/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200728.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 28, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 150 Headlines 1661 INC: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site 53 WEST: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime, Cerezo Claims ART +1: Sanchez et al Sue Over Unpaid Overtime ARTECH LLC: Haynes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime AUTOHAUS ARIZONA: Faces Guglielmo ADA Suit in S.D. New York BALEARIA CARIBBEAN: Fails to Refund Cancelled Trips, Cousin Says BAYER AG: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action BENJAMIN MOORE: Gilmore Employment Suit Moved to N.D. California BERRY'S CONTAINER: Faces Houston Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BROOKDALE SENIOR: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 24 Motion Deadline BROOKDALE SENIOR: Klein Law Reminds of Aug. 24 Motion Deadline BUSH ROSS: Fails to Provide Disclosures Under FDCPA, Roach Claims CANADA: Settlement Proposed in Class Action v. Social Worker CARGILL INC: Conspires to Constrain US Beef Supplies, Olean Says CENTRAL VALLEY MEAT: Ornelas Sues over COVID-19 Business Response CHAGRIN VALLEY: Guglielmo Sues in New York Over Violation of ADA CHEETAH MOBILE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Levi & Korsinksy Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Discounts CIRE TRUDON: Guglielmo Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 17 Motion Deadline CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Pomerantz LLP of Aug. 17 Motion Deadline CO-DIAGNOSTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Fote Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid COX COMMUNICATIONS: Roberts Seeks Unpaid Wages and Commissions DAVID & ESPERANZA: Milon Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages Owed DAYBREAK SOLAR: Faces Pulwers TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls DEI HOLDINGS: Young Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation DEL MAR, CA: Court Denies Hedayatzadeh Class Certification Bid DENNIS P. BLOCK: Martinez Balks at Unfair Debt Collection Practices DESTIN FIRE: Jensen Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages DHL EXPRESS: Schulz Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California EAST SIDE TOP: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages EIMS USA INC: Schaaf Sues Under FLSA Over Unpaid Minimum Wages EMC INSURANCE: Fails to Refund Excessive Premiums, 1259 Post Says ENERGEN RESOURCES: Henley Seeks to Certify FLSA Workers Class ENPHASE ENERGY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 17 Motion Deadline ENPHASE ENERGY: Hagens Berman Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline ENPHASE ENERGY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 17 Motion Deadline EVERLY WELL: Unfairly Sells Food Sensitivity Kit, Robinson Says FREEDOM CREDIT: Greenfield Sues Over Unfair Collection of OD Fees FROEDTERT HEALTH: Fore Seeks to Certify Employee Class GOLD CAPITAL: Robinson Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message Ads GOOGLE: Faces Class Action Over "Web & App Activity" Tracking GREATER NEW YORK: Kamakura Sues Over Denied Insurance Coverage GREEN FARMS: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Roque Says HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Judge Tosses $18.9MM Class Action Settlement HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 10 Motion Deadline IDEANOMICS INC: Klein Law Reminds of Aug. 27 Motion Deadline IDEANOMICS INC: Levi & Korsinksy Reminds of Aug. 27 Motion Deadline INTERO REAL: Court Certifies DNC Classes in Chinitz TCPA Suit IQIYI INC: Jenkins Securities Suit Moved From Calif. to E.D.N.Y. JEA SENIOR: Bowen Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. California JPMORGAN CHASE: Hawkins FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class JPMORGAN CHASE: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agent Fees, M&M Claims KABBALAH CENTRE: Melinda Coolidge Joins Class Action KINGOLD JEWELRY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 31 Motion Deadline LINKEDIN CORP: Spies on Apple Device Users, Bauer Claims LQ MANAGEMENT: Garcia Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California MAIN STREET: Denies Coverage for Losses Caused by E.O., DAB Says MEANS ENGINEERING: Rodriguez Challenges Illegal Labor Practices MEDICAL TRANSPORT: Faces McMath Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages MI BARRIO: Zaragoza Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages MICROSOFT CORP: Illegally Shares Customers' Data, Russo Suit Says MIDLAND FUNDING: Morrison Sues in New York Over FDCPA Violation MILEA TRUCK: Fails to Pay Overtime, Asencio Claims MOHAMED DORIA: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Oct. 20 MOHAWK: Faces SEC Probe Amid Shareholder Class Action MYPIZZA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Telemarketing Suit From Pappas NEW YORK: Srabyan Files Class Action Over School Closures NOVA OCTO: Faces Nisbett Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site PATHWAYS COMMUNITY: Underpays Licensed Therapists, Portka Claims PERSONNEL STAFFING: Class Period Set in Black Workers' Bias Case PHH MORTGAGE: Pay-to-Pay Fees Violate TDCA, Williams Suit Claims PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 4 Motion Deadline PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Klein Law Reminds of Sept. 4 Motion Deadline PORSCHE: Diesel Class Action Must Be Heard by Stutggart Tribunal PREMIER MEDICAL: Sharfman M.D. Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads PROASSURANCE CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 17 Motion Deadline PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: Rivera Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid PURDUE PHARMA: Culpeper Town Council Files $4.6MM Opioid Claims PURDUE PHARMA: Former Bristol County DA to File Opioid Claims RESTORBIO INC: Rigrodsky & Long Announces Class Action Filing RETAILMENOT INC: Powell Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads RLK AND COMPANY: Marshall Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ROBINHOOD: Judge Says Proposed Class Counsel Team Lacks Diversity SALTON HOLDINGS: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site SAMUEL SON: Pudlowski Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA and WWPCL SARASOTA DOCTORS: Court Denies Day's Motion to Certify Class SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Brant Alleges SEQUIUM ASSET: Faces Cockfield TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina SIMPLIFIED LABOR: Anderson Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages SKOZEE LLC: Marcum Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Text Messages SKY SOLAR: Quadre Challenges Deficient Tender Offer Disclosures SLSCO LTD: Faces Vazquez Suit Over Unpaid Overtime to Laborers SOUTHLAND MALL: Mall Access Limited, Brito Claims SUNRISE SENIOR: Van Cleave Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California TASTE RITE: Hill Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Tuition, Fee Refunds TEXAS: Faces Saenz Class Suit Asserting Prisoner Civil Rights TIKI BAR: Vegas Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime Wages & Retaliation TRUCK'N AWESOME: Thomas et al. Sue Over Shop Workers' Unpaid OT UNITED MAINTENANCE: Binns et al Sue Over Race Discrimination US BANK NA: Faces Unger FDCPA Suit Over Debt Collection Practices VERRICA PHARMA: Schall Law Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline VILLEROY & BOCH: Faces Guglielmo ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York VITAL RECOVERY: Hackner Sues in New York Over Violation of FDCPA VMSB LLC: Faces Luis Suit in Florida Alleging Age Discrimination VOLUSION LLC: Faces Lopez Class Suit Over Failure to Protect PII VOLVO CAR: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Young Claims WELLS FARGO: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 3 Motion Deadline WELLS FARGO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline WEST TEXAS PAVING: Avalos et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime ZEFCO INC: Underreports Employees' Income, Queen Alleges [*] Fasken Attorney Discusses Ontario Class Action Law Amendment [*] Gross Law Firm Announces Shareholder Class Actions [*] Luxembourg Bill Allows Groups of Plaintiffs to Seek Damages ********* 1661 INC: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site --------------------------------------------------------------- Angel Rodriguez, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. 1661, INC., d/b/a goat.com, Case No. 1:20-cv-03206-RPK-SJB (E.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services 1661 provides to its non-disabled customers through http://www.Goat.com/,according to the complaint. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Goat.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials, employment opportunities and other programs offered by 1661. Yet, Goat.com contains thousands of access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the Web site, the Plaintiff says. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually impaired users to even complete a transaction on the Web site, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who requires screen reading software to read Web site content using his computer. 1661 provides to the public a Web site known as Goat.com, which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view the various lines of sneakers which are sold as new or used, and make purchases among other features.[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 53 WEST: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime, Cerezo Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL TEXCAHAU CEREZO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- 53 WEST 72ND STREET CAFE LLC (D/B/A THE DAKOTA BAR), PHUMAN SINGH, MANJIT SINGH, LAKHVIR SINGH, and JENNIFER KLEIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05492 (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2020) arises after Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, in violations to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Texcahau was employed as a busboy, food runner, and bar back at the restaurant located in New York. Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiff wages on a timely basis. Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising Plaintiff's actual duties in payroll records by designating him as a busboy, food runner, and bar back instead of as a non-tipped employee. This allowed Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiff at the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay him at the tip-credit rate (which they still failed to do). 53 West 72nd Street Cafe LLC (d/b/a The Dakota Bar) is a New York-based bar and restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ART +1: Sanchez et al Sue Over Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------- SALVADOR SANCHEZ and CELSO TORRES, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ART +1, Inc. and ARTAN MAKSUTI, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05623 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as construction laborers: Sanchez was employed from July 2019 through July 2020, while Torres was from September 2019 through July 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs were paid $25 an hour for all work performed, including work performed after 40 hours. As a result, Defendant failed to pay them appropriate overtime premiums at one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek pursuant to the FLSA. Moreover, Defendant failed to keep Plaintiffs' time records because they were not required to clock in and clock out. Additionally, Defendants failed to provide proper wage statement listing the overtime rate or rates of pay, the number of regular hours worked, and the number of overtime hours worked, gross wages, deductions, and allowances as part of the minimum wage and net wages. Artan Maksuti is the Chief Executive Officer of Art +1, Inc. Art +1, Inc. provides building construction service. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, Suite 307 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 323-6980 Fax: (212) 233-9238 Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com ARTECH LLC: Haynes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------- JERRY HAYNES, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARTECH L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 2;20-cv-09173 (D.N.J., July 21, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately June 2019 until February 2020 as an hourly-paid Start-Up Specialist assisting the start-up and commissioning of a dry bottom ash handling system at the Tennessee Valley Authority Gallatin Fossil Plant in Summer County, Tennessee. According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours in a workweek, but he was never paid by Defendant any overtime. Instead of paying Plaintiff at one and one-half times his regular rate for all the hours worked in excess of 40 pursuant to the FLSA, Defendant paid him straight-time-for-overtime. Artech L.L.C. provides staffing services for many industries worldwide, including information technology and project management. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana M. Cimera, Esq. FIT APELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty St., 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 300-0375 Fax: (212) 481-1333 Website: https://www.fslawfirm.com - and – Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Carl A. Fitz, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-352-1100 Fax: 713-352-3300 Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com cfitz@mybackwages.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-877-8788 Fax: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com AUTOHAUS ARIZONA: Faces Guglielmo ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Autohaus Arizona, Inc. The case is captioned as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Autohaus Arizona, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05184-GBD (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge George B. Daniels. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Autohaus supplies auto parts. The Company wholesales motor vehicle supplies, accessories, tools, and equipment. Autohaus Arizona serves customers in the State of Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com BALEARIA CARIBBEAN: Fails to Refund Cancelled Trips, Cousin Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL COUSIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BALEARIA CARIBBEAN LTD., CORP., a foreign corporation, Case No. CACE-20-010943 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., July 7, 2020), arises from Balearia's alleged failure to refund tickets for cancelled ferry services. Balearia offers ferry services between Fort Lauderdale and Grand Bahama, and Fort Lauderdale and Bimini. The COVID-19 Pandemic obviously has created financial hardships that have affected a great many businesses--Balearia included. Specifically, the COVID-19 Pandemic caused Balearia to cancel its ferry services. Balearia, however, has foisted its financial hardship upon its own customers in a manner that is in violation of its own terms and conditions, deceptive, unfair, unjust and otherwise in violation of Florida law, the Plaintiff contends. Balearia entered into a binding and uniform contract with the Plaintiff and all members of the Class. The Plaintiff contends that the binding and uniform contract provides that Balearia would reimburse all members of the Class for their tickets "in the event the vessel, for which the ticket has been issued, does not carry out the stipulated journey, due to operation difficulties, weather conditions, unforeseen circumstances or majeure force." On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization declared that COVID-19 is a public emergency and a pandemic. On March 1, 2020, Florida Governor DeSantis issued an Executive Order declaring a State of Emergency for the State of Florida. On March 10, 2020, Broward County declared a Local State of Emergency. On March 17, 2020, Balearia understandably ceased providing passenger ferry services such that, for each trip canceled, the vessel for which tickets had been issued did not carry out the stipulated journey. On February 17, 2020--after considerable planning and coordination--the Plaintiff purchased 11 tickets from Balearia for a family vacation (7 adult tickets, 2 kid tickets, and 2 baby tickets). Balearia Caribbean operates as a marine shipping company. Balearia sells tickets for its ferry services through its Web site: http://www.baleariacaribbean.com/.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Rothstein, Esq. Jeffrey B. Kaplan, Esq. Lorenz Michel Pruss, Esq. Simon Lassel, Esq. Andrew Joseph, Esq. DIMOND KAPLAN & ROTHSTEIN, P.A. Offices at Grand Bay Plaza 2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH-2B Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 374-1920 Facsimile: (305) 374-1961 E-mail: Drothstein@dkrpa.com Jkaplan@dkrpa.com Lpruss@dkrpa.com slassel@dkrpa.com ajoseph@dkrpa.com BAYER AG: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- On July 15, 2020, prominent investor rights law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") filed a class action lawsuit for violations of the federal securities laws in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Bayer Aktiengesellschaft ("Bayer" or the "Company") and certain of the Company's current and former senior executives (collectively, "Defendants") on behalf of investors in Bayer American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between May 23, 2016, and March 19, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). BLB&G filed this action on behalf of its clients, City of Grand Rapids General Retirement System and City of Grand Rapids Police & Fire Retirement System, and the case is captioned City of Grand Rapids General Retirement System and City of Grand Rapids Police & Fire Retirement System v. Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, No. 3:20-cv-04737 (N.D. Cal.). The complaint is based on an extensive proprietary investigation and a careful evaluation of the merits of this case. A copy of the complaint is available on BLB&G's website by clicking here. Bayer's Alleged Fraud Bayer is a multinational pharmaceutical and life science company. On May 23, 2016, Bayer announced that it had made an unsolicited all-cash offer to acquire Monsanto Company ("Monsanto") -- a U.S. based provider of agricultural chemicals and other products. On June 7, 2018, after a protracted regulatory approval process, Bayer completed its acquisition of Monsanto for $63 billion in cash (the "Acquisition"). The claims alleged in this case arise from Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions regarding the significant liability risk from lawsuits brought against Monsanto alleging that Monsanto's flagship weed killer product, Roundup, caused cancer, including non-Hodgkin's lymphoma -- a lethal blood cancer. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements to investors, describing the Acquisition as "a compelling transaction for shareholders" that would create "significant value" by generating "stronger growth, better profitability, and a more resilient business profile" and "will translate into attractive financial benefits for Bayer and its shareholders." Defendants specifically downplayed the liability risks related to Monsanto's Roundup product, emphasizing that the Company conducted a "thorough analysis" during due diligence and "undertook appropriate due diligence of litigation and regulatory issues throughout the process" which led Bayer to finalize the Acquisition. As a result of Defendants' misrepresentations, Bayer ADRs traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. The truth emerged through a series of disclosures beginning on August 10, 2018, when a California state court jury in the first Roundup cancer case to proceed to trial found unanimously that Roundup was a "substantial factor" in causing the plaintiff to develop non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and that Monsanto knew, or should have known, the risks associated with exposure to the chemical and failed to warn of this severe health hazard. The jury also found that Monsanto acted with "malice or oppression" and should be punished for its conduct. Accordingly, the jury ordered Monsanto to pay $39 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages. On October 22, 2018, although the court in that case reduced the award of punitive damages from $250 million to $39 million, the court otherwise denied Monsanto's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and Monsanto's motion for a new trial, and upheld the jury's verdict that the plaintiff's exposure to Roundup was a substantial factor in causing his cancer. Then, on March 19, 2019, a jury in the first federal Roundup cancer lawsuit to proceed to trial issued a verdict on causation in phase one of the bifurcated trial, finding that plaintiff's "exposure to Roundup was a substantial factor in causing his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma." As a result of these disclosures, the price of Bayer ADRs declined precipitously. If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file a motion with the Court no later than September 14, 2020, which is the first business day on which the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is open that is 60 days after the publication date of July 15, 2020. Any member of the proposed Class may seek to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Avi Josefson of BLB&G at (212) 554-1493, or via e-mail at avi@blbglaw.com. About BLB&G BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com-- is widely recognized worldwide as a leading law firm advising institutional investors on issues related to corporate governance, shareholder rights, and securities litigation. Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G has built an international reputation for excellence and integrity and pioneered the use of the litigation process to achieve precedent-setting governance reforms. Unique among its peers, BLB&G has obtained several of the largest and most significant securities recoveries in history, recovering over $33 billion on behalf of defrauded investors. [GN] BENJAMIN MOORE: Gilmore Employment Suit Moved to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as JOEL GILMORE v. BENJAMIN MOORE & CO., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. RG20063973 (Filed June 2, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 15, 2020. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-04716 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for failure pay for all hours worked; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wage; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to maintain accurate records; and failure to furnish wage and hour statements. Benjamin Moore is an American company that produces paint. Benjamin Moore is owned by Berkshire Hathaway. Founded in 1883, Benjamin Moore is based in Montvale, New Jersey.[BN] The Defendant Benjamin Moore is represented by: Ryan L. Eddings, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302 Fresno, CA 93704-2225 Telephone: 559 244 7500 Facsimile: 559 244 7525 E-mail: Reddings@littler.com BERRY'S CONTAINER: Faces Houston Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Houston, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. BERRY'S CONTAINER SERVICE, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company, and TRAVIS WOTFORD, Case No. 3:20-cv-00615 (M.D. Tenn., July 17, 2020), is brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime wages. The Plaintiff regularly worked at least 60-70 hours per week in most workweeks, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per work week during certain work weeks, but was not paid overtime wages at a rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff operated BCS' equipment in the Middle Tennessee area. Berry's Container Service, LLC, ("BCS") is a foreign for-profit North Carolina limited liability corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randall W. Burton, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RANDALL BURTON 1222 16th Avenue, South, Suite 23 Nashville, TN 37212 Phone: (615) 620-5838 BROOKDALE SENIOR: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 24 Motion Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. (NYSE: BKD). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. (NYSE: BKD) Class Period: August 10, 2016 to April 29, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 24, 2020 As of February 1, 2020, Brookdale owned 356 communities, leased 307 communities, managed seventy-seven communities on behalf of third parties, and three communities for which it has an equity interest. The Company operates independent living, assisted living and dementia-care communities and continuing care retirement centers ("CCRCs"). Through its ancillary services programs, the Company also offers a range of outpatient therapy, home health, personalized living, and hospice services. On April 30, 2020, Nashville Business Journal reported that a proposed class-action lawsuit had been filed against Brookdale in this Judicial District, which accused the Company of, among other things, purposeful "chronically insufficient staffing" at its facilities to meet financial benchmarks since at least April 24, 2016. According to the lawsuit, Brookdale misled residents and their families when it promised to provide basic care and daily living services. The lawsuit also claims that the proposed class of plaintiffs "have not received the care and services they paid for." The lawsuit asks for damages and Brookdale to "stop the unlawful and fraudulent practices." On this news, Brookdale's stock price fell $0.56 per share, or 15.22%, over two trading sessions to close at $3.12 per share on May 1, 2020. The complaint, filed on June 25, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Brookdale's financial performance was sustained by, among other things, the Company's purposeful understaffing of its senior living communities; (ii) the foregoing conduct subjected Brookdale to an increased risk of litigation and, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial results and reputation; (iii) as a result, the Company's financial results were unsustainable; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. For more information on the Brookdale class action go to: https://bespc.com/BKD About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com [GN] BROOKDALE SENIOR: Klein Law Reminds of Aug. 24 Motion Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm on July 15 disclosed that class action complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Brookdale Senior Living Inc. There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Brookdale Senior Living Inc. (BKD) Class Period: August 10, 2016 - April 29, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 24, 2020 The BKD lawsuit alleges Brookdale Senior Living Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose during the class period that: (i) Brookdale's financial performance was sustained by, among other things, the Company's purposeful understaffing of its senior living communities; (ii) the foregoing conduct subjected Brookdale to an increased risk of litigation and, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial results and reputation; (iii) as a result, the Company's financial results were unsustainable; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Learn about your recoverable losses in BKD: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/brookdale-senior-living-inc-loss-submission-form?id=7970&from=1 Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages provided. J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: J. Klein, Esq. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 jk@kleinstocklaw.com Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN] BUSH ROSS: Fails to Provide Disclosures Under FDCPA, Roach Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Roach, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. BUSH ROSS, P.A., Case No. 8:20-cv-01651 (M.D. Fla., July 17, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for failing to provide the Plaintiff the statutorily-mandated disclosures to which he was entitled, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On July 29, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement with Pavilion Property Owners Association, Inc., concerning maintenance assessments the Plaintiff allegedly owed to Pavilion. One of the Defendant's attorneys signed the settlement agreement on behalf of Pavilion. On October 23, 2019, the Defendant sent a written communication to the Plaintiff in connection with the collection of a debt emanating from the Plaintiff's alleged failure to pay regular assessments to Pavilion and alleged failure to make payments pursuant to the settlement agreement. But nowhere in its October 23 letter does the Defendant include: (1) a statement that unless the Plaintiff, within thirty days after receipt of the letter, disputes the validity of the Debt, or any portion thereof, the Debt will be assumed to be valid by the Defendant; or (2) a statement that if the Plaintiff notifies the Defendant in writing within the thirty-day period that the Debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the Plaintiff contends. He adds that the Defendant's October 23, 2019 communication did not contain the disclosure required by the FDCPA, nor did the Defendant provide such disclosure within five days thereafter. Specifically, the Defendant's October 23 communication violated the FDCPA by failing to inform the Plaintiff that unless he, within thirty days after receipt of the letter, disputes the validity of the Debt, or any portion thereof, the Debt will be assumed to be valid by the Defendant, according to the complaint. The harm suffered by the Plaintiff is particularized in that the violate initial debt collection letter at issue was sent to him personally, regarded his personal Debt, and failed to provide him the statutorily-mandated disclosures to which he was entitled. The Plaintiff is a natural person, who resided in Hillsborough County, Florida. The Defendant is a law firm with principal offices in Hillsborough County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Davidson, Esq. Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Phone: (561) 826-5477 Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com CANADA: Settlement Proposed in Class Action v. Social Worker ------------------------------------------------------------ Doyle Potenteau, writing for Global News, reports that a settlement involving millions of dollars is being proposed in a class-action lawsuit against a former B.C. social worker accused of stealing. On July 14, B.C.'s Ministry of Children and Family Development filed documents in Supreme Court regarding the civil case against it and former social worker Robert Riley Saunders of Kelowna. Saunders is alleged to have stolen money from clients who were under his care from 2001 until his firing in 2018. The documents propose minimum and maximum settlements for Saunders' clients, with payments starting at $25,000 and capped at $250,000. Court documents listed the number of class-action members at 107, though two have died while another four have opted out. The documents also said of the 107 estimated class-action members, 90 are estimated to be Indigenous or of Indigenous ancestry. In an email to Global News, the B.C. Prosecution Service says it cannot comment on civil proceedings, but noted that an RCMP is currently undergoing charge assessment. In filing the documents, the ministry is basing payments under two umbrellas: Basic payments and elevated damages. Under basic payments, there are two amounts: $25,000 for all individuals, and $69,000 for those eligible for Indigenous basic payment. Under elevated damages, there are five categories: * Sexual exploitation, $75,000 * Psychological harm, $45,000 * Homelessness, $25,000 * Educational delay, $20,000 for 1-3 years, $50,000 over 3 years * Bodily harm, $15,000 The maximum cap on elevated damages would be $181,000, with the maximum cap on basic payments and elevated damages being $250,000. The documents note that a credit union that was named as a defendant was removed as a party on June 4, 2020, and that Saunders has not filed a response to the civil claim, although he was served. They also say Jason Gratl of the law firm Gratl and Company in Vancouver was appointed council for the plaintiff and the other class-action members. In describing the payments, the document said "the existence of these patterns is acknowledged in the settlement agreement," before describing the five elevated damages categories. For example, in the homeless category, the documents said "Riley Saunders misappropriated funds allocated for payment of rent by class members, which had the effect of rendering them homeless or perpetuating their homelessness. "In addition to misappropriating funds, Riley Saunders failed to extend supports, including counselling, mental health and addictions support to class members he knew to be homeless." The documents continued, saying many class members who were inadequately supported and sheltered experienced sexual assault, physical assault, delayed education, self-harm, trauma and developed substance abuse as a result of Saunders' neglect and misappropriation. "The acknowledged existence of these categories of elevated damages underscore the shared issues common to all class members, which stem from the indiscriminate neglect, indifference, abusiveness and selfishness of Riley Saunders to the children subject to his discretion." The next court date will be July 28, 2020, in Vancouver at 10 a.m. [GN] CARGILL INC: Conspires to Constrain US Beef Supplies, Olean Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc., on behalf of itself and all persons and entities similarly situated v. CARGILL, INC., CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, JBS USA FOOD COMPANY HOLDINGS, J.B.S. S.A., JBS PACKERLAND, INC., NATIONAL BEEF PACKING COMPANY, TYSON FOODS, INC., and TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC., Case No. 0:20-cv-01602 (D. Minn., July 17, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Sherman Act by conspiring to constrain beef supplies in the United States and, thereby, artificially inflating domestic beef prices to direct purchasers. Since at least the start of 2015, the Defendants have exploited their market power in this highly concentrated market by operating an illegal conspiracy to limit the supply of, and fix the price of, beef sold to Olean and others in the U.S. wholesale market (the "Conspiracy"), the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff asserts that the principal, but not exclusive, means the Defendants use to effectuate the Conspiracy is a concerted scheme to artificially constrain the supply of beef entering the domestic supply chain. The Defendants' collusive restriction of beef supply has had the intended effect of artificially inflating beef prices to supra-competitive levels. As a result, Olean and others, who purchase beef directly from the Defendants have paid higher prices than they would have paid in a competitive market, says the complaint. Plaintiff Olean directly purchased beef that was processed and sold at artificially inflated prices by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. The Defendants are the world's largest meat processing and packing companies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Amanda M. Williams, Esq. Mary M. Nikolai, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com awilliams@gustafsongluek.com mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com - and - Dennis Stewart, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC 600 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 Email: dstewart@gustafsongluek.com - and - Adam J. Zapala, Esq. Alexander E. Barnett, Esq. James G.B. Dallal, Esq. Tamarah P. Prevost, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 697-6000 Email: azapala@cpmlegal.com abarnett@cpmlegal.com jdallal@cpmlegal.com tprevost@cpmlegal.com - and - Arthur N. Bailey, Esq. RUPP, BAASE, PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC 111 West 2nd Street #1100 Jamestown, NY 14701 Phone: (716) 664-2967 Email: bailey@ruppbaase.com - and - Marco Cercone, Esq. RUPP, BAASE, PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC 1600 Liberty Building 424 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 Phone: (716) 854-3400 Email: cercone@ruppbaase.com - and - Kevin Landau, Esq. Evan Rosin, Esq. TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP 80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204 New York, NY 10038 Phone: (646) 873-7654 Fax: (212) 931-070 Email: klandau@tcllaw.com erosin@tcllaw.com - and - Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Melinda J. Morales, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 346-2222 Email: kaw@wexlerwallace.com mjm@wexlerwallace.com - and - R. Alexander Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 706 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 217-6810 Facsimile: (415) 217-6813 Email: rick@saveri.com cadio@saveri.com - and - Brian D. Penny, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C. Eight Tower Bridge, Suite 1025 161 Washington Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (484) 342-0700 Fax: (484) 580-8747 Email: penny@lawgsp.com - and - Simon B. Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. Charles J. Kocher, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 496-8282 Fax: (215) 496-0999 Email: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com ckocher@smbb.com - and - J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., Esq. David M. Cialkowski, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Email: gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com - and - Joseph Goldberg, Esq. Vince Ward, Esq. Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias & Ward P.A. 20 First Plaza, Suite 700 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Phone: 1.505.244.7520 Email: jg@fbdlaw.com vjw@fbdlaw.com - and - Dianne M. Nast, Esq. Daniel N. Gallucci, Esq. Joseph N. Roda, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215) 923-9300 Email: dnast@nastlaw.com dgallucci@nastlaw.com jnroda@nastlaw.com - and - Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq. Michael R. Cashman, Esq. Nathan D. Prosser, Esq. Anne T. Regan, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Phone: (952) 941-4005 Email: rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com mcashman@hjlawfirm.com nprosser@hjlawfirm.com aregan@hjlawfirm.com - and - Warren T. Burns, Esq. Will Thompson, Esq. Mallory Biblo, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (469) 904-4550 Email: wburns@burnscharest.com wthompson@burnscharest.com mbiblo@burnscharest.com - and - Christopher J. Cormier, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Phone: (202) 577-3977 Email: ccormier@burnscharest.com CENTRAL VALLEY MEAT: Ornelas Sues over COVID-19 Business Response ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case MARIA PILAR ORNELAS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL VALLEY MEAT CO., INC., a California Corporation. Defendant, Case No. 2:20-at-00732 (E.D. Cal., July 22, 2020) alleges that Defendant knowingly, by acts of deliberate and reckless commission and omission, exacerbated the spread -- and the reasonable fear of spread -- of COVID-19 among its employees and the surrounding community, despite knowing the risks of the disease. Rather, the Defendant deliberately chose, and continues to choose, profits over the health and safety of its employees and community. As early as March 2020, the Defendant failed to prepare for COVID-19. Then, beginning in April 2020, Central Valley Meat silently hid the first cases of an outbreak at its facility in Hanford, California, located in Kings County, while actively pressuring sick employees to report to work, infecting others. Within weeks, Plaintiff, along with close to 200 workers at Defendant's Hanford facility, contracted COVID-19, with that number continuing to rise. The rampant spread of COVID-19 is directly attributable to Defendant's heartless economic decisions, which began in March 2020, and which continue through the present. Defendant disregarded substantial, inescapable evidence of rising infection levels among its workers; and implemented policies and practices, in plain violation of health and safety regulations and public health guidance, that facilitated rather than diminished the spread of COVID-19. The Plaintiff was exposed to SARS-CoV-2 at Defendant's Hanford facility in April 2020 when she worked near at least one worker who tested positive for COVID-19. Ms. Ornelas then became very ill on April 23, 2020 and tested positive for COVID-19 on April 28, 2020. As a result of her illness, Ms. Ornelas transmitted SARS-CoV-2 to her boyfriend, who tested positive for COVID-19 shortly after Ms. Ornelas. Defendant recklessly created a situation where Ms. Ornelas was destined to contract COVID-19 and pass it onto others. Because of her COVID-19 disease, the Plaintiff needed a reasonable accommodation to take several days off work and a leave of absence. Unfortunately, because of her needed accommodation for her disabling condition and taking protected leave, Defendant denied Ms. Ornelas incentive pay and bonuses she would have otherwise been entitled. Ms. Ornelas suffered a negative consequence of losing incentive pay and bonuses for failing to meet Defendant's perfect attendance policy because she was forced to take time under the Family Medical Leave Act/ California Family Rights Act ("FMLA/CFRA") and because of her disabling condition. The work environment created by Central Valley Meat is relevant to its flagrantly wanton and reckless response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the harmful outcome for its workers and the surrounding community, the lawsuit contends. Central Valley Meat Co., Inc. is a California-based beef packer and processing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alreen Haeggquist, Esq. Aaron M. Olsen, Esq. Ian Pike, Esq. HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 2050 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 342-8000 Facsimile: (619) 342-7878 E-mail: alreenh@haelaw.com aarono@haelaw.com ianp@haelaw.com CHAGRIN VALLEY: Guglielmo Sues in New York Over Violation of ADA ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chagrin Valley Soap & Salve, LLC. The case is captioned as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Chagrin Valley Soap & Salve, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05195-ER (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Chagrin Valley Soap & Salve is a small family owned and family operated company crafting skin and hair care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com CHEETAH MOBILE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Cheetah Mobile, Inc. (NYSE: CMCM). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Cheetah Mobile, Inc. (NYSE: CMCM) Class Period: March 25, 2019 to February 20, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 24, 2020 On February 21, 2020, Cheetah Mobile disclosed that its Google Play Store, Google AdMob, and Google AdManager accounts were disabled on February 20, 2020 "because some of the Company's apps had not been compliant with Google policies, resulting in certain invalid traffic." On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.61, or nearly 17%, to close at $2.99 per share on February 21, 2020. The complaint, filed on June 25, 2020, 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 certain of Cheetah Mobile's apps were not compliant with the terms of its agreements with Google; (2) that, as a result there was a reasonable likelihood that Google would terminate its advertising contracts with the Company; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's ability to attract new users would be adversely impacted; (4) that, as a result, the Company's revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and (5) that as a result, defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. For more information on the Cheetah Mobile class action go to: https://bespc.com/CMCM About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com [GN] CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Levi & Korsinksy Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on July 15 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Chembio Diagnostics Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. (CEMI) CEMI Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 12, 2020 - June 16, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/chembio-diagnostics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7957&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, defendants engaged in a scheme to deceive the market and a course of conduct that artificially inflated Chembio's stock price and operated as a fraud or deceit by misrepresenting the efficacy of the Company's Dual Path Platform ("DPP") COVID-19 test. Defendants allegedly achieved this by making false statements about Chembio's DPP COVID-19 test, although they knew or at least recklessly disregarded that there were material performance concerns with the test. When defendants' prior misrepresentations were disclosed and became apparent to the market, the price of Chembio stock fell precipitously as the prior artificial inflation came out of Chembio's stock price. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 [GN] CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Discounts ----------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that after tracking five years' worth of alleged discounts at The Children's Place, class action lawyers now will have to fight to keep their case in court. The company on July 10 filed a motion to compel arbitration in Elaine Dougan's lawsuit, in which she hopes to serve as lead plaintiff of a class action or as a private attorney general under Washington State law. But Dougan enrolled in TCP's My Place Rewards Program in 2018, before bringing the lawsuit. The terms and conditions of doing so feature a provision that requires any dispute to go to arbitration. The terms on Dougan's agreement state: "PLEASE NOTE: THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAIN AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER. THE WAIVER AFFECTS HOW DISPUTES WITH THE CHILDREN'S PLACE ARE RESOLVED. BY ACCEPTING THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THIS ARBITRATION PROVISION. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY." Dougan's lawyers at Hattis & Lukacs say they've been monitoring the chain's pricing since 2014. They say they have time-stamped screenshots of more than six million daily offerings for more than 53,000 products. Their research "shows that The Children's Place's advertised website-wide 'sale' events and advertised percentage-off and dollar discounts were false, and that its list prices (i.e., reference prices) from which the discounts were calculated were false and inflated," the lawsuit says. "For the majority of its products, The Children's Place never offered the products at the list price -- not even for a single day. For the rest of its products, The Children's Place very rarely offered the products at the list price (e.g., typically less than ten percent of the time)." [GN] CIRE TRUDON: Guglielmo Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cire Trudon USA, Inc. The case is captioned as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cire Trudon USA, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05200-ALC (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Cire Trudon is a candlemaker.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 17 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Co-Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CODX). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Co-Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CODX) Class Period: February 25, 2020 to May 15, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2020 Co-Diagnostics announced that it had received regulatory clearance to sell its Covid-19 tests in the European Community on February 24, 2020—the first company in the world to receive this clearance. Then, on April 6, 2020 the Company announced that it had received emergency use authorization for its tests from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). Throughout this time and thereafter, Co-Diagnostics, its Chief Technology Officer, and its other officers and directors made unequivocal statements to the market that its Covid-19 tests were 100% accurate—a staggering claim that appeared to set Co-Diagnostics apart from other competitors developing Covid-19 tests. However, on May 14, 2020, after Co-Diagnostics maintained its statements about the success of its test in its first quarter 2020 results, public reports began circulating questioning Co-Diagnostics' claims of 100% accuracy because the Company was reluctant to participate in U.S.-based testing to verify its claims. Later that evening, the FDA announced publicly that no COVID-19 test is 100% accurate. On this news, the stock declined 42% from a high of $29.72 per share on May 14, 2020, to close at $17.07 per share on May 15, 2020. For more information on the Co-Diagnostics class action go to: https://bespc.com/CODX About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com [GN] CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Pomerantz LLP of Aug. 17 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP on July 15 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Co-Diagnostics, Inc. ("Co-Diagnostics" or the "Company")(NASDAQ: CODX) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division, and indexed under 20-cv-00481, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Co-Diagnostics securities between February 25, 2020, and May 15, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Co-Diagnostics securities during the class period, you have until August 17, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Co-Diagnostics, Inc., a molecular diagnostics company, intends to manufacture and sell reagents used for diagnostic tests that function via the detection and/or analysis of nucleic acid molecules. It also intends to sell diagnostic equipment from other manufacturers as self-contained lab systems. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made continual, knowing and willful misstatements about their main product, a COVID-19 diagnostic test, to pump of the price of Co-Diagnostics' stock while the officers and directors exercised low priced options and dumped their stock into the market. Their fraudulent misstatements, and disregard for the basic scientific principles that make the falsity of their statements clear in retrospect, cost investors to lose millions of dollars. In the late morning and early afternoon of May 14, 2020, third parties revealed startling information about Co-Diagnostics' allegedly 100% accurate test. The Salt Lake Tribune ("Tribune") reported that TestUtah.com, which used tests developed by Co-Diagnostics, "declined to join other major Utah labs in a joint experiment to confirm one another's quality." Moreover, the Tribune revealed that TestUtah's tests (by Co-Diagnostics) "have a higher 'limit of detection' -- that is, they require more of the virus to trigger a positive result -- than most other coronavirus tests approved for sale in the U.S., according to an analysis by the life sciences publication BioCentury." This meant that Co-Diagnostics' tests were likely to have a much higher false-negative reporting rate, meaning that potentially thousands of infected people were inaccurately told that they did not have the disease, an observation that was consistent with earlier concerns about TestUtah's lower rate of positive test results. The Tribune article also expressed concern relating to TestNebraska.com and TestIowa.com testing services that also used Co-Diagnostics' tests. Also on May 14, 2020, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds issued a public statement, stating, "I'm pleased to announce that the State Hygienic Lab completed the Test Iowa validation process on July 14, achieving high ratings of 95 percent accuracy for determining positives and 99.7 percent accuracy for determining negatives." These results did not comport with statements previously made by Co-Diagnostics on May 1, 2020. In fact, Defendant Brent Satterfield ("Satterfield"), Ph. D., Co-Diagnostics' Chief Science Officer, himself has recently confessed that the lower positive rates for Co-Diagnostics' tests "has certainly got all of us scratching our heads a bit," and that the tests will correctly identify 95% of true positive results—a massive discrepancy from Co-Diagnostics' representations of 100% accuracy given that the tests are intended to be administered among hundreds of thousands or even millions of people. Based on the release of third-party information casting serious doubt as to Co-Diagnostics' bold claims of 100% accuracy, the stock price began to fall, closing the day at $22.13 per share on May 14, 2020, after hitting an intra-day low of $18.35 per share, a greater than 38% decrease in price within hours. At that point, Co-Diagnostics could have, but did not, revise its claims of 100% test accuracy, given that Co-Diagnostics released earnings and first-quarter 2020 financials to the public after-hours and had a scheduled investor call for the same evening. Co-Diagnostics reported that it achieved record sales and that the start-up had finally, after nearly seven years, reached profitability. However, it did not address the testing accuracy or sensitivity allegations or correct Defendant Satterfield's prior statements about tests being 100% accurate. Rather, the call was described by The Gazette, a Cedar Rapids, Iowa publication covering TestIowa.com, as sounding "more like Thanksgiving with drunk uncles -- dogs were barking, people were swearing, and someone was moaning." The Gazette also noted that "[n]one of Co-Diagnostics or Nomi Health's news releases about the Logix Smart tests have revealed how many tests have been sold, for how much, and so far all three testing initiatives in Iowa, Nebraska and Utah have been secretive about the tests and the results." That same day, the FDA issued a press release about testing accuracy. Another, much larger drug company had created a diagnostic test for COVID-19 that was under increasing public scrutiny for apparent inaccuracy. The FDA announced to the public that "[t]he FDA looks at a variety of sources to identify and understand potential patterns or significant issues with the use of the Abbott test. No diagnostic test will be 100% accurate due to performance characteristics, specimen handling, or user error, which is why it is important to study patterns and identify the cause of suspected false results so any significant issues can be addressed quickly." (Emphasis added). Based on the multiple third-party sources revealing serious problems that were known, or should have been known, in advance of May 14, 2020, the stock price further fell to close at $17.07 per share on May 15, 2020, or a decrease of 22.86% from the prior day's closing price. By May 20, 2020, a statistician, Zhiyuan Sun, wrote an article specifically about Co-Diagnostics' allegedly 100% accurate COVID-19 test. Sun explained: "In May, Co-Diagnostics announced its COVID-19 in vitro test had been found to have 100% accuracy, 100% specificity (likelihood of preventing a false-negative error), and 100% sensitivity (likelihood of preventing a false-positive error), as per independent verification in laboratories across the world. To start off, Co-Diagnostics came to the conclusion that its test was 100% effective on all three diagnostic dimensions (specificity, accuracy, and sensitivity) based on studies with small sample sizes. For example, laboratory testing of the Logix test kit conducted in Australia involved about 100 COVID-19-positive patients and 100 COVID-19-negative patients. With a sample size that small, a low error rate, say 1% to 2%, could be really hard to detect. In fact, the study itself explicitly stated that the test could in fact be between 96% to 98% effective, rather than 100%. In addition, the testing environment is by no means indicative of the actual prevalence of COVID-19 in the population at this point in the pandemic. Among the test samples, 50% contained SARS-CoV-2, and obviously, at this point, nowhere near half the people in the world have been exposed to the coronavirus. "But wait a minute!" the intelligent reader might say. "Nothing in the world is perfect, so who cares if a test's results are off by 1% or 3%? Effectiveness of 97% is still nothing short of an A-plus. You're just being a devil's advocate, Zhiyuan!" Unfortunately, this is one of the cases where it is critical to pay attention to the devil in the details. In fact, a 1% or 3% error rate can render a in vitro test almost useless. Here's why. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, the true sensitivity of Logix is 98%, and its true specificity is also 98%. In other words, the probability of the test delivering a false positive is 2%, and the probability of the test returning a false negative is also 2%. Both of these values are directly stated as being probable in studies citing Logix's range of effectiveness, and they are valid assumptions given that the test has not been fully vetted by the FDA or other regulators. It is also common knowledge that because there are not enough viral tests for the COVID-19, the number of people who have the virus is likely to be significantly higher than official figures. For example, it is estimated that up to 4.1% of the residents of Los Angeles County have COVID-19 antibodies. Let's use that 4.1% figure in our calculations as a measure of prevalence of COVID-19 (a lower prevalence would hurt the test even more). Assuming 1 million people are given the Logix test, 41,000 should test positive for an ongoing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, if the test provides a false negative 2% of the time, only 98% of those 41,000 -- 40,180 -- would show up as positives. On the other hand, out of the 959,000 people who were actually negative for the virus, a 2% error rate would yield 19,180 cases of false positives -- individuals who don't have the disease despite the test saying they do. All told, that makes 59,360 people getting positive results, but only 40,180 of them would actually be positive. That yields a predictive value of 67.7%. In other words, if the Logix test only works as well as it does in this scenario -- and it's right 98% of the time -- there's still a 1-in-3 chance that the test will indicate you have COVID-19 even though you don't! As one can see, a 32.3% false-positive error rate isn't very good at all. This problem gets worse if we assume the same prevalence, but lower Logix's potential sensitivity and specificity estimates to 95% for both. In this scenario, the probability of getting a false positive increases to 55.2%! While the results are surprising, they nonetheless use the basics of conditional probability; here is a calculator in case you want to try it out for yourself. Furthermore, a recent New York University study on COVID-19 in vitro tests developed by Abbott Laboratories found them to be widely inaccurate and unacceptable for use in patients. Keep in mind, those tests were also promoted as having 100% sensitivity and 99.9% specificity in earlier investigations. Unfortunately, this just serves to highlight how difficult it is to develop an accurate test for diseases with a low rate of prevalence like COVID-19." Co-Diagnostics knew that even a highly accurate test—such as 96%, 98%, or even 99%—was not the same, and not remotely as valuable, as a 100% accurate test. That is because having a 100% accurate test would have significantly distinguished Co-Diagnostics from other, larger, more reputable competitors introducing COVID-19 tests into the marketplace. Additionally, the widespread administration of a COVID-19 test that is even minimally inaccurate can have highly adverse public health consequences. Co-Diagnostics knew this, and so it intentionally issued statements to the public to fend off truthful analysis and scientific skepticism about its supposed miracle test. With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] CO-DIAGNOSTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded company Co-Diagnostics, Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. CODX Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/co-diagnostics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7877&wire=1 * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW * CODX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 25, 2020 - May 15, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 17, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/co-diagnostics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7877&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, Co-Diagnostics and its directors and officers (including PhD-level scientists who should know better) made continual, knowing, and willful misstatements about the Company's main product, a Covid-19 diagnostic test. These misstatements had the effect of pumping up the price of Co-Diagnostics' stock while Company officers and directors exercised low-priced options and dumped their stock into the market. Co-Diagnostics' fraudulent misstatements displayed a disregard for basic scientific principles and caused investors to lose millions of dollars. You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Fote Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JOSEPH FOTE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01115-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint himself as the class representative, and appoint his attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com COX COMMUNICATIONS: Roberts Seeks Unpaid Wages and Commissions -------------------------------------------------------------- John Roberts, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; QUALITY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a North Carolina corporation; INFINITE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. a Florida corporation; and DONOVAN MARTIN, Individually; THOMAS MCCOLLUM, a/k/a TOMMY MCCOLLUM, an individual, Case No. 3:20-cv-00242 (W.D.N.C., April 23, 2020), is brought to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages, commissions, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked hours while jointly employed by the Defendants for which they either received no compensation, for which they were improperly paid at a rate less than one and-one half times their normal hourly rates, and/or for which they were paid below minimum wage, according to the complaint. The Defendants' actions in failing to compensate the Plaintiff and failing to keep records in accordance with the provisions of the FLSA, were willful. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a technician and installer. Cox Communications, Inc., is a Delaware corporation licensed to do business in the State of North Carolina, via retailers, advertising, sales, contracts for television programing, and servicing of systems.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Michelle Gessner, Esq. GESSNERLAW, PLLC 602 East Morehead Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Phone: (704) 234-7442 Fax: (980) 206-0286 Email: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com DAVID & ESPERANZA: Milon Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages Owed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yuri Milon, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. DAVID & ESPERANZA CHAVEZ FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP DBA CHAVEZ SUPERMARKET, a California limited partnership; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20CV368379 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., July 17, 2020), is brought under the California Code for the Defendants' failure to pay all wages, including overtime and minimum wages and meal and rest period premiums, owed to the Plaintiff and the class upon discharge or resignation. The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over 8 hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California. This pattern and practice involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages earned and for missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of California law. The Defendants knew or should have known that the Plaintiff and the other class members were entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not receiving accurate overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from November 2018 to March 2019. DAVID & ESPERANZA CHAVEZ FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP DBA CHAVEZ SUPERMARKET is a California limited partnership and an employer whose employees are engaged throughout the State of California, including the County of Santa Clara.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 265-1020 Fax: (818) 265-1021 DAYBREAK SOLAR: Faces Pulwers TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Traci Pulwers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DAYBREAK SOLAR POWER LLC, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED d/b/a Daybreaksolarpower.com, a Texas Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-00802 (M.D. Fla., July 17, 2020), is brought for damages and remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently or willfully contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading the Plaintiff's privacy. The Defendant utilizes prerecorded telemarketing calls (i.e.: calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice) to market and advertise the Defendant's business and services, including at least 8 calls to the Plaintiff, from May 19, 2020, to May 21, 2020, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff knows the calls were robotic because of the distinctive nature of the sound, pauses, and the wording of the recordings was always the same. At no time did the Plaintiff provide the Plaintiff's cellular number to the Defendant through any medium, nor did the Plaintiff consent to receive such unsolicited calls. The Plaintiff has never signed-up for, and has never used, Defendant's services, and has never had any form of business relationship with Defendant. The Plaintiff's domicile is in Yulee, Florida. The Defendant holds itself out as a Solar Energy Service in Fort Worth, Texas, that "create, develop, and produce solar products that convert light into energy."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Facsimile: 954-524-2822 Email: seth@epllc.com DEI HOLDINGS: Young Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DEI Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, Individually and On Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. DEI Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05609 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. DEI Holdings is the Vista, California-based parent company of several brands of consumer audio electronics and vehicle security/remote start systems.[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 DEL MAR, CA: Court Denies Hedayatzadeh Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as KAHILAH HEDAYATZADEH v. CITY OF DEL MAR, Case No. 19-cv-842-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal., May 3, 2019), the Hon. Judge entered an order on July 23, 2020, denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification of: "at least 5,500 people who have had their tires chalked and a subclass of at least 4,000 people who have allegedly paid parking tickets." While Plaintiff alleges she received "at least one or two" parking tickets, she has "not yet been able to locate any copies of these tickets. To this end, substantial discovery has already occurred. Specifically, the Defendant has located and produced records for thousands of individuals cited during the applicable time frame. Despite this substantial discovery, there is no record the Defendant's officers ever issued a ticket to the Plaintiff, and no record the Plaintiff ever paid a parking ticket to the Defendant. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has not satisfied the typicality element required under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a). Accordingly, it does not reach the question of whether the Plaintiff's allegations satisfy one or more prongs of Rule 23(b). Assuming, without deciding, that the Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted at this stage of the proceedings, the motion for class certification is denied. The Plaintiff alleges Defendant City of Del Mar, California, violated her Fourth Amendment rights by applying chalk marks on the tire of her vehicle for the purpose of enforcing parking space time limits. Del Mar is a beach city in San Diego County, California, United States, incorporated on July 15, 1959. Del Mar is Spanish for "of the sea" or "by the sea," which reflects its location on the coast of the Pacific Ocean.[CC] DENNIS P. BLOCK: Martinez Balks at Unfair Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- Marina Martinez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Dennis P. Block & Associates, APC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-06534 (C.D. Cal., July 22, 2020) is a putative class action brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. Plaintiff's alleged obligation arises from a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services that are the subject of the transaction were incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes -- namely, a personal residential lease. According to the complaint, in connection with the collection of the Debt, Defendant filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Plaintiff in or around May 2020. The complaint seeks possession of the premises, court costs, forfeiture of the lease agreement, $1,300 in "past-due" rent, and accruing damages of $86.67 per day. Thereafter and in connection with the collection of the Debt, Defendant sent Plaintiff written communication dated June 2, 2020, along with a copy of the unlawful detainer complaint. The letter did not include the notices required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(3)-(5). The letter did not also include a statement that Defendant was attempting to collect a debt and that any information would be used for that purpose. The Plaintiff seeks to redress conduct by Defendant that caused Plaintiff to suffer intangible harms, which Congress has made legally cognizable in passing the FDCPA. Dennis P. Block & Associates, APC is a real estate law firm in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC 5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (602) 388-8898 Facsimile: (866) 317-2674 E-mail: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com DESTIN FIRE: Jensen Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------- RYAN JENSEN, on behalf of himself and all employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE DESTIN FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-05661-RV-HTC (N.D. Fla., July 20, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an Open Water Rescuer from on or about December 5, 2018 through June 14, 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were paid on an hourly basis and fixed compensation per pay period for having certain credentials, also called as "incentive" under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Although Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked overtime and were paid at one and one-half times their hourly rate of pay for their overtime hours worked, Defendant failed to include the fixed "incentive" pay in computing the overtime pay. Moreover, Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and those similarly situated for the time they attended mandatory training sessions and was not included in the overtime pay calculation. Also, Defendant failed to keep accurate time records of all the hours worked by Plaintiff and those similarly situated. The Destin Fire Control District operate as municipal corporation providing emergency medical services, rescue response services, fire control services and fire prevention services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean Culliton, Esq. SEAN CULLITON, ESQ., LLC 285 Pinewood Dr. Tallahassee, FL 32303 Tel: (850) 385-9455 Fax: (813) 441-1999 Email: sean@seancullitonlaw.com DHL EXPRESS: Schulz Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as FREDERICK SCHULZ, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated v. DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC., and Does 1-100, Case No. CGC-20-584120 (Filed April 20, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 7, 2020. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-04490 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for failure to compensate for hours worked; failure to compensate for overtime; and failure to provide paid rest breaks and meal periods under the Labor Code. DHL Express offers shipping, tracking and courier delivery services. Ship and track parcels and packages and learn about our express courier services.[BN] Defendant DHL Express is represented by: Richard B. Lapp, Esq. Chantelle C. Egan, Esq. Parnian Vafaeenia, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 E-mail: rlapp@seyfarth.com cegan@seyfarth.com pvafaeenia@seyfarth.com EAST SIDE TOP: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juana Ramales Perez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. EAST SIDE TOP CLEANERS LLC (D/B/A EAST SIDE CLEANERS), CLAUDIA LIM, and JUNG LIM, Case No. 1:20-cv-05509 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that she worked, according to the complaint. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. The Plaintiff was employed to wash and fold clothes at the dry cleaner. The Defendants own, operate, or control a dry cleaners, located in New York under the name "East Side Cleaners."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 EIMS USA INC: Schaaf Sues Under FLSA Over Unpaid Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Schaaf, on behalf himself and others similarly situated v. EIMS USA, Inc., a foreign corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-22959-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 17, 2020), is brought for damages for unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Defendant's policy was not to pay any employee for his or her training hours the agreed upon wage or federal minimum wages for the hours attended unless 50 or more hours were worked subsequent to the training classes, according to the complaint. On December 13, 2019, in addition to attending the training class, the Plaintiff performed 5 hours of work for the Defendant. Total hours of training and work by the Plaintiff equal approximately 37. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant. EIMS USA, Inc., is a sales and marketing corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Dusek, Esq. Intracoastal Building 3000 NE 30th Place, Suite 408 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 Post Office Box 4337 Phone: (954) 565-2344 Email: jim@duseklawfirm.com EMC INSURANCE: Fails to Refund Excessive Premiums, 1259 Post Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1259 POST LLC d/b/a FLO'S PIZZERIA & SPORTS BAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMC INSURANCE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00626-PLM-PJG (W.D. Mich., July 10, 2020) alleges that the Plaintiff and the Class have overpaid their commercial insurance premiums, and that the Defendant's premium rates are excessive and unlawful. Similar to other automobile policyholders, as a result of the widespread stay-at-home orders, the Plaintiff has experienced a "radical reduction" in its exposure to potential claims under the Insurance Policy, as evidenced by its reduced hours of operation, limited operation, and receipts during the effective period for the stay-at-home orders. As an example, the Plaintiff's business closed its dine in area to the public from March 16, 2020 to June 8, 2020. The closure resulted in a significant loss of revenue compared to activity from 2019. This level of activity is a marked departure from previous months. Because the Plaintiff has experienced a significantly lower exposure rate due to COVID-19, then the Plaintiff also overpaid for its premiums when the policies were written. However, the Defendant systematically ignores its obligations to return excessive premium payments made by the Plaintiff and the Class. Instead, the Defendant uses audits to increase the amounts of premiums. EMC Insurance provides property and casualty insurance, reinsurance, nonstandard risk automobile insurance, and excess and surplus lines insurance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Blake Heath, Esq. M. BLAKE HEATH, TRIAL ATTORNEY LLC 917 W. 43rd Street, Suite 100 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 931-0048 Facsimile: (816) 931-4803 E-mail: blake@heathinjurylaw.com ENERGEN RESOURCES: Henley Seeks to Certify FLSA Workers Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES HENLEY, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, v. ENERGEN RESOURCES CORPORATION, Case No. 7:20-cv-00045-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act class consisting of: "all oilfield workers, employed by, or working on behalf of, Energen and Diamondback who were classified as independent contractors and paid a day-rate with no overtime at any time during the past three years (the Putative Class Members)"; and 2. approving a court-authorized notice of this action. Mr. Henley contends that the Court should conditionally certify this class because he has more than satisfied his minimal burden of demonstrating that he and Energen oilfield workers are similarly situated, as they were all subjected to Energen's uniform day rate policy that deprived them of overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Energen and Diamondback are energy companies. To perform their operations, Energen employs oilfield workers on a day rate basis. For example, from approximately 2014 until December 2018, Henley worked for Energen as a Completions Superintendent. Plaintiff Garry Headrick worked for Energen and Diamondback. Opt-in Plaintiff Antonio Kelly worked for Diamonback as oilfield consultant. During this period, Energen paid Putative Class Members a day rate with no overtime compensation.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 325-1100 Facsimile: (713) 325-3300 E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com mjosephson@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.coms ENPHASE ENERGY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 17 Motion Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENPH). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENPH) Class Period: February 26, 2019 to June 17, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2020 On June 17, 2020, Prescience Point Capital Management published a report concerning Enphase Energy, in which Prescience Point 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." Prescience Point further wrote that "Deloitte should launch an in-depth investigation of ENPH's accounting practices," and set a target price of "Delisted" for ENPH. Prescience Point also detailed hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of insider sales in the last few months. On this news, the stock plummeted from its June 16, 2020 closing price of $52.76 per share to a June 17, 2020 closing price of $39.04 per share, a one day drop of $13.72 or approximately 26%. The complaint, filed on June 17, 2020, alleges that Enphase misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) its revenues, both U.S. and international, were inflated; (2) the Company engaged in improper deferred revenue accounting practices; (3) the Company's reported base points expansion in gross margins were overstated; and that (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. For more information on the Enphase class action go to: https://bespc.com/ENPH About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com [GN] ENPHASE ENERGY: Hagens Berman Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges investors in Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENPH) who suffered losses in excess of $150,000 to submit their losses now. The August 17, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in a securities fraud class action against Enphase is fast approaching. Class Period: Feb. 26, 2019 - June 17, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Aug. 17, 2020 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/ENPH Contact An Attorney Now: ENPH@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Enphase Energy (ENPH) Securities Fraud Class Action: The complaint alleges that Enphase misrepresented and concealed that: (1) its revenues, both U.S. and international, were inflated; (2) the Company engaged in improper deferred revenue accounting practices; (3) the Company's reported base points expansion in gross margins were overstated; and that (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Investors began to learn the truth, according to the complaint, on June 17, 2020, when research firm Prescience Point published a report concluding 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." Prescience Point also noted since the start of June, possibly when insiders became aware of its investigation, Enphase insiders dumped $120.9 million in stock at inflated prices. In response, the price of Enphase shares plummeted over 25% on June 17, 2020. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving that Enphase misreported revenues and inflated margins," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you purchased shares of Enphase and suffered significant losses, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Enphase 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 ENPH@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] ENPHASE ENERGY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 17 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on July 15 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Enphase Energy . Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Enphase Energy, Inc. (ENPH) ENPH Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 26, 2019 - June 17, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/enphase-energy-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7957&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Enphase Energy, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) its revenues, both U.S. and international, were inflated; (2) the Company engaged in improper deferred revenue accounting practices; (3) the Company's reported base points expansion in gross margins were overstated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 [GN] EVERLY WELL: Unfairly Sells Food Sensitivity Kit, Robinson Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ZELEEN ROBINSON, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. EVERLY WELL, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 109877770 (Fla. Cir.., Miami-Dade Cty., July 7, 2020), seeks to redress the deceptive or unfair trade practices, acts, and omissions employed by the Defendant in the marketing and sale of its EverlyWell Food Sensitivity Kit. The Plaintiff contends that the Product packaging describes the test as "physician-approved," leading consumers to believe there is medical acceptance around the testing method and purported results but there is not. Using deceptive and unfair tactics, the Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells the Product in Florida. The Product is sold at major retailers throughout the State of Florida, including Target and CVS. The Product utilizes Immunoglobulin (IgG) Analysis to purportedly determine food sensitivities. Essentially, the Product screens for certain food-specific antibody proteins in the blood that are supposedly telltale signs of an adverse sensitivity to that food. On its label, the Product purports to identify whether or not an individual has an adverse sensitivity to an enumerated list of foods. According to Defendant's Web site, the Kit "measures your body's immune response to the foods to help provide guidance on what types of food may be the best to choose for an elimination diet."! The Product packaging describes the test as "physician-approved," leading consumers to believe there is medical acceptance around the testing method and purported results (there is not), the Plaintiff contends. After purchasing the Kit and sending a blood sample to the Defendant, customers can view their IgG Testing results on the Defendant's online portal, which claims to identify whether each of the foods the Defendant tested for, had a normal, mild, moderate, or high reactivity level, and advises customers to consider eliminating the non-normal foods from their diet. The Kit costs hundreds of dollars, according to the complaint. Everly Well provides diagnostic health testing services. The Company offers testing services in the areas of food sensitivity, women's fertility, and thyroid.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Neary, Esq. Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com m@kttlaw.com - and - Gillian L. Wade, Esq. Sara Avila, Esq. MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 396-9600 Facsimile: (310) 396-9635 E-mail: gwade@mjfwlaw.com savila@mjfwlaw.com - and - Ryan Casey, Esq. CASEY LAW FIRM, LLC PO Box 4577 Frisco, CO 80443 Telephone: (970) 372-6509 Facsimile: (970) 372-6482 E-mail: ryan@rcaseylaw.com FREEDOM CREDIT: Greenfield Sues Over Unfair Collection of OD Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Karen M. Greenfield, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. FREEDOM CREDIT UNION, Case No. 200701162 (Pa. Com. Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., July 17, 2020), seeks damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief from FCU arising from the unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of overdraft fees, which FCU charges when it pays certain items. FCU also assessed OD Fees on items that did not actually overdraw the account, which is barred by its contract and is deceptive, the Plaintiff alleges. She contends that this practice breaches contractual promises; violates the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and/or violates Pennsylvania consumer protection laws. The plain language of FCU's adhesion contracts specifically promises that FCU will only charge OD Fees on items when such items cause the account to have a negative balance, according to the complaint. The Account Documents between FCU and the Plaintiff and its other accountholders contains a promise that FCU will not charge OD Fees for an item when there is sufficient money in the account to pay for the item. Indeed, according to the monthly account statements prepared by FCU, the Plaintiff's account balance was not negative when she was charged OD Fees. Thus, the items did not actually overdraw the Plaintiff's account and FCU charged her hefty OD Fees anyway. These practices work to catch accountholders in an increasingly devastating cycle of bank fees, the Plaintiff says. She contends that she and other FCU customers have been injured by FCU's practices. On behalf of herself and the putative class, the Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief for FCU's breach of contract and violation of Pennsylvania's consumer protection law. Plaintiff Ms. Greenfield has a personal checking account with Freedom Credit Union. Freedom Credit Union is a credit union with over $950 million in assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stewart L. Cohen, Esq. Eric S. Pasternack, Esq. COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C. Two Commerce Square, Suite 2900 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-567-3500 Email: scohen@cprlaw.com epasternack@cprlaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. Daniel Tropin, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 Email: streisfeld@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com tropin@kolawyers.com - and - Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Gold, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20009 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Facsimile: (202) 871-8180 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielpllc.com FROEDTERT HEALTH: Fore Seeks to Certify Employee Class ------------------------------------------------------ In class action lawsuit captioned as Toni Fore On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Froedtert Health Inc., Case No. 19-CV-1488 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying an opt-out class: "all Froedtert Health Inc. hourly non-exempt employees who, on or after October 10, 2017, either (a) clocked in and out of Kronos on a computer; or (b) received Wellness, Healthy Contributions, or weekend differential payments from Froedtert"; 2. appointing her as the class representative; and 3. granting to them such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Froedtert provides healthcare services. The Hospital offers amyloidosis, behavioral health, cardiac surgery, dermatology, endocrinology, gynecology, hemorrhoids, kidney transplants, neurology, nursing, occupational therapy, radiology, spondylolysis, urology, and cancer treatment services.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C. 310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: 414 271-4500 Facsimile: 414/271-6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com GOLD CAPITAL: Robinson Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- HUGH ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLD CAPITAL FUND LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03253 (E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff received telemarketing text message to his cellular telephone number ending in 1829 from Defendant's telephone number 843-258-1494 on or about January 27, 2020. Allegedly, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing to promote its services by using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) in transmitting messages that is harming thousands of consumer in the process. Plaintiff asserts that he never provided Defendant with his express written consent to be contacted using an ATDS. Gold Capital Fund LLC provides lines of credit, consolidation, invoice factoring, payroll advance, and term loans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Tel: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com GOOGLE: Faces Class Action Over "Web & App Activity" Tracking ------------------------------------------------------------- Kirsten Errick, writing for Law Street, reports that a class of individuals, whose mobile app usage was tracked by Google despite turning off "Web & App Activity" tracking, filed a complaint on July 14 in the Northern District of California against Google and its parent company Alphabet Inc. for the unlawful interception and surreptitious collection of their communications and data. The complaint explained that "Google promises user control and privacy. In reality, Google is a voyeur extraordinaire. Google is always watching. Even when it promises to look away, Google is watching. Every click, every website, every app -- our entire virtual lives. Intercepted. Tracked. Logged. Compiled. Packaged. Sold for profit." Specifically, the plaintiffs are suing Google for its "illegal interception of consumers' private activity on consumer mobile applications"; Google allegedly uses this amassed data to sell for consumer advertising. As a result, the plaintiffs claimed that Google financially benefits from user data. Furthermore, while Google asserted in its Privacy Policy and other places that users are "in control of what information [they] share with Google," the plaintiffs alleged that this is not true. Users may have "the option to 'control' what app browsing and activity data Google collects by adjusting their privacy settings," however, the plaintiffs proffered that Google "intercepts, tracks, collects and sells consumer mobile app browsing history and activity data regardless of what safeguards or 'privacy settings' consumers undertake to protect their privacy." As a result, Google allegedly collected user data, despite some users believing that they took measures to safeguard their data. The plaintiffs stated that in addition to tracking users on Google-branded apps and devices, Google integrated its tracking software through its Firebase SDK (software development kits) into other companies' products. Google also allegedly covertly collected private consumer data through Google Analytics and it collected consumer mobile app communications. Googles supposedly misrepresented its data privacy, by claiming that users had control over their data, when they did not have this control. For instance, Google allegedly continues to intercept user communication and data even when a user has attempted to safeguard their data by turning off "Web & App Activity." Again, the plaintiffs claimed that this information is collected for Google's benefit by selling to third-parties for advertising and other purposes; this is valuable information for third-parties and advertisers. The plaintiffs argued that consumers reasonably expect that their communications and data will not be intercepted or surreptitiously collected, as protected by law. Google is accused of Federal Wiretap Act violations, California Invasion of Privacy Act violations, invasion of privacy and violating California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act for the aforementioned alleged conduct. These "[f]ederal and California privacy laws prohibit unauthorized interception, access, and use of the contents in electronic communications." The plaintiffs have sought to certify the suit as a class action; an award for damages; and order for Google to disgorge wrongfully obtained revenue and profits; to permanently restrain defendants from further violations; an award for costs and fees; and other relief as determined by the court. The plaintiffs are represented by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. [GN] GREATER NEW YORK: Kamakura Sues Over Denied Insurance Coverage -------------------------------------------------------------- Kamakura, LLC and Atlantico, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-11350-FDS (D. Mass., July 17, 2020), arises out of the Plaintiffs' insurance coverage claims under their "all risks" insurance policies sold and insured by GNY, where GNY has universally denied coverage to the Plaintiffs and has refused to honor its contractual obligations. In order to protect their businesses and the income derived from their restaurants, the Plaintiffs each purchased a property insurance policy from GNY that included business interruption insurance coverage and civil authority coverage. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic spread throughout the United States and caused the Plaintiffs and all other restaurant businesses to close their doors as a result of the direct physical loss of or damage to the property caused by COVID-19 and the dangerous conditions relating to that damage, and as a result of various civil authority orders entered by state and local authorities. According to the complaint, the GNY policies expressly provide coverage for loss of "Business Income" and "Extra Expense" and the consequences of actions by "Civil Authority." Because of this express coverage, Plaintiffs and the Classes believed their policies, which they had paid significant premiums for, would protect their businesses from the unlikely event that a pandemic rendered Plaintiffs unable to use the property for their intended purpose or that state and local governments would issue orders to stop or substantially restrict their operations in connection with a pandemic or any other Covered Cause of Loss. Contrary to the coverage provisions in their insurance policies with GNY, GNY has universally denied coverage to Plaintiffs and members of the Classes and have refused to honor the contractual obligations GNY had under the policies, the Plaintiffs contend. They assert that GNY's denials were part of an intentional strategy by it to deny all claims related to the civil authority orders entered by state and local governments and COVID-19. GNY's denial of coverage was disconnected from the facts of the claims, which GNY purposely did not reasonably investigate, and/or the specific coverage provided by the policies. They add that GNY's denial of coverage to them and the Classes caused them substantial financial losses. As a result of GNY's conduct, the Plaintiffs and members of the Classes suffered substantial damages and, without appropriate declaratory relief, will continued to be harmed by GNY's misconduct, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs own and operated restaurants and have purchased property insurance policies from GNY. GNY is licensed to provide property and casualty insurance in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward F. Haber, Esq. Michelle H. Blauner, Esq. Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq. Adam M. Stewart, Esq. Patrick J. Vallely, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP Two Seaport Lane Boston, MA 02210 Phone: (617) 439-3939 Facsimile: (617) 439-0134 Email: ehaber@shulaw.com mblauner@shulaw.com imcloughlin@shulaw.com astewart@shulaw.com pvallely@shulaw.com GREEN FARMS: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Roque Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jhonnatan Roque and Oscar Mackorthy, as individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GREEN FARMS CALIFORNIA, LLC, a California limited liability company formerly known as GREEN FARMS, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Case No. 20STCV27032 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 17, 2020), seeks relief against the Defendants for violation of the Private Attorneys' General Act, stemming from their failure to pay all wages due, including minimum, regular, and overtime wages. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have a policy of improperly paying non-exempt hourly employees, and failing to provide meal periods, to provide rest periods, to provide accurate wage statements and to pay wages upon ending employment of terminated or resigned employees. The Defendants were obligated, among other things, to pay the Plaintiffs for all hours worked, including minimum wages and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 8 hours of work in 1 day or 40 hours in 1 week and double-time for hours worked in excess of 12 in one day. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants in the County of Los Angeles. GREEN FARMS CALIFORNIA, LLC, is a food distribution company doing business in the state of California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jake D. Finkel, Esq. Alexander Perez, Esq. Sheryl L. Marx, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAKE D. FINKEL 3470 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 830 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 213.787.7411 Facsimile: 323.916.0521 Email: jake@lawfinkel.com alex@lawfinkel.com sheryl@lawfinkel.com HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Judge Tosses $18.9MM Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Molly Crane-Newman and Larry McShane, writing for New York Daily News, report that a Manhattan federal judge swiftly scuttled an $18.9 million class-action settlement for victims of Harvey Weinstein, declaring on July 14 that the women were not getting a fair share of the movie producer's money. Judge Alvin Hellerstein rejected preliminary approval of the settlement for multiple reasons, noting the disgraced mogul would not pay any of his own cash to the victims but would surrender millions of dollars to the class-action lawyers and defense costs of other defendants in the suit. "The idea that Harvey Weinstein can get a defense fund ahead of the claimants is obnoxious," Hellerstein said. "The idea you can regulate the claims of people not in the settlement, I can't subscribe to that." After the first of eight lawyers spoke, the judge abruptly ended the hearing and suggested the parties take an alternative legal route by getting judgments against the jailed "Pulp Fiction" producer. "That's what you should be doing instead of wasting your time with phony settlements and attempts to create a class that doesn't exist," he said. The scrapped deal was negotiated by state Attorney General Letitia James. "We will review the decision and determine next steps," said a spokesperson for the attorney general. "Our office has been fighting tirelessly to provide these brave women with the justice they are owed and will continue to do so." Lawyer Thomas P. Giuffra, who represents film producer Alexandra Canosa, said the attorney general made a "huge mistake" in supporting the suit. His client has accused Weinstein of rape and sexual assault. "The attorney general of New York should be ashamed of herself for putting her support behind such an unfair and punitive agreement," said Giuffra said. "My client and I are thrilled with the decision rejecting the class settlement and Judge Hellerstein's refusal to certify this case as a class. Hellerstein recognized all of the flaws of the agreement and class." Weinstein, 62, was sentenced to 23 years in prison in Manhattan Supreme Court on March 11 for sexually assaulting his former production assistant Miriam Haley and raping actress Jessica Mann. He faces another trial in Los Angeles on charges from two alleged sexual assaults in Beverly Hills and west Los Angeles in 2013. The Oscar-winning Weinstein faces a possible life sentence if convicted on those charges. Prior to ruling, Hellerstein grilled Elizabeth Fegan -- an attorney for nine of the women -- on the significantly contrasting experiences of plaintiffs in the case. "Why include women that just met Harvey Weinstein and were not sexually molested?" he asked. "Not every woman was sexually molested, right?" Fegan argued that any woman in Weinstein's orbit at The Weinstein Company was in danger by default. "All of these women were in the zone of danger," Fegan said, adding the disgraced film producer assessed each woman he came into contact with to see "whether she was vulnerable, whether he could abuse her." But the judge did not see it the same way. "Some gave up their bodies because of blandishments," said Hellerstein. "Some by force, and some may have done it willingly. And yet your settlement creates an equality." In December, the New York Daily News reported that a split had emerged among Weinstein victims over settlement talks. At the time, more than two dozen accusers whose claims were barred by the statute of limitations had agreed in principle to a deal. A handful of holdouts were unhappy with the terms and expressed frustration with James's handling of negotiations. The deal resolved a 2018 lawsuit by the attorney general's office against The Weinstein Company, Harvey and his brother Robert Weinstein, and a class-action suit brought by the movie mogul's sexual assault victims. Douglas Wigdor, Kevin Mintzer and Bryan Arbeit, who represent six of Weinstein's accusers, had previously described the suit as a "complete sellout." On July 14, they also welcomed Hellerstein's ruling. "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," read their statement. "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." [GN] HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 10 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Hebron Technology (NASDAQ: HEBT). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. (NASDAQ: HEBT) Class Period: April 24, 2020 to June 3, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 10, 2020 On June 3, 2020, Grizzly Research presented a report alleging that Hebron is an "insider enrichment scheme without economic basis," citing questionable transactions including an undisclosed related party transaction for nearly $26 million. On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.26, or nearly 37%, to close at $14.29 per share on June 3, 2020. The stock continued to decline the next trading session by $2.51, or nearly 18%, to close at $11.78 per share on June 4, 2020. The complaint, filed on June 9, 2020, 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 many of Hebron's acquisitions, including Beijing Hengpu and Nami Holding (Cayman) Co., Ltd., involved undisclosed related parties; (2) that the Company's disclosure controls regarding related party transactions was ineffective; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. For more information on the Hebron Technology class action go to: https://bespc.com/HEBT About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com [GN] IDEANOMICS INC: Klein Law Reminds of Aug. 27 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ The Klein Law Firm on July 15 disclosed that class action complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Ideanomics Inc. There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Ideanomics, Inc. (IDEX) Class Period: March 20, 2020 - June 25, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 27, 2020 The IDEX lawsuit alleges that Ideanomics, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Ideanomics' Mobile Energy Global Division in Qingdao, China (the "MEG Center") was not "a one million square foot EV expo center" as the Company had stated in press releases; (ii) the Company had been using doctored or altered photographs of the purported MEG Center in Qingdao; (iii) the Company's electric vehicle business in China was not performing nearly as strongly as Ideanomics had represented; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Learn about your recoverable losses in IDEX: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/ideanomics-inc-loss-submission-form?id=7970&from=1 Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages provided. J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: J. Klein, Esq. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 jk@kleinstocklaw.com Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN] IDEANOMICS INC: Levi & Korsinksy Reminds of Aug. 27 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on July 15 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Ideanomics Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Ideanomics, Inc. (IDEX) IDEX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 20, 2020 - June 25, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 27, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ideanomics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7957&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Ideanomics, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Ideanomics' Mobile Energy Global Division in Qingdao, China (the "MEG Center") was not "a one million square foot EV expo center" as the Company had stated in press releases; (ii) the Company had been using doctored or altered photographs of the purported MEG Center in Qingdao; (iii) the Company's electric vehicle business in China was not performing nearly as strongly as Ideanomics had represented; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 [GN] INTERO REAL: Court Certifies DNC Classes in Chinitz TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD CHINITZ v. INTERO REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Case No. 5:18-cv-05623-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order on July 22, 2020: 1. certifying these classes: The National Do-Not-Call (DNC) Class defined as: "all persons in the United States who: (a) received more than one call made on behalf of Intero by, or on behalf of, one of Intero's California sales associates; (b) promoting Intero's goods or services; (c) that was placed through the dialing platform provided by Mojo Dialing Solutions, Inc., the calling records for which appear in one of 35 account files, identified in Appendix A; (d) in a 12-month period; (e) on their non-business telephone lines; (f) whose telephone number(s) were on the NDNCR for at least 31 days; (g) at any time since September 13, 2014"; and The Internal DNC Class defined as: "all persons in the United States who: (a) were on an internal list of persons who asked Intero not to call them ("Internal DNC List"), (b) received more than one call made on behalf of Intero by, or on behalf of, one of Intero's California sales associates; (c) promoting Intero's goods or services; (d) in a 12-month period; (e) on their non-business telephone line; (f) at any time since September 14, 2014"; 2. appointing the Plaintiff Ronald Chinitz as the class representative; 3. appointing Tycko & Zavareei LLP and Reese LLP as class counsel; and 4. directing the Plaintiff to propose a notice plan no later than August 22, 2020, for the National DNC Class seeking damages under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3). The Court finds that the Plaintiff has met the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) for the Internal DNC Class and National DNC Class seeking injunctive relief, as well as the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) for the National DNC Class seeking damages. This is a putative class action brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant for allegedly making unlawful calls to Plaintiff's residential telephone lines in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[CC] IQIYI INC: Jenkins Securities Suit Moved From Calif. to E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS JENKINS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. IQIYI, INC., YU GONG, XIAODONG WANG, ROBIN YANHONG LI, QI LU, HERMAN YU, XUYANG REN, VICTOR ZHIXIANG LIANG, and CHUAN WANG, Case No. 4:20-cv-02882 (Filed April 27, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) on July 7, 2020. The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-03068-LDH-JO to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall. The Movants are Tranquil Bay, LLC; Wing Yiu Chan; Dae Kim; Glenn Wenger; Young K. Han; Safari Enterprises, Inc.; Ronald Hershberger; Robert Gereige; Laura Maria Dominguez Moreno; Hung Truong; Sugumar Ariathurai; and Le Rivage LLC. The lawsuit is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) iQIYI American Depository Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on March 29, 2018; or (b) iQIYI securities between March 29, 2018, and April 7, 2020, both dates inclusive. The Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On March 29, 2018, iQIYI filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO. That same day, iQIYI conducted the IPO pursuant to the Offering Documents and issued 125,000,000 ADSs to the public at the Offering price of $18.00 per share. iQIYI reaped approximately $2,182,500,000 in proceeds upon the IPO's completion, after underwriting discounts and commission. The Plaintiff alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. iQIYI, together with its subsidiaries, provides online entertainment services under the iQIYI brand in China. iQIYI's digital platform provides a collection of Internet video content, including professionally produced content licensed from content providers and self-produced content. The Company also provides membership, content distribution, online advertising, live broadcasting, online gaming and literature, e-commerce, and talent agency services.[BN] Movant Tranquil Bay, LLC, is represented by: Kim Elaine Miller, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 250 Park Avenue, Suite 2040 New York, NY 10177 Telephone: (212) 696-3732 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 E-mail: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com Movant Wing Yiu Chan is represented by: Benjamin Galdston, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (619) 489-0300 E-mail: bgaldston@bm.net Movant Dae Kim is represented by: Danielle Smith, Esq. Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3038 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: danielles@hbsslaw.com lucasg@hbsslaw.com reed@hbsslaw.com Movants Glenn Wenger, Young K. Han, and Safari Enterprises, Inc., are represented by: Adam Christopher McCall, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 388 Market Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 373-1671 E-mail: amccall@zlk.com Movants Ronald Hershberger and Robert Gereige are represented by: Laurence Matthew Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016-1101 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com Movant Laura Maria Dominguez Moreno, individually and on behalf of Coliving Costa Blanca, Sociedad Limitada are represented by: Danielle Suzanne Myers, Esq. Juan Carlos Sanchez, Esq. Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: dmyers@rgrdlaw.com jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com shawnw@rgrdlaw.com Movant Hung Truong is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. FARUQI AND FARUQI LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: Bheikali@faruqilaw.com Movant Sugumar Ariathurai is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1558 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com Movant Le Rivage LLC is represented by Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: prajesh@glancylaw.com Plaintiff Thomas Jenkins is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. J. Alexander Hood, II, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1558 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com Defendant iQIYI, Inc. is represented by: Peter Bradley Morrison, Esq. Virginia Faye Milstead, Esq. Zachary Marc Faigen, Esq. SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEGHER & RUN 4 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 735-3000 E-mail: virginia.milstead@skadden.com zack.faigen@skadden.com JEA SENIOR: Bowen Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ANNICA B. BOWEN, a.k.a. ANNICA PALACIO, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated employees v. JEA SENIOR LIVING HEALTH & WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company; WILLOW SPRINGS MANAGEMENT CA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Blossom Grove, CA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Empire Ranch Alzheimer's Special Care Center, a business entity form unknown; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV16887 (Filed April 30, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 15, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-06305 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts claims for failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; "waiting time penalties"; failure to provide itemized wage statements; and unfair competition; and civil penalties and attorneys' fees and costs under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code. The Defendants are in the residential care business.[BN] Defendants JEA Senior Living Health & Welfare Benefit Plan, LLC; Willow Springs Management CA, LLC; Blossom Grove, CA, LLC; and Empire Ranch Alzheimer's Special Care Center, are represented by: Bryan L. Hawkins, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: 916 447 0700 Facsimile: 916 447 4781 E-mail: bryan.hawkins@stoel.com - and - Bao M. Vu, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1120 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415.617.8900 Facsimile: 415.617.8901 E-mail: bao.vu@stoel.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Hawkins FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as OPHELIA HAWKINS, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Case No. 8:19-cv-02174-VMC-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 for settlement purposes only: "all persons employed by Defendant as FCOI Investigators at any time during the period from February 5, 2017, or three years back from the date of opt-in if earlier, through the date of this Court's Preliminary Approval Order and who either do not have arbitration agreements or who Opted-in to this litigation prior to April 8, 2020.;" Excluded from the Settlement class are any person who timely submits a valid request for exclusion from the class.; 2. granting preliminary approval of the Parties' proposed Settlement under Rule 23(e); 3. authorizing the mailing and emailing of the proposed notice to the Class consistent with the terms of the Parties' proposed Settlement; 4. granting the Plaintiff leave to file her Second Amended Complaint to effectuate the Settlement; and 5. scheduling a final approval hearing at which time the Parties will request that the Court grant final approval of the Settlement. In this case, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws by misclassifying her and the Class/Collective Members as exempt from the applicable overtime requirements, and thus not paying them overtime premiums. The Defendant employed her and the Class/Collective Members as exempt-designated FCOI Investigators and Senior Investigators. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., doing business as Chase Bank or often as Chase, is a national bank headquartered in Manhattan, New York City, that constitutes the consumer and commercial banking subsidiary of the U.S. multinational banking and financial services holding company, JPMorgan Chase.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq. ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC www.rmlegalgroup.com 8201 Mission Road, Suite 250 Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 766-5585 Facsimile: (816) 875-5069 E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Mark E. Zelek, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 5300 Miami, FL 33131-2339 Telephone: 305 415-3303 Facsimile: 877 432-9652 E-mail: mark.zelek@morganlewis.com - and - Sari M. Alamuddin, Esq. Sam S. Shaulson, Esq. Stephanie R. Reiss, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 77 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312-324-1000 Facsimile: 312-324-1001 E-mail: sari.alamuddin@morganlewis.com sam.shaulson@morganlewis.com stephanie.reiss@morganlewis.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agent Fees, M&M Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- M&M CONSULTING GROUP LLC, a California limited liability company, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; and FIRST REPUBLIC BANK, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-01318-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal., July 22, 2020) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of itself and those similarly situated against Defendants to obtain fees owed to Plaintiff as a result of its work as an agent to assist small business borrowers in getting federally guaranteed loans through the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"), a federal program implemented to provide small businesses with loans to combat the economic impact of COVID-19. On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the COVID19 crisis, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, the CARES Act. The CARES Act was passed by the House of Representatives the following day and signed into law by President Trump on March 27, 2020. This legislation included $377 billion in federally-funded loans to small businesses and a $500 billion governmental lending program, administered by the United States Department of Treasury and the Small Business Administration ("SBA"), a United States government agency that provides support to entrepreneurs and small businesses. As part of the CARES Act, the Federal Government created a $349 billion loan program, referred to as the Paycheck Protection Program or PPP, temporarily adding a new product to the SBA's 7(a) Loan Program. According to the complaint, the Defendants are SBA approved Lenders. Plaintiff served as the PPP Agent for small businesses applying for the PPP loans provided by the Defendants and backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal Government. Despite Plaintiff's important (and successful) work in assisting the Applicants with their Applications, Defendants have not paid Plaintiff the regulatorily required Agent Fees, but have instead retained the Agent Fee portion of the Lender Fees for itself. As a result of Defendants' unlawful actions, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered financial harm by being deprived of the statutorily mandated compensation for the professional services they provided in their critical role as a PPP Agent, assisting Applicants in the preparation of their PPP application. Defendants barred Plaintiff from receiving compensation for their role as PPP Agents in the PPP process, which role resulted in significant benefits to both small businesses and the Lenders. Plaintiff M&M Consulting Group LLC is a California-based company that provides comprehensive risk management services for financial institutions. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a national bank with principal place of business in New York, New York. First Republic Bank is a California-based chartered bank.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael E. Adler, Esq. GRAYLAW GROUP, INC. 26500 Agoura Road, #102-127 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 532-2833 Facsimile: (818) 532-2834 - and - Mark J. Geragos, Esq. Ben J. Meisela, Esq. GERAGOS & GERAGOS, PC 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 625-3900 Facsimile: (213) 232-3255 - and - Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq. Nitoj P. Singh, Esq. DHILLON LAW GROUP INC. 177 Post St., Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 433-1700 Facsimile: (415) 520-6593 KABBALAH CENTRE: Melinda Coolidge Joins Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Kathryn Lee Boyd, a founding partner at Hecht Partners, and Shira Feldman, counsel, are pleased to announce that Melinda Coolidge, a partner at Hausfeld, has joined in representing the plaintiffs in a putative class and collective action lawsuit against the Kabbalah Centre International, Incorporated, affiliated entities, and individuals. The litigation alleges violation of employment laws through a vast network of unpaid labor under extreme conditions for the personal benefit of Karen, Michael, and Yehuda Berg, who run the Centre. "Hecht Partners brings class action lawsuits against some of the most powerful institutions in America, and one of the most heinous is the Kabbalah Centre International," said Ms. Boyd. "Partnering with our colleagues at Hausfeld will strengthen the brave plaintiffs in this case, who have courageously stepped forward to seek justice." "I am proud to be joining this important case seeking justice for the exploited workers of an organization who were made to work without pay to enrich the firm's directors," added Ms. Coolidge, Partner at Hausfeld. Plaintiffs in the case are former employees of the Centre. They claim they were induced to join the Centre as early as 1998 and allege that the individuals who control the Centre -- the Berg family -- operate a cult that preys upon individuals who wish to help others. Plaintiffs have named as individual defendants Karen Berg, Yehuda Berg, and Michael Berg. Karen Berg is one of the center's founders, its leader, and is considered its ultimate authority on all decisions. Karen's sons, Michael and Yehuda, run the organization with her. Among Plaintiffs' allegations are that: * They served as personal assistants catering to the whims of the Bergs, including performing menial labor and household work; * They worked seven days a week, often for 16 to 20 hours a day, and were always "on call" for the Bergs; * They were almost entirely focused on securing ever- increasing money and "donations" for the Centre; * The Centre trained them to obtain, track, and exploit intimate details about the lives of the Centre's members in order to extract ever larger "donations" from those members; * The Centre made major life decisions for them, telling them where to live and work, when to marry, and whom to marry; and * They were manipulated into giving up their material possessions and their relationships outside the Centre. Yehuda Berg also is alleged to have used his position of authority to manipulate already vulnerable female members of the Centre into performing sexual acts. "The Kabbalah Centre used Plaintiffs to operate their cult and enrich the Bergs," said Ms. Feldman. The case is Greene, et al. v. Kabbalah Centre International, Incorporated, et al., No. 1:19-cv-04304, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. If you are interested in joining this action, Plaintiffs' lawyers can be reached at kabbalah@hechtpartners.com. About Hecht Partners: Hecht Partners -- http://www.hechtpartners.com-- is a boutique law firm specializing in class actions, transnational arbitration and litigation, and intellectual property. Its attorneys have been seeking justice against global bad actors for the entirety of their legal careers. Kathryn Lee Boyd has over 25 years of experience advocating on behalf of human rights victims. She has litigated more than 30 jury trials and arbitrations and has represented clients in a variety of high-profile disputes in U.S. courts and international tribunals, including victims of Argentina's "dirty war," survivors of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust and their heirs, indigenous peoples suing sovereigns and multinational oil companies, and the families of airplane hijacking victims. Shira Lauren Feldman, who served as a law clerk to the Honorable Dora L. Irizarry, Chief Judge, and the Honorable Peggy Kuo, Magistrate Judge, both of the Eastern District of New York, represents plaintiffs in individual and class action litigation and international arbitration. Her clients include genocide victims and exploited workers seeking justice against international financial institutions and other multinational organizations. About Hausfeld: Hausfeld lawyers have been dedicated to protecting civil and human rights through the civil court system for decades. Combining experience in litigating complex cases with a passion for preserving human dignity, Hausfeld lawyers have successfully represented victims of human rights abuses in the United States and around the world. Melinda R. Coolidge has over a decade of experience litigating class actions on behalf of victims of conspiracies and wrongdoing. Her clients, and classes she has represented, have obtained billions of dollars in compensation. [GN] KINGOLD JEWELRY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 31 Motion Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Cheetah Mobile, Inc. (NYSE: CMCM), Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. (NYSE: BKD), Kingold Jewelry, Inc. (NASDAQ: KGJI), and Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (NASDAQ: PPC). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Kingold Jewelry, Inc. (NASDAQ: KGJI) Class Period: March 15, 2018 to June 28, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 31, 2020 On June 29, 2020, Caixin Global published an article entitled "Cover Story: The Mystery of $2 Billion of Loans Backed by Fake Gold." The article stated, among other things, that Kingold had used gold bars that were actually gilded copper as collateral in loans and was now facing lawsuits as a result, and that Kingold had been delisted from the Shanghai Gold Exchange. On this news, shares of Kingold stock fell $0.27 per share, or over 24%, to close at $0.85 per share on June 29, 2020. The complaint, filed on June 30, 2020, alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Kingold used fake gold as collateral to fraudulently secure loans; (2) consequently, the Company would face creditor lawsuits and be delisted from the Shanghai Gold Exchange; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. For more information on the Kingold Securities class action go to: https://bespc.com/KGJI About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com [GN] LINKEDIN CORP: Spies on Apple Device Users, Bauer Claims -------------------------------------------------------- ADAM BAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-04599 (N.D. Cal., July 10, 2020) alleges violation of the Plaintiff's privacy rights. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant had programmed its iPhone and iPad applications to abuse Apple's Universal Clipboard to read and divert LinkedIn users' most sensitive data, including sensitive data from other Apple devices, without their consent or knowledge. The Defendant's conduct violated federal and State law, and harmed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of LinkedIn users, including the Plaintiff. In Apple's most recent beta release of its iOS mobile device operating system, iOS 14, Apple added a new privacy setting that allows users to receive a notification each time an app on their iPhone or iPad reads from the system clipboard. Many commenters hailed this and related new features in iOS 14 as an important step toward improved data privacy in mobile devices and their applications. But when developers and other beta testers began using the new privacy notifications in iOS 14, they discovered something quite disturbing: LinkedIn's mobile application for iPhones and iPads was secretly reading users' clipboards. The LinkedIn App's egregious behavior was never disclosed to users. Indeed, until recently, users had no idea that their most sensitive communications were being indiscriminately intercepted and read by the LinkedIn App, including prior to, or contemporaneously with, transmission from one device to another. LinkedIn Corporation operates a social networking web site. The Company allows members to post a profile of their professional expertise and accomplishments on web site. LinkedIn serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Dunne, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 26th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 462-2772 E-mail: bdunne@bathaeedunne.com - and - Yavar Bathaee, Esq. Edward M. Grauman, Esq. Andrew C. Wolinsky, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (332) 205-7668 E-mail: yavar@bathaeedunne.com egrauman@bathaeedunne.com awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com LQ MANAGEMENT: Garcia Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as LESLY GARCIA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LQ MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive (Filed November 21, 2019), 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 15, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-06306 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims for failure to pay minimum and straight time wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay final wages at termination, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of the labor code. LQ manages public hotels and motels.[BN] Defendant LQ Management L.L.C. is represented by: Christopher W. Decker, Esq. David M. Gruen, Esq. Carmen M. Aguado, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 E-mail: Christopher.decker@ogletree.com david.gruen@ogletree.com carmen.aguado@ogletree.com MAIN STREET: Denies Coverage for Losses Caused by E.O., DAB Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAB DENTAL PLLC D/B/A SUNSHINE DENTISTRY, on behalf of itself and all other similarly-situated persons v. MAIN STREET AMERICA PROTECTION INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 109907052 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., July 7, 2020), alleges breach of contract arising out of MSA's denials of civil authority coverage for claims for losses caused by Executive Order Number 20-91. Sunshine is a dental clinic. MSA issued an insurance policy with policy no. BPG9306N to Sunshine effective October 19, 2019, through October 19, 2020. On April 1, 2020, Governor Ron DeSantis issued Executive Order Number 20-91, commonly known as Florida's stay-at-home order. The order became effective at 12:01 a.m. on April 3, 2020, and lasted through April 30, 2020. Pursuant to the order, Sunshine and similarly-situated businesses have been forced to close and remain closed until the order expired. Due to this closure, Sunshine and similarly-situated businesses have lost Business Income and incurred Extra Expenses as those terms are defined in the Policy, the Plaintiff asserts. Based on Sunshine's business records for April 2019, Sunshine's Net Income from April 3, 2020, through April 30, 2020 would have been approximately $25,000 had the stay-at-home order not been issued, according to the complaint. Furthermore, Sunshine incurred continuing normal operating expenses during this period, including payroll, payroll taxes, rent, laboratory fees, malpractice insurance, utilities, computer, software, phone, and internet expenses, dues and subscriptions, and payments to vendors for supplies. The Plaintiff contends that its loss of Business Income and incurrence of Extra Expense fall squarely within the Policy's grant of civil authority coverage. The Plaintiff adds that the stay-at-home order is an action of a civil authority, the Office of the Governor for the State of Florida. Further, the stay-at-home order was not entered due to Sunshine's premises sustaining direct physical loss or damage. Rather, the stay-at-home order prohibits access to Sunshine's premises due to other property sustaining the direct physical loss or damage of COVID-19 being present. Main Street America Protection Insurance Company operates as an insurance company. The Company provides homeowners, condos, renters, umbrella, auto, surety bonds, workers' compensation, and flood insurance and reinsurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek E. Leon, Esq. Scott B. Cosgrove, Esq. John R. Byrne, Esq. Jeremy L. Kahn, Esq. LEÓN COSGROVE, LLP 255 Alhambra Circle, 8th Floor Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: 305 740 1975 Facsimile: 305 437 8158 E-mail: dleon@leoncosgrove.com scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com jbyrne@leoncosgrove.com jkahn@leoncosgrove.com MEANS ENGINEERING: Rodriguez Challenges Illegal Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of aggrieved employees v. MEANS ENGINEERING, INC., a California corporation; DAVID WILLIAM MEANS, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-00024397-CU-OE-CTL (July 15, 2020), challenges the Defendants' systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the stated provisions of the Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all meal period wages and rest break wages, failed to properly calculate and pay all minimum and overtime wages, failed to provide wage statements, failed to pay all wages due and owing during employment and upon termination of employment, and failed to reimburse all necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendants. Means Engineering provides engineering services. The Company offers design engineering, printed circuit boards, precision machining, and welding.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Daniel J. Park, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 MEDICAL TRANSPORT: Faces McMath Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jerome McMath, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated others v. MEDICAL TRANSPORT OF ALABAMA LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01022-AMM (N.D. Ala., July 17, 2020), is brought to seek remedy for suffered damages as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant does not maintain a schedule informing drivers when they should arrive at work. To receive their work assignments, drivers must call an MTA dispatcher the evening before they report to work to receive their work hours and assignment for the following day. When an MTA driver reports for work, they must complete numerous job duties before they are allowed to clock in. The Defendant requires that drivers inspect the vehicles they will be driving for mechanical and other problems. If a driver discovers a problem with the vehicle, they must remedy the problem before clocking in. A driver is only allowed to clock in after they have performed this vehicle inspection and completed the electronic checklist, according to the complaint. These daily vehicle inspections typically last around 10 minutes. However, if there is a problem with the vehicle, drivers may spend up to 20 minutes remedying the problem. During his employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff's work schedule varied greatly. Some days, the Plaintiff worked only 4-5 hours. Other days, the Plaintiff worked up to 14 hour shifts. Plaintiff McMath worked as a non-emergent patient driver and transported patients to and from medical appointments. The Plaintiff was terminated on January 28, 2020, for allegedly failing to perform the safety inspection on his vehicle and properly complete the electronic checklist. Medical Transport of Alabama LLC ("MTA") is a foreign limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth D. Haynes, Esq. HAYNES & HAYNES, P.C. 1600 Woodmere Drive Birmingham, AL 35226 Phone: (205) 879-0377 Email: kdhaynes@haynes-haynes.com MI BARRIO: Zaragoza Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Angel Reyes Zaragoza, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MI BARRIO TORTILLERIA CORP. (D/B/A MI BARRIO TORTILLERIA), MIGUEL CARRERA, and NELSON CARRERA, Case No. 1:20-cv-03220 (E.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938; and for violations of the New York Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Reyes appropriately for any hours worked either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. The Plaintiff was employed as an order preparer and merchandise stocker at the tortilla factory/Mexican food products distributor. The Defendants own, operate, or control a tortilla factory/Mexican food products distributor, located in Brooklyn, New York, under the name "Mi Barrio Tortilleria."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 MICROSOFT CORP: Illegally Shares Customers' Data, Russo Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Frank D. Russo, Koonan Litigation Consulting, LLC, and Sumner M. Davenport & Associates, LLC, on behalf of a similarly situated class v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-04818 (N.D. Cal., July 17, 2020), is brought against Microsoft for misrepresenting its privacy and security practices and illegally sharing and using its business-class Microsoft Office 365 and Microsoft Exchange customers' data in violation of the Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and the consumer protection and privacy laws of Washington. Contrary to Microsoft's representations and without its customers' consent, Microsoft shares its business customers' contacts and related data with Facebook; shares the content of its business customers' emails, documents, contacts, calendars, and other data with unauthorized third parties for unauthorized purposes; and uses its business customers' data to develop new products and services to sell to others, the Plaintiffs allege. Microsoft has regularly shared--and continues to share--its business customers' data with Facebook and other third parties, according to the complaint. The data is shared even when neither the customers nor their contacts are Facebook users. And, once Facebook obtains the data, harmful consequences can follow, as demonstrated by the data harvesting debacle orchestrated by Cambridge Analytica targeting the 2016 national election, using data obtained by Facebook. Microsoft claims transparency about how it uses data and with whom data is shared. But the Company has not fully and openly disclosed its data use and sharing practices to its business customers, the Plaintiffs allege. To the contrary, Microsoft has misled its customers and failed to obtain their consent before using and sharing their data for its purposes, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are persons or companies that have subscribed to or purchased business versions of Microsoft's services and products. Microsoft is the largest software company in the world.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arthur H. Bryant, Esq. Todd A. Walburg, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (304) 345-6555 Fax: (304) 342-1110 Email: abryant@baileyglasser.com twalburg@baileyglasser.com - and - John W. Barrett, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 345-6555 Fax: (304) 342-1110 Email: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com - and - Yvette Golan, Esq. THE GOLAN FIRM PLLC 2000 M St. NW Suite 750-A Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (866) 298-4150 Fax: (928) 441-8250 Email: y.golan@tgfirm.com MIDLAND FUNDING: Morrison Sues in New York Over FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Funding LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Jessica Morrison, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Midland Funding LLC; Midland Credit Management, Inc.; and Selip & Stylianou, LLP, Case No. 6:20-cv-06468-FPG (W.D.N.Y., July 7, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act regarding consumer credit. Midland Funding is a buyer of unpaid debt. Established in 1953, Midland Credit, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, Inc., is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad range of assets. Selip & Stylianou is a licensed debt collection law firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Kaplan, Esq. DAVID M. KAPLAN, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 46 Helmsford Way Penfield, NY 14526 Telephone: (585) 330-2222 E-mail: dmkaplan@rochester.rr.com - and - Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq. EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: thardy@edcombs.com MILEA TRUCK: Fails to Pay Overtime, Asencio Claims -------------------------------------------------- ANIBAL ASENCIO, on behalf of himself, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MILEA TRUCK SALES CORP., and BARRY MILEA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05645 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2020) brings this complaint against Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants beginning on or about June 6, 2013, and ending on or about March 13, 2020, as a general helper preparing trucks for sale and lease to the general public and delivering said trucks to customers. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants operated their business with a policy of not paying him and other similarly situated employees statutory minimum wages and overtime wages despite working well over 40 hours per week. Moreover, Defendants failed to keep true and accurate wage and hour records for all hours worked by Plaintiff an the Collective Action Members. Barry Milea owns the stock of Milea Truck Sales Corp., owns Milea Truck Sales Corp., and manages and makes all business decisions, including the salary of their employees and the number of hours they will work. Milea Truck Sales Corp. operates commercial truck sales and leasing businesses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 10 Grand Central 155 East 44th St. - 6th Flr. New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 Email: pcooper@jcplaw.com MOHAMED DORIA: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Oct. 20 ---------------------------------------------------------- Angeion Group on July 15 disclosed that a settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit called In re Doria/Memon Wage and Hour Litigation, No. 14-cv-7990 concerning the Defendants' alleged failure to pay proper wages and issues proper documentation to employees and Defendants' alleged retaliation against certain class members. The Settlement will provide $11,000,000 to pay claims of employees on the class member list for work performed during the "class period" from October 4, 2008 to October 10, 2017. If you worked at one or more of the Discount Stores in the Bronx and Queens, New York operated by MOHAMED DORIA and/or IQBAL MEMON, you could get a payment from a class action settlement. * For more information in English or to obtain a claim form, check the following link: https://discountstoresclassaction.com/important-documents.php * Para obtener mas informacion en espanol o para obtener un formulario de reclamo, consulte el siguiente enlace: https://discountstoresclassaction.com/important-documents.php * Pour plus d'informations en français ou pour obtenir un formulaire de réclamation, consultez le lien suivant: https://discountstoresclassaction.com/important-documents.php If you are a class member and you have not already joined the case, you may send in a claim form from the weblinks above to get benefits from the settlement or you may exclude yourself from the settlement. You may also choose to remain in the settlement and object to it. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York authorized this notice. Before any money is paid, the Court will have a hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement. In addition, the Surrogate's Court for the Estate of Mohamed Doria must lift restrictions on the estate's assets to allow the money to be paid out. Who's Included * To see if you are an affected class member, check the following link: https://discountstoresclassaction.com/important-documents.php What is this Case About? The lawsuit claims that Defendants, including Iqbal Memon and Mohamed Doria and corporations they operated failed to pay minimum wage, overtime and spread of hours premium pay to workers. The Complaint also claims that Defendants failed to issue wage statements and notifications of pay rate required by law and that Defendants unlawfully retaliated against certain plaintiffs for participating in the lawsuit. Defendants have denied any wrongdoing. The Court has not decided whether Plaintiffs or Defendants are right. Defendants have agreed to settle the claims relating to work performed during the class period and for retaliation for a total settlement amount of $11,000,000.00. What Does This Settlement Provide? Defendants have agreed to create a fund of $11,000,000 to be divided among all class members, whose claims are authorized, including absent class members who submit claim forms and workers who have already joined the case. How Do You Ask For A Payment? Obtain a detailed notice and claim form package. Just call or write to the Notice Administrator at the number below. To qualify for payment, you must submit a claim form along with the necessary tax forms. Claims Forms are due by September 21, 2020. You must also provide a valid social security number or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number in order to receive payment. You must provide that information by March 20, 2021. What Are Your Other Options? If you don't want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must exclude yourself by September 21, 2020 or you won't be able to sue Defendants about the legal claims in the case. If you exclude yourself you can't get money from the settlement. If you stay in the settlement, you may object to it by September 21, 2020. The detailed notice explains how to exclude yourself or object to the settlement. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 10:00 a.m. on October 30, 2020, at the United States District Court, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York, in Courtroom 219 to consider whether to approve the settlement and a request by the lawyers and class representatives for an award of attorneys' fees not to exceed one-third of the settlement fund, expenses, costs and incentive awards. The fees, costs and incentive awards will be paid from the settlement fund. You may ask to appear at the hearing, but you don't have to. For more information call toll free (833) 415-0864 or write to Doria/Memon Disc. Stores Wage and Hour Litigation Settlement, P.O. Box 58731, Philadelphia, PA 19102. [GN] MOHAWK: Faces SEC Probe Amid Shareholder Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Dave Flessner, writing for Chattanooga Times Free Press, reports that Mohawk, the world's biggest floorcovering company and the highest valued publicly traded company in the Chattanooga area, disclosed that it received the subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney's office on June 25 as part of an investigation of Mohawk finances by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The government probe comes as shareholders filed an amended class action lawsuit last month alleging that Mohawk fabricated revenues by attempting delivery to customers that were closed and recognizing these attempts as sales. The lawsuit also claims Mohawk overproduced product to report higher operating margins and maintained significant inventory that was not salable. Mohawk has denied any wrongdoing and said "the company intends to vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit." But investors remain concerned and shares of Mohawk shares were declining in trading on the New York Stock Exchange on July 14. Shares of Mohawk initially dropped by more than 8% after the announcement, but the company's stock closed on July 14 down only 3.1% in trading on July 14 on the New York Stock Exchange. Mohawk shares are still down by more than 45% so far this year and are less than a third of the price at the start of 2018. The class action complaint filed last month by the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi alleges a "fraudulent scheme to fabricate revenues through fictitious 'sales' of products" by Mohawk. Although the allegations are denied by Mohawk, Wells Fargo analysts noted that Mohawk abruptly dismissed its former chief financial officer, Glenn Landau, in March after only 13 months on the job. Mohawk also previously faced allegations of price-fixing of carpet prices in the 1990s, which the company also initially denied but ultimately settled by paying $13.5 million to the litigants. "Though we have no legal expertise, we find both of these items as incremental negatives when considering the current allegations," Wells Fargo said in a recent assessment of Mohawk. In its SEC filing late on July 13, Mohawk said it is "well positioned with a strong balance sheet and limited debt." Mohawk earned $744.2 million on more than $9.8 billion in revenues last year and, despite a slowdown this year, still earned $111 million in the first quarter of 2020. "We have recently issued over $1 billion of long term bonds to strengthen our ability to strategically invest and better COVID19." Mohawk has manufacturing operations in 18 countries and sells is hard and soft surface flooring products in more than 170 nations. Federal prosecutors have issued subpoenas to Mohawk Industries and its CEO Jeff Lorberbaum in an investigation of claims that the company improperly inflated sales and profits. [GN] MYPIZZA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Telemarketing Suit From Pappas ---------------------------------------------------------- The case GEORGE PAPPAS, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. MYPIZZA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05680 (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2020) challenges Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited automated text messages to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class members, including text messages to consumers registered on the National Do Not Call registry, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 ("JFPA"), and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"). According to the complaint, Defendant sent at least three unauthorized text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS" or "auto-dialers") for the purpose of soliciting business from Plaintiff over a six-month period. Each text message is similar in nature in that they provide promotional content for Defendant's products and were sent with the goal of enticing Plaintiff to participate in its Slice app, and thereby increase Defendant's profits. Plaintiff and the Class members did not provide Defendant with prior express written consent to receive such text messages and, as a result, incurred expenses to their wireless services, wasted data storage capacity, suffered the aggravation that accompanies receipt of such unauthorized advertisements, and were subjected to an intrusion upon seclusion. MyPizza Technologies, Inc. is a New York, New York-headquartered company that provides online and mobile pizza ordering software and is the creator and owner of the app, Slice.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 50 Main Street, Suite 1000 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 358-5345 Facsimile: (212) 571-0284 E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com - and - Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com NEW YORK: Srabyan Files Class Action Over School Closures --------------------------------------------------------- Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that New York is facing a proposed class action challenging school closures in the state in response to the coronavirus. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, challenges the constitutionality of orders to close the schools "and replace in person learning in September of 2020 with what has already been proven to be a failed system of alternative remote learning, blended learning, staggered learning and the like." The proposed alternative learning schemes will result in disparate treatment for learning disabled students, who will be deprived of their fundamental right to an education equal to their peers, the plaintiffs allege. The proposed plans will also result in disparate treatment of all New York students compared to students living in other states, the complaint alleges. The plaintiffs allege the state "has failed to carry out its responsibility to provide all students a meaningful opportunity to obtain an education adequate to prepare them to be capable citizens." Under executive orders, school districts were directed to develop a plan for alternative instructional options, distribution and availability of meals, and child care, to be submitted to the State Education Department. There are several reopening scenarios that officials are looking at for reopening state schools, including split schedules, returning to the classroom in waves, some combination of online and in-class learning, and rolling or phased starts. The proposed class is composed of all students attending public K-12 schools in the city and state of New York. Causes of Action: 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 of the Federal Civil Rights Act, due process, and equal protection clauses of the Fifth Amendment. Relief: Declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. Potential Class Size: The suit seeks certification of a class of "thousands of persons." Response: The governor's office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Attorneys: Fishkin, Gurshumov & Nussbaum PC represents the plaintiffs. For additional legal resources, visit Bloomberg Law In Focus: Coronavirus (Bloomberg Law Subscription). The case is Srabyan v. New York, E.D.N.Y., No. 20-cv-03137, 7/14/20. [GN] NOVA OCTO: Faces Nisbett Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site -------------------------------------------------------------- Kareem Nisbett, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. NOVA OCTO LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05548 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. In violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, the Defendant denies full and equal access to its Web site, http://www.novaocto.com/,according to the complaint. Due to its failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its Web site, the Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal access to the Defendant's rental services and the numerous facilities, goods, services, and benefits offered to the public through its Web site. The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person. The Defendant is an online clothing, accessory and jewelry rental service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Phone: 212.392.4772 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com doug@lipskylowe.com PATHWAYS COMMUNITY: Underpays Licensed Therapists, Portka Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANA STEPHANIE PORTKA, individually and on behalf of all aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. PATHWAYS COMMUNITY SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, MOLINA PATHWAYS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, PATHWAYS HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT, LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV27140 (Cal. Sup. Ct., July 20, 2020) brings this complaint against Defendants for their alleged violation of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt pre-licensed therapist from approximately June 2018 through May 2019. The complaint alleges that Defendant denied Plaintiff and other similarly situated pre-licensed therapist of their right to overtime compensation and earned wages when they worked in excess of 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week. The complaint also asserts these claims: -- Defendants instructed Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees to adjust their time sheets to reduce and/or eliminate overtime hours worked; -- Defendants failed to provide meal and rest breaks and failed to pay Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees penalty premiums for missed breaks; -- Defendants required Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees to work evenings and weekends without compensation; -- Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees with complete and accurate wage statements; and -- Defendant failed to timely pay Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for all wages and penalties owed to them upon termination. Pathways Community Services, LLC, Molina Pathways, LLC, and Pathways Health and Community Support, LLC provide community based behavioral and social services throughout the State of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian J. Petronelli, Esq. Dayna C. Carter, Esq. PETRONELLI LAW GROUP, PC 295 Redondo Ave., Suite 201 Long Beach, CA 90803 Tel: (888) 855-3670 Fax: (888) 449-9675 Emails: christian@petronellilaw.com dayna@petronellilaw.com PERSONNEL STAFFING: Class Period Set in Black Workers' Bias Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Dorrian, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that black workers who allege a staffing agency for a Chicago-based production bakery excluded them from temporary assignments must have been denied work at the facility within two years of when the suit was filed to participate in the class case, a federal judge ruled. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois certified the 2013 lawsuit by James Zollicoffer and Norman Green against the Cicero, Ill., office of Personnel Staffing Group LLC and client Gold Standard Baking Inc. as a class action on March 31. PSG does business nationwide as MVP Staffing. [GN] PHH MORTGAGE: Pay-to-Pay Fees Violate TDCA, Williams Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ursula N. Williams, Melbourne and Barbara Poff, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, itself and as successor by merger to OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-09075 (D.N.J., July 17, 2020), alleges violations of the Texas Fair Debt Collection Act and breach of contract. According to the complaint, borrowers across the country struggle enough to make their regular mortgage payments without getting charged extra, illegal fees when they try to pay by phone or online ("Pay-to-Pay fees"). PHH routinely and systematically violates the TDCA and breaches uniform covenants in mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration ("FHA") by assessing fees to borrowers that are either not permitted by law or are expressly prohibited by their mortgage agreements. Here, PHH charges borrowers between $10.00–19.50 for making their mortgage payments online or over the phone. Only a small fraction of the fee is paid to a third-party payment processor, and PHH collects the remainder as profit. The Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of Texas. PHH is one of the largest mortgage lender and servicer in the United States and, more specifically, one of the largest originators and servicers of FHA-insured mortgages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 307 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Phone: 856.324.8219 Email: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com - and - Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. E. Lee Lowther III, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM PLLC 519 W. 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 501.312.8505 Email: rpulliam@cbplaw.com llowther@cbplaw.com PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 4 Motion Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (NASDAQ: PPC). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (NADSAQ: PPC) Class Period: February 9, 2017 to June 3, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 4, 2020 Throughout the Class Period, the defendants touted Pilgrim's Pride's competitive strengths, advantages, and market positioning, which the defendants claimed had been achieved through legitimate business strategies such as a broad product portfolio and disciplined capital allocation. However, on June 3, 2020, the truth about the source of Pilgrim's Pride's purported competitive strengths and advantages was revealed when the United States Department of Justice announced criminal charges (the "Indictment") charging four executives in the chicken industry with criminal antitrust violations, including defendant Jayson J. Penn, Pilgrim's Pride's President and Chief Executive Officer since March 2019, and Roger Austin, a former Pilgrim's Pride Vice President. Following this news, the price of Pilgrim's Pride common stock declined $2.58 per share, or approximately 12.4%, from a close of $20.87 per share on June 2, 2020, to close at $18.29 per share on June 3, 2020. The complaint, filed on July 6, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Pilgrim's Pride 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) Pilgrim's Pride received competitive advantages, which persisted during the Class Period, from its anticompetitive conduct; and (3) as a result, the defendants' statements about the Pilgrim's Pride's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. For more information on the Pilgrim's Pride class action go to: https://bespc.com/PPC About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com [GN] PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Klein Law Reminds of Sept. 4 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm on July 15 disclosed that class action complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Pilgrim's Pride. There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (PPC) Class Period: February 9, 2017 - June 3, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 4, 2020 Throughout the class period, Pilgrim's Pride Corporation allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) 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) 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. Learn about your recoverable losses in PPC: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/pilgrims-pride-corporation-loss-submission-form?id=7970&from=1 Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages provided. J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: J. Klein, Esq. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 jk@kleinstocklaw.com Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN] PORSCHE: Diesel Class Action Must Be Heard by Stutggart Tribunal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Karin Matussek, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Porsche Automobil Holding SE investors' 1.1 billion-euro ($1.3 billion) lawsuit combining their claims related to the diesel scandal at Volkswagen AG must be heard by a Stuttgart tribunal, Germany's top court ruled. The Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe on July 15 overturned a ruling by judges in Stuttgart, who last year said they couldn't hear the case before the resolution of a related suit against VW in Braunschweig. The Stuttgart court must now proceed with the investor suit, which claims that Porsche informed markets too late about the impacts of the diesel scandal. [GN] PREMIER MEDICAL: Sharfman M.D. Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads ------------------------------------------------------------ MARC IRWIN SHARFMAN, M.D., P.A., a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. PREMIER MEDICAL, INC., a South Carolina corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:20-cv-01278 (M.D. Fla., July 20, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff received unsolicited faxes and other facsimile transmissions of unsolicited advertisements on or about July 16, 2019 from Defendant promoting the commercial availability and/or quality of Defendant's DIABETESpredict genetic test. Plaintiff did not provide Defendant "prior express invitation or permission" to send the fax. Premier Medical, Inc. provides patients with personalized prevention plans based on their genetic profile DIABETESpredict. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Tel: (847) 368-1500 Fax: (847) 368-1501 Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com PROASSURANCE CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 17 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of ProAssurance Corporation (NYSE: PRA). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. ProAssurance Corporation (NYSE: PRA) Class Period: April 26, 2019 to May 7, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2020 On January 22, 2020, ProAssurance announced that because of a deteriorating loss experience related mainly to one large healthcare account underwritten in 2016, the Company was estimating a $37 million adverse development in its Specialty Property and Casualty ("Specialty P&C") loss reserves for the fourth quarter of 2019. Additionally, the Company stated that since mid-2019 it had been executing a "comprehensive underwriting strategy in response to emerging trends and changing conditions in healthcare professional liability." In response to these disclosures, ProAssurance's stock price fell $4.18 per share, or 11%, to close at $33.40 per share on January 23, 2020. On February 20, 2020, ProAssurance announced its 2019 fourth quarter and full year results. The Company revealed that the adverse development from this one large national healthcare account was actually $51.5 million, much larger than the initial estimate of $37 million only a month prior. The Company discussed that "[i]n the span of twelve months, we restructured the majority of our executive team [and] consolidated our Specialty P&C operations" under new leadership. Then, on May 8, 2020, ProAssurance announced that the large healthcare client would likely not renew its policy and instead would likely exercise an option for tail coverage that would result in an additional $50 million in losses in the second quarter of 2020. This loss, when combined with the $51.5 adverse development, meant that the Company would suffer over $100 million in losses from a single account. In response to these disclosures, ProAssurance's stock price fell $4.38 per share, or 22%, to close at $15.95 per share on May 8, 2020. The complaint, filed on June 16, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants misrepresented the Company's underwriting and reserve standards, and failed to adequately reserve for losses. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) ProAssurance lacked adequate underwriting process and risk management controls necessary to set appropriate loss reserves in its Specialty P&C segment; (ii) ProAssurance failed to properly assess a large national healthcare account that experienced losses far exceeding the assumptions made when the account was underwritten; and (iii) as a result, ProAssurance was subject to materially heightened risk of financial loss and reserve charges. For more information on the ProAssurance class action go to: https://bespc.com/PRA About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com [GN] PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: Rivera Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as LUISA AVILES RIVERA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01114-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint herself as the class representative, and appoint her attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com PURDUE PHARMA: Culpeper Town Council Files $4.6MM Opioid Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Allison Brophy Champion, writing for Culpeper Star-Exponent, reports that Culpeper Town Council on July 14 voted to file a $4.6 million claim for damages as part of the ongoing class action National Prescription Opiate Litigation in which thousands of localities nationwide have sued now-bankrupt Purdue Pharma for its lead role in the opioid crisis. At least 430,000 deaths in the U.S. since 2000 have been linked to overdoses from opioids, including prescription pills such as OxyContin and Vicodin along with heroin and fentanyl. U.S. attorney generals are among those trying to reach a nationwide settlement. "The opiate epidemic has had a significant and costly negative impact both nationally and locally," Town Treasurer Howard Kartel told council, reading from a report. "This epidemic is believed to be a result of inappropriate actions by opioid manufacturers, distributors and retailers whose actions have damaged communities throughout the United States, including the town of Culpeper." The town's claim against Purdue Pharma seeks money in already-incurred and future damages and abatement costs for the period spanning 2003 to 2040. The estimates are based on approximate costs for child welfare and adolescent services, drug treatment programs, education and prevention initiatives, healthcare, law enforcement and criminal justice and lost tax revenue. The town will file as part of a Consolidated Claim being administered by an Ad Hoc Committee formed to represent governmental and other contingent litigation claimants. Kartel told Culpeper Town Council it's "hard to suggest" the town would receive the entire $4.6 million and that it could instead receive "pennies on the dollar." Either way, the town has to be part of the claim to receive any potential relief. Councilman Pranas Rimeikis voted against joining the suit and Councilman Jon Russell was absent. "What do we have to do with the money if we get it?" asked Mayor Mike Olinger. Town Manager Chris Hively said any award from the suit would go into the town's general fund unless the judge presiding in the national case assigns it for specific uses. "It could be 40 cents, $4,000 or $4 million," Hively said. "It would be something." Councilman Keith Price called it "a huge big action," saying the litigation launched last year: "(PurduePharma) made OxyContin," he added of the highly addictive opioid whose danger was downplayed by the company. Councilwoman Jamie Clancey made a motion to move forward with filing a claim on behalf of the town and Councilman Frank Reaves Jr. offered a second. Since the local onset of COVID-19 in March, focus has shifted from the local opioid epidemic, previously a major concern, especially for Culpeper, which had a higher than average per capita death rate for overdoses. But Dr. Wade Kartchner, Rappahannock-Rapidan Health District Director, said it continues to be an issue nationwide. "The consumption of resources to combat COVID-19 has not helped keep a sustained focus on drug overdoses," he said on July 15 to the Star-Exponent. According to the most recent data from the state medical examiner's office, nine people died of opiate overdoses in Culpeper County last year. Since 2010 in Culpeper, 93 people have died of opiate overdoses, peaking in 2017 with 19 deaths. In the first two months of 2020 in the five-county area, two died of heroin overdoses, according to the Culpeper Police Department. Statewide last year, 1,617 people died from fatal overdoses, the most ever in Virginia. Of those, fentanyl contributed to nearly 60 percent of deaths, according to VDH. A new organization, Groups Recover Together, will be starting drug treatment in August in the Warrenton area, Kartchner said. The Health Director said reps from the group met with him and Community Services Director Jim LaGraffe in February to discuss area needs. Groups Recover Together will accept Medicaid and most commercial insurance and have a discounted self-pay program for the uninsured population, Kartchner said: "This is exciting news for the area." [GN] PURDUE PHARMA: Former Bristol County DA to File Opioid Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- David Linton, writing for The Sun Chronicle, reports that when he was Bristol County's district attorney, Sam Sutter prosecuted drug dealers on the streets and sought changes in the law to keep them locked up until trial. Now as a defense lawyer in Fall River, where he also served a term as mayor, he is working with his sister-in-law Julianne Feliz to represent those devastated by the opioid crisis in a class action suit against Purdue Pharma. The two lawyers announced on July 15 they have filed and will be filing dozens of claims, including one on behalf of a family in the Taunton and Rehoboth area who paid "tens of thousands of dollars" for their son's legal fees and drug treatment, Feliz said. While keeping the client confidential, Felix said the man became addicted after a doctor prescribed him OxyContin, the highly addictive painkiller manufactured by Purdue. The doctor was prosecuted by Sutter when he was district attorney. After 36 states including Massachusetts filed suits against the company, it filed for bankruptcy in New York. Purdue set aside $10 billion to $12 billion to settle personal injury claims. As of this time, approximately 30,000 or more claims across the country have been filed, according to the lawyers. The deadline to file a claim has been extended to July 30 due to the coronavirus pandemic. Despite the impact of the opioid crisis, Sutter and Feliz say only 671 claims from Massachusetts have been filed against Purdue. "It's a small number when you consider all the people devastated by this," said Sutter, who as an assistant district attorney was the supervising prosecutor in Attleboro District Court. In 2018, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 67,367 people died of opioid abuse -- 2,241 from Massachusetts. The reason why so few claims from the state have been filed are complex, the lawyers said. Sutter said Purdue funded an ad campaign to publicize the settlement money available and how to file a claim. But the ads were confusing, especially for someone coping with sobriety or battling addiction, he said. Feliz said the emotional toll on families may also be a reason for the small number of claims. The people she has talked to about the lawsuit come in her office with faces filled with sadness and leave the same way, she said. "Some people don't want to revisit those demons," said Feliz, who has been a lawyer for 22 years concentrating on juvenile and family law. Sutter, a lawyer for 36 years, said many people got addicted after being prescribed OxyContin or Percocet and turned to heroin and fentanyl as a cheaper alternative. "Thousands of families and vulnerable children have been collaterally damaged by what started out as a simple accident or injury which then led to a prescription or over-prescription leading to addiction," Feliz said. In her lawsuit against the company, state Attorney General Maura Healy said eight members of the Richard Sackler family were "personally responsible" for the deceptive marketing practices. The Sackler family owns Purdue. [GN] RESTORBIO INC: Rigrodsky & Long Announces Class Action Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of holders of resTORbio, Inc. ("resTORbio" or the "Company") (NASDAQ GS: TORC) common stock in connection with the proposed merger of resTORbio and Adicet Bio, Inc. ("Adicet") announced on April 29, 2020 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against resTORbio, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), Adicet, and Project Oasis Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), is captioned Plumley v. resTORbio, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00858 (D. Del.). If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at https://www.rigrodskylong.com/cases-restorbio-inc,join. On April 28, 2020, resTORbio entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Adicet and Merger Sub. The Merger Agreement provides for, among other things: (i) the merger of Adicet with and into Merger Sub, with Adicet surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of resTORbio; and (ii) the conversion of each share of Adicet capital stock into 0.8559 shares of resTORbio common stock (the "Proposed Transaction"). Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a registration statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement omits material information with respect to, among other things, the Company's and Adicet's financial projections. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of resTORbio common stock. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 14, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware and New York, has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in securities fraud and corporate class actions nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] RETAILMENOT INC: Powell Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTEN POWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RETAILMENOT, INC., a Texas corporation, Defendant, Case No. CACE-20-011777 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., July 20, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Defendant sent unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number on or about July 16, 2020 in attempt to advertise its website and services. Plaintiff did not provide Defendant with her express written consent to be contacted using an automatic telephone dialing system to his cellular telephone number that was consistently registered on the National Do Not Call Registry on February 16, 2018. Retailmenot, Inc. owns and operates various websites that offer coupons and deals for various products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: 954-400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and – Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Thomas J. Patti, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: 954-628-5793 Email: tom@jibraellaw.com RLK AND COMPANY: Marshall Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Clayton Marshall, on behalf of himself and all current and former employees who are similarly situated v. R.L.K. AND COMPANY, an Oregon corporation d/b/a Timberline Lodge, Timberline Ski Area, Timberline Property Management, Summit Chevron, and Mt. Hood Brewing Company at Tilikum Station, Case No. 3:20-cv-01157-JR (D. Ore., July 17, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid wages, penalty wages, statutory damages, non-economic damages, liquidated damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees, costs, disbursements and pre-judgment interest, as well as equitable and declaratory relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Under Oregon law, employers are only authorized to deduct amounts from employees' wages that are required by law, according to the complaint. Yet, on multiple occasions, the Defendant refused to update its deductions to reflect applicable reductions in the Oregon Workers' Benefit Fund assessment rate, resulting in overdeductions from the Plaintiff's and the class members' wages. Those overdeductions were all illegal. Further, employers are required to pay for breaks of less than 30 minutes. The Defendant did not do so. The Plaintiff insists that this has resulted in underpayment of wages to the Plaintiff and the other class members. According to the complaint, the Defendant required the Plaintiff to contribute all of the tips and gratuities to a tip pool. The Defendant kept all of the tip pool documents secret, so that no one knew whether or when those moneys ever got paid, or to whom. The employees simply had to trust the Defendant to distribute the tip pool money correctly and not take advantage of them. The Defendant was, thus, in the position of bailor, fiduciary, and trustee with regard to those tip pool funds. The Defendant was also required to pay the Plaintiff at least time and a half for all hours worked in excess of 40, when those wages were due, but willfully failed to do so. The Plaintiff was a resident and citizen of the State of Oregon and an employee of the Defendant. R.L.K. and Company, an Oregon corporation doing business under several names, including Timberline Lodge, Timberline Ski Area, Timberline Property Management, Summit Chevron, and Mt. Hood Brewing Company at Tilikum Station.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon M. Egan, Esq. JON M. EGAN, PC 547 Fifth Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009 Phone: (503) 697-3427 Fax: (866) 311-5629 Email: Jegan@eganlegalteam.com ROBINHOOD: Judge Says Proposed Class Counsel Team Lacks Diversity ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the plaintiffs' firms Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer and Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy put a lot of effort into bringing order to class action litigation against the securities trading platform Robinhood. Robinhood users filed about a dozen class actions against the fintech startup last spring, after trading platform outages during coronoavirus volatility in the markets. Kaplan Fox and Cotchett spearheaded coordination among the plaintiffs' firms that filed prospective class actions, urging them to back consolidation in federal court in San Francisco. The firms began vetting possible class reps and designed a leadership structure to include other plaintiffs' lawyers. Last April, citing those efforts, they asked U.S. District Judge James Donato of San Francisco to appoint them interim class counsel. The firms proposed that the judge name lawyers from seven other well-known plaintiffs' firms to serve on an executive committee. All of the lawyers in the prospective leadership structure -- from Kaplan Fox, Cotchett and the other firms -- are men. Judge Donato, in an order on July 14, consolidated the cases -- but rejected the leadership proposal. There was no doubt, he said, that Kaplan Fox and Cotchett would provide "highly professional and sophisticated representation" to the prospective class, given their "impressive history." But Judge Donato said he was concerned that the proposed team lacked diversity. There were no women among the proposed leaders of the case, the judge pointed out. He also noted that the list includes a lot of lawyers and law firms that frequently head class actions and MDLs. That experience might benefit the prospective class, he said, but "highlights the 'repeat player' problem in class counsel appointments that has burdened class action litigation and MDL proceedings." Judge Donato said Kaplan Fox and Cotchett can renew their request to head the case -- with some changes. "Leadership roles should be made available to newer and less experienced lawyers," the judge wrote, "and the attorneys running this litigation should reflect the diversity of the proposed national class." (I emailed Laurence King and Matthew George of Kaplan Fox and Mark Molumphy and Tyson Redenbarger of Cotchett about Judge Donato's order but they did not respond. Nor did Robinhood counsel from Debevoise & Plimpton.) There may be a problem with Judge Donato's order. Don't get me wrong: The judge's intentions are entirely laudable. Leadership of multidistrict cases and big class actions should not be a club limited to lawyers -- mostly white men -- who've earned membership by leading previous cases. As University of Georgia law professor Elizabeth Burch has discussed in a 2017 paper on "repeat players" and in her recent book, "Mass Tort Deals: Backroom Bargaining in Multidistrict Litigation," when the same lawyers are in charge in case after case, innovation is stifled. In the long run, Burch has argued, that's to the plaintiffs' detriment. Burch emphasizes the concept of "cognitive diversity," in which judges appoint leaders with a variety of ideas, skills and experiences, as well as diverse identities. "Diversity typically enhances complex systems' functionality and contributes to innovation and productivity," Burch wrote in the 2017 paper. Here's the thing, though. Judge Donato is not the first federal judge to order plaintiffs' lawyers to diversify class action leadership. Before his death in 2014, U.S. District Harold Baer issued orders in at least four class actions directing class counsel to staff cases with women and minority lawyers to reflect diversity among class members. In 2013, an objector in one of those cases, an antitrust class action against the satellite radio company Sirius, challenged Baer's order at the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the so-called diversity order "plainly discriminates based on race with no possible justification for that discrimination." The Supreme Court ultimately declined to grant review but Justice Samuel Alito issued a statement severely criticizing Judge Baer's diversity orders. "I am hard-pressed to see any ground on which Judge Baer's practice can be defended," Justice Alito wrote. The Supreme Court, he said, does not countenance racial or gender discrimination in the courtroom, so, according to the justice: "It is doubtful that the practice in question could survive a constitutional challenge." Judge Baer took Justice Alito's comments in stride, telling Reuters reporter Bernard Vaughn soon thereafter that his orders were not unconstitutional discrimination because he didn't actually require class counsel to assign particular lawyers to cases, just to take race and gender into account. The judge also said Justice Alito seemed to lack "either understanding or interest" in discrimination against Black, Latino and women lawyers. "So for him to talk about it as if this is something we shouldn't look at is unfortunate," Judge Baer said in December 2013. But after Justice Alito's criticism, other federal trial judges seem to have avoided diversity orders like Judge Baer's – until Judge Donato in the July 14 decision. Like Judge Baer, Judge Donato did not specifically require prospective class counsel to include women or lawyers of color on their leadership slate. He sure sent a strong message, though. Georgia prof Burch told me Judge Donato's order does raise a concern in light of Justice Alito's criticism of race- and gender-based class counsel appointments. (Burch said that trial judges can avoid that trap by focusing on a diversity of experience and knowledge rather than specifically on identities.) I also reached out to Ted Frank and his colleagues at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, whose objection in the Sirius case led to Justice Alito's statement on requiring diversity in class counsel leadership. "Judge Donato correctly recognizes the repeat-player problem, but has the wrong solution," Frank said in an email. Instead of inviting constitutional challenges by instructing prospective class counsel to diversify their teams, Frank said, trial judges should use a competitive bidding process to select lead lawyers, which would give women and minorities more opportunity to break into leadership ranks. A recent American Lawyer study found that more women are being appointed to leadership roles in multidistrict litigation these days, but few lawyers of color have won these plum appointments. It's easy to see why trial judges like Judge Donato want to spur change. But they've got to be careful about how they do it. [GN] SALTON HOLDINGS: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site -------------------------------------------------------------- Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SALTON HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05523 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site, http://www.salton.com/and, therefore, denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person. The Defendant is a kitchen appliance company that owns and operates the Web site.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (929) 324-0717 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com SAMUEL SON: Pudlowski Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA and WWPCL --------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Pudlowski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SAMUEL, SON & CO. USA INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01092-WCG (E.D. Wis., July 17, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws to seek relief for unpaid overtime compensation, regular wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees and other relief. The Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived the Plaintiff of their wages earned for all compensable work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, according to the complaint. Specifically, the Defendant's unlawful compensation system failed to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, shift differentials, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid, non-exempt Machine Operator for its "Pressure Valve Group." The Defendant is a metals and industrial products manufacturer, processor, and distributor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott S. Luzi, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com SARASOTA DOCTORS: Court Denies Day's Motion to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID DAY, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. SARASOTA DOCTORS HOSPITAL, INC. d/b/a DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF SARASOTA, Case No. 8:19-cv-01522-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington entered an order on July 23, 2020, denying Day's motion to certify a class of individuals who: "(1) received Personal Injury Protection (PIP)-covered emergency healthcare services at [Doctors Hospital]; (2) were billed by the facility for any portion of the charges for services resulting from the covered loss; (3) made any direct payment to the hospital and/or have an outstanding balance for those direct charges owed individually by the patient (e.g., deductible, co-payment, and/or charges exceeding PIP benefits); (4) have [a] settlement and/or recovery from a personal injury claim; and (5) no portion of their bill was covered by health insurance." Day has failed to establish that the putative class is ascertainable or that the class certification requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b) have been met. Therefore, Day's motion must be denied, says the Court. Day claims that Doctors Hospital unlawfully charges unreasonable rates for emergency room services rendered to patients covered by PIP insurance. According to Day, Doctors Hospital charges PIP-covered patients at rates multiple times higher than what it charges individuals covered by non-PIP insurers or government programs for the same services. Day's experience with Doctors Hospital began on February 21, 2017, when he sought treatment for injuries sustained in a car accident. Doctors Hospital of Sarasota is a full-service, emergency care facility specializing in orthopedics & heart health in the Sarasota, Florida area.[CC] SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Brant Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ ERIC R. BRANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL, INC.; SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC.; SCHNEIDER FINANCE, INC.; DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01049 (E.D. Wis., July 10, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Brant was employed by the Defendants as truck driver. Schneider National, Inc. operates as a transportation and logistics services company. The Company offers a broad portfolio of premier truckload, intermodal, and logistics solutions, as well as manages hire trucking fleets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Summer H. Murshid, Esq. David C. Zoeller,Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 222 East Erie, Suite 210 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Telephone: (414) 271-8650 Facsimile: (414) 271-8442 E-mail: smurshid@hq-law.com dzoeller@hq-law.com - and - Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq. Meagan Rafferty, Esq. GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC 260 Fair Street Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 255-9370 Facsimile: (845) 255-8749 E-mail: msweeney@getmansweeney.com mrafferty@getmansweeney.com - and - Susan Martin, Esq. Jennifer Kroll, Esq. Michael M. Licata, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. 4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com jkroll@martinbonnett.com mlicata@martinbonnett.com - and - Edward Tuddenham, Esq. 23 Rue Du Laos Paris, France Telephone: 33 684 79 89 30 E-mail: etudden@prismnet.com SEQUIUM ASSET: Faces Cockfield TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sequium Asset Solutions LLC. The case is captioned as Cori Cockfield, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sequium Asset Solutions LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02540-BHH (D.S.C., July 7, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harper Todd Segui, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP 217 Lucas Street, Suite G Mount Pleasant, SC 29465 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: harper@whitfieldbryson.com SIMPLIFIED LABOR: Anderson Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Anderson, on behalf of herself and other current or former employees v. SIMPLIFIED LABOR STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC.; ASHISFI WAHI; and SOLUTIONS, INC.; ASHISFI WAHI; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV26932 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 17, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime compensation in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendants did not provide similarly situated aggrieved employees with the minimum wages to which they were entitled for all work performed and as such did compensate aggrieved employees for all hours worked pursuant to California Labor Code sections 1194, 1197 and 1197.1, according to the complaint. This is so because the Defendants would routinely request that employees come into work at 6:00 a.m., but not clock in until 8:00 a.m. so that several hours of work are done "off the clock" and without the employees receiving the statutory minimum wage. The Defendants also violated Labor 8 Code section 510 because it failed to pay aggrieved employees overtime, even though they worked more than 8 hours per day, 12 hours per day, and/or 40 hours per week throughout their employment. The Plaintiff started working for SIMPLIFIED on August 2019 and was classified as an exempt, salaried employee. SIMPLIFIED LABOR STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., is and was a California corporation, doing business in Los Angeles County, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 SKOZEE LLC: Marcum Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- BLAKE MARCUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. SKOZEE, LLC d/b/a LIGHT'N UP PROVISIONING & MICROBUDDERY, a Michigan Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-11970-DPH-DRG (E.D. Mich., July 22, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227. According to the complaint, Defendant sent numerous telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 8972 including but not limited to the following sent on September 28, 2019, October 3, 2019, October 23, 2019, and October 26, 2019. Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., selling Plaintiff cannabis products. Defendant used a messaging platform that permitted Defendant to transmit thousands of automated text messages without any human involvement to send the text messages. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Skozee, LLC d/b/a Light'n Up Provisioning & Microbuddery is a Michigan-based cannabis dispensary.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com SKY SOLAR: Quadre Challenges Deficient Tender Offer Disclosures --------------------------------------------------------------- Quadre Investments, L.P., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SKY SOLAR HOLDINGS, LTD., SQUARE ACQUISITION CO., SQUARE LIMITED, SINO-CENTURY HX INVESTMENTS LIMITED, JING KANG, BIN SHI, KAI DING, JAPAN NK INVESTMENT K.K., IDG ACCEL CHINA CAPITAL L.P., IDG ACCEL CHINA CAPITAL INVESTORS L.P., JOLMO SOLAR CAPITAL LTD., CES HOLDING LTD., TCL TRANSPORTATION HOLDINGS LIMITED, ESTEEM VENTURE INVESTMENT LIMITED, MAMAYA INVESTMENTS LTD, XANADU INVESTMENT LTD (H.K.), DEVELOPMENT HOLDING COMPANY LTD., ABDULLATEEF A. AL-TAMMAR, AND BJOERN LUDVIG ULFSSON NILSSON, Case No. 1:20-cv-05551 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020), is brought against Sky Solar regarding deficient disclosures in its combined Tender Offer Statement on Schedule TO and Transaction Statement on Schedule 13E-3 filed on July 6, 2020. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of current holders of Sky Solar's American Depository Shares, which currently trade on the NASDAQ, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case arises out of a troubling pattern, according to the complaint. Sky Solar is one of many publicly traded companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, and operating in China that have attempted to privatize, while failing to comply with basic legal disclosure requirements. As of this filing, investors are being asked to tender shares (the "Tender Offer"), to a group that includes affiliates of Sky Solar (the "Offeror Group") based on materially misleading and incomplete disclosures. If the Offeror Group succeeds in obtaining 90% ownership of Sky Solar through the Tender Offer, the Offeror Group will then conduct a short-form merger to acquire any remaining shares of Sky Solar (the "Merger"). The Plaintiff contends that the Merger Documents fail to accurately describe the existence of appraisal rights. "Appraisal rights" (sometimes also called "dissenters rights") refer to the rights of investors to seek fair value for their shares in court upon dissenting from a proposed merger. Here, the Merger Documents state that the shareholders do not have appraisal rights. However, the Merger Documents provide no support for such conclusion and it is at odds with the text of the relevant Cayman Islands statute regarding appraisal rights. Furthermore, an agreement between members of the Offeror Group executed in support of the Tender Offer and Merger (the "Rollover and Voting Rights Agreement") states that the shareholders in the Offeror Group do have "dissenter's rights." In the absence of appraisal rights, the Plaintiff contends, shareholders have what appears to be a false Hobson's choice: (a) tender their shares in the Tender Offer--regardless of whether that price is fair; or (b) do nothing and then receive the same value offered in the Tender Offer via the Merger. When offered the false dichotomy between "tender now or receive the same amount later," most shareholders will resign themselves to their purported fate and tender their shares. A shareholder that believes the price offered in the Tender Offer is unfair will have little reason not to tender because he will be receiving the same value whether or not he tenders his shares, the Plaintiff adds. According to the complaint, the Merger Documents have provided shareholders with zero information related to the valuation of their shares. The Defendants have failed to disclose financial projections, a discounted cash flow analysis, a comparable company analysis, a comparable transaction analysis, a banker's book, or any other of the information customarily provided for investors to review in considering the fairness of a Tender Offer or Merger. This Action seeks to avoid, or if need be, remedy the harm to holders of the ADS that would occur if the numerous material misstatements and omissions are not corrected and/or supplemented. The Plaintiff holds 100 Sky Solar ADSs. Sky Solar is an investment holding company founded in 2009, which operates as a power producer in the solar energy industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carol C. Villegas, Esq. Mark D. Richardson, Esq. Jake Bissell-Linsk, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 907-0700 Fax: (212) 818-0477 Email: cvillegas@labaton.com mrichardson@labaton.com jbissell-linsk@labaton.com SLSCO LTD: Faces Vazquez Suit Over Unpaid Overtime to Laborers -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE VAZQUEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similary situated, Plaintiff, vs. SLSCO LTD., a Texas Limited Partnership, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-11343 (D. Mass., July 16, 2020) alleges that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated laborers who have worked for Defendant following natural disasters throughout the United States the legally-mandated one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for every hour that was worked over eight in a day and/or 40 in a given workweek, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201–19, and class actions pursuant to the laws of Massachusetts and North Carolina, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Defendant has enforced a uniform company-wide policy wherein it does not pay overtime premiums as required by law. Rather, all laborers in the defined classes are paid either: (a) day rates without overtime compensation for those hours worked in excess of eight in a day or forty hours in a given workweek; or (b) hourly, with straight time overtime rather than time and one half for overtime hours. Defendant has knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis in the last three years. SLSCO Ltd. is a Galveston, Texas-headquartered company that provides disaster relief services nationwide, following natural disasters such as hurricanes and tornados, and man-made disasters like oil spills, gas leaks and explosions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelsey Raycroft Rose, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 12 Ericsson St, Suite 2F Boston, MA 02122 Telephone: (857) 383-4903 Facsimile: (857) 383-4928 E-mail: kraycroftrose@forthepeople.com - and - Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com SOUTHLAND MALL: Mall Access Limited, Brito Claims ------------------------------------------------- CARLOS BRITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHLAND MALL PROPERTIES LLC; SOUTHLAND ITALIAN LLC; T4 MANAGEMENT LLC; and DOHERTY APPLE FLORIDA, LLC, Defendants, 1:20-cv-22840 (S.D. Fla., July 10, 2020) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") at the commercial shopping center located at 20505 S Dixie Hwy, Miami, Florida. The Defendants failed to make those facilities readily accessible and useable to the Plaintiff and all other mobility-impaired persons. The barriers to access at the Defendants' Commercial Property, and the businesses located within the Commercial Property have each denied or diminished the Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property, and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access, have likewise posed a risk of injuries, embarrassment, and discomfort to the Plaintiff. The Defendant denied the Plaintiff full access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of the Commercial Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property, Southland Mall Properties LLC owned and operated commercial shopping centers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L. 4937 S.W. 74 th Court Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Facsimile: (305) 553-3031 E-mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com SUNRISE SENIOR: Van Cleave Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIAN VAN CLEAVE, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT, INC., a Virginia Corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 37-2018-00061960-CU-OE-CTL (Filed December 7, 2018), was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on July 15, 2020. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-06300-PA-SK to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims against Sunrise for failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required meal periods, and failure to provide required rest periods in violation of the California Labor Code. Sunrise provides senior care services, including assisted living, independent living, and memory care in the US, Canada, and the UK.[BN] The Defendant Sunrise Senior is represented by: Michele L. Maryott, Esq. Ashley Allyn, Esq. Jason C. Schwartz, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Telephone: 949.451.3800 Facsimile: 949 451 4220 E-mail: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com aallyn@gibsondunn.com jschwartz@gibsondunn.com TASTE RITE: Hill Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stacy A. Hill, and other similarly situated individuals v. TASTE RITE, INC. d/b/a Taste Rite, PUERTO SECO INC d/b/a Rite, LYNDEN GORDON, and JENNIFER CLARKE, Case No. 0:20-cv-61445-RAR (S.D. Fla., July 17, 2020), is brought to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked approximately an average of 45-60 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less than one- and one-half times the regular rate at which she was employed. The Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages as required by the laws of the United States and remains owing the Plaintiff overtime wages since the commencement of the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cashier from August 8, 2019, to July 11, 2020. The Defendants are Florida companies and Florida residents, respectively, having places of business in Broward County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tanesha Blye, Esq. Aron Smukler, Esq. R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (305) 652-5859 Email: tblye@saenzanderson.com asmukler@saenzanderson.com msaenz@saenzanderson.com TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Tuition, Fee Refunds --------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Caffrey, writing for Philadelphia Business Journal, reports that Temple University is the latest school in the Philadelphia region to face a second class-action lawsuit over tuition and fee refunds. Christina Fusca, a graduate student studying criminal justice at the school's college of liberal arts, filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court alleging the school's shift to virtual learning amid the Covid-19 crisis isn't worth the full cost of tuition and mandatory fees. The suit seeks prorated refunds. This is the second class action suit to be filed against Temple over tuition refunds after an undergraduate studying public health, Brooke Ryan, filed a similar complaint in early May. Ryan's suit was tied to the same South Carolina-based law firm that filed complaints on behalf of students at Drexel University and the University of Pennsylvania, as well as other universities nationwide, in the spring. Fusca's lawsuit was filed by another attorney, Gary Lynch of Pittsburgh-based law firm Carlson Lynch. It's the second he's filed against a local university in recent weeks. Lynch is also representing Emma Nedley, a rising junior at Penn who filed a similar complaint against the university in late June. Lynch declined to comment on the Temple lawsuit, saying the firm would prefer to stand on what's stated in the complaint as the litigation process is just beginning. In a statement, a Temple University spokesperson said the school is "reviewing the complaint and will respond accordingly." Temple's enrollment totals about 39,000 undergraduate and graduate students. Similar to all other class-action complaints filed against universities in relation to tuition and fees, Fusca's lawsuit claims the school breached its contract with students and was unjustly enriched by not offering partial refunds for online classes. It claims students paid full tuition and fees to have the benefit of "on-campus, live, interactive instruction and an on-campus educational experience throughout each semester," and that fees were paid to access on-campus events, facilities and health services. Online classes "are sub-par in practically every aspect" compared to a normal experience, it claims, and students have been "deprived of the opportunity for collaborative learning and in-person dialogue, feedback and critique." Colleges and universities facing similar lawsuits have defended their decision not to offer prorated refunds on tuition or fees, arguing students are being taught the same classes by the same professors, have access to virtual extracurricular activities and services and the value of their degree has not decreased. Fusca's lawsuit seeks class-action status, compensatory damages, restitution and attorneys' fees. Legal experts told the Philadelphia Business Journal last month that the students' claims face an uphill battle, as it will be difficult to calculate damages, argue their degree is now worth less because of the virtual instruction, or get past legal protections that cover unpredictable "acts of God." As Temple looks ahead to the fall semester, it has said it plans to bring students back on campus, with reduced density in dorms. Large classes will be held virtually, but it does plan on holding smaller classes in person and implementing social distancing and mask-wearing protocols. [GN] TEXAS: Faces Saenz Class Suit Asserting Prisoner Civil Rights ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collier, et al. The case is styled as John Anthony Saenz, Troy Roberson, Larry Gross, Rudy Rodriguez, Richard A.A. Lyon, Edward Patrick Smyth, Oliver LaTura Leverett, Leyton Douglas Baugh, Brandon Johnson, Savorge Lee Curl, David Vega Morales, Demarcus Johnson, Pedro Gallegos, Earl McBride, Jr., Jerry Johnson, Hiram Carrasquillo, Brice Chatman, Marshall Ray Armstrong, Individually and on Behalf of Those Similarly Situated v. Bryan Collier, in his Official Capacity; Katherine Pitman, in her Official Capacity; Texas Department Of Criminal Justice, Case No. 4:20-cv-02575 (S.D. Tex., July 20, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Bryan Collier was appointed Executive Director by the Texas Board of Criminal Justice and assumed the role August 1, 2016. He has held a wide variety of positions to include Correctional Officer, Parole Officer, Unit Supervisor, Program Administrator, and Parole Division Director. The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN] TIKI BAR: Vegas Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime Wages & Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rolando Segura Vegas, and other similarly situated individuals v. TIKI BAR LIGHTHOUSE, INC. and THOMAS F. KOLAR, individually, Case No. 2:20-cv-00508 (M.D. Fla., July 17, 2020), is brought to recover money damages for retaliation and unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours without being properly compensated. The Plaintiff clocked in and out, and the Defendants were able to keep track of the hours worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. Therefore, the Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked over 40, in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempted full-time, hourly, restaurant employee. Tiki Bar Lighthouse is a Polynesian-themed bar and restaurant located in Fort Myers Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com TRUCK'N AWESOME: Thomas et al. Sue Over Shop Workers' Unpaid OT --------------------------------------------------------------- LAMICHA THOMAS and TYQUAN WALTERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRUCK'N AWESOME RESTORATIONS, LLC and BRADLY BARRENTINE, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00125 (E.D. Tex., July 16, 2020) alleges that Defendants do not pay Plaintiffs overtime although these workers regularly work more than 50 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Thomas and Walters worked for Defendants as 18-wheeler restoration shop workers. According to the complaint, Defendants paid/pay the FLSA Collective members a fixed weekly rate without overtime. Defendants misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors and exempted employees, totally denying them of overtime pay. Truck'n Awesome Restorations, LLC is a Texas-based custom truck restoration company specializing in custom interior design, full painting and body work.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM, LLP 2537 S. Gessner, Suite 104 Houston, TX 77063 Telephone: (713) 223-8855 Facsimile: (713) 623-6399 E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com - and - Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Ste. B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com UNITED MAINTENANCE: Binns et al Sue Over Race Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------ WILL BINNS, MICHAEL SEIDLER and CARLOS BARDNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED MAINTENANCE COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04283 (N.D. Ill., July 21, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants: Plaintiffs Binns and Bardney are black men, whereas Plaintiff Seidler is a Caucasian man. Plaintiffs Binns and Seidler are currently employed by Defendants, but were compensated by Defendant lower and less frequently than similarly or less qualified non-black employees and were harassed and subjected to hostile environment. On the other hand, Plaintiff Bardney was terminated because he is black. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant maintains unlawful pattern and practice of employment discrimination and termination based on the race, color and national origin of their employees. United Maintenance Company, Inc. provides janitorial cleaning services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq. JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C. 65 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 107 Chicago, IL 60604 Tel: 312-789-9700 Fax: 312-789-9702 Website: https://jgbrownlaw.com/contact-us/ - and – Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq. GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 221 North LaSalle St., Suite 1414 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: 312-880-1010 Website: https://www.gjdlaw.com/ US BANK NA: Faces Unger FDCPA Suit Over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Unger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S. Bank National Association, Gross Polowy, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 7:20-cv-05555 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2020), seeks damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. On February 2007, the Plaintiff incurred a mortgage with National City Mortgage, a division of National City Bank, for a property with the address at 30 Bush Lane Unit #1, in Spring Valley, New York. On September 18, 2009, a debt collection Law Firm, Steven J. Baum P.C. filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the National City Mortgage. In this lawsuit the law firm expressly states; "Plaintiff elects to call due the entire amount secured by the mortgage." As such the mortgage was legally accelerated and the statute of limitations to file a lawsuit would run from this period in 2009. On July 19, 2010, Judgment of Foreclosure was entered. After judgment of foreclosure was attained, the mortgage was assigned multiple times and eventually ended up with Defendant U.S. Bank National Association. Eventually Defendant Gross Polowy was hired as a collection law firm. Defendant Gross Polowy, in attempt to intentionally circumvent the statute of limitations, state that the Plaintiff failed to make a payment on January 1, 2014, according to the complaint. While it is true the Plaintiff failed to make a payment on January 1, 2014, this is far from the reality as the Plaintiff has failed to make any payment dating back to the original lawsuit filed in 2009. Due to the acceleration of the mortgage and note at the time of the filing of the 2009 lawsuit, the time for filing any lawsuit has passed. Defendant Gross Polowy use of more recent failure to pay is clear attempt to deceive the Plaintiff and the Court of the statute of limitations having passed. A simple review of the Plaintiff's payment history, as well as the prior litigation would have revealed these facts to all the Defendants in this matter, the Plaintiff says. The filing of this lawsuit by Defendant Gross Polowy is a clear and obvious example of harassment directed toward him, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff sustained an injury in that he now has to defend this lawsuit that was not legally allowed to be filed, and this case will appear in the public record, as well as his credit report. As a result of the Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged, says the complaint. The Defendants are "debt collectors."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com VERRICA PHARMA: Schall Law Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on July 15 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Verrica" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: VRCA) for violations of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between September 16, 2019 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before September 14, 2020. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Verrica's proprietary applicator for VP-102 posed safety risks to patients if the instructions were not followed exactly. Based on this risk, the Company built additional user features into the applicator. The applicator change would in turn require additional testing and supportive data. This additional work was likely to delay the regulatory approval of VP-102. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Verrica, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm -- http://www.schallfirm.com-- represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. Contacts: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] VILLEROY & BOCH: Faces Guglielmo ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Villeroy & Boch USA, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Villeroy & Boch USA, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05578-AT (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Villeroy & Boch USA, Inc., manufactures porcelain and ceramic products. The Company offers ceramic tiles, dinnerware, crystal stemware, casual glassware, stainless steel flatware, baking and kitchen storage supplies, accessories, and seasonal items and textiles.[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 VITAL RECOVERY: Hackner Sues in New York Over Violation of FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vital Recovery Services, LLC. The case is styled as Chaim Hackner, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Vital Recovery Services, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03246 (E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Vital Recovery Services, LLC, is a fully licensed, national, third-party collection agency performing bad debt recovery and skip tracing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Phone: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com VMSB LLC: Faces Luis Suit in Florida Alleging Age Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rolando Luis, and other similarly situated individuals v. VMSB, LLC d/b/a CASA CASUARINA d/b/a GIANNI'S, Case No. 1:20-cv-22958-DPG (S.D. Fla., July 17, 2020), is brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended, and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 to redress the injury done to the Plaintiff by the Defendant's discriminatory treatment based on his age. The Defendant also employed the Plaintiff's brother, 52-year-old Raimundo Ruiz Castillo. During his employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff says he experienced unlawful discrimination and harassment based on his age. He suffered retaliation because he complained about Age discrimination. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that as soon as Chef Walter Mancini began to work at the restaurant, on or about the first days of March 2019, he began to discriminate against the Plaintiff and his brother Raimundo Ruiz Castillo based on their Age. Chef Walter Mancini harassed the Plaintiff and his brother by stating: "You are too old and slow to work in this kitchen", and other unwelcome age-related remarks, according to the complaint. Those age-related negative remarks were directed to Plaintiff and his brother. Chef Walter Mancini made this and other unwelcome remarks about Plaintiff's age daily. The Chef Walter Mancini subjected the Plaintiff and his brother to excessive surveillance and job scrutiny, and he monitored every movement or activity of them. Then, the Chef would criticize the work performed by the Plaintiff and his brother. Chef Walter Mancini looked for reasons to scream at the Plaintiff and his brother humiliating them in front of all their co-workers. On March 15, 2019, or one week later, the Plaintiff's brother, Raimundo Ruiz Castillo was fired in retaliation for his complaint about Age discrimination. After his brother was fired, the Plaintiff continued working under stressful circumstances, knowing that he could be fired next, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a 56 years old male of Cuban National Origin, who worked at the Defendant's restaurant. CASA CASUARINA is an Italian/Mediterranean restaurant located in Miami Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com VOLUSION LLC: Faces Lopez Class Suit Over Failure to Protect PII ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julio Lopez and Michael Oros, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. VOLUSION, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00761-LY (W.D. Tex., July 17, 2020), arises from Volusion's failure to employ reasonable and appropriate measures to protect against unauthorized access to its users' personally identifiable information, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and various state consumer protection and data breach statutes. Between September 7, 2019, and October 10, 2019, unauthorized third parties were able to steal consumers' PII from Volusion's e-commerce platform by inserting malicious code into a Volusion JavaScript library; while much of the code appeared legitimate, it included a "payment card skimmer." Independent researchers determined that up to 6,589 online stores were connected to the compromised Volusion domain hosting the JavaScript library Consumers, who made purchases through the online stores using Volusion's compromised payment software during this time period had their card details and other personal information stolen and passed to an unauthorized third party (the "Data Breach"). According to Volusion, the PII stolen in the Data Breach "may have included names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, credit card numbers, CVVs, and expiration dates." On October 9, 2019, Trend Micro's Security Intelligence Blog reported that it had discovered an "online credit card skimming attack" that was "actively operating on 3,126 online shops" hosted on Volusion's e-commerce platform. By March 12, 2020, the Gemini Advisory firm identified over 239,000 compromised credit card records from the Data Breach that were sold on the dark web for $1.6 million. Yet, it was not until April 21, 2020, that Volusion distributed a notice of the Data Breach to its victims, including the Plaintiffs Lopez and Oros. The Plaintiffs and the Class had their PII stolen as a result of the Data Breach and suffered harm directly as a result of the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs provided PII to at least one online merchant using the Volusion e-commerce platform. Volusion is a technology company which provides "the infrastructure behind some of the most successful e-commerce stores online."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Edwards, Esq. Michael Singley, Esq. David James, Esq. THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM The Haehnel Building 1101 East 11th Street Austin, TX 78702 Phone: (512) 623-7727 Fax: (512) 623-7729 Email: mike@edwards-law.com jeff@edwards-law.com david@edwards-law.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 Email: streisfeld@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Mark A. Clifford, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com mclifford@tzlegal.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 389-0600 Facsimile: (612) 389-0610 Email: mweiner@pswlaw.com jbourne@pswlaw.com VOLVO CAR: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Young Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE YOUNG, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. VOLVO CAR USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05491 (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2020) is a civil rights action brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress. This discrimination is particularly acute during the current COVID-19 global pandemic. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Americans living with disabilities are at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19 and, therefore, are recommended to shelter in place throughout the duration of the pandemic. This underscores the importance of access to online retailers, such as Defendant, for this especially vulnerable population. Volvo Car USA LLC operates the Volvo online car retail store as well as the Volvo website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal danalgottlieb@aol.com WELLS FARGO: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 3 Motion Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Colony Capital, Inc. (NYSE: CLNY), Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SRNE), Carnival Corporation & Plc (NYSE: CCL, CUK), and Wells Fargo and Company (NYSE: WFC). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC) Class Period: February 2, 2018 to May 5, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 3, 2020 On April 5, 2020, Wells Fargo announced that it had received strong interest in the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"), a program under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the "CARES Act"), and was targeting to distribute a total of $10 billion to small business customers under the requirements of the PPP. On April 8, 2020, the Federal Reserve announced that it would allow Wells Fargo to exceed the asset cap that it had imposed on Wells Fargo in 2018 after revelations that the Company had opened millions of accounts in customers' names without their permission, a change which would allow Wells Fargo to make additional small business loans as part of the PPP. That same day, Wells Fargo issued a press release stating, in relevant part, that, "beginning immediately, in response to the actions by the Federal Reserve, [Wells Fargo] will expand its participation in the [PPP] and offer loans to a broader set of its small business and nonprofit customers subject to the terms of the program." On April 19, 2020, after at least one lawsuit was filed against the Company, reports emerged that Wells Fargo may have unfairly allocated government-backed loans under the PPP. For example, USA Today reported that "[t]he lawsuit filed on behalf of small business owners alleges that Wells Fargo unfairly prioritized businesses seeking large loan amounts, while the government's small business agency has said that PPP loan applications would be processed on a first-come, first-served basis." According to the lawsuit, "[t]he move by Wells Fargo meant that the bank would receive millions more dollars in processing fees," and, "[m]aking matters worse, Wells Fargo concealed from the public that it was reshuffling the PPP applications it received and prioritizing the applications that would make the bank the most money." Following this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell more than 5% over two trading days to close at $26.84 per share on April 21, 2020. Finally, on May 5, 2020, Wells Fargo filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission, disclosing, in addition to multiple PPP-related lawsuits initiated against the Company, that Wells Fargo had "received formal and informal inquiries from federal and state governmental agencies regarding its offering of PPP loans." Following this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell by more than 6% over two trading days from its closing price on May 4, 2020, closing at $25.61 per share on May 6, 2020. The complaint, filed on June 4, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Wells Fargo's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) Wells Fargo planned to, and did, improperly allocate government-backed loans under the PPP, and/or had inadequate controls in place to prevent such misallocation; (ii) the foregoing foreseeably increased the Company's litigation risk with respect to PPP allocation, as well as increased regulatory scrutiny and/or potential enforcement actions; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. For more information on the Wells Fargo class action go to: https://bespc.com/WFC-2 Colony Capital, Inc. (NYSE: CLNY) Class Period: August 9, 2019 to May 7, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020 Colony is a leading global investment management firm with assets under management of $55 billion. The Company manages capital on behalf of its stockholders, as well as institutional and retail investors in private funds, and traded and non-traded real estate investment trusts. On November 8, 2019, Colony announced its financial results for the third quarter of 2019. Among other results, the Company reported a GAAP net loss of $555 million, or $1.15 per share, which "notably included reductions of goodwill, real estate and provision for loan losses totaling $540.3 million . . . of which $387.0 million was attributable to the reduction of goodwill primarily as a result of the pending sale of the Company's industrial investment management business and related real estate portfolio, and the decrease in management fees from Colony Credit Real Estate, Inc. resulting from impairments related to its portfolio bifurcation." On this news, Colony's stock price fell $0.48 per share, or 8.76%, to close at $5.00 per share on November 8, 2019. Then, on May 8, 2020, Colony issued a press release announcing its financial and operating results for the first quarter of 2020. In the press release, Colony reported that its portfolio companies had defaulted on $3.2 billion of debt secured by hotels and healthcare-related properties and that Colony had received a notice of acceleration covering $780 million of the defaulted debt. On this news, Colony's stock price fell $0.08 per share, or 3.81%, to close at $2.02 per share on May 8, 2020. The Complaint, filed on May 26, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Colony's sale of its industrial real estate portfolio and the bifurcation of Colony Credit Real Estate's portfolio were foreseeably likely to negatively impact Colony's financial and operating results; (ii) certain of Colony's remaining portfolio companies carried unsustainable levels of debt secured by hotels and healthcare-related properties and were thus at significant risk of default; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. For more information on the Colony Capital class action go to: https://bespc.com/CLNY Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SRNE) Class Period: May 15, 2020 to May 22, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020 On May 15, 2020, Sorrento announced that it had discovered an antibody that had "demonstrated 100% inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection." On that same day, Defendant Henry Ji, founder and Chief Executive Officer of Sorrento referred to Sorrento's breakthrough as a "cure." On this news, Sorrento shares increased $4.14 to close at $6.76 on May 15, 2020. The stock continued to increase after hours and opened at $9.98 on May 18, 2020, trading at a high of $10.00 that same day, which represented an increase of 281.7% from the May 14, 2020 closing price. On May 20, 2020, Hindenburg Research issued a report doubting the validity of Sorrento's claims and calling them "sensational," "nonsense" and "too good to be true." On this news, Sorrento shares closed at $5.70 per share on May 20, 2020, representing a decline of $4.30, or 43.0%, from the Class Period high. Finally, on May 22, 2020, BioSpace published an article stating that in a May 21, 2020 interview with Defendants Ji and Brunswick, Ji "insist[ed] that they did not say it was a cure." On this news, Sorrento shares closed at $5.07 per share on May 22, 2020, representing a decline of $4.93, or 49.4%, from the Class Period high. The complaint, filed on May 26, 2020, alleges that Sorrento failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's initial finding of "100% inhibition" in an in vitro virus infection will not necessarily translate to success or safety in vivo, or in person; (ii) the Company's finding was not a "cure" for COVID-19; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the lawsuit alleges that Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. For more information on the Sorrento class action go to: https://bespc.com/SRNE Carnival Corporation & Plc (NYSE: CCL, CUK) Class Period: September 26, 2019 to May 1, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020 On April 16, 2020, when the Company still had at sea two (2) of its cruise ships, Bloomberg Businessweek published an article titled "Carnival Executives Knew They Had a Virus Problem, But Kept the Party Going." In that article, it was revealed that Carnival may have failed to adequately protect passengers from COVID-19 on a series of cruise voyages, and indeed continued to operate new cruise departures despite its knowledge that the threat posed by COVID-19 had materialized on its ships and was likely to proliferate further. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.53 per share, to close at $11.85 per share on April 16, 2020. Then, on May 1, 2020, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled "Cruise Ships Set Sail Knowing the Deadly Risk to Passengers and Crew." That article detailed how cruise ships, particularly Carnival ships, facilitated the spread of COVID-19, and provided new facts on early warning signs Carnival and its affiliated cruise lines possessed and the Company's disclosure failures. Further, the article also noted that the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure had requested documents from Carnival related "to Covid-19 or other infectious disease outbreaks aboard cruise ships" and that testimony from a separate investigation in Australia revealed that Carnival and its affiliated cruise lines may have misled shore officials by concealing those exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms before docking. On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.97 per share, to close at $13.93 per share on May 1, 2020. The complaint, filed on May 27, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company's medics reported increasing events of COVID-19 illness on the Company's ships; (2) Carnival had violated port of call regulations by concealing the amount and severity of COVID-19 infections onboard its ships; (3) in responding to the outbreak of COVID-19, Carnival failed to follow the Company's health and safety protocols developed in the wake of other communicable disease outbreaks; (4) by continuing to operate, Carnival ships were responsible for continuing to spread COVID-19 at various ports throughout the world; and (5) 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. For more information on the Carnival securities class action go to: https://bespc.com/CCL About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com [GN] WELLS FARGO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit have commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded company Wells Fargo & Company. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. WFC Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wells-fargo-company-loss-submission-form?prid=7877&wire=1 * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW * WFC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 5, 2020 - May 5, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 3, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wells-fargo-company-loss-submission-form?prid=7877&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Wells Fargo & Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Wells Fargo planned to, and did, improperly allocate government-backed loans under the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"), and/or had inadequate controls in place to prevent such misallocation; (ii) the foregoing foreseeably increased the Company's litigation risk with respect to PPP allocation, as well as increased regulatory scrutiny and/or potential enforcement actions; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] WEST TEXAS PAVING: Avalos et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- TOMMY AVALOS; CHARLES JOHNSTON; and ADRIAN HERNANDEZ LOZANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WEST TEXAS PAVING, INC.; DARRELL JARNAGIN; MARSHALL JARNAGIN; and STEVE WITT, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00160-H (N.D. Tex., July 10, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay the Plaintiffs their standard and overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, and for failure to maintain accurate records. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laborers. West Texas Paving, Inc. operates as a heavy civil contractor and construction materials producer for public and private sector clients. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Fernando M. Bustos, Esq. Brandon C. Callahan, Esq. Matthew N. Zimmerman, Esq. BUSTOS LAW FIRM, P.C. P.O. Box 1980 Lubbock, TX 79408-1980 Telephone: (806) 780-3976 Facsimile: (806) 780-3800 E-mail: fbustos@bustoslawfirm.com bcallahan@bustoslawfirm.com mzimmerman@butsoslawfirm.com ZEFCO INC: Underreports Employees' Income, Queen Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- Cody Queen, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Zefco, Inc., William Zearley, and Lanette Zearley, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-02629-TMC (D.S.C., July 16, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff individually and as a class action under the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. Section 7434 ("IRC"), to recover damages for Defendants' willful filing of fraudulent information returns with respect to his and other similarly situated individuals' wages. According to the complaint, Defendants required Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to complete a "probationary period" upon hire by Defendants. During the probationary period, Defendants willfully and intentionally did not deduct federal income taxes from Plaintiff's and similarly situated employees' paychecks. Defendants willfully and intentionally did not report the income that Plaintiff and similarly situated employees earned during their probationary periods on Plaintiff's and similarly situated employees' form W2s.7 Accordingly, all W2s issued by Defendants to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees during their first year of employment with Defendants were fraudulent in that they did not report the wages Plaintiff and similarly situated employees earned during their probationary period. As a result of Defendants' underreporting of Plaintiff's income from 2015 through 2019, Plaintiff will lose Social Security regular retirement benefits when he is eligible for retirement due to Defendants falsely reporting his wages -- Plaintiff's probationary period, overtime per diem, bonus, and severance pay -- to the Internal Revenue Service. Plaintiff will also receive a lower regular retirement benefit based on his current earnings record. Defendants employed Plaintiff, 29, from March 2015 to February 2019 as an account manager, while Plaintiff worked toward an accounting degree at Clemson University. Zefco, Inc. is an Anderson County, South Carolina-based construction company that specializes in industrial foundations and flooring.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Malissa Burnette, Esq. Grant Burnette LeFever, Esq. BURNETTE SHUTT & McDANIEL, PA 912 Lady Street (29201) P.O. Box 1929 Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 904-7911 Facsimile: (803) 904-7910 E-mail: MBurnette@BurnetteShutt.Law GLeFever@BurnetteShutt.Law - and - Richard Neuworth, Esq. LEBAU & NEUWORTH, LLC 606 Baltimore Avenue – Suite 201 Baltimore, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 296-3030 Facsimile: (410) 296-8660 E-mail: RN@joblaws.net [*] Fasken Attorney Discusses Ontario Class Action Law Amendment ---------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Di Domenico, Esq. -- adidomenico@fasken.com -- of Fasken, in an article for Mondaq, reports that since the Supreme Court of Canada's 2013 trilogy of decisions in Pro-Sys, Sun-Rype and Infineon, and its 2019 decision in Godfrey, plaintiffs have had considerable success certifying private antitrust/competition class actions in Canada. Recent amendments to Ontario's class action legislation may change that trend. As discussed more fully below, the most significant amendment to Ontario's class action legislation is to the preferable procedure portion of the certification test that currently requires plaintiffs to prove that a class action would be the "preferable procedure for the resolution of the common issues". The preferability requirements now include superiority and predominance elements akin to US Federal Rules 23(b)(3). If interpreted like US Federal Rule 23(b)(3), certification judges will likely engage in a rigorous assessment of whether common questions of law or fact predominate over individual questions, which may, in turn, impair the certification of private antitrust/competition class actions. Amendments to the Class Proceedings Act As discussed in a prior blog post, Ontario Bill 161 Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, 2020 received Royal Assent on July 8, 2020. Bill 161 is omnibus legislation that includes amendments to Ontario's Class Proceedings Act, 1993 (the "CPA"). The amendments will apply to proposed class actions commenced after Bill 161 has been proclaimed in force. Bill 161 is not yet proclaimed into force but is expected to be so proclaimed soon in the future. The changes to the CPA are both numerous and significant. The changes will impact all types of class actions, including private class action enforcement under Canada's Competition Act (the "Act"). At a glance, the changes: * amend the preferable procedure portion of the certification test (more on this below); * streamline appeal routes arising from the certification decision; * reform and expedite the carriage motion process; * require the registration of class actions and create a database of all ongoing cases; * provide a process for automatic dismissals for delay unless the plaintiffs file a certification motion within a year after the originating process is issued; * create procedures for the multijurisdictional coordination of class actions with other provinces; * encourage pre-certification preliminary motions that can dispense with the proceeding or narrow issues; * require "plain language" in court-approved notices; * explicitly provide for cy-près orders where it is impractical or impossible to directly compensate class members; * strengthen the settlement approval process, including heightening evidentiary and reporting obligations; and * require earlier notice to the Public Guardian and Trustee and the Office of the Children's Lawyer of cases affecting individuals that they represent. Of these changes, the most significant is to the preferable procedure portion of the certification test that currently requires plaintiffs to prove that a class action would be the "preferable procedure for the resolution of the common issues". Implications for antitrust/competition private enforcement are discussed more fully below. 1. Preferable Procedure: New Superiority and Predominance Requirements Currently, the preferability analysis under the CPA has two core components: even if there is an identifiable class whose claims raise common issues, those issues will not be determined through a class proceeding unless: (1) such a proceeding would be inherently fair, efficient and manageable; and (2) a class proceeding is better than other reasonably available procedures for obtaining redress for class members. The representative plaintiff bears the onus of demonstrating some basis in fact that a class action would be preferable to any other reasonably available means of resolving the class members' claims. However, if the defendant relies on a specific alternative to the class action, the defendant has the evidentiary burden of proving the viability of the alternative. Plaintiffs now bear the burden to satisfy additional preferability requirements through the changes to the CPA. A class action is a preferable procedure for the resolution of common issues only if, at a minimum: * it is superior to all reasonably available means of determining the entitlement of the class members to relief or addressing the impugned conduct of the defendant, including, as applicable, a quasi-judicial or administrative proceeding, the case management of individual claims in a civil proceeding, or any remedial scheme or program outside of a proceeding; and * the questions of fact or law common to the class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. These changes introduce a superiority test and a predominance requirement similar to the US Federal Rule 23(b)(3). Professor Jasminka Kalajdzic and Paul-Erik Veel have helpfully discussed the implications of these changes to the preferability test in their respective blog posts. With respect to the superiority test, the phrases "determining the entitlement of the class members to relief" and "addressing the impugned conduct of the defendant" seem to compel plaintiffs to demonstrate that a class action is preferable to resolve the class members' claims entirely, including ultimate relief for each class member. The preferability requirement is generally met when the common issues form a substantial ingredient of the class members' claims even if individual issues trials or claims assessment processes are necessary to finally dispose of each class member's claim. However, and as Professor Kalajdzic notes, the enumerated list of "other reasonably available means", namely "a quasi-judicial or administrative proceeding, the case management of individual claims in a civil proceeding, or any remedial scheme or program outside of a proceeding", suggests that the onus is shifting entirely back to plaintiffs to prove that none of the other procedures are superior. With respect to the predominance requirement, the phrase "questions of fact or law common to the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members" suggests that the number of common issues must predominate over any individual issues for the preferability requirement to be met. If interpreted like US Federal Rule 23(b)(3), certification judges will likely engage in a rigorous assessment of whether common questions of law or fact predominate over individual questions. While jurisprudence arising from the predominance requirement under US Federal Rule 23(b)(3) is somewhat varied, certification judges do under that legislation consider whether there would be too many individual issues to be resolved notwithstanding that common issues may form a substantial ingredient of the class members' claims, rendering the class action impractical and unlikely to promote judicial economy. As a practical matter, the new preferability test could cause future intended class actions with one or a few common issues (focused on liability) to not satisfy the certification test because individual issues focused on harm and damages outweigh the commonality. As discussed below, this is particularly relevant for antitrust/competition class actions where the issues in dispute tend to focus on loss or damage allegedly suffered by class members and increasingly the ultimate relief of each class member -- whether a direct, indirect and umbrella purchaser -- rather than whether a violation of the Act has, in fact, taken place. Implications of the New Preferability Requirements on Antitrust/Competition Class Actions Section 36(1) of the Act provides a statutory right of action for damages to any person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of conduct contrary to Part VI of the Act (i.e. criminal offences under the Act). Class actions alleging conduct contrary to Part VI of the Act typically involve collusion (e.g., price-fixing, bid-rigging) and, to a lesser extent, criminal deceptive marketing practices. A court may order a remedy under section 36(1) of the Act if a person proves, on a balance of probabilities, loss or damage suffered as a result of conduct contrary to any provision of Part VI of the Act. Compensable loss or damage under the Act is limited to single damages—namely, an amount equal to the loss or damage proved to have been suffered by that person, and any additional amount that the court may allow, not exceeding the full cost to that person of any investigation in connection with the matter and of proceedings under section 36(1). Accordingly, a prerequisite to recovery under section 36(1) is actual damage or loss suffered by the plaintiff, as well as a causal connection between the damage or loss suffered and the impugned conduct, regardless of the impugned conduct at issue. For example, the elements of a collusion offence are that competitors agreed to engage in certain impugned conduct, whether fixing prices, restricting output or allocating markets. However, for a private plaintiff to obtain damages for conduct underpinning these offences, the private plaintiff must prove that it suffered actual loss or damages, as well as a causal connection between the conduct underpinning the offence and the loss or damage claimed. By way of further example, for the offence of false or misleading representations under the Act, it is not necessary to prove that a person was, in fact, misled or deceived in order to obtain a conviction. However, for a private plaintiff to obtain damages, the plaintiff must prove that it suffered actual loss or damage, as well as a causal connection between the false or misleading representation and the loss or damage claimed. Recognizing the interconnection between public and private enforcement of competition laws in Canada, the Act permits a private plaintiff to use the "record of proceedings" in the criminal court in which the defendant was convicted of the offence as rebuttable proof that the defendant engaged in the impugned conduct. As many price-fixing class actions in Canada follow guilty pleas, plaintiffs are relieved from proving that the defendants committed an offence contrary to the Act, absent evidence to the contrary. Having regard to the foregoing, liability is frequently not an issue of focus in antitrust/competition class actions. Liability typically preoccupies a limited number of common issues, such as (i) whether the defendants, or any of them, engaged in specified conduct contrary to a section under Part VI of the Act; and (ii) what is the period in which the conduct at issue took place. As noted, the "record of proceeding" typically addresses these common issues entirely or in part. In contrast, and as demonstrated in many US antitrust class actions, commonality in respect of loss or damage suffered and the predominance requirement present unique and complex challenges for plaintiffs. It is not uncommon for economic models to fall far short of establishing that damages are capable of measurement on a class wide basis, including where proposed economic models do not provide a clearly defined list of variables and lack proof that data related to the proposed variables exist. Class definitions in Canadian price-fixing class actions, particularly following the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision in Godfrey, are vast and diverse, encompassing direct, indirect and now umbrella purchasers. There is no shortage of skepticism regarding the viability of economic methodologies seeking to establish that the alleged overcharges have been passed on to various levels in the distribution chain. There is also skepticism regarding methodologies offering a realistic prospect of establishing loss on a class-wide basis. If it is established that there is a need for individual inquiries to determine loss or damage under section 36(1) of the Act and what ultimate relief each class member is entitled to, then loss or damage issues may be found to overwhelm questions common to the class. Further, if certification judges see fit to inquire into the merits of the case as part of the predominance analysis -- which is not unprecedented in US antitrust class actions -- proposed methodologies purporting to offer a realistic prospect of establishing loss on a class-wide basis may be subject to significant probative challenges. Having particular regard to these issues, plaintiffs may not be able to satisfy the proposed preferability requirements. Of course, the preferability requirements will be interpreted by Ontario's certification judges, and there is no way to predict how these new changes will be interpreted and the outcome of those decisions, including whether Ontario's certification judges will interpret them like US Federal Rule 23(b)(3) has been generally interpreted in the US. However, the new preferability requirements could be game changers in a province where plaintiffs have otherwise had considerable success certifying private antitrust/competition class actions. [GN] [*] Gross Law Firm Announces Shareholder Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------ The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Carnival Corporation & Plc (CCL) Investors Affected: September 26, 2019 - May 1, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Carnival Corporation & Plc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's medics were reporting increasing events of COVID-19 illness on the Company's ships; (2) Carnival was violating port of call regulations by concealing the amount and severity of COVID-19 infections onboard its ships; (3) in responding to the outbreak of COVID-19, Carnival failed to follow the Company's own health and safety protocols developed in the wake of other communicable disease outbreaks; (4) by continuing to operate, Carnival ships were responsible for continuing to spread COVID-19 at various ports throughout the world; and (5) 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. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/carnival-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=7960&from=1 Brookdale Senior Living Inc. (BKD) Investors Affected: August 10, 2016 - April 29, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Brookdale Senior Living Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Brookdale's financial performance was sustained by, among other things, the Company's purposeful understaffing of its senior living communities; (ii) the foregoing conduct subjected Brookdale to an increased risk of litigation and, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial results and reputation; (iii) as a result, the Company's financial results were unsustainable; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/brookdale-senior-living-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=7960&from=1 J2 Global, Inc. (JCOM) Investors Affected: October 5, 2015 - June 29, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in J2 Global, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that 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. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/j2-global-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=7960&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (212) 537-9430 Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN] [*] Luxembourg Bill Allows Groups of Plaintiffs to Seek Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- Cordula Schnuer, writing for Luxembourg Times, reports that Luxembourg took its first steps on July 15 towards introducing class-action lawsuits when the government adopted a bill that would allow groups of plaintiffs to seek damages jointly. Class-action lawsuits -- a common phenomenon in the United States -- are so far not possible under Luxembourg law, although related claims can be grouped together under some conditions for a joint court judgement. The advantage of a class-action lawsuit would be that not every claim has to be presented to court separately by people seeking damages from the same entity. "This new legal procedure aims in particular to facilitate access to justice for consumers," Luxembourg's government said in a statement. The legislation would help streamline legal proceedings, reduce costs and ensure fair and equal treatment of plaintiffs before the law at a time that mass-damage claims have increased, the government said. A recent example is the diesel emissions scandal in which Volkswagen and other carmakers were accused of colluding to make their auto pollution look less damaging. More than 450,000 plaintiffs in Germany joined forces in the country's first ever class-action-style claim. Introducing class-action lawsuits in Luxembourg was one of the promises contained in the governing coalition's agreement for action during its 2018 to 2023 term. The new bill the cabinet adopted on July 15 -- which also would allow for damage claims to be settled outside of court -- will now be presented to parliament for debate before being voted into law. Only a handful of European countries including Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom allow class-action lawsuits. A European Union directive allowing consumers across the bloc to seek class-action is in the making, but will take several years to be adopted into the laws of member countries. Harmonising laws among EU members also means that countries that currently don't allow class-actions would have to make them possible. [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 ***