throttle iPhones with older batteries
and have agreed to pay a maximum of $500 million, which comes out
to about $25 per device for consumers.
If you've owned an iPhone 6 or 7, you may be eligible.
The company admitted in 2017 it was slowing down phone performance
in older models to avoid unexpected shutdowns related to battery
fatigue. However, Apple did not admit wrongdoing.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California is set to approve the settlement during a final hearing
on December 4, 2020.
For more information and to submit a claim, click
https://www.smartphoneperformancesettlement.com/ [GN]
APPLE INC: October 6 Throttle Gate Claims Filing Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cal Jeffrey, writing for Techspot, reports that in late 2017, Apple
decided it would be a good idea to secretly implement software
within the iPhone operating system that throttled performance on
phones with degrading batteries to make them last longer.
Unfortunately, not being forthright with the changes to iOS, Apple
is paying the price to users in the form of a class-action
settlement.
In March, we reported that Apple had settled a class-action lawsuit
for $500 million over its iPhone throttling debacle. The terms of
the agreement allow customers to claim up to $25 compensation per
eligible device. Litigators have finally set up a claims portal for
people to apply for their portion of the settlement.
To qualify, users must currently or previously owned an iPhone 6, 6
Plus, 6S, 6S Plus, or an iPhone SE running iOS 10.2.1 or later. The
earlier iPhone 7 and 7 Plus running iOS 11.2 or later are also
eligible. These devices have to have been purchased and owned
before December 21, 2017, and experienced poor performance.
Eligible users can receive up to $25 per device, but that
compensation comes from the $500 million settlement pool. Once
exceeded, payouts will be adjusted down to a total amount equal to
the pool. Therefore, the payments could be less if there are more
than 20 million claims.
Respondents have until October 6, 2020, to submit a request.
Settlements will then be processed, and payments will commence
sometime after December 4, 2020. Once you submit your claim or if
you take no action, you waive your right to proceed with further
legal proceedings. Therefore, if you are planning on suing Apple
over this matter personally, you will want to exclude yourself from
this settlement, which is a separate process.
If you need it, an FAQ page has been posted to answer any furhter
questions regarding this lawsuit. [GN]
ARCHER DANIELS: Sued Over Alleged Ethanol Pricing Manipulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on July 14 in Nebraska federal
court against Archer Daniels Midland Company (NYSE: ADM), one of
the world's largest food processing and commodities trading
companies, alleging that it engaged in an illegal scheme to
manipulate the U.S. ethanol markets. The lawsuit was filed on
behalf of ethanol producers and led by Green Plains Inc. and
certain of its subsidiaries (NASDAQ: GPRE).
"The markets depend on fair pricing and legal conduct by all
participants. We encourage everyone with knowledge and those that
care about fair and equitable marketplaces to come forward," said
Adam Levitt, a partner with DiCello Levitt Gutzler in Chicago,
representing the Green Plains plaintiffs and the other members of
the proposed class. Levitt is joined in the case by Greg Gutzler,
John Tangren, and Mark Hamill of DiCello Levitt Gutzler, and by
David A. Domina of Domina Law Group.
The case is Green Plains Trade Group, et al. v. Archer Daniels
Midland Company, in the United States District Court for the
District of Nebraska. A copy of the complaint and interviews with
plaintiffs' counsel are available upon request.
About DiCello Levitt
DiCello Levittcombines excellence in commercial litigation, class
action litigation, mass tort litigation, catastrophic injury
litigation, medical malpractice litigation, and civil rights
litigation. Practicing nationwide -- and internationally -- from
offices in Chicago, Cleveland, New York, and St. Louis, we are an
aggressive, attentive, and creative complex litigation firm whose
work speaks for itself -- billions of dollars in recoveries in some
of the highest-profile matters in U.S. history. Revered by clients
and respected by our opponents, our team gets results.
About Domina Law Group
A firm rich with history, Domina Law Group was founded in 1975, and
ever since our trial lawyers have been serving clients in Nebraska
and throughout the country with multimillion-dollar case results in
eleven states. Dedicated to representing the needs of clients
throughout the country, we have built a reputation for ethical and
aggressive legal representation, all while professionally
expressing the invested interests of our clients. Today, our
philosophy centers on how we can best help our clients both in and
out of the courtroom. With this in mind, our immediate aim is to
provide service that will not only ease the worries of our clients,
but also offer satisfactory solutions that will uphold the tests of
time and adversity. [GN]
AT&T: Dorsey & Whitney Blog Post on Class Action Not Defamatory
---------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for ABA Journal, reports that a Dorsey
& Whitney blog post about a lawyer's failed class action lawsuit
wasn't defamatory, the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled on July 9.
The 2nd Circuit ruled against lawyer Shimshon Wexler and ordered
him to show cause why he shouldn't be sanctioned for filing a
frivolous appeal.
Wexler had claimed he was defamed by Dorsey & Whitney's description
of a class action lawsuit he filed against AT&T for alleged
violation of a federal telemarketing law. Wexler's wife was the
lead plaintiff in the class action. Wexler sued the law firm and an
associate who wrote the blog post.
Dorsey & Whitney defends companies accused of violating the
telemarketing law, the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The blog post was published in 2018 on its consumer financial
services blog.
The blog post reported on a federal judge's decision to toss the
class allegations in Wexler's TCPA suit on the ground that Wexler's
wife wasn't an adequate class representative. The blog post said
the judge "astutely observed" that Wexler's wife should act to
maximize class recovery, but her interest in an attorney fee award
supplied the opposite incentive.
Wexler had withdrawn as class counsel in the TCPA suit, but still
sought attorney fees for work he had already done. U.S. District
Judge Frederic Block said the withdrawal wasn't enough because
Wexler was still seeking fees.
The blog post headline read, "TCPA Class Certification Denial
Exposes Major Spousal Scheme."
The blog post began: "There are plenty of things I'd like to do
with my wife one day. Take a trip to Greece. Finally convince her
to go camping with me (never going to happen). But filing a class
action with her as a class representative is definitely not one of
them."
"That's exactly what one husband-and-wife duo tried to pull in the
Eastern District of New York. Senior Judge Frederic Block made
quick work of the scheme."
The 2nd Circuit affirmed a federal magistrate judge's decision to
toss Wexler's defamation suit. The magistrate judge had ruled
Dorsey & Whitney's headline was nonactionable opinion and Wexler
had abandoned any claims that the text was defamatory.
The 2nd Circuit agreed that the headline was opinion that could not
serve as the basis for a defamation suit.
"The tenor of the article reflects that it is meant to be not only
informative but also amusing and entertaining, making hyperbole in
the headline expected and reasonable," the 2nd Circuit said in a
summary order.
"The article's placement on a law firm's blog also suggests that it
is informed, at least in part, by the firm's and its author's
opinions. The context of the statement therefore cuts against a
determination that it is an assertion of fact meant to be taken
literally. The language 'exposes major spousal scheme' also does
not have a readily understood precise meaning of the nefarious sort
that is advanced by Wexler--it could just as easily mean exactly
what happened here, that the TCPA decision brought to light an
ethically questionable arrangement by a married couple (here, to
represent both the attorney's and the class's fiscal interests in a
class action).
"The use of 'major' does not change this analysis, as that is a
relative term, the applicability of which is a matter of opinion.
An average reader would not understand the headline to be 'an
attempt to convey with technical precision literal facts about'
Wexler. . . . And because the statement does not have a readily
understood precise meaning, it is not capable of being proved true
or false."
Wexler didn't immediately respond to the ABA Journal's voice mail
and email requesting comment. [GN]
BETHLEHEM LANDFILL: 3rd Cir. Revives Class Suit Over Noxious Odors
------------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for Law.com, reports that a dismissed
nuisance lawsuit over noxious odors, filed by Bethlehem homeowners
against the Bethlehem Landfill, has been revived by a federal
appeals court.
The Third Circuit rejected the district court's reasoning that
because the odors constituted a public nuisance affecting the
"whole community" instead of "some particular person," it couldn't
be considered a private claim under Pennsylvania law. [GN]
BIRDDOGS INC: Rodriguez Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Birddogs Inc. The
case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Birddogs
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03201 (E.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Birddogs offers a pair of gym shorts with a built-in liner freeing
men of the need to wear underwear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
BMW: Averts Class Action Over Defective M3 Engines
--------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a BMW M3
lawsuit has been denied class action certification after a federal
judge ruled the two named plaintiffs weren't typical of the class
of BMW M3 owners they were seeking to represent.
Both plaintiffs claim BMW designed the S65 engines in 2008-2013 M3
cars with a lack of clearance between the rods and the metal
components between the rods and the bearings.
The lawsuit alleges as the bearings wear out, small pieces of metal
debris contaminate the engine oil which circulates through the
engines, damaging vital components and causing engine failures.
According to the plaintiffs, BMW knew the engines were defective
when the cars were sold, but failed to inform consumers about the
defects.
One of the two plaintiffs purchased a 2011 BMW M3 from a private
party in 2013, but in May 2015, he "heard noises coming from the
vehicle" that he "believe[d] were symptomatic of rod bearing
wear."
He says he took his M3 to a BMW dealer on two occasions and was
told the noise "was related to the [heat] expansion in the
manifold" and not rod bearing wear.
After his second BMW dealer visit, he took his car to an
independent service center which diagnosed his problem as premature
rod bearing wear and replaced his rod bearings.
In addition, the plaintiff modified his car, specifically the
transmission, software and by adding an air intake, exhaust and a
supercharger.
The second plaintiff purchased a 2011 M3 from a BMW dealer in
December 2014. Modifications were made to the wheels and tires on
his M3, and on at least three occasions he took his M3 to a
racetrack and had his laps timed, "either as part of a
High-Performance Driving Education class or for an open track day
event."
His M3 broke down on a racetrack and a BMW dealer said the engine
seized because of the rod bearings. The plaintiff says he was told
the engine needed to be replaced. The car was towed to his garage
where it's still parked.
The plaintiff who drove the M3 died in December 2018 and the judge
substituted his wife as the named plaintiff.
In a motion to dismiss, BMW argues the named plaintiffs aren't
adequate to represent a class of M3 owners because the plaintiffs
modified their cars before the engines allegedly failed.
The judge agreed by pointing out one plaintiff made significant
modifications to his M3, including software modifications, changes
to his transmission timing and adding a supercharger, alterations
that put additional stress on the engine.
Data recovered from his M3 also shows he would occasionally drive
his M3 to its revolutions-per-minute limit and exceeded it on one
occasion.
The second plaintiff testified he modified his M3 before driving it
at least three times on a racetrack where during one race the car
broke down.
"Each named Plaintiff has therefore admitted to conduct that, at a
minimum, raises the question of whether they complied with BMW's
Limited Warranty," ruled Judge Madeline Cox Arleo.
The BMW M3 lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Newark Division - Afzal, et al. v. BMW of
North America.
The plaintiffs are represented by Goldman Scarlato & Penny PC,
McCune Wright Arevalo LLP, and Thorsnes Bartolotta McGuire LLP.
[GN]
BRENNTAG NORTH: Settles Class Action Over Retirement Plan Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that global
chemical distributor Brenntag North America Inc. told a federal
judge in Pennsylvania it will settle a lawsuit challenging the fees
tied to its retirement plan.
The settlement, announced on July 13, would resolve a proposed
class action by four former employees who said the company filled
its $400 million retirement plan with expensive retail mutual funds
without adequately investigating the possibility of cheaper
alternatives. These funds, along with the plan's allegedly
excessive record keeping fees, cost workers millions of dollars in
retirement savings, the lawsuit claimed. [GN]
BROPHY BROS: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA and NYLL, Lima Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO ENRIQUE ESTRADA LIMA, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. BROPHY BROS. WHOLESALE FRUIT & VEGETABLE,
INC., and EUGENE BROPHY, Case No. 7:20-cv-05307 (S.D.N.Y., July 10,
2020), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was continuously employed by the Defendants to work
as non-exempt warehouseman from 2000 until April 11, 2020,
performing such duties as receiving customers' orders, assigning
routes to the Defendants' drivers, unloading merchandise, checking
merchandise quality, and stocking merchandise.
Brophy Bros. owns and operates a wholesale fruit and produce
distribution company that distributes fruits and vegetables to
businesses, schools, restaurants, and bars in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
1O Grand Central
155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: info@jcpelaw.com
BURBERRY LTD: Castillo Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD CASTILLO, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BURBERRY LIMITED, a New York corporation; and DOES 1-100, Case No.
30-2020-01139838-CU-OE-CXC (Filed March 16, 2020), was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on July 13, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:20-cv-01244 to the proceeding.
The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants violated the Labor Code
arising from their failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay all
overtime wages; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses;
and failure to provide meal periods and rest periods.
Burberry is a British luxury fashion house headquartered in London,
England. The Company's main fashion house focuses on and
distributes trench coats, ready-to-wear outerwear, fashion
accessories, fragrances, sunglasses, and cosmetics.[BN]
The Defendant Burberry Limited is represented by:
Carrie A. Gonell, Esq.
David Rashe, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
Telephone: 714 830 0600
Facsimile: 714 830 0700
E-mail: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com
david.rashe@morganlewis.com
CARNIVAL CORP: Cruise Ship Passengers File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Passengers aboard the Carnival Cruise ship headed to Mexico filed a
class action lawsuit in Federal Court on July 13 against Carnival
and Princess Cruise Lines. The lawsuit alleges gross negligence in
the handling of passenger health and safety which led to numerous
passengers being exposed to or infected by COVID-19.
According to the complaint, on February 11, 2020, roughly 2,000
passengers boarded the Grand Princess for a roundtrip voyage from
San Francisco to Mexico. The boarding process did not require any
effective medical screenings for passengers or requiring of any
medical information to mitigate or prevent the spread of COVID-19.
There had already been a serious outbreak on the Diamond Princess
cruise which was docked in Yokohama, Japan where 10 cases turned
into 700 cases (or 20% of the passengers aboard that ship). In
spite of the earlier outbreak, the complaint alleges that Carnival
and Princess acted negligently by not changing any of their
boarding protocols aboard the Grand Princess. This led to the crew
being unaware of any previously infected passengers boarding or of
the spreading of the disease throughout the cruise.
"Carnival and Princess couldn't be bothered to provide basic
medical screening and allowed a wildfire of infection to spread
throughout the Grand Princess," said co-counsel Mary Alexander of
Mary Alexander & Associates. "Two people died, roughly 100 became
infected and who knows who else was exposed on the mainland due to
the negligence of just these two cruise lines."
The suit further alleges that because nothing was done aboard the
Grand Princess' Mexico trip, the infected passenger exposed other
passengers and crew members to the coronavirus and at least 100
passengers who traveled aboard the Grand Princess have tested
positive for COVID-19. In addition, at least two passengers died
after disembarking, one of which was the first-reported death
caused by COVID-19 in California.
"Carnival and Princess were aware of the problems aboard the
Diamond Princess and cannot plead ignorance," said co-counsel
Elizabeth Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.
"These cruise lines knew they had a problem on their hands, yet
they did nothing to protect their passengers."
It was not until a separate cruise on March 5 that any operational
changes were made on the cruse, such as cabin/state room
quarantine, meal service within the cabins/state rooms, and ending
of daily turndown service and communal activities.
The case is Cynthia Lynn Ford et al. v. Carnival Corporation,
Princess Cruise Lines, U.S. District Court, Central District of
California, Case No. 2:20-CV-06226. [GN]
CASPER SLEEP: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming August 18, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Casper Sleep Inc. ("Casper"
or the "Company") (NYSE: CSPR) securities pursuant and/or traceable
to the Company's initial public offering conducted on or around
February 7, 2020 (the "IPO").
If you suffered a loss on your Casper 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/casper-sleep-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.
In February 2020, the Company completed its initial public offering
("IPO"), in which it sold 8.35 million shares of common stock for
$12 per share.
On April 21, 2020, Casper announced that it was decreasing the size
of its global operations and sales team, as well as completely
winding down its European operations, amounting to a loss of 21% of
its workforce. The Company also stated that Gregory Macfarlane had
resigned from his positions as Chief Financial Officer and Chief
Operating Officer.
On May 12, 2020, the Company announced its first quarter 2020
financial results, reporting a net loss of $34.5 million (a 98%
increase year over year) and an adjusted EBITDA loss of $22.9
million (a 60% increase year over year).
Since the IPO, Casper's share price has traded as low as $6.37 per
share, or about 47% below the $12 IPO price.
The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that Casper's profit margins were actually declining, rather
than growing; (2) that Casper was changing an important
distribution partner, costing it 130 basis points of gross margin
in the first quarter of 2020 alone; (3) that Casper was holding a
glut of old and outdated mattress inventory that it was selling at
steeply discounted clearance prices, further impairing the
Company's profitability; (4) that Casper was suffering accelerating
losses, further placing its ability to achieve positive cash flows
and profitability out of reach; (5) that Casper's core operations
were not profitable, but were causing the Company to suffer over
$40 million in negative cash flows during the first quarter of 2020
alone and doubling its quarterly net loss year over year; (6) that
as a result of the foregoing, Casper's ability to achieve
profitability, implement its growth initiatives, and expand
internationally had been misrepresented in the Offering Documents,
as the Company needed to shutter its European operations, halt all
international expansion, jettison over one fifth of its global
corporate workforce, and significantly curtail new store openings
in order to avoid an imminent cash and liquidity crisis, let alone
achieve positive operating cash flows; and (7) that as a result of
the foregoing, Casper's revenue growth rate was not sustainable and
had not positioned the Company to achieve profitability.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Casper securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than
August 18, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
CLEAN SLATE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA & NJWHL, Diaz Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE DIAZ v. CLEAN SLATE CREDIT SOLUTIONS LLC d/b/a GOT CREDIT?,
JOSE RODRIGUEZ and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, Case No. 2:20-cv-08618
(D.N.J., July 10, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and Conscientious
Employee Protection Act for failing to pay overtime wages.
The Plaintiff contends that his rate of pay was New Jersey's
minimum wage during that time period. He was an hourly paid
employee throughout the entirety of his employment and consistently
worked approximately 50 hours per week. Throughout his employment,
he was never paid more than 40 hours in a work week, he adds.
The Plaintiff began working as an account manager for the
Defendants in March 2018.
Clean Slate specializes in credit repair, restoration, and
education for consumers, and business credit solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Deborah L. Mains, Esq.
COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
Telephone: (856) 727-9700
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Jones Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Commonwealth
Financial Systems, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Anthony
Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc., Pendrick Capital Partners,
LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 8:20-cv-01639 (M.D. Fla., July 17,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc., provides financial services.
The Company offers first party outsourcing, check collection, skip
tracing, billing services, and debt purchasing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
Hollywood, FL 33024
Phone and Fax: (754) 217-3084
Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
CORVIAS: Fort Bragg Families File Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Sara E. Teller, writing for Legal Reader, reports that three Fort
Bragg families have filed a class-action complaint against the
site's housing partner Corvias, its founder, John Picerene, Heather
Fuller, Corvias' operations director at Fort Bragg, and Corvias'
affiliates. The plaintiffs allege their homes have mold,
lead-based paint, and wood rot, among other issues. The 64-page
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina and seeks both a jury trial and damages
exceeding $5 million.
"Staff Sgt. Shane Page, Spc. Spenser Ganske and Sgt. 1st Class
Christopher Wilkes are the plaintiffs in the case represented by
Raleigh-based Penry and Reimann law firm and South Carolina-based
Bauer and Metro law firm," court documents state and indicate,
there could be "thousands of members" in the proposed class-action
lawsuit.
The filing suggests when "Corvias entered into its lease with Fort
Bragg in 2003, its representatives were aware of an environmental
baseline survey of lead paint in 1993. The information about
lead-based paint and its hazards was not provided to residents."
It alleges the defendants "leased homes with known problems that
caused lack of effective moisture and air barriers between exterior
cladding and wall cavities in all homes." The problems allegedly
"caused mold, wood rot and other conditions that threatened the
health and safety of the plaintiffs, as workers were allegedly
instructed to conceal the defects from tenants."
The complaint states, "The defendants breached contract
obligations, shoddy repairs were made to homes, misleading records
were kept and tenants were threatened with punitive damages if they
refused to sign new leases." It also alleges, "Documents will show
that defendants received iron-clad assurances of profit while class
plaintiffs lived in slum-like conditions."
Page first took note of water damage to his home in September 2016,
with Corvias workers allegedly "painting over the damage instead of
repairing its cause." Because of the shoddy band-aid, "In the
following months, the home was infested with ants, cracks appeared
in walls, the heating and air conditioning ventilation system
failed, and most calls for repairs were tardy and insufficient."
Yet, the service member felt his family were obligated to stay
bound to the lease, because he received an email in 2019--a year
after mold was discovered--indicating he could renew or would face
$100 in monthly fees.
When Wilkies and his family moved into their home, the immediately
noticed "cracked bricks, a sagging floor inside and plumbing
issues." In December 2019, the roof and inside ceiling collapsed,
as one worker fell through. Wilkies has filed nearly three dozen
work orders with Corvias.
Squirrels were living in the attic of Ganske's home when his family
moved in, "with urine soaking through the living room ceiling," the
complaint says. "Water instruction caused mold to grow in the
window frame of their daughter's bedroom. There was a large crack
in the ceiling that extended down the wall, dirty carpet with nails
underneath and electrical outlets in the bathroom not working."
Military spouse Tamara Terry is not part of the lawsuit, but she
says her family went through similar issues with Corvias.
"A lot of people have the same complaints, it's just unfortunate
that they get ignored a lot or go unresolved," Terry said. "They
were given so much money to either demolish or redo these homes,
and they just didn't, instead they did patch work."
Mary Humphreys, a Corvias director, responded, "We're aware of the
lawsuit that was filed, however it does not reflect accurate
details. We intend to dispute what is described." [GN]
CVS PHARMACY: Lokey Personal Injury Suit Moved to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Danielle Lokey, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case
No. RG20062886, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on July 16, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-04782-LB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury.
CVS Pharmacy Inc. distributes pharmaceutical products. The Company
offers prescription, drugs, vitamins, beauty aids, diaper, health
supplement, and other medical products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric A. Grover, Esq.
Rachael Ga-Yue Jung, Esq.
KELLY GROVER LLP
1965 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Phone: (415) 543-1305
Fax: (415) 543-7861
Email: toddsdion@msn.com
- and -
Scot Bernstein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN
101 Parkshore Drive
Folsom, CA 95630
Phone: (916) 447-0100
Fax: (916) 933-5533
Email: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ricky Lynn Shackelford, Esq.
Hannah B. Shanks-Parkin, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 586-7700
Fax: (310) 586-7800
Email: shackelfordr@gtlaw.com
ShanksparkinH@gtlaw.com
DADE COUNTY FEDERAL: Lopez FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA J. LOPEZ, and other
similarly-situated individuals v. DADE COUNTY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
(Filed May 31, 2020), was removed from the Florida Circuit Court of
the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on
July 13, 2020.
The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-22880-XXXX to the proceeding.
The lawsuit asserts violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for
unpaid overtime compensation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 416-5000
E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Scott S. Allen, Esq.
Leslie Lagomasino Baum, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500
2 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: 305-577-7600
E-mail: scott.allen@jacksonlewis.com
leslie.baum@jacksonlewis.com
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Howarth Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dell Technologies
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Stephanie Howarth, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Dell
Technologies Inc., Cynthia Gaylor, Michael S. Dell, Robert C. Mee,
VMware, Inc., Case No. 2020-0583 (Del. Ch., July 16, 2020).
The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."
Dell Technologies Inc. is an American multinational technology
company headquartered in Round Rock, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carmella Keener, Esq.
COOCH & TAYLOR PA
1000 W St., 10th Fl.
Wilmington, DE 19899
Phone: (302) 984-3844
Email: ckeener@coochtaylor.com
DEUTSCHE BANK: Kehoe Law Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating securities claims on behalf
of investors of Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft ("Deutsche Bank"
or the "Company") (NYSE: DB) to determine whether Deutsche Bank may
have issued materially misleading business information to
investors.
Deutsche Bank investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the
Company's securities between November 7, 2017 and July 6, 2020,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period") and suffered losses
greater than $500,000 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, to discuss the securities
investigation or potential legal claims.
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deutsche Bank and
certain company officers seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' alleged 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.
According to the class action complaint, throughout the Class
Period, Defendants, allegedly, made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business. Defendants,
allegedly, made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Deutsche Bank had failed to remediate
deficiencies related to AML, its disclosure controls, procedures,
and internal control over financial reporting, and its U.S.
operations' troubled condition; (ii) as a result, Deutsche Bank
failed to properly monitor customers that Deutsche 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, both of which were the subjects of prior
scandals involving financial misconduct; (iii) the foregoing, once
revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact
on Deutsche Bank's financial results and reputation; and (iv) as a
result, Deutsche Bank'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 on behalf of
institutional and individual investors. [GN]
DEVRY UNIVERSITY: August 24 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stoltmann Law Offices warns former DeVry University Inc. ("DeVry")
and Keller Graduate School of Management ("Keller") students that
the deadline for excluding oneself from the class action lawsuit
settlement is August 24, 2020. The proposed class action
settlement will lead to a paltry recovery for most students of less
than $200 per student and provides other illusory benefits for
victims of DeVry's fraudulent marketing scheme. Stoltmann Law
Offices is encouraging many former DeVry students to either request
an exclusion from the class action or object to the petty
settlement terms.
According to Chicago attorney Andrew Stoltmann, who is currently
representing over 540 defrauded DeVry students in individual
actions against DeVry, students should "Contact our law firm to
learn how to exclude yourself from this meager class action
settlement and actually attempt to wipe out all of your debt from
DeVry instead of eliminating only a few hundred dollars. In our
opinion, the proposed class action settlement for DeVry students is
woefully inadequate and it won't put a meaningful dent in the
massive student loan debts owed by DeVry and Keller students. It's
a great deal for DeVry and class counsel, but not for the victims.
In order for DeVry and Keller students to avoid being victimized a
second time through this frivolous settlement, we are in the
process of excluding all of our clients from the settlement and
have already filed an objection to the settlement in court.
According to attorney Stoltmann, very specific steps must be taken
by DeVry students in order to be excluded from the class action
settlement. "DeVry students need to request in writing that they
be excluded from the class action settlement, otherwise they will
be barred from suing individually to secure a meaningful award that
could actually wipe out their debt. There are specific steps that
must be taken by the former students, including sending a letter to
the court with their name, address and telephone number stating 'I
hereby request to be excluded from the proposed settlement class'
before August 24, 2020. We can assist in this process, as well as,
help objectors."
To learn how to sue DeVry to wipe out the debt and exclude yourself
from the settlement, please call the law firm in Chicago, Illinois
at 312.332.4200 or visit www.StudentLoanDebtSlave.com for more
information.
Media Contact:
Andrew Stoltmann
(312) 545-5711
andrew@stoltlaw.com
https://www.stoltmannlaw.com [GN]
DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Rickenbaker Suit Moved From D.S.C. to E.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as GRAINGER RICKENBAKER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v.
DREXEL UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01358, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia) on July 9, 2020.
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-03353-CDJ to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge C. Darnell Jones, II.
The Plaintiff asserts claims against Drexel University seeking a
refund of certain tuition, fees and other costs paid to the
Defendant for the 2020 Spring Semester.
The Plaintiff is an individual and a resident and citizen of the
state of South Carolina.
Drexel University is an institution of higher learning located in
Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com
roy@akimlawfirm.com
- and -
Stuart A. Carpey, Esq.
CARPEY LAW, P.C.
100 W. Elm Street, Suite 310
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (215) 563-8286
Facsimile: (215) 563-0848
E-mail: scarpey@carpeylaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Edward D Buckley, Jr., Esq.
YOUNG CLEMENT RIVERS
PO Box 993
Charleston, SC 29402
Telephone: (843) 724-6686
Facsimile: (843) 724-6600
- and -
Michael E. Baughman, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
3000 Two Logan Square
18th & Arch, Sts.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 981-4000
E-mail: michael.baughman@troutman.com
EAST SIDE TOP: Perez Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against East Side Top
Cleaners LLC, et al. The case is styled as Juana Ramales Perez, on
behalf of others similarly situated, ADR Provider v. East Side Top
Cleaners LLC doing business as: East Side Cleaners, Claudia Lim,
Jung Lim, Case No. 1:20-cv-05506 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
East Side Cleaning Service, Inc., is a professional, full service
janitorial cleaning company providing services for residential and
commercial properties.[BN]
ENERGY STAR: Faces Stiroi Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Energy Star Lighting
& Electric Inc. The case is styled as Serghei Stiroi, and all
others similarly situated v. Energy Star Lighting & Electric Inc.,
Victor Yevchenko, Does 1-20, Case No. 34-2020-00281895-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., July 16, 2020).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment-Civil Unlimited."
Energy Star Lighting & Electric Inc. is a lighting contractor in
Citrus Heights, California.
The Plaintiff is represented by Timothy B. Del Castillo, Esq.[BN]
ENPHASE ENERGY: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Enphase
Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENPH) ("Enphase") investors that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against Enphase on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired Enphase common stock between February 26, 2019 and June
17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Important Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Enphase common stock during the Class Period may, no later
than August 17, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class. For additional information or to learn
how to participate in this litigation please click
https://www.ktmc.com/enphase-energy-inc-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=enphase.
According to the complaint, Enphase is a global energy technology
company that delivers smart, easy-to-use solutions that manage
solar generation, storage and communication on one intelligent
platform. Enphase asserts that it revolutionized the solar industry
with its microinverter technology, and that it produces a fully
integrated solar-plus-storage solution.
The Class Period commences on February 26, 2019, when Enphase
issued a press release on a Form 8-K with the SEC in which it
announced Enphase's financial results for the fourth quarter and
year-ended 2018. In the press release, Enphase stated that for the
fourth quarter of 2018 it had revenue of $92.3 million, an increase
of 18% sequentially and an increase of 16% year-over-year. The
press release further stated that Enphase's non-GAAP gross margin
was 30.7%, a decrease of 210 basis points from 32.8% in the third
quarter. For the full year ended December 31, 2018, Enphase
reported revenue of $316.159 million, with gross margins of 29.9%,
up from $286.166 million and 19.6% for the year ended December 31,
2017.
The complaint alleges that, on June 17, 2020, analyst Prescience
Point Capital Management ("Prescience Point") published a report in
which it wrote that "[a]t least $205.3m of ENPH's reported FY19 US
revenue is fabricated, and a significant portion of its
international revenue is fabricated as well." The report continued:
"[m]ost, if not all, of the 2,080 Bps expansion in ENPH's gross
margin since Q2'17 is also fabricated," and called on Enphase's
accountant, Deloitte, to "launch an in-depth investigation of
EPNH's accounting practices." Prescience Point further called on
"[r]egulatory and law enforcement agencies with subpoena power [to]
launch a full investigation of the Company, its accounting, its
disclosures and trading by insiders."
Following this news, Enphase's stock price fell by approximately
26% in one day, from its June 16, 2020 close of $52.76 per share to
a June 17, 2020 close of $39.04 per share.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) its revenues, both U.S. and international, were
inflated; (2) Enphase engaged in improper deferred revenue
accounting practices; (3) Enphase's reported basis point expansion
in gross margins was overstated; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, the defendants' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (844) 877-9500 (toll free) or (610) 667–7706, or via
e-mail at info@ktmc.com.
Enphase investors may, no later than August 17, 2020, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world. The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was
not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information
about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 877-9500 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com
[GN]
FAIRVIEW ARCHITECTURAL: Faces Vitrabond Cladding Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Finance Journal reports that Fairview Architectural was
served with a class-action lawsuit last year after allegations that
Vitrabond combustible cladding did not meet consumer safety
regulations. Later, Fairview put itself into administration,
claiming the legal costs of fighting the case were too high. [GN]
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Giannini Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Nicole Giannini, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Financial
Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04212 (N.D. Ill., July
16, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Financial Recovery Services, Inc., provides debt collection
services. The Company offers comprehensive coverage, auditing,
monitoring, electronic file transfer, legal collections,
skiptracing, bilingual capability, and comprehensive data security
services.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
FIRST CITIZENS: Pinehurst Suit Removed to M.D. North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as PINEHURST NEUROPSYCHOLOGY,
PLLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. FIRST CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Case No. 20-CVS-594 (Filed
June 1, 2020), was removed from the North Carolina Superior Court,
Moore County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina on July 10, 2020.
The Middle District of North Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00636 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that it and others similarly situated are
entitled to relief due to the manner in which First Citizens
processed federal Paycheck Protection Program loans authorized by
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, and
regulated by the Small Business Administration. Specifically, the
Plaintiff claims that SBA regulations required First Citizens to
process PPP loans on a "first-come, first-served" basis, but First
Citizens prioritized larger loans over smaller loans and failed to
disclose that it was processing PPP loans in this manner. The
Plaintiff alleges that it submitted a PPP loan application to First
Citizens, but its application was not processed in accordance with
the "first-come, first-served" rule purportedly established by SBA
regulations.
First Citizens is a bank holding company based in Raleigh, North
Carolina, that operates First Citizens Bank. First Citizens
operates in 18 states and the District of Columbia in the United
States, concentrated in the Southeastern United States, Southern
California, and Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael W. Mitchell, Esq.
SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT,
MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, L.L.P.
2300 Wells Fargo Capitol Center
Post Office Box 2611
Raleigh, NC 27602-2611
Telephone: (919) 821-1220
Facsimile: (919) 821-6800
E-mail: mmitchell@smithlaw.com
FIRST COMMUNITY: Peay Suit Removed to District of South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Peay and Associates LLC, individually, and on
behalf of all those similarly situated v. First Community Bank, a
subsidiary of First Community Corporation; United Community Bank
Inc.; First Citizens Bank, a division of First Citizens Bank &
Trust, Co.; TD Bank NA also known as: Americas Most Convenient
Bank; Michael Crapps, as Director for First Community Bank; H Lynn
Harton, as Director for United Community Bank; Frank B Holding,
Jr., as Director for First Citizens Banks; Amy Brinkley, as
Director for TD Bank; Case No. 2020-CP-30-00508, was removed from
the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, Laurens County, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on July 17,
2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:20-cv-02651-TMC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking.
First Community Bank, Inc., is a financial holding company
headquartered in Bluefield, Virginia. The Company provides banking
products and services through its wholly owned subsidiary First
Community Bank.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Algernon Gibson Solomons , III, Esq.
Daniel Alvah Speights, Esq.
SPEIGHTS AND SOLOMONS LLC
PO Box 685
100 Oak Street East
Hampton, SC 29924
Phone: (803) 943-4444
Fax: (803) 943-4599
Email: gsolomons@speightsandsolomons.com
dspeights@speightsandsolomons.com
- and -
Jessica Lerer Fickling, Esq.
Joseph Preston Strom, Jr., Esq.
STORM LAW FIRM
2110 Beltline Boulevard, Suite A
Columbia, SC 29204
Phone: (803) 252-4800
Fax: (803) 252-4801
Email: jfickling@stromlaw.com
petestrom@stromlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Benjamin Rush Smith, III, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY SCARBOROUGH, LLP
PO Box 11070
Columbia, SC 29211
Phone: (803) 799-2000
Fax: (803) 256-7500
Email: rush.smith@nelsonmullins.com
- and -
Carmen Harper Thomas, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY SCARBOROUGH, LLP
Meridian Building
1320 Main Street, 17th Floor
Columbia, SC 29201
Phone: (803) 255-9385
Email: carmen.thomas@nelsonmullins.com
- and -
Katie Elizabeth Towery, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY SCARBOROUGH, LLP (G)
PO Box 10084
2 West Washington Street, Suite 400
Greenville, SC 29601
Phone: (864) 373-2294
Email: katie.towery@nelsonmullins.com
- and -
Addie KS Ries, Esq.
SMITH ANDERSON BLOUNT DORSETT MITCHELL AND JERNIGAN
PO Box 2611
Raleigh, NC 27602
Phone: (919) 821-1220
Email: aries@smithlaw.com
GOODNIGHT GROUP: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Ruiz Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIA RUIZ GUEVARA, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class v. GOODNIGHT GROUP LLC d/b/a FINE & RARE,
FLATIRON ROOM OPERATIONS LLC d/b/a THE FLATIRON ROOM, and THOMAS
TARDIE, Case No. 1:20-cv-05330 (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2020), seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime, including
those due to an invalid tip credit, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff brings claims for relief pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23, on behalf of all non-exempt
employees (including delivery persons, waiters, servers, hosts,
bartenders, barbacks, bouncers, porters, runners, busboys, food
preparers, cooks, and dishwashers), employed by the Defendants at
their Restaurant on or after the date that is six years before the
filing of the complaint in this case.
The Defendants operate or operated two (2) bar restaurants under
the following trade names and locations:
a. "Fine & Rare" -- 9 East 37th Street, Ground Floor, New
York City, New York; and
b. "The Flatiron Room" -- 37 West 26th Street, Ground Floor,
New York City, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: 212 465-1188
Facsimile: 212 465-1181
GPB CAPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------
Hilary Burns, writing for Boston Business Journal, reports that GPB
Capital, an investment firm that owns Westwood-based Prime
Automotive Group, has been embroiled in a Massachusetts
administrative complaint alleging it defrauded 180 Bay State
investors and now is facing a class-action lawsuit that alleges
it's been operating a Ponzi scheme. [GN]
GREATS SNEAKER: Young Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greats Sneaker Co.
The case is styled as Lawrence Young, Individually and On Behalf Of
All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Greats Sneaker Co., Case
No. 1:20-cv-05612 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Greats is best known for differentiating itself in the highly
competitive sneaker market with stylish, classic, quality designs
suitable for office weekdays to adventuresome weekends.[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
HANSEN & ADKINS: Faces Williams Employment Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hansen & Adkins Auto
Transport, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Sonny Williams and
all others similarly situated, and on behalf of general public v.
Hansen & Adkins Auto Transport, Inc.; Hansen & Adkins, Inc.; and
Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2020-00281498-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., July 6, 2020).
The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws.
The Defendants are doing business in transportation services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Mara, Esq.
MARA LAW FIRM, PC
2650 Camino Del Rio N, Ste. 205
San Diego, CA 92108-1631
Telephone: (619) 234-2833
Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
E-mail: dmara@maralawfirm.com
HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Motorcyle Fees Suit Belongs in Fed. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. appeals
court on July 14 said a proposed class action accusing
Harley-Davidson Inc of imposing unnecessary $1,399 "freight and
prep" fees on motorcycle purchases belongs in federal court.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California, said
a lower court judge erred in granting the plaintiff Matthew
Greene's motion to remand his case back to a California state
court, after Harley-Davidson had removed it to federal court under
the Class Action Fairness Act. [GN]
HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Judge Rejects Proposed Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Cullins, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that
multiple women on July 13 objected to the proposed settlement, with
one calling it "unjust and vile."
Amid mounting objections from women who accuse Harvey Weinstein of
sexual assault and harassment, a New York federal judge has
rejected a proposed settlement that would resolve nearly all of the
civil claims against the producer, The Weinstein Co. and several of
its directors.
During a July 14 hearing, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein
denied preliminary approval of a proposed settlement that was put
forth in June by class counsel with the support of the New York
Attorney General's Office.
On July 13, objections poured in from multiple women who found the
agreement to be supremely unfair. The settlement, which included an
$18.875 million victims' fund to be paid by insurance companies,
included no admission of wrongdoing by any of the defendants. It
also provided for a $1.5 million defense fund that would cover
costs of defending suits from accusers who did not participate in
the settlement. Also under the settlement agreement, the accusers
would have forever released the defendants, who include TWC board
members, execs and Bob Weinstein, from claims arising from the
alleged sexual misconduct, and New York Attorney General Letitia
James' office would have been barred from prosecuting any related
action.
It's not typical for a court to reject a proposed settlement during
the preliminary approval phase. Class counsel Elizabeth Fegan
argued as much in her reply to one of the multiple objections
filed. She made the case that "there's a time and a place for
objections to a class action settlement, and this is not it."
Instead, Fegan argued, objectors should hold their criticisms until
the court is considering final approval. Generally, a court will
grant preliminary approval, then issue a notice to class members,
then individuals will file opt-outs and objections and the court
would consider all of that after a motion for final approval. That
Hellerstein shot down the proposed settlement so early, and
pointedly questioned whether these claims are even fit for a class
action, is notable.
Douglas H. Wigdor and Kevin Mintzer, who represent several women
accusing Weinstein of abuse and harassment, were the first
attorneys to issue a statement following Hellerstein's decision.
"We have been saying for over a year and a half that the settlement
terms and conditions were unfair and should never be imposed on
sexual assault survivors," it reads. "We were surprised that class
counsel and the New York Attorney General did not recognize this
fact but are pleased that Judge Hellerstein swiftly rejected the
one-sided proposal. On behalf of our clients, we look forward to
pursuing justice against Harvey Weinstein and his many enablers."
John Clune, the attorney for Zoe Brock, one of many women who
objected to the settlement on July 13, sent The Hollywood Reporter
a statement in response to the decision. "The judge wasn't even
close to considering this proposed agreement for multiple reasons
including whether this case could ever be certified as a class
action," says Clune. "He said that 'this is not a class action' and
said that he previously told that to class counsel, Beth Fegan. The
judge also thought that the provision that Harvey Weinstein gets
money to defend against future lawsuits was 'obnoxious.' This never
had a chance of approval. Everyone wants a good result for these
survivors, but this proposal wasn't it."
Attorneys for Miriam "Mimi" Haley, who testified at Weinstein's
criminal trial, also responded to the decision. "Judge
Hellerstein's ruling on July 14 correctly dismantled a settlement
that required women to accept being mistreated yet again by
accepting small amounts in exchange for releasing Harvey Weinstein
and all his enablers," wrote Gloria Allred, who shares the client
with John Cuti. "On top of it all, it provided for Harvey
Weinstein, his brother and his lawyers to get paid more than the
women he abused. We will keep fighting for true justice against
Weinstein and the system that allowed him to perpetrate his abuse
for decades."
Alexandra Canosa's attorney Thomas Giuffra also lauded the
decision. "Ms. Canosa and I are thrilled with the decision
rejecting the class settlement and Judge Hellerstein's refusal to
certify this case as a class," he said in a statement to THR.
"Judge Hellerstein recognized all of the flaws of the agreement and
class. Ms. Canosa was one of the few at the beginning of the
Weinstein scandal who found the courage to stand up for what is
right. She continued to show her valor by being one of the few to
stand up against a bogus class action settlement which was only
fair to attorneys raking in millions at the expense of the victims.
Ms. Canosa's convictions have once again been vindicated as justice
prevailed with the July 14 decision. The Attorney General of New
York should be ashamed of herself for putting her support behind
such an unfair and punitive agreement."
A spokesperson for the New York Attorney General's Office sent THR
this statement: "We will review the decision and determine next
steps. Our office has been fighting tirelessly to provide these
brave women with the justice they are owed and will continue to do
so."
Fegan and class co-counsel Steve Berman also issued a statement to
THR on July 13. "We were disappointed in the judge's decision this
morning. We've long held that we needed to find justice for all the
women that Weinstein preyed upon in a fair and equitable way," it
reads. "Now, we need to turn our attention to litigating our
clients' individual cases. We will also seek to appeal an earlier
court ruling that excused The Weinstein Company's board of
directors, who we contend had known of Weinstein's behavior and did
nothing to stop it. We believe they should be held accountable for
their silence and inaction. The brave women who stood up to
Weinstein and filed this action deserve our admiration, and we will
continue to fight on their behalf."
A rep for Weinstein declined to comment at this time. [GN]
HENRY SCHEIN: September 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE HENRY SCHEIN, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION
Master File No.
1:18-cv-01428-MKB-VMS
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING;
AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO:
All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Henry Schein, Inc. ("Schein") during the period
from March 7, 2013 through February 12, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class").1
Please read this notice carefully. your rights will be affected by
a class-action lawsuit pending in this court.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") is pending
in the Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action, City of
Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust,
has reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $35,000,000 in
cash (the "Settlement"), which, if approved, will resolve all
claims in the Action.
A hearing will be held on September 16, 2020 at 11:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Margo K. Brodie, either in-person at the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 225
Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201, Courtroom 6F, or by
telephone, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should
be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether, for
purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Action should be
certified as a class action on behalf of the Class, Lead Plaintiff
should be certified as Class Representative for the Class, and Lead
Counsel should be appointed as class counsel for the Class; (iii)
whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
Defendants and whether the releases specified and described in the
Settlement Agreement dated April 30, 2020 (and in the Notice)
should be granted; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation
should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Lead
Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and
Lead Plaintiff's motion for costs and expenses should be approved.
If the hearing is held by telephone, information on how to
participate will be posted at www.HSICSecuritiesLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to a
payment from the Settlement. If you have not yet received the
Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of them by contacting
the Claims Administrator at In re Henry Schein, Inc. Securities
Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173098, Milwaukee, WI
53217; 1–888-210-5486; or info@HSICSecuritiesLitigation.com.
Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the
Settlement website, http:///www.HSICSecuritiesLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Class, you must submit a Claim Form
postmarked no later than September 2, 2020 in order to be eligible
to receive a payment from the Settlement. If you are a Class
Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be
eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion that is received
no later than August 26, 2020, in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the
Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Action, and you will not be eligible to receive a
payment from the Settlement. Excluding yourself is the only option
that may allow you to be part of any other current or future
lawsuit against Defendants or any of the other released parties
concerning the claims being resolved by the Settlement, even if you
have pending or later file another lawsuit or other proceeding
against the Releasees related to the claims covered by the
Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to
Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no
later than August 26, 2020, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or
their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or
Lead Counsel.
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: In re
Henry Schein, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O.
Box 173098, Milwaukee, WI 53217, (888) 210-45486 (toll free),
HSICSecuritiesLitigation.com.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel: Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, James A. Harrod, Esq., 1251 Avenue of the Americas,
44th Floor, New York, NY 10020, (800) 380-8496,
settlements@blbglaw.com
Dated: June 8, 2020
By Order of the Court
1 Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by
definition as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class
Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing;
and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice"), available at www.HSICSecuritiesLitigation.com. [GN]
HOMEDICS USA: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Homedics USA, Inc.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Homedics USA, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-05515 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
HoMedics is a global manufacturer of home massage, relaxation, and
wellness products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
HUNTER WARFIELD: Francis Sues in W.D. Texas Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunter Warfield,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Shemuel Francis, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hunter Warfield,
Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 5:20-cv-00835 (W.D. Tex., July 17,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Hunter Warfield is a revenue recovery agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
IDEANOMICS INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of August 27 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges investors in Ideanomics, Inc. to submit their
losses now. The August 27, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in a
securities fraud class action against Ideanomics is fast
approaching.
Class Period: Mar. 20, 2020 - June 25, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Aug. 27, 2020
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/IDEX
Contact an Attorney Now: IDEX@hbsslaw.com | 844-916-0895
Ideanomics (IDEX) Securities Class Action:
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendant
misrepresented and omitted facts concerning the development of
Ideanomics' electric vehicle hub in Qingdao, China, the Mobile
Energy Group ("MEG") center, and overstated the strength of its
electric vehicle business. According to the complaint, Defendants
repeatedly lauded its "one million square foot MEG center," while
concealing the MEG Center was not operational. Defendants also
publicized new electric vehicle contracts when, in fact, these
agreements were fabricated.
Investors began to learn the truth, according to the complaint, on
June 25, 2020, when two research firms accused the company of
doctoring photographs of the MEG Center to make it appear
operational and claimed recently promoted electronic vehicle
contracts were phony.
Then, on June 26, 2020, the company issued a press release seeking
to "clarify the status" of its MEG center. Specifically, the
company stated that it was launching three phases of its MEG Center
that will eventually total one million square feet. The first
phase, according to Ideanomics, occupies only "215,000 square
feet."
In response to these disclosures, the price of Ideanomics shares
has crashed by over 50%.
"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Ideanomics falsely
promoted the state of its MEG center and EV business," said Reed
Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.
If you purchased shares of Ideanomics and suffered significant
losses, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens
Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Ideanomics should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email IDEX@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. [GN]
INTERSECT GROUP: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Randolph Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE J. RANDOLPH, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. THE INTERSECT GROUP, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-02826-SCJ (N.D. Ga., July 6, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant violated the maximum hours provision of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The lawsuit is a wage and hour case. Mr. Randolph contends that he
regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. TIG failed, however,
to pay him at one-and-one half times his regular hourly rate for
each hour he worked in excess of 40 hours during each work week, in
violation of the FLSA.
Mr. Randolph brings this action on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated persons, who worked as TIG Voice Engineers in
the three years preceding the initiation of this action, who were
similarly improperly compensated for overtime hours during that
time. TIG employed Mr. Randolph as a Voice Engineer from January 6,
2020, through March 30, 2020.
Intersect Group provides staffing and consulting services. The
Company offers staffing, consulting, and recruitment services for
intelligence solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin D. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Esq.
Charles R. Bridgers, Esq.
DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC
101 Marietta Street, Suite 2650
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 979-3150
Facsimile: (404) 979-3170
E-mail: kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com
charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com
IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Makris Files Suit in Delaware Chancery Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stanley T. Crooke, et
al. The case is styled as John Makris, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Stanley T. Crooke, B.
Lynn Parshall, Christopher Gabrieli, Edward Fitzgerald, Elaine
Hochberg, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Paula Soteropoulos, Sanford
D. Smith, Defendants; Akcea Therapeutics, Inc., Nominal Defendant,
Case No. 2020-0587-AGB (Del. Ch., July 16, 2020).
The case type is stated as "Civil Action."
Stanley T. Crooke, MD, PhD, is founder, chairman, and chief
executive officer of Ionis Pharmaceuticals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ned Weinberger, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
300 Delaware Ave., Ste. 1340
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 573-6938
Email: nweinberger@labaton.com
- and -
Derrick Farrell, Esq.
Mark Richardson, Esq.
Thomas Curry, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
Phone: (302) 573-2540
Fax: (302) 573-2529
J2 GLOBAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of September 8 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against J2 Global, Inc. ("J2" or "the
Company") (NASDAQ: JCOM) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired J2 securities
between October 5, 2015 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/jcom.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially 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
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/jcom or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in J2 you
have until September 8, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
JERSEY CITY, NJ: Faces Avenir Suit Over Tax Assessments Increase
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE AVENIR, LP v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY, AND JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No.
HUD-L-002432-20 (N.J. Super., Hudson Cty., July 6, 2020), is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated alleging that Jersey City authorized, encouraged and
directed a private law firm to engage in a policy, practice and
custom that targeted specific taxpayers in the City in order to
unlawfully increase its tax assessments.
According to the complaint, the law firm of Blau and Blau commenced
the filing of complaints in the Tax Court of New Jersey and the
Hudson County Tax Board that were served by regular mail on a class
of taxpayers consisting of commercial property owners in the City.
No effort was made to scrutinize any other class of taxpayers.
The Plaintiff contends that the use of a Tax Court proceeding in a
targeted manner was contrary to the Equal Protection Clause of the
United States Constitution.
The Plaintiff is the owner of real estate in the City of Jersey
City composed of block 9204, lot 1 and block 9301, lots 24, 28, 29,
30, and 27, more commonly known as the Westside Square development
on the west side of the City.
The law firm of Blau and Blau is a New Jersey partnership engaged
in the practice of law. Charles Blau is a licensed real estate
appraiser and a member of the law firm. On February 20, 2020, the
law firm was authorized by the City Council to engage in a policy
practice and custom to target specific taxpayers within a discrete,
non-residential class for the purpose of increasing their real
estate taxes.
The Defendant City is a municipal corporation and a taxing district
pursuant to New Jersey State Law. The City is obligated to treat
all taxpayers in a non-discriminatory manner pursuant to the Equal
Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and the
Uniformity Clause of the New Jersey Constitution.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George G. Frino, Esq.
DECOTIIS, FITZPATRICK, COLE & GIBLIN, LLP
61 S. Paramus Road
Paramus, NJ 07652
Telephone: (201) 928-1100
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Potts Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jaimie Potts, Kim Mileszko, Christina Luka,
Rebeca Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. f/k/a and Successor in
Interest to Neutrogena Corporation; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 20STCV15638, 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 July 16,
2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-06323 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc. engages in the research
and development of products.
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark A. Neubauer, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, LLP
North Tower
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2913
Phone: (310) 843-6300
Fax: (310) 843-6301
Email: mneubauer@carltonfields.com
JP MORGAN: Proctor Suit Moved From N.D. Illinois to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES HERBERT PROCTOR, III
and SYNOVA ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., J.P. MORGAN
CLEARING CORP., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, J.P. MORGAN FUTURES,
INC. (now known as J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC), and JOHN DOES 1-50,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02666 (Filed May 1, 2020), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square) on July 13, 2020.
The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05360-UA to the proceeding.
The action arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful and
intentional manipulation of U.S. Treasury futures contracts and
options on those contracts (Treasury Futures) that trade on United
States-based exchanges, including the Chicago Mercantile Exchange
(CME), including its subsidiary the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT),
during the period at least January 1, 2009, through present in
violation of the Commodity Exchange Act and the common law.
Treasury Futures are derivatives of Treasury instruments, debt
securities issued by the United States government that earn
interest (known as coupon payments) through maturity when the "par"
amount (equal to the principal) is returned to the owner.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants manipulated the prices
of Treasury Futures by employing a classic manipulative device
known as "spoofing," whereby the Defendants placed orders for
Treasury Futures to send false and illegitimate supply and demand
signals to an otherwise efficient market and then canceled those
orders before execution. As a result, the Defendants caused
Treasury Futures prices to be artificial throughout the Class
Period to financially benefit their trading positions at the
expense of other investors, like the Plaintiffs and the Class.
The Plaintiffs transacted in Treasury Futures contracts and options
on those contracts during the Class Period and was injured and
suffered losses from trading at artificial prices approximately
caused by the Defendants' unlawful manipulation.
JPMorgan is an American multinational investment bank and financial
services holding company headquartered in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony Epifanio Maneiro, Esq.
KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
New York, NY 10177
Telephone: (212) 371-6600
E-mail: Amaneiro@kmllp.com
- and -
Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
Christopher Phillip Taylor Tourek, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
E-mail: afata@caffertyclobes.com
ctourek@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
David Kovel, Esq.
Karen M Lerner, Esq.
KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
825 3rd Avenue, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 317-2300
E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com
klerner@kmllp.com
- and -
Johnathan Seredynski, Esq.
Raymond P Girnys, Esq.
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: jseredynski@lowey.com
rgirnys@lowey.com
vbriganti@lowey.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert A. Sacks, Esq.
Akash M. Toprani, Esq.
Amanda Flug Davidoff, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
1888 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 712-6600
E-mail: toprania@sullcrom.com
davidoffa@sullcrom.com
- and -
Mark W. Page, Esq.
Suyash Agrawal, Esq.
MASSEY & GAIL LLP
50 East Washington, Suite 400
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 283-1590
E-mail: mpage@masseygail.com
sagrawal@masseygail.com
JP MORGAN: Robert Charles Suit Moved From Illinois to New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CHARLES CLASS A, L.P.,
on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. JP MORGAN
CHASE & CO., J.P. MORGAN CLEARING CORP., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES
LLC, J.P. MORGAN FUTURES, INC. (now known as J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES
LLC), and JOHN DOES 1-50, Case No. 1:20-cv-03206 (Filed May 29,
2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Foley Square) on July 13, 2020.
The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case
No.1:20-cv-05298-UA to the proceeding.
The action arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful and
intentional manipulation of U.S. Treasury futures contracts and
options on those contracts (Treasury Futures) that trade on United
States-based exchanges, including the Chicago Mercantile Exchange
(CME), including its subsidiary the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT),
during the period at least January 1, 2009, through present in
violation of the Commodity Exchange Act and the common law.
Treasury Futures are derivatives of Treasury instruments, debt
securities issued by the United States government that earn
interest (known as coupon payments) through maturity when the "par"
amount (equal to the principal) is returned to the owner.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants manipulated the prices
of Treasury Futures by employing a classic manipulative device
known as "spoofing," whereby the Defendants placed orders for
Treasury Futures to send false and illegitimate supply and demand
signals to an otherwise efficient market and then canceled those
orders before execution. As a result, the Defendants caused
Treasury Futures prices to be artificial throughout the Class
Period to financially benefit their trading positions at the
expense of other investors, like Plaintiffs and the Class.
The Plaintiff transacted in Treasury Futures contracts and options
on those contracts during the Class Period and was injured and
suffered losses from trading at artificial prices approximately
caused by the Defendants' unlawful manipulation.
JPMorgan is an American multinational investment bank and financial
services holding company headquartered in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George A. Zelcs, Esq.
Robert E. Litan, Esq.
Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
Chad E. Bell, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY LLC
205 North Michigan Plaza, Suite 1950
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 641-9750
Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
- and -
Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
Thomas K. Boardman, Esq.
Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 233-6444
Facsimile: (212) 233-6334
E-mail: pbarile@scott-scott.com
tboardman@scott-scott.com
cburke@scott-scott.com
- and -
Louis F. Burke, Esq
LOUIS F. BURKE PC
460 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 682-1700
E-mail: lburke@lfblaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert A. Sacks, Esq.
Akash M. Toprani, Esq.
Amanda Flug Davidoff, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
1888 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 712-6600
Facsimile: Pro Hac Vice
E-mail: toprania@sullcrom.com
davidoffa@sullcrom.com
- and -
Mark W. Page, Esq.
Suyash Agrawal, Esq.
MASSEY & GAIL LLP
50 East Washington, Suite 400
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 283-1590
E-mail: mpage@masseygail.com
sagrawal@masseygail.com
KANE SOCKS: Faces Young Suit in New York Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kane Socks Company.
The case is styled as Lawrence Young, Individually and on Behalf of
All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Kane Socks Company, Case
No. 1:20-cv-05546 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kane makes socks with natural yarns.[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
KIA: Ct. Says Attys. Used Wrong Method in Calculating Brake Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that almost 20
years in, class action lawyers have learned they picked the wrong
method for calculating damages in a lawsuit over Kia Sephias made
from 1997-2000.
The New Jersey Supreme Court decided June 25 that aggregate proofs
are not appropriate in the case, which alleges Kia Sephias had
defective brake systems.
A jury had found each class member sustained $750 in damages for
repair expenses, producing a verdict worth more than $800,000, but
a new trial on damages was ordered. A special master studied class
members' individual claims and recommended around $46,000 to the
entire class for the cost of repairs.
"Although aggregate proof of damages can be appropriate in some
settings, the Court considers such proof improper in this case,"
Justice Anne Patterson wrote.
"The trial court erred when it initially allowed Plaintiff to prove
class members' out-of-pocket costs for brake repairs based on an
estimate untethered to the experience of Plaintiff's class."
But ordering the new trial on individualized proof of damages was
the right thing to do, the court ruled in contradiction to an
appeals court.
The special master looked through 1,201 claims, deeming a repair to
be compensable if it was performed within the first three years or
if the car had been driven less than 36,000 miles.
"This was, in short, a fair and exemplary claims process,"
Patterson wrote.
The outcome was much less for the class than it had scored with the
original jury verdict. The plaintiffs expert multiplied 34,000
"abnormal" repairs not paid for by Kia by $250--a total of
$850,000. [GN]
KROGER CO: Hunton Andrews Attorney Discusses PFAS Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas R. Waskom, Esq.--twaskom@HuntonAK.com--of Hunton Andrews
Kurth, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that two
putative class actions recently filed in the Northern District of
California--Ambrose v. Kroger Co. and Nguyen v. Amazon.com,
Inc.--preview a new theory of consumer claims relating to per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Rather than rely on alleged
omissions or representations about health risks, the plaintiffs
claim that they relied on marketing statements that indicated the
products they purchased ("compostable" disposable dinnerware) were
disposable and would completely degrade over time and that the
presence of PFAS in the products means those marketing statements
were false. That focus on the environmental persistence of PFAS,
rather than the substances' alleged health effects, marks a new
approach to PFAS consumer class actions.
PFAS are a family of organic compounds with a carbon-fluorine bond,
the strongest bond in nature, which enables them to repel both oil
and water. This unique characteristic makes PFAS useful in a wide
array of industries and applications, including stain and
water-repellent fabric, chemical-and oil-resistant coatings, mist
suppressants, food packaging materials, plastics, firefighting
foam, solar panels, and many others. PFAS's solubility and extreme
durability also make the compounds highly persistent in the
environment. It should be noted, however, that PFAS has also been
linked to some health concerns, even though the scientific validity
of those links is highly debated.
To date, PFAS litigation has focused almost exclusively on
occupational exposure, environmental contamination, and personal
exposure allegedly arising from that contamination. For example,
the thousands of cases currently pending in an MDL in South
Carolina relate to the use of PFAS in firefighting foam, thus
resulting in groundwater contamination. A rare exception was a 2019
putative class action based on the alleged presence of PFAS in
dental floss. The plaintiff's claims arose under consumer
protection statutes, but they were premised on the purported health
risk posed by the dental floss, and the case was quickly
dismissed.
Ambrose and Nguyen represent a new avenue for PFAS litigation --
consumer class actions based on the persistence of PFAS in the
environment, rather than any purported health risk to the consumer.
In both cases, the plaintiffs allege that they bought a product
based on the representation that after its disposal, the product
would decompose in the environment over time. The plaintiffs claim
that the purported presence of PFAS in the product renders that
representation false. Both plaintiffs assert claims for breach of
express warranty, unjust enrichment, and violation of California
Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.
(under the unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent prongs).
The plaintiffs' focus on the environmental persistence of PFAS
rather than the substances' alleged health effects is a subtle but
significant reframing. The plaintiffs claim to have found a
confluence of two critical facts: the alleged presence of PFAS in a
product, and a marketing claim that is incompatible with the
presence of PFAS. The plaintiffs' complaints and theories are still
vulnerable to several defenses -- the pleadings are remarkably
vague about exactly which products the plaintiffs bought, when, and
for how much. Even still, the shift away from health risks avoids
the ongoing debate about what those health risks actually are.
Instead, the plaintiffs can focus on environmental persistence
which is not widely disputed.
Manufacturers and retailers should consider which of their products
or packaging contain PFAS and check whether those products' labels
make any claims about degradability. Marketing teams may need to
reconsider some claims if PFAS are present. [GN]
LMS REINFORCING: Employees File Wage-Theft Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
As of June 17th, 2020, LMS Reinforcing Steel USA, LP (LMS) has been
served with a class action lawsuit filed by employees of the
company. Class Members are current or former hourly iron worker
employees of LMS who claim to be victims of wage-theft by the
company. They are seeking damages, penalties, interest, restitution
and injunctive relief. Class Members are alleging violations of the
California Labor Code; Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 16;
and, California Business and Professions Code 17200.
The California and Vicinity District Council of Iron Workers has
fought to raise standards with workers in the California
construction industry for many years. The California and Vicinity
District Council of Iron Workers recently won a $300,000 class
action settlement for ironworkers who were being similarly
mistreated at Millennium Reinforcing. Wage violations, poor safety
and working conditions are commonplace in the construction
industry, leaving workers no option but to fight for changes at
their employer. The California and Vicinity District Council of
Iron Workers stands with iron workers of LMS in their fight for
changes at LMS.
District Council President and General Vice President Don Zampa
said, "The Ironworkers Union has proudly stood beside unrepresented
Iron Workers in their struggles for better treatment, pay, safety
and working conditions from employers like LMS. Our Union is
committed to ensuring ALL workers in the Ironworking industry
receive the wages and the respect they've earned and are entitled
to under California State laws." [GN]
MARRIOTT INT'L: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a THE RITZ-CARLTON
HOTEL COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES
1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01355-JAM-DB (E.D. Cal., July
6, 2020), secures redress against the Defendants for their failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate their Web site to be
fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' denial of full and
equal access to its Web site, https://www.ritzcarlton.com/, and
therefore denial of their products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with their physical locations, is a violation of her
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's
Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendants' 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 her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
Marriott is a Delaware limited liability company, with its
headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland. Marriott's servers for the Web
site are in the United States. Marriott conducts a large amount of
its business in California, and the United States as a whole. The
Defendants' hotels constitute places of public accommodation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bobby Saadian, Esq.
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: classaction@wilshirelawfirm.com
thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
MED-TRANS CORPORATION: Faces Bradley Class Suit in South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Med-Trans
Corporation. The case is styled as Alphine Bradley, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Med-Trans Corporation,
Case No. 3:20-cv-02679-SAL (D.S.C., July 20, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Med-Trans Corporation specializes in custom air transport solutions
for the medical industry. The Company establishes partnerships with
hospital systems, medical centers, and EMS agencies for air medical
transport services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mario A Pacella, Esq.
Joseph Preston Strom, Jr., Esq.
STROM LAW FIRM
2110 Beltline Boulevard, Suite A
Columbia, SC 29204
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
petestrom@stromlaw.com
- and -
Joseph Clay Hopkins, Esq.
William E. Hopkins, Jr., Esq.
HOPKINS LAW FIRM
12019 Ocean Highway
PO Box 1885
Pawleys Island, SC 29585
Phone: (843) 314-4202
Email: clay@hopkinsfirm.com
bill@hopkinsfirm.com
MERCHANT SOLUTIONS: Faces Popov TCPA Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merchant Solutions,
LLC. The case is captioned as Vasil Popov, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Merchant Solutions, LLC,
Case No. 8:20-cv-01187-CJC-ADS (C.D. Cal., July 6, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Autumn D. Spaeth.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act regarding consumer credit.
The Defendant is engaged in payment processing business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George Thomas Martin, III, Esq.
MARTIN AND BONTRAGER APC
6464 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 960
Los Angeles, CA 90028
Telephone: (323) 940-1700
Facsimile: (323) 328-8095
E-mail: tom@mblawapc.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Ramirez Sues in S.D. Texas Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Esteban Ramirez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00106 (S.D. Tex.,
July 16, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a licensed debt collector
founded in 1953. The company's line of business includes extending
credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Constantine Vlahakis, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
MISSISSIPPI: Department of Corrections Faces Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Sajae Elder, writing for Fader, reports that JAY-Z, Yo Gotti, and
Team ROC have recently filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
227 inmates of a Mississippi prison over living poor conditions and
new concerns over the spread of the coronavirus in the
institution's facilities, according to Billboard. The lawsuit is
against the state's Department of Corrections Commissioner Nathan
Burl Cain and the prison's healthcare provider Centurion.
In the suit, inmates at Parchman in Sunflower County, Mississippi
describe the lack of social distancing and close confinement of
inmates, including those displaying symptoms of the virus. They
also reported that COVID testing was limited, with one inmate
sharing he would likely be refused unless he showed clear symptoms
of the virus, like coughing or fever.
Prior to the pandemic in December, the Parchman inmates already
reported living in "cruel and torturous living conditions that
resulted in internal riots, suicides, and homicides," prompting an
initial lawsuit. That suit detailed how decades of underfunding and
understaffing have resulted in "barbaric" conditions throughout,
including plumbing and sewage issues, black mold, vermin, lack of
shower access as well as contaminated food and drinking water.
"The situation in Parchman in dire," Yo Gotti said in a statement.
"More and more of the incarcerated population are reaching out for
help and pleading for immediate medical attention, especially as
the coronavirus threatens their lives, [They] can't continue to
neglect this tragedy and let the death toll rise."
The suit also requests a court order for Cain, Centurion, and
prison officials to create a plan of action to address the
conditions within 90 days. [GN]
MONETARY FINANCIAL: Whitehurst Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monetary Financial
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Kayleah Whitehurst, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Monetary Financial
Services, LLC, doing business as: Monetary Collection Services,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00800-DNH-CFH (N.D.N.Y., July 16, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Monterey Financial Services is a full service receivables
management and finance company that tailors to the specific needs
of your business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert L. Arleo, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. ARLEO
380 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10168
Phone: (212) 551-1115
Fax: (518) 751-1801
Email: robertarleo@gmail.com
MYLAN NV: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of August 25 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds
investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead
plaintiff in the class action litigation on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of
Mylan N.V. ("Mylan" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: MYL) between
February 16, 2016 and May 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you purchased the common stock of Mylan during the Class Period,
you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no
later than August 25, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be
affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as
your counsel in the action.
Mylan investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact
Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.
Background on the Mylan Securities Class Litigation
Mylan, incorporated in the Netherlands and headquartered in
Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, is the second largest generic drug
manufacturer in the world. During the Class Period, Mylan's largest
U.S. manufacturing facility was located in Morgantown, West
Virginia.
The action alleges defendants made material misrepresentations and
omissions regarding Mylan's failure to comply with U.S. federal
quality control regulations, particularly at its Morgantown
facility. Under a scheme implemented by Mylan's President,
defendant Rajiv Malik, Mylan chemists allegedly manipulated quality
control test data to create the illusion that Mylan's drugs had
achieved passing quality control results.
On June 28, 2018, Mylan disclosed that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") had conducted an investigation into the
Morgantown facility in the spring of 2018, which culminated in the
FDA's issuance of its second citation in less than two years. The
FDA's investigation detailed 13 significant deficiencies in Mylan's
operations, including poor quality control oversight, major lapses
in equipment cleaning, and ineffective controls. On this news, the
price of Mylan stock fell $1.12 per share, or approximately 3%,
from a closing price of $37.45 on June 27, 2018, to close at $36.33
per share on June 28, 2018.
On August 8, 2018, during Mylan's second quarter of 2018 earnings
conference call, defendant Malik stated that Mylan had "undertaken
a restructuring and remediation program in Morgantown" that
included a "discontinuation of a number of products" and would have
a "negative impact on production levels, product supply and
operations. On this news, the price of Mylan stock fell $2.62 per
share, or 6.69%, from a closing price of $39.23 on August 7, 2018,
to close at $36.61 per share on August 8, 2018, on extremely
elevated trading volume.
On November 9, 2018, the FDA issued a formal warning letter
concerning "significant violations of current good manufacturing
practice[s]" at Mylan's Morgantown plant, and reporting that
products at the plant were "adulterated." On this news, the price
of Mylan stock fell $1.01 per share, or 2.73%, from a closing price
of $36.95 on November 9, 2018, to close at $35.94 per share on
November 12, 2018.
On February 26, 2019, during Mylan's fourth quarter and fiscal year
2018 earnings conference call, the Company announced an 18%
decrease in net sales from the prior year, attributing this
shortfall, in part, to its Morgantown restructuring, which included
the discontinuation of almost 250 products. On this news, the price
of Mylan stock fell $4.61 per share, or 15.05%, from a closing
price of $30.62 on February 26, 2019 to close at $26.01 per share
on February 27, 2019.
On May 7, 2019, Mylan reported that its revenues and
earnings-per-share were down year-over-year by 7% and 15%,
respectively, as the Company discontinued manufacturing certain
products in the Morgantown facility, and that its quarterly
adjusted free cash flow was severely lacking, now matching its 2015
levels. On this news, the price of Mylan shares fell $6.73 per
share, or 23.81%, from a closing price of $28.26 on May 6, 2019, to
close at $21.53 per share on May 7, 2019, on extremely heavy
trading volume.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.
The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."
For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Faces Class Action Over Disability Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that former Green
Bay Packers quarterback Don Majkowski filed a proposed class action
in Washington, D.C., federal court claiming that new restrictions
on National Football League players' ability to receive disability
benefits were "secretly" added to the latest bargaining agreement
between the NFL players' union and its management council.
The proposed class action, filed July 10 by Majkowski and nine-year
veteran running back Aveion Cason, claims players were subjected to
a "rushed, sporadic, and ad hoc" voting process during which they
had just nine days review and vote on a 456-page collective
bargaining agreement. [GN]
NEVADA: Findings in PUA Class Action Set to Be Released
-------------------------------------------------------
Amy Abdelsayed, writing for KTNV, reports that the findings in a
class-action lawsuit on behalf of Pandemic Unemployment Assistance
claimants in Nevada against the state's employment department will
be released in a few days.
During a court hearing on July 7, judge Barry Breslow appointed
lawyer Jason Guinasso to be a special master in charge of working
with both parties to research a possible resolution.
As Special Master, Guinasso was originally set to file his report
on the findings by July 15 with a hearing to follow on July 16.
The court has ordered for the dates to be pushed back, saying the
Special Master shall file the findings and report by July 17 with a
hearing scheduled for July 20. [GN]
NOTAX4NASH: Brasfield Sues in M.D. Tennessee Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NoTax4Nash, et al.
The case is styled as Brooks Brasfield, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. NoTax4Nash, John Does 1-10, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00618 (M.D. Tenn., July 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
NoTax4Nash is an effort to STOP the Mayor's proposed tax hike.
According to its Web site: "We are a group of concerned citizens
who believe this is an absolutely horrible time to impose a tax
hike on Nashville citizens and businesses while they are suffering
through the worst economic disaster of our lifetimes. In short it
is an absurd insult to Nashvillians."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony A. Orlandi, Esq.
Joey P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Fax: (615) 255-5419
Email: aorlandi@bsjfirm.com
joeyl@bsjfirm.com
NRC ENVIRONMENTAL: Musolf Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW MUSOLF and
CHRISTOPHER DOMINGUEZ-FEATHERS v. NRC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
34-2020-00278657-CU-OE-GDS (Filed May 13, 2020), was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on July 9, 2020.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-at-00683 to the proceeding.
The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for failure to
pay compensation for forfeited rest periods, failure to pay
compensation for forfeited meal periods, and failure to pay
overtime wages pursuant to the California Labor Code.
NRC Environmental provides environmental, industrial, and emergency
response solutions. The Company offers industrial cleaning, waste
management, site remediation, and oil spill response services.[BN]
Defendant NRC Environmental is represented by:
Jason A. Geller, Esq.
Nathan K. Low, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2050
San Francisco, CA 94111-3712
Telephone: (415) 490-9000
Facsimile: (415) 490-9001
E-mail: jgeller@fisherphillips.com
nlow@fisherphillips.com
OOFOS INC: Kiler Sues in E.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oofos, Inc. The case
is styled as Marion Kiler, Individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Oofos, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-03204-PKC-VMS (E.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
OOFOS is a footwear brand powered by an innovative proprietary foam
material.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
ORLANDO, FL: Jones ERISA Suit vs. OHA Removed to M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SHARA JONES v. ORLANDO
HOUSING AUTHORITY, Case No. 2020-CA-006184-O (Filed June 12, 2020),
was removed from the Florida Circuit Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit
in and for Orange County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (Orlando) on July 10, 2020.
The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
6:20-cv-01226-RBD-EJK to the proceeding.
The complaint asserts class action claims for violation of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and breach of contract.
The Orlando Housing Authority administers various rental assistance
programs in the public and private sector.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Cindy A. Townsend, Esq.
Michael J. Roper, Esq.
BELL & ROPER, P.A.
2707 E. Jefferson Street
Orlando, FL 32803
Telephone: (407) 897-5150
Facsimile: (407) 897-3332
E-mail: ctownsend@bellroperlaw.com
hcavallo@bellroperlaw.com
PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Washington Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the State of
Pennsylvania. The case is captioned as MARCUS WASHINGTON (DIRECTOR
FOR ALTERNATIVE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER-LITIGATION PUBLIC RELATIONS
FIRM); and JONATHAN BALDWIN (ON BEHALF OF HIS BROTHER INCARCERATED
IN P.A.-JAMIE BROWN), AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA; and BLANCHE CARNEY, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
COMMISSIONER OF PRISONS Case No. 2:20-cv-03322-CFK (E.D. Pa., July
6, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Chad F. Kenney. The
Petitioners file petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
The Petitioners appear pro se.[BN]
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of Sept. 4 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz 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 Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (NASDAQ: PPC)
Class Period: February 9, 2017 - June 3, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 4, 2020
Shareholders with $500,000 in losses or more are encouraged to
contact the firm
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Pilgrim's Pride 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 and its executives had participated
in an illegal antitrust conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids from
at least as early as 2012 and continuing through at least early
2017; (2) that the Company received competitive advantages, which
persisted during the Class Period, from its anticompetitive
conduct; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable
basis.
The GEO Group, Inc. (NYSE: GEO)
Class Period: February 27, 2020 - June 16, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020
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 GEO Group maintained woefully ineffective
COVID-19 response procedures; (2) that those inadequate procedures
subjected residents of the Company's halfway houses to significant
health risks; (3) that 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.
Wirecard AG (OTC: WCAGY, WRCDF)
Class Period: August 17, 2015 - June 24, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020
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.
J2 Global, Inc. (NASDAQ: JCOM)
Class Period: October 5, 2015 - June 29, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020
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.
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 Frank R. Cruz, of The
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation ("Pilgrim's
Pride" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: PPC) investors that acquired
securities between February 9, 2017, and June 3, 2020.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email.
Jayson Penn, the chief executive officer of Pilgrim's Pride Corp.
(NASDAQ: PPC) charged by U.S. prosecutors of conspiring to fix
prices, has begun a paid leave of absence effective immediately
according to a statement by the company. A federal indictment,
revealed in early June 2020, disclosed evidence of Mr. Penn
directly discussing the alleged price-fixing with colleagues.
The United States Department of Justice has taken action to protect
consumers from price fixing, and rising food prices, issuing a
press release on June 3, 2020 on the matter. Assistant Attorney
General Makan Delrahim of the Department of Justice's Antitrust
Division states, "[p]articularly in times of global crisis, the
division remains committed to prosecuting crimes intended to raise
the prices Americans pay for food. Executives who cheat American
consumers, restauranteurs, and grocers, and compromise the
integrity of our food supply, will be held responsible for their
actions."
The lawsuit alleges that the Company misled investors about the
Company's regulatory liabilities, and that the Company's actions in
fact placed the Company into direct violation of antitrust laws and
exposed the Company to severe regulatory risk.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm--http://www.portnoylaw.com--represents
investors in pursuing claims against caused by corporate
wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5
billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact:
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883 [GN]
POLDER PRODUCTS: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Polder Products, LLC.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Polder Products, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-05521 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Polder Products, LLC, offers products from dish racks to drying
racks, and other home products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
PREMIER NUTRITION: 9th Cir. Affirms Consumer Class Action Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Angel A. Garganta, Esq.--aagarganta@Venable.com--Amit Rana,
Esq.--arana@Venable.com--and Antonia I. Stabile,
Esq.--aistabile@Venable.com--of Venable LLP, in an article for
Lexology, report that on June 17, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals issued a published opinion affirming the dismissal of a
consumer class action seeking $32,000,000 against Venable client
Premier Nutrition Corporation. The Court held that federal
equitable principles must apply to class actions pending in federal
court, even where state law rules the underlying causes of action.
See Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., No. 18-15890, 2020 WL
3263043 (9th Cir. June 17, 2020).
Plaintiff-Appellant Kathleen Sonner sued Premier on behalf of a
class of California consumers claiming that Premier's product,
Joint Juice, did not provide its advertised joint health benefits.
Sonner sought damages, restitution, and injunctive relief under the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), as well as restitution and
injunctive relief under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL).
On the brink of trial after more than four years of litigation,
Plaintiff-Appellant Kathleen Sonner voluntarily dismissed her sole
damages claim under the CLRA and chose to proceed with only her
equitable claims for restitution and injunctive relief. As the
Circuit noted, "a singular and strategic purpose drove this
maneuver: to try the class action as a bench trial rather than to a
jury. Indeed, Sonner continued to seek $32,000,000 on behalf of the
consumers she represented, but as equitable restitution rather than
as damages." Id. at *1.
After Sonner amended her complaint, dropping her CLRA damages claim
and vacating the jury trial, Premier moved to dismiss the
restitution claims on the ground that Sonner could not establish
that she lacked an adequate remedy at law as required by
fundamental equitable principles under both federal and California
law. The district court agreed, finding that equitable restitution
claims brought under the UCL were subject to the traditional
inadequate-remedy-at-law requirement. Because Sonner had an
adequate remedy at law in the form of damages, she could not
proceed with her UCL claim for restitution.
Sonner appealed, arguing that the California legislature abrogated
the inadequate-remedy-at-law doctrine for equitable restitution
claims under the UCL. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal and held that, under Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304
U.S. 64 (1938) and Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. York, 326 U.S.
99 (1945), federal courts must apply equitable principles (such as
the inadequate remedy at law requirement) derived from federal
common law to claims for equitable restitution under the UCL and
CLRA, even if the state statutes might not require it. The Ninth
Circuit explained that "[e]ven assuming California decided as a
matter of policy to streamline UCL and CLRA claims by abrogating
the state's inadequate-remedy-at-law doctrine, the strong federal
policy protecting the constitutional right to a trial by jury
outweighs that procedural interest." Sonner, at *5.
The appeal attracted significant attention, including a request by
Plaintiff for certification to the California Supreme Court, which
was denied, and an amicus curiae brief from the California Attorney
General joining Plaintiff's unsuccessful argument.
The published decision will have far-reaching impacts for virtually
every consumer class action asserting claims for equitable
restitution under state consumer protection statutes but pending in
federal courts within the Ninth Circuit. [GN]
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Files Cert. Petition in Laurent Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP filed with the Supreme Court
of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, et al., Petitioners v. Timothy
Laurent, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, et al., Case No. 20-28.
Response is due on August 17, 2020.
Petitioner PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP petitions for a writ of
certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case titled Laurent v.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Case No. 18-487-cv.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, et al., is
represented by:
Miguel A. Estrada, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
E-mail: mestrada@gibsondunn.com
PRIMEX INC: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Primex, Inc. The case
is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Primex, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05507
(S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Primex, Inc., was founded in 1973. The Company's line of business
includes the wholesale distribution of jewelry, precious stones and
metals, costume jewelry, watches, clocks, and silverware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
RIDE TELEVISION: Young Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ride Television
Network, Inc. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, Individually
and On Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Ride
Television Network, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05544 (S.D.N.Y., July
17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ride Television Network, Inc., is a privately held corporation
based in Fort Worth, Texas. The Company was formed in 2011 for the
purpose of launching a 24-hour, high definition, television network
that is focused on the equestrian lifestyle.[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
ROYAL APPLIANCE: Faces Paguada ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Royal Appliance MFG.
Co. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Royal Appliance MFG. Co., Case No.
1:20-cv-05516 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Royal Appliance Manufacturing Company develops, assembles, and
markets a full line of cleaning products for home and commercial
use. The Company's line of plastic and metal vacuum cleaners are
intended for home use.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
RSL FUNDING: Benhayon Suit Removed From Cir. Ct. to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as LEE BENHAYON, Individually
and on behalf of all Others similarly situated v. RSL FUNDING, LLC,
Case No.20-008375 (Filed May 18, 2020), was removed from the
Florida Circuit Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on July 13, 2020.
The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
0:20-cv-61413-XXXX to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that RSL caused him and others to receive an
automated and unsolicited text message in violation of the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
RSL Funding is a structured settlement funding company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954.533.4092
E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Stumphauzer Foslid Sloman, Esq.
ROSS & KOLAYA, PLLC
Two South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1600
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 614-1400
Facsimile: (305) 614-1425
- and -
Ian M. Ross, Esq.
Jorge A. Perez Santiago, Esq.
STUMPHAUZER FOSLID SLOMAN ROSS & KOLAYA, PLLC
One Biscayne Tower
Two S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1600
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: 305. 614. 1400
Facsimile: 305. 614. 1425
E-mail: iross@sfslaw.com
jperezsantiago@sfslaw.com
SACCANI DISTRIBUTING: Faces Burns-Robinson Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saccani Distributing
Company, et al. The case is styled as Onte Burns-Robinson, On
behalf of other similarly situated aggrieved employees v. Saccani
Distributing Company, Does 1 through 50, Case No.
34-2020-00281858-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., July 16,
2020).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment-Civil Unlimited".
Saccani Distributing Company distributes beverages. The Company
offers beer, ale, porter, and other malt beverages.
The Plaintiff is represented by David Spivak, Esq.[BN]
SCOTT FETZER: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Scott Fetzer
Company. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. The Scott Fetzer
Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-05520 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Scott Fetzer Company, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, is an
American diversified manufacturer and marketer of products for the
home, family, and industry comprising 33 brands, and headquartered
in Westlake, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
SIEMENS MOBILITY: Keopadubsy Labor Suit Moved to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KHAMKOTH KEOPADUBSY, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SIEMENS MOBILITY, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-6 00278580 (Filed May 14, 2020),
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in
and for the County of Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on July 13, 2020.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-01412-MCE-CKD to the proceeding.
The action involves the Plaintiff's alleged claims against the
Defendants for their failure to pay overtime wages at the correct
regular rate, failure to timely pay wages, failure to timely
provide accurate itemized wage statements, engaging in unfair
business practices, and violations of the Private Attorneys General
Act. The Plaintiff seeks an award of compensatory damages,
including unpaid overtime wages, statutory and civil penalties,
restitution, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Siemens Mobility, also known as Siemens Transportation Systems, is
a separately-managed company of Siemens, arising from a corporate
restructuring effective August 1, 2018. With its global
headquarters in Munich, Siemens Mobility has four core business
units: Mobility Management, dedicated to rail technology and
intelligent traffic systems, Railway Electrification, Rolling
Stock, and Customer Services.[BN]
Defendant Siemens Mobility is represented by:
Sabrina L. Shadi, Esq.
Nicholas D. Poper, Esq.
Carter L. Norfleet, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Telephone: 310 820 8800
Facsimile: 310 820 8859
E-mail: sshadi@bakerlaw.com
npoper@bakerlaw.com
cnorfleet@bakerlaw.com
SOLAR SENIOR: Faces Wilson Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solar Senior Living
LLC. The case is styled as Dawnetta Wilson, individually and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
Solar Senior Living LLC, a California limited liability company,
Case No. 34-2020-00281971-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
July 20, 2020).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment-Civil Unlimited."
Solar Senior Living LLC operates retirement homes.
The Plaintiff is represented by Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.[BN]
SOUTH BEACH: Espinoza Suit Moved From County Ct. to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS H. ESPINOZA, and all
others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) v. SOUTH
BEACH ASSOCIATES, LLC, and STEFANO FRITELLA, individually, Case No.
2020-000760-CC-24 (Filed July 13, 2020), was removed from the
Florida County Court in and for Miami-Dade County to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on July
13, 2020.
The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-22873-RNS to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts claims for alleged unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants are doing business in hospitality industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J.H. Zidell, Esq.
David M. Nudel, Esq.
Natalie Staroschak, Esq.
300 71st Street, Suite 605
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Telephone: (305)-865-6766
Facsimile: (305)-865-7167
E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
Dnudel.jhzidellpa@gmail.com
nstar.zidellpa@gmail.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Cathy M. Stutin, Esq.
Alexander Castro, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
450 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4800
Facsimile: (954) 525-8739
E-mail: cstutin@fisherphillips.com
acastro@fisherphillips.com
SPLASH WINES: Young Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Splash Wines LLC. The
case is styled as Lawrence Young, Individually and On Behalf Of All
Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Splash Wines LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-05488-JGK (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Splash Wines, Inc., is a direct-to-consumer wine marketing company
in the USA.[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
STEARNS BANK: Chestnut Files Suit in Connecticut District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stearns Bank National
Association. The case is styled as Chestnut Street Consulting, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Stearns Bank National Association, Case No. 3:20-cv-01013-VAB (D.
Conn., July 20, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Stearns Bank National Association provides banking services. The
Bank offers small business and commercial real estate loans,
equipment finance, online banking, business loan inquiry, and
accounts receivable services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 298-3290
Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Carter Labor Suit Removed C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN CARTER, an individual,
on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SWIFT
TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS2005307
(Filed Feb. 21, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the U.S.
Court for the Central District of California on July 13, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-01383 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's putative class claims arise from allegations that
the Defendant failed to provide sufficient compensation to persons
employed as truck drivers in California when it allegedly: failed
to pay the minimum wage; failed to pay wages; and failed to pay
final wages at termination of employment under Labor Code.
Swift Transportation is a trucking company that is accurate and
timely when it comes transportation and logistics.[BN]
The Defendant Swift Transportation is represented by:
Paul S. Cowie, Esq.
John D. Ellis, Esq.
Andrea L. Isaacs, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
Telephone: 415 434 9100
Facsimile: 415 434 3947
E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com
jellis@sheppardmullin.com
aisaacs@sheppardmullin.com
TALENT.COM INC: Abitbol Sues in California Over Violation of TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Talent.com, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as David Abitbol, Orlene Nosek, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Talent.com, Inc.,
formerly known as Neuvoo, Inc., a Canadian corporation, DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-06415 (C.D. Cal., July 18, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Neuvoo Incorporated provides online recruitment services. The
Company offers platform to search and post jobs for candidates and
employers.
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]
TERRAFORM POWER: Faces Post Securities Suit Over Merger With BEP
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN POST, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TERRAFORM POWER, INC., BRIAN LAWSON, CAROLYN J. BURKE,
CHRISTIAN S. FONG, HARRY GOLDGUT, RICHARD LEGAULT, MARK MCFARLAND,
SACHIN SHAH, BROOKFIELD RENEWABLE PARTNERS, L.P., BROOKFIELD
RENEWABLE CORPORATON, 2252876 ALBERTA ULC, and TERRAFORM POWER NY
HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00927-UNA (D. Del., July 9, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with their filing of a misleading prospectus
supporting the acquisition by the BEP Entities of TerraForm's Class
A common stock.
On March 16, 2020, TerraForm's Board of Directors caused TerraForm
to enter into an agreement and plan of reorganization with
Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P., Brookfield Renewable
Corporation, Alberta ULC, and TerraForm Power NY Holdings, Inc.
The Agreement provides for, among other things, the acquisition by
the BEP Entities of TerraForm's Class A common stock not already
owned by BEP and its affiliates in exchange for either 0.381 Class
A exchangeable subordinate voting shares of BEPC or 0.381 of a
limited partnership unit of BEP per share. BEP and its affiliates
currently own approximately 62% of TerraForm's Class A common
stock.
On June 30, 2020, the Defendants filed a proxy statement/prospectus
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which
recommends that TerraForm's stockholders vote to approve the
Proposed Transaction at a special meeting of stockholders scheduled
for July 29, 2020.
According to the complaint, the Prospectus omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Prospectus false and misleading. The Prospectus fails to
disclose: (i) all line items used to calculate (a) Adjusted EBITDA,
(b) Cash Available for Distribution, and (c) Cash Flow to Equity;
and (ii) the updates and adjustments made to the NAV Model during
the process leading up to the execution of the Merger Agreement.
TerraForm Power is a United States-based that owns and operates
renewable power portfolio of solar and wind assets. The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard A. Maniskas
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
- and -
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
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Husarsky Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Miriam Husarsky, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Transworld
Systems, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:20-cv-03229 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 19, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Transworld Systems Inc. provides receivables collection and
management services. The Company focuses on commercial, education,
financial, government, healthcare, and other industries in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
TUCKERNUCK INC: Faces Rodriguez Class ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tuckernuck, Inc. The
case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Tuckernuck, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03202 (E.D.N.Y., July 17,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tuckernuck is an online boutique that puts a fresh spin on classic
American style.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
TVI INC: Melead Labor Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as RICK MELEAD, an individual,
on behalf of himself, and on behalf of the general public similarly
situated v. TVI, INC., d.b.a. SAVERS a Washington corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01140887-CU-OE-CXC
(Filed May 26, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California in and for the County of Orange to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on July 10,
2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:20-cv-01224 to the proceeding.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the California Labor Code for
Defendants' failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, and failure
to provide required meal and rest periods.
TVI Inc. operates a chain of thrift stores. The Company retails
clothing, shoes, kitchenware, accessories, books, electronics,
toys, infant goods, sporting goods, furniture, and other thrift
products. TVI markets its products worldwide.[BN]
Defendant TVI is represented by:
Adam Y. Siegel, Esq.
Nasim S. Tourkaman, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Telephone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
E-mail: Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com
Nasim.Tourkaman@jacksonlewis.com
UNITED COLLECTION: Faces Husarsky FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection
Bureau, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Miriam Husarsky,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
United Collection Bureau, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
1:20-cv-03230 (E.D.N.Y., July 19, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
United Collection Bureau Inc. provides debt collection and accounts
receivable management services to creditors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
UNITED COLLECTION: Kahn Sues in New York Alleging FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection
Bureau, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Levi Kahn, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Collection
Bureau, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 7:20-cv-05467 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 16, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
United Collections Bureau is a debt collection agency servicing
companies in the government, finance, healthcare, student loan,
utilities, and communication industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
VERRICA PHARMA: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Verrica"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VRCA) investors that acquired securities
between September 16, 2019 and June 29, 2020.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email.
On June 29, 2020, Verrica disclosed to investors the receipt of
correspondence 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 "a 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 filed in this class action lawsuit 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 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.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm--http://www.portnoylaw.com--represents
investors in pursuing claims against caused by corporate
wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5
billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883 [GN]
VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on July 14 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania captioned Potter v.
Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., (Case No. 20-cv-03447) on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Verrica" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
VRCA) securities between September 16, 2019 and June 29, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
If you suffered a loss on your Verrica 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/verrica-pharmaceuticals-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 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 "a 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 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 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.
If you purchased Verrica securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this
notice 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 H. Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
WAGAN CORPORATION: Faces Paguada ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wagan Corporation.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Wagan Corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-05524 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
WAGAN Corporation provides electronic components. The Company
offers solar products, power inventor, mobile electronics, and
other replacement parts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
WALMART INC: Gardiner Sues in Calif. Over Customer Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAVARIOUS GARDINER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WALMART INC., a Delaware corporation; DOES 1
to 10, inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-04618-DMR (N.D. Cal., July 10,
2020), seeks to secure redress against the Defendants for their
reckless and negligent violation of customer privacy rights.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals, who were customers
of Walmart during the four year period prior to the date of the
filing of this Complaint to the present.
Walmart is a retailer selling goods at its stores and online via
its website. Hundreds of millions of customers shop at Walmart
every week. Those customers reasonably expect the highest level of
protection for their private identifiable information (PII) when
giving highly sensitive information, including credit card numbers,
to Walmart, when creating Walmart accounts for shopping online.
According to the complaint, what Walmart customers do not expect is
that their personal and sensitive information, including access to
their credit card accounts, will be harvested by unauthorized
individuals. And yet that is precisely what has happened, with
millions of Walmart accounts available for sale on the dark web.
The Plaintiff and Class Members suffered significant injuries and
damages, according to the complaint. The security breach
compromised the full names, addresses, financial account
information, credit card information, and other PII of Walmart's
customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bobby Saadian, Esq.
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
Robert J. Dart, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: ClassAction@wilshirelawfirm.com
justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
rdart@wilshirelawfirm.com
WAYFAIR INC: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
July 8, 2020, United States District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock of
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
dismissed a putative securities fraud class action asserting
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 against a large
online home goods retailer (the "Company") and its three most
senior executives (collectively, "Defendants"). In re Wayfair, Inc.
Sec. Litig., Civ. No. 19-10062-DPW (D. Mass. July 8, 2020).
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants falsely implied that the Company
was profitable and that it was experiencing positive
advertising-revenue leverage—meaning that the Company was
becoming more effective at generating revenue for every advertising
dollar spent. The Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
because plaintiffs failed to adequately allege any material
misstatements or omissions, scienter, or loss causation. Notably,
the Court repeatedly called attention to the absence of factual
support for the allegations and described the complaint as
"precisely the kind of pleading the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act was designed to prevent."
Over the past several years, as competition in the online home
goods retail market intensified, the Company decided to increase
its advertising spending. In 2014, the Company spent $191 million
in advertising. By 2018, the Company was spending $774 million. As
a result of the magnitude of the advertising spending, one of the
important indicators of the Company's financial performance was its
"advertising-revenue leverage." The Company calculated the
advertising-revenue leverage quarterly as a percentage of the total
cost of advertising to the total net revenue. An increase in this
percentage when compared to the previous year's quarter would mean
that the Company had negative advertising-revenue
leverage—meaning that the Company had become less successful at
generating revenue from its advertising dollars. On November 1,
2018, the Company announced in a press release that its advertising
revenue had "deleveraged" from 11.8% in the third quarter of 2017
to 11.9% in the third quarter of 2018. Later that day, the
Company's stock price fell by 12.8%, with a further 3.3% drop
occurring the next day.
Plaintiffs alleged that (1) in the three months preceding the
announcement, the Company's executives made a series of false and
misleading statements or omissions suggesting that the Company's
advertising-revenue leverage was positive; (2) the executives knew,
by virtue of their deep involvement in the Company's finances and
operations, that the advertising-revenue leverage was negative; and
(3) that they failed to disclose the Company's worsening financial
performance so that they could personally offload $69 million in
the Company's stock.
First, the Court held that plaintiffs had not alleged any
actionable misstatement or omission. The Court held that the
executives' statements expressing confidence in the Company's
performance were mere puffery. The Court held that another set of
alleged misstatements forecasting positive advertising-revenue
leverage were forward-looking statements protected by the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act's ("PSLRA") safe harbor. The Court
held that the remaining alleged misstatements and omissions were
insufficiently particularized to meet the PSLRA's standards.
Second, the Court held that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged
scienter. According to the Court, plaintiffs' primary scienter
argument was, in essence, "because Defendants said they paid close
attention to their financial position and their financial position
ended up being different than Defendants said it was, Defendants
must have been lying and/or recklessly indifferent about [the
Company's] financial position." The Court was unconvinced. The
Court explained that plaintiffs' argument "is akin to saying that
anytime a company's financial projection is wrong, the speaker has
engaged in securities fraud," which "is not the law."
The Court was equally unmoved by plaintiffs' argument that the
executives had a motive to mislead investors. Plaintiffs alleged
that the executives, by misleading the investors about the
Company's advertising-revenue leverage, artificially boosted the
value of the stock, enabling them to profit off the sale of $69
million of personally-held Company stock. The Court rejected this
argument because: (1) plaintiffs had not alleged that this trading
was a departure from the executives' customary trading pattern; (2)
the sales were non-discretionary because they were executed
pursuant to a pre-existing trading plan or to cover tax withholding
obligations; and (3) two of the executives sold just 2% of their
company holdings during the class period while the third executive
actually increased his shares by 22%. The Court concluded by noting
that it was difficult to find plausible the allegation that the
Company's executives would "intentionally make a revenue projection
in [one month] that they knew was likely wrong, with the almost
certain prospect of having to publicly correct the projection just
a little over a month later."
Finally, the Court held that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged
loss causation because, although plaintiffs adequately alleged that
their losses were connected to the disclosure in the November 1
press release, they did not adequately allege that the press
release was a "corrective disclosure" made after a prior false or
misleading statement by defendants. [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Bleichmar Fonti Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP ("BFA") on July 13 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit for violations of the federal
securities laws against Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE:WFC) ("Wells
Fargo" or the "Company") and certain of the Company's current and
former senior executives (collectively, "Defendants"), on behalf of
investors in Wells Fargo common stock between February 2, 2018 and
March 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
BFA filed this action on behalf of its client, Steamfitters Local
449 Pension & Retirement Security Funds, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California. The case is captioned
Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security Funds v. Wells
Fargo & Co., No. 3:20-cv-4674. (N.D. Cal.).
The complaint in this case is substantially similar to the
complaint filed in Perry v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 1:20-cv-04494
(S.D.N.Y.) ("Perry"), which is the first-filed securities class
action in this matter. Pursuant to the notice published on June 15,
2020 and the corrected notice published on June 18, 2020 in
connection with the filing of Perry pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), investors
wishing to serve as Lead Plaintiff must file a motion for
appointment as Lead Plaintiff by no later than August 14, 2020. The
filing of this complaint does not alter that deadline.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Wells Fargo
misrepresented and concealed its failure to comply with U.S.
government consent orders that were intended to remediate and
prevent Wells Fargo's consumer abuses. The Company continuously
stated that it was in compliance with those consent orders and was
working constructively with U.S. regulators to ensure compliance.
These statements were materially false and misleading. In truth,
Wells Fargo was not in compliance with the consent orders and
regulators had repeatedly rejected the Company's proposals for
compliance. On March 4, 2020, the U.S. House Financial Services
Committee published a 113-page report detailing its year-long
investigation into Wells Fargo revealing that the Company's plans
to remediate consumer abuses were woefully inadequate and failed to
comply with the consent orders. Then, on March 11, 2020, the
Company's former Chairwoman testified before the U.S. House
Financial Services Committee stating, in part, that the Board
repeatedly expressed "regular concern" to Wells Fargo senior
management concerning the Company's lack of compliance with the
consent orders. The disclosures concerning Wells Fargo's misconduct
caused the value of the Company's stock to decline dramatically,
resulting in significant harm to investors.
BFA issues this notice in accordance with the PSLRA and Northern
District of California Civil Local Rule 23-1(a).
BFA is a law firm based in New York City with additional offices in
Oakland, California; Toronto, Canada; and White Plains, New York.
The Firm focuses on securities class actions and other
investment-related matters. BFA currently serves as lead counsel in
multiple securities class actions and has recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors. For more information about BFA,
please visit https://www.bfalaw.com/.
Javier Bleichmar, Esq., Peter E. Borkon, Esq., Nancy A. Kulesa,
Esq., Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, LLP
7 Times Square, 27th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 789-1340,
info@bfalaw.com. [GN]
WESTPAC: May Face Suit Over Exorbitant Interest Rates on Car Loans
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Chalmers, writing for ABC News, reports that Westpac is
facing a potential class action on behalf of thousands of
Australians who took out car loans under a since-banned scheme that
allowed dealers to set exorbitant interest rates.
Shine Lawyers plans to file a case--the latest in a slew of
customer and shareholder lawsuits to arise from the banking royal
commission--in the Federal Court in coming weeks.
Until November 2018, the so-called "flex commission" structure had
allowed car dealers and brokers to set the interest rate on car
loans above a base rate set by the bank or lender and take a cut of
the difference.
This meant the higher the interest rate, the bigger the commission
paid to the car dealer.
"If you bought a car from a dealership using "in-store" finance for
personal use from July 2014 to November 2018, you may have been the
victim of a flex car loan rort," Shine Lawyers' class action
practice leader Vicky Antzoulatos said.
The class action will be open to car buyers who took out personal
loans from Westpac, or its subsidiaries St George, Bank of
Melbourne and Capital Finance, through a car dealer during that
period.
Rival law firm Maurice Blackburn is also investigating a class
action over flex commissions, which will additionally encompass car
buyers who took out loans through Esanda, ANZ and Macquarie Bank.
Ms Antzoulatos said Shine was currently focusing its case on
Westpac because it had the largest market share.
Borrowers unaware of commission arrangements
Shine Lawyers will allege Westpac and its subsidiaries breached
their legal obligations to act fairly and honestly when providing
loans.
"Dealerships spruiked cars with finance while failing to disclose
the interest rate on the loans was arranged with the lender in
exchange for commissions," Ms Antzoulatos said.
"The bank and its subsidiaries failed to disclose to consumers the
true nature of their commission structure with the car dealers, and
we will allege this was illegal."
In the final report of the banking royal commission, commissioner
Kenneth Hayne gave a scathing assessment of flex commissions and
their lack of transparency.
"Many borrowers knew nothing of these arrangements. Lenders did not
publicise them; dealers did not reveal them," Mr Hayne wrote.
"The dealer's interest in securing the highest rate possible is
obvious. It was the consumer who bore the cost."
Ms Antzoulatos described flex commissions as leading to "rip-off
loans", which resulted in some customers being thousands of dollars
worse off.
"In some cases, customers who bought the same car or a vehicle of
similar value on the same day were charged between 6.5 per cent and
15.5 per cent interest over and above the base rate," she said.
"The difference in the commission on the sale of these loans was
$315 and $10,823 respectively."
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) banned
flex commissions from November 1, 2018, citing concerns they
resulted in very high interest rates, particularly for vulnerable
consumers.
Consumer advocates had criticised the loan structure for putting
more emphasis on a car buyer's ability to haggle with the dealer
than on their credit-worthiness or financial situation.
Westpac kept flex commissions as ban loomed
The industry was given more than a year's notice of the impending
ban, which now attracts fines of up to $420,000 per breach.
Following the ban, lenders and banks rather than dealers have
responsibility for determining the interest rate on a particular
car loan, and dealers cannot suggest a different rate to earn more
commission, but do have a limited capacity to offer a discount.
During the banking royal commission, Westpac in particular was in
the inquiry's sights over its handling of car loans.
Despite supporting the removal of flex commissions and introducing
a cap on the rate car dealers could charge, Westpac told the
inquiry it was still using the commission structure as ASIC's ban
loomed just months away.
It argued it could not unilaterally stop using flex commissions and
still compete in the car loans market.
Mr Hayne described this as a "first-mover disadvantage" problem, in
which regulator intervention was necessary to achieve change,
despite industry participants recognising the need for it.
Then-chief executive Brian Hartzer was questioned about whether
Westpac's policies could have incentivised dealers to make
unsuitable loans in order to obtain a commission, to which
Mr Hartzer responded: "I couldn't say. I'm not a car dealer."
"The evidence that Westpac representatives gave at the royal
commission demonstrates that Westpac knew that these types of loans
would lead to poor outcomes, and we think with that knowledge their
conduct was particularly egregious," Ms Antzoulatos said. [GN]
WHOLE FOODS: Coconut Drinks Have Non-Vanilla Flavor, Fisher Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Fisher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05339
(S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2020), alleges that the unqualified, prominent
and conspicuous representation of the Defendant's coconutmilk
beverage's flavor as "vanilla" is false, deceptive and misleading.
The Plaintiff contends that 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 is available to consumers from the Defendant's retail
stores, its website and Amazon.com and is sold in cartons of 32 OZ
(946 ML).
Whole Foods manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
coconutmilk beverages purporting to be flavored only with vanilla
under the 365 Everyday Value brand (the Product).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Ste. 311
Great Neck NY 11021-5101
Telephone: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
WHOLESALE INTERIORS: Paguada Sues in New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wholesale Interiors
Inc. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Wholesale Interiors Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-05518 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wholesale Interiors, Inc., does wholesale furniture. The Company's
products includes bedroom and dining sets, sofas, accent chars, and
ottomans, as well as distributes commercial, restaurant, hotel, and
trade show furniture.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
[*] Class Actions Related to Racial Discrimination Rise in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Williams and Victoria Tortora of McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in
an article for Mondaq, report that earlier this year, they wrote
about proposed class actions related to COVID-19. Now another
potential trend reflecting current events appears to be emerging:
proposed class actions related to racial discrimination. They
report on proposed class actions filed in the United States and
Canada. Many of the class actions proposed to date target police
departments and governments, but some deal with businesses:
* content creators filed a class action complaint in California
against YouTube and Google alleging discriminatory censoring on the
basis of race;
* a complaint filed in Texas against a community college, on
behalf of present and former Black employees who allege they were
terminated or demoted due to racial discrimination;
* a class action complaint alleging unlawful detention and abuse
of power by police officers during recent protests has been filed
against the City of Los Angeles in California;
* the Superior Court of Quebec recently certified a class action
by the La Ligue des Noirs du Québec alleging racial profiling by
Montreal police through unjustly arresting and detaining
non-Caucasian citizens;
* Aboriginal persons in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut
filed a complaint against the federal government, alleging that
Indigenous and Aboriginal people are subject to repeated
discriminatory assaults by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and
* the CBC has reported that a proposed class action is being
prepared on behalf of Inuit who allege they suffered discrimination
while in Canadian healthcare facilities.
This trend is consistent with a recent rise of class actions
alleging workplace harassment in discrimination in Canada. These
complaints demonstrate that claimants may attempt to address their
claims using class actions instead of human rights and workplace
legislation:
* several complaints have been filed against the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, involving systemic claims of sexual harassment and
gender-discrimination;
* a recent class action alleging discrimination and harassment
on the grounds of sex, gender, gender identity and sexual
orientation in the Canadian Armed Forces was settled; and
* in a recent proposed class action against a private-sector
employer, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia held it could
hear cases alleging breach of an employment contract arising from
workplace discrimination or harassment.
These cases highlight an increasing trend of plaintiffs invoking
class actions to address alleged discrimination. However, contested
certification hearings in this area remain rare, so it remains to
be seen whether many discrimination cases will be suitable for
class action treatment in Canada. [GN]
[*] Securities Class Action Filings v. Tech Cos. Up 50% in 2019
---------------------------------------------------------------
Securities class action filings involving technology companies rose
by more than 50% in 2019, the fourth annual increase in a row,
according to a new Cornerstone Research report released July 15.
The report, Tech Company Securities Class Action Filings and
Settlements--2015-Q1 2020, found that the number of filings against
tech companies increased to a record 85 new cases in 2019 from 55
the year before. Companies in the Internet and Software subsectors
were targeted in 66% of 2019 cases.
Tech company cases in both federal and state courts have boomed
over the last four years, accounting for 20% of total securities
class action filings. Similar to overall filings activity, tech
company filings saw a shift from federal to state courts, after the
U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling that state courts have
jurisdiction over 1933 Act claims.
The first quarter of 2020 saw a decline in tech company cases,
likely due in part to slowdowns associated with the COVID-19
pandemic.
"We will continue to monitor the longer-term impact of the
pandemic. If Q1 2020 is any indication, however, the pandemic's
impact on the market value of tech companies may be less severe
than its effect on the overall market," said Ravi Sinha, a
Cornerstone Research vice president and report coauthor. "The S&P
500 declined by 20% during the first quarter of 2020, while the Dow
Jones U.S. Technology Index lost 12% of its market value."
The number of tech company settlements has been volatile in recent
years, declining to its lowest level in 2019, after peaking in
2018. For the first time in the last five years, however, the
median settlement amount for tech company cases ($17 million)
exceeded the median for non-tech company settlements ($11 million)
in 2019.
Highlights
* Dollar Disclosure Loss: The aggregate Dollar Disclosure Loss
(DDL) of tech company filings rose to $161 billion in 2019, up 27%
from $127 billion in 2018. DDL is the dollar value change in the
defendant firm's market capitalization between the trading day
immediately preceding the end of the class period and the trading
day immediately following the end of the class period.
* Maximum Dollar Loss: The aggregate Maximum Dollar Loss (MDL)
of tech company filings more than doubled in 2019 to $614 billion
from $282 billion in 2018. MDL is the dollar value change in the
defendant firm's market capitalization from the trading day with
the highest market capitalization during the class period to the
trading day immediately following the end of the class period.
* Mega Filings: There were four mega DDL filings and eight mega
MDL filings involving tech companies in 2019. Mega DDL filings have
a DDL of at least $5 billion, and mega MDL filings have an MDL of
at least $10 billion.
* Mega Filings Allegations: Between 2015 and Q1 2020, there were
26 mega filings against tech companies in federal and state courts.
Allegations in these cases primarily relate to business prospect
misrepresentations or the fallout from mergers and acquisitions.
About Tech Companies
"Tech companies" as used in this report refer to five subsectors
under the Bloomberg Industry Classification Systems (BICS): (1)
Computers, (2) Internet, (3) Semiconductors, (4) Software, and (5)
Telecommunications. This report provides an in-depth look into the
securities class action filings and settlements of tech companies.
For more information on trends across industries, see Cornerstone
Research's latest Securities Class Action Filings and Securities
Class Action Settlements reports.
About Cornerstone Research
Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com-- provides
economic and financial consulting and expert testimony in all
phases of complex litigation and regulatory proceedings. The firm
works with an extensive network of prominent faculty and industry
practitioners to identify the best-qualified expert for each
assignment. Cornerstone Research has earned a reputation for
consistent high quality and effectiveness by delivering rigorous,
state-of-the-art analysis for more than 30 years. The firm has over
700 staff and offices in Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, New
York, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and Washington.
See Cornerstone Research's website for more information about the
firm's capabilities in economic and financial consulting and expert
testimony. [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 ***