/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200730.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 30, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 152 Headlines ADAMS CONSTRUCTORS: Herrera Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ALLERGAN PLC: Anderson Sues Over Defective Breast Implants ALPARSLAN LLC: Jairam Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iTunes Gift Card Scam BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Kahn Swick Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Schall Law Announces Class Action Filing BEAUMONT ETIQUETTE: Winegard Files Suit in New York BLUE CROSS: Davenport Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Consultants BLUE II ENTERTAINMENT: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid OT & Tip Skimming BROOKDALE SENIOR: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline BUMBLE TRADING: Reaches Class Action Settlement With Subscribers CAL WESTERN: Faces Two Class Actions Amid COVID-19 Pandemic CALIFORNIA INALLIANCE: Court OKs $225K Settlement in Osegueda Suit CASPER SLEEP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline CDM FEDERAL: Gwyan Seeks OT Pay for Staff Under Federal Contract CHEETAH MOBILE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 25 Deadline CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE: Servers Class Cond. Certified in Reynolds COMMERCIAL FINANCE: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Calls COOL CLOUDS: Faces Class Actions Over Puff Bar Products CREDIT BUREAU: Objections to Discovery Order in Kang Suit Denied CROSSROADS HOSPICE: Freeman Seeks Proper OT Pay for Hospice Aides CU FOUNDATION: Faces Class Action Over Investment Returns DMO AUTO: Sends Unsolicited Robocalls, Demars Claims EDDIE BAUER: Offers False Discounts to Consumers, Clark Alleges EL GUACAMOLE: Faces Rojas Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ELANCO ANIMAL: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Investors of Lawsuit ENPHASE ENERGY: Claimsfiler Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline ENPHASE ENERGY: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline ESTEE LAUDER: Mismanaged 401(K) Savings Plan, Gandy Claims FELIX ENERGY: Holbrook Sues Over Unpaid OT, Misclassification FIRST NATIONS: Class Action Launched Over Safe Drinking Water FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Claimsfiler Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline FRANCHISE GROUP: Labrado vs JTH Tax Underway GENERAL MOTORS: Holguin Suit Transferred to Michigan GOOGLE INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Over Android Apps GREENVILLE, NC: Summary Judgment in Favor of Greenville Reversed GROCERY DELIVERY: Can't Compel Arbitration in Murray TCPA Suit GROLAWN INC: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Wilson Claims H F DOLLAR: Faces Lopez et al. Suit Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime HAMILTON BEACH: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Securities Lawsuit HEALTH EXPRESS: Ogletree Attorneys Discuss FAA Court Ruling HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 10 Motion Deadline HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Schall Law Investigates Securities Claims HOLYOKE SOLDIERS' HOME: Faces Civil Rights Class Action Lawsuit HOT POT: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid OT, Rest Break & Shift Premium HV OCCUPATIONAL: Misclassifies Paramedics, Rapp Claims IDEANOMICS INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 27 Deadline J2 GLOBAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of Sept. 18 Plaintiff Deadline JENNER'S POND: Macloud Suit Transferred to Pa. Dist. Ct. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Narrows Claims in Hernandez Class Suit KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY: KC Law Firm Seeks Tuition Reimbursement KANSAS: Implements Changes Following 2018 Foster Care Settlement KINGOLD JEWELRY: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 31 Plaintiff Deadline KIRKLAND LAKE: Dean Paul Alleges Misleading Securities Statements KIRKLAND LAKE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 28 Deadline LENDINGCLUB CORP: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Sosa Alleges LENNAR INC: Judge Yet to Decide on Bayview Hunters Residents Suit LENNY JOHNS PIZZERIA: Quizhpi Sues Over Unpaid Overtime LONGVIEW ER: Misclassifies Massage Therapists, Davis et al Claim MICHIGAN STATE POLICE: Ruling Lets Class-Action Bias Suits Proceed MIDWEST MEDICAL: Underpays Employees, Reust Claims MODANI DALLAS: Underpays Inside Sale Employees, Juarez Claims MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Gets Subpoena as Part of Federal Class Action MOTION PICTURE HEALTH: IATSE Members File ERISA Class Action MYLAN N.V.: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of August 25 Filing Deadline NANUSHKA US: Guglielmo Seeks Website Access for Blind Buyers NEW YORK: Class of Inmates With Disabilities in Johnson Certified NEW YORK: Gallagher et al. Sue Over Voter Disenfranchisement NINE POINT ENERGY: Lewis Files Suit in North Dakota NO TAX 4 NASH: Elrod et al. Sue Over Recall Petition Robocalls NORITAKE CO: Blind Can't Fully Use & Enjoy Website, Guglielmo Says OKLAHOMA: Indian Tribe Members Sue over Traffic Fines ONEIDA GROUP: Blind Buyers Can't Use Website, Guglielmo Alleges ORLANS PC: Court Dismisses Garland Class Suit PACHA SOAP: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Guglielmo Says PEMBER COMPANIES: O'Bryan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Laborers PHOENIX, AZ: COVID19 Relief Bias vs Immigrants, Poder et al. Say PINPOINT PAINTING: Fails to Pay Overtime, Harrison et al Claim PLAID INC: Illegally Collects Bank Data, Evans et al. Allege PLAID: Denies Privacy Class Action Allegations PLAID: Faces Another Class Action Over Privacy Violation PRO WELD: Ozuna Seeks Proper OT Pay for Assembly Workers PROASSURANCE CORP: Scott+Scott Attorneys Announces Class Action PROASSURANCE CORPORATION: Scott+Scott Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline PROTECH SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Action Over PUA Claims Handling RUBIN AND ROTHMAN: Goldklang Asserts Breach of FDCPA SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CA: Court Dismisses Freeman with Leave to Amend SANTA BARBARA, CA: Settles Class Action Over Jail Conditions SELECT HOTELS: Mirabueno Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Meal & Rest Breaks SURFSIDE COFFEE: Duffey Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation TACOS EL PAISA: Basurto Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Restaurant Staff TORO FOODS: Leon Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime TWITTER: Faces Suit on Cryptocurrency Advertising Ban in Australia U.S. OIL FUND: Pomerantz Investigates Securities Claims UNITED STATES OIL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline UNITED STATES: Firm Releases Full Report in Class-Action v. DETR UNITED STATES: Kirkland & Ellis Helps Secure ICE Class Suit Win UNITED STATES: Settlement Fund to Bolster Tribal Agriculture Cos. UNITED STATES: Two Immigrants Sue Over Citizenship, Right to Vote WALGREEN CO: Eidmann Sues Over False Infants' Acetaminophen Label WELLS FARGO: Claimsfiler Reminds of Aug. 14 Deadline WELLS FARGO: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action WESTPAC: Maurice Blackburn Launches Class Action WWE: Labaton Says Argument for Dismissal of Class Action Fails XTO ENERGY: Lewis Files Suit in North Dakota [*] Class Action Crackdown May Hit Farmers' Fight for Justice [*] Court Dismisses Class Action Against 16 Auto Insurers [*] Litigation Financing Can Provide Benefits to Minn. Businesses [*] New Consumer Rights Law May Bring Little Change [*] Spilman Thomas Attorneys Discuss COVID-19 Class Action Trend ********* ADAMS CONSTRUCTORS: Herrera Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- NELSON HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADAMS CONSTRUCTORS, INC. and JOHN ADAMS, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-02497 (S.D. Tex., July 15, 2020) brings this complaint against Defendants for their alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a construction worker from November 2012 until June 22, 2020. Plaintiff claims that instead of paying him overtime pay for all the hours he worked in excess of 40 per workweek, Defendant paid him straight time. Allegedly, Defendants applied the same unlawful policy to their other construction workers regardless of the overtime hours they worked. John Adams owns and operates Adams Constructors, Inc. Adams Constructors, Inc. provides asphalt paving services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. Vijay Pattisapu, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Tel: 713-868-3388 Fax: 713-683-9940 Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com vijay@buenkerlaw.com ALLERGAN PLC: Anderson Sues Over Defective Breast Implants ---------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN, INC.; ALLERGAN USA, INC.; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-09000 (D.N.J., July 16, 2020) alleges that the Defendants are engaged in unlawful practices of advertising, labeling, and marketing of Allergan's BIOCELL breast implants. The Defendants' wrongful conducts include: (a) failure to manufacture the BIOCELL line in accordance with intended and approved design specifications and processes, thereby rendering the product defective; (b) failure to warn physicians, and as a result patients, about serious health risks; (c) deliberate concealment, misrepresentation and obstruction of public and regulatory awareness of serious health risks; (d) failure to complete mandatory studies necessary to determine the safety, reliability and effectiveness of its products and to otherwise comply with current good manufacturing practices and qualify system regulation; and (f) failure to utilize reasonable care, all in violation of state law, which imposed no requirements different from or in addition to the parallel federal requirements which were similarly violated. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff has been severely harmed, and has endured pain, suffering, disability, impairment, disfigurement, increased risk of developing cancer, loss of enjoyment of life, aggravation or activation of preexisting conditions, scarring, inconvenience, and incurred costs for medical care and treatment, loss of wages and wage earning capacity and other economic and non-economic damages. Allergan PLC, now known as AbbVie, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company, with its principal executive offices in Illinois. Allergan, Inc. was a U.S. subsidiary of Allergan PLC, a global pharmaceutical company headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. Allergan USA, Inc. was a U.S. subsidiary of Allergan PLC, a global pharmaceutical company headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dominick R. Smith, Esq. David Randolph Smith, Esq. DAVID RANDOLPH SMITH & ASSOCIATES 1913 21st Ave South, Nashville, TN 37205 Telephone: (615) 742-1775 Facsimile: (615) 742-1223 E-mail: dom@drslawfirm.com drs@drslawfirm.com ALPARSLAN LLC: Jairam Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------- ANITA JAIRAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALPARSLAN, LLC d/b/a UPTOWN CHEAPSKATE OAKLAND PARK, a Limited Liability Corporation, Defendant, Case No. CACE-20-011336 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., July 14, 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 text messages to his cellular telephone number from Defendant on or about May 27, 2020, May 30, 2020, and July 1, 2020. Allegedly, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging by using an automatic telephone dialing system to promote its clothing sales company with no regards for consumers' privacy rights and no prior express consent from consumers, including Plaintiff, to receive such texts. Alparslan, LLC d/b/a Uptown Cheapskate Oakland Park operates a clothing company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 786-496-4469 Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com - and – 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 APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iTunes Gift Card Scam -------------------------------------------------------- Patently Apple reports that an 11-count Class Action has been filed against Apple and Apple Value Services by seven Apple customers. The group claims that Apple knowingly or recklessly enabled an iTunes gift card scam. All those listed as bringing the Class Action forward were victims of the iTunes gift card scam. The Plaintiffs state that Apple falsely tells victims that 100% of their money lost in the scam is irretrievable and this isn't true. Further, the lawsuit claims that Apple has retained hundreds of millions of dollars in commissions in this scam that should be paid back to those who were victims in this highly sophisticated iTunes Gift Card Scam. "This case arises from Apple's knowing or reckless enabling of the 'iTunes gift card scam.' Scammers have found a uniform way of tricking victims into paying them large sums of money via iTunes gift cards. Apple is incentivized to allow the scam to continue because it reaps a 30% commission on all scammed proceeds, and knowingly or recklessly, Apple plays a vital role in the scheme by failing to prevent payouts to the scammers. The iTunes gift card scam preys upon many, including the elderly and vulnerable. It is prevalent. Apple dedicates a webpage to it, but apparently does little more. Perhaps most alarming, Apple describes the scam as "formulaic," yet does little to stop it or to return its 30% commission to scammed victims (much less other moneys that Apple can recover from the scammers). Despite the fact that Apple retains the funds from purchases made using iTunes gift cards for four to six weeks before paying App and iTunes store vendors and keeps a 30% commission on scammed proceeds, Apple's webpage and other communications falsely inform the public that all scammed proceeds are irretrievable: A string of scams are taking place asking people to make payments over the phone for things such as taxes, hospital bills, bail money, debt collection, and utility bills. Regardless of the reason for payment, the scam follows a certain formulaic: The victim receives a call instilling panic and urgency to make a payment by purchasing App Store& iTunes Gift Cards or Apple Store Gift Cards from the nearest retailer (convenience store, electronics retailer, etc.). After the cards have been purchased, the victim is asked to pay by sharing the code(s) on the back of the card with the caller over the phone. Never provide the numbers on the back of a Gift Card to someone you do not know. Once those numbers are provided to the scammers, the funds on the card will likely be spent before you are able to contact Apple or law enforcement. The last sentence is highly misleading, and falsely suggests that there is nothing Apple can do for consumers who report the scam to it. Apple retains 30% of the spent funds for itself. At all times, this amount remains retrievable to the consumer. Apple holds the remaining spent funds for four to six weeks before paying the third-party vendors on the App and iTunes stores on which the stored value was spent, meaning the remainder is also retrievable to the consumer. The iTunes gift card scam deprives consumers of hundreds of millions of dollars or more. The overwhelming majority of victims do not report the scam to the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"). Yet even the limited iTunes gift card scams reported to the FTC during 2015-2019 exceed $93.5 million, with the dollar amounts increasing significantly each year. These publicly reported dollar amounts include the losses of only the subset of victims who fill out a detailed online FTC form asking for their personal information. As a result, this $93.5 million figure appears to be only the tip of the iceberg. Even if only 10% of scam victims report to the FTC (versus local police, attorney general offices, Apple, or nobody at all), the iTunes gift card scam would approach $1 billion, with Apple retaining $300 million in commissions. As set forth in detail below, scammers monetize scammed gift card values in one of two ways. First, they can use the stored value on the iTunes gift cards they obtain through scams to purchase App and iTunes store content for apps that they control. Using this method, scammers receive payment from Apple (less Apple's 30% commission) four to six weeks after spending the stored value from the wrongfully obtained iTunes gift cards. Apple has shut down apps for violating its fraud policies, begging the question of what happened to the fraudulently obtained proceeds. Second, scammers can sell the gift card numbers to third parties who then use them to purchase App store or iTunes products, but this latter method involves significant counterparty risk and steep discounts. Regardless of which method the scammers use, Apple keeps 30% of the scammed proceeds. Not only does Apple keep 30% of the scammed proceeds, it is able to track all key points in the scheme. Apple has long bragged about its App Store "ecosystem." The App Store is a marketplace created by Apple, over which it has full control, and into which it has full visibility. There are four key steps in the iTunes gift card scam: Step One: The Point of Sale. Apple knows when, where, and in what amount the victim purchases the gift card. At the point of sale, the retailer must communicate with Apple to "activate" the gift card and record the stored value. Step Two: The Apple ID Upload. Apple knows the Apple ID onto which the gift card number is uploaded. An Apple ID is a unique Apple "account" identifier through which customers on the App and iTunes stores transact. Apple iTunes gift card numbers must be uploaded to an Apple ID before being used in the App and iTunes stores. The amounts associated with these gift card numbers are referred to as "stored value" or "stored credit." Apple reserves the right to void the stored value if it merely "suspects" that the store credit was obtained fraudulently. Step Three: Spending Stored Value on an App. Apple also knows where the Apple ID spends stored value in the App store ecosystem because each purchase must be made from an Apple ID. Step Four: Payment of U.S. Dollars (Less Commission). Apple knows the identity and financial account information of the App and iTunes store proprietors who receive U.S. dollars from the gift card purchases because, four to six weeks after the purchase, Apple sends them the U.S. dollars (minus Apple's commission). Reverse Mapping. If a victim calls Apple and provides the gift card number that was scammed, Apple can use the gift card number to find out which Apple ID(s) and which App or iTunes products were involved in converting the scammed gift card number into U.S. dollars. Apple can also interrogate the Apple ID and the App and iTunes transactional data to determine if there were other suspect transactions and, if so, suspend the Apple ID and the App. At minimum, Apple knows that it has kept 30% of the scammed gift card value. Rather than publicizing its omniscience in this Apple "ecosystem" and its 30% take, Apple, as noted above, falsely tells victims that 100% of their money is irretrievable. Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and an objectively identifiable class consisting of all victims of scams involving Apple iTunes gift cards. Class Action Causes Count 1: Violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act Count 2: Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law Count 3: Violation of the California False Advertising Law Count 4: Breach of Contract Count 5: Money Had and Received/Unjust Enrichment/Restitution Count 6: Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Count 7: Aiding and Abetting Intentional Torts Count 8: Violation of the California Elder Abuse Law Count 9: Violation of the Elder Abuse Laws of Other States Count 10: Violation of the Oregon Elder and Disability Abuse Prevention Act Count 11: Declaratory Judgment [GN] BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Kahn Swick Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until September 14, 2020 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Bayer Aktiengesellschaft - (OTC: BAYRY), if they purchased the Company's American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between May 23, 2016 and March 19, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. What You May Do If you purchased ADRs of Bayer and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com, or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/otc-bayry/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by September 14, 2020. About the Lawsuit Bayer and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On June 7, 2018, the Company completed its acquisition of Monsanto, known for its flagship weed killer product, Roundup, despite broad and protracted litigation pending against it in state and federal courts alleging cancerous conditions caused by exposure to the product and its failure to warn of the toxic effects. On March 19, 2019, in the first federal case filed against Monsanto to proceed to trial, the jury found that the plaintiff's "exposure to Roundup was a substantial factor in causing his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma." On this news, the price of Bayer's shares declined. The case is City of Grand Rapids General Retirement System and City of Grand Rapids Police & Fire Retirement System v. Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 20-cv-04737. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients – including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. [GN] BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Schall Law Announces Class Action Filing ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Bayer Aktiengesellschaft ("Bayer" or "the Company") (OTC: BAYRY, BAYZF) 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 May 23, 2016 and March 19, 2019, 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. Bayer failed to disclose that the acquisition of Monsanto would cause the Company to suffer from exposure to massive judgements and reputational damage if lawsuits related to Monsanto's Roundup product were successful. The Company's positive statements about the prospects of the Monsanto acquisition and the benefits it would create were false. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements throughout the class period were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about Bayer, investors suffered damages. [GN] BEAUMONT ETIQUETTE: Winegard Files Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beaumont Etiquette, LLC. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Beaumont Etiquette, Llc, doing business as: Beaumont Etiquette, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03146-RPK-PK (E.D. N.Y., July 15, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights: Other. Beaumont Etiquette, LLC is a distinguished, modern consultancy, offering inspiring courses in British, Continental European and American etiquette.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Segal, Esq. Law Offices of Mitchell Segal P.C. 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208 Great Neck, NY 11021 Tel: (516) 415-0100 Fax: (516) 706-6631 Email: msegal@segallegal.com BLUE CROSS: Davenport Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Consultants ------------------------------------------------------------ KARA R. DAVENPORT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION and SCOTT SEROTA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04223 (N.D. Ill., July 17, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and the City of Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated consultants straight time for hours worked between 37.5 and 40 hours and also failed to pay them overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an associate consultant at the association's office in Chicago, Illinois since 2013. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association is a national association of approximately 36 independent, community-based and locally operated BlueCross BlueShield companies, with its principal place of business located at 225 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Margherita M. Albarello, Esq. DI MONTE & LIZAK, LLC 216 W. Higgins Road Park Ridge, IL 60068 Telephone: (847) 698-9600 Facsimile: (847) 698-9624 E-mail: malbarello@dimontelaw.com BLUE II ENTERTAINMENT: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid OT & Tip Skimming ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, BONNIE GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLUE II ENTERTAINMENT, INC. D/B/A MAXIMUS; ARTHUR GAONA; and LEO BAZAN, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00101-O (N.D. Tex., July 24, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated dancers and entertainers the required minimum wage and overtime pay for all hours worked; failure to notify them about the tip credit allowance, including the amount to be credited, before the credit was utilized; and failure to maintain their employees' records of wages, fines, fees, tips and gratuities and/or service charges paid or received. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a dancer at Maximus facility in Wichita Falls, Texas from January 2017 to April 2020. Blue II Entertainment, Inc., d/b/a Maximus, is an operator of an adult-oriented entertainment facility located at 2410 Seymour Highway, Wichita Falls, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. W. Craft Hughes, Esq. Leigh Montgomery, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 995-3335 E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com craft@hughesellzey.com leigh@hughesellzey.com BROOKDALE SENIOR: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. (NYSE: BKD) between August 10, 2016 and April 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 24, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Brookdale investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Brookdale class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1864.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Brookdale's financial performance was sustained by, among other things, the Company's purposeful understaffing of its senior living communities; (2) the foregoing conduct subjected Brookdale to an increased risk of litigation and, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on Brookdale's financial results and reputation; (3) Brookdale's financial results were unsustainable; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 24, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1864.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 e-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] BUMBLE TRADING: Reaches Class Action Settlement With Subscribers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bumble Trading Inc. and Bumble Holding Ltd. and proposed classes of Bumble Boost purchasers said that they have reached a proposed settlement to resolve a consumer class action. The lawsuit claims that Bumble's Terms & Conditions, which state that New York law applies to all Bumble users nationwide, violated a New York law that provides consumers who purchase "social referral services" with a three-day "cooling-off period," during which a user has a right to a refund upon cancellation. The lawsuit also alleges that Bumble's auto-renewal practices violated California law. Bumble denies that it is a "social referral service" under the New York law, denies that it violated California's auto-renewal law, and denies all other allegations against it. On July 15, 2020, U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and preliminarily certified two classes for settlement purposes only: a Nationwide Class of all persons who purchased a subscription to Bumble Boost in the United States between November 13, 2014 and July 15, 2020 and a California Class of all persons who purchased Bumble Boost in California and were charged auto-renewal fees during this same time period. If the settlement is finally approved by the Court, Bumble will make a payment into a settlement fund and will make certain changes in its purchase process and refund policy. [GN] CAL WESTERN: Faces Two Class Actions Amid COVID-19 Pandemic ----------------------------------------------------------- Mari Payton, writing for NBC San Diego, reports that in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, students are having to adjust to a new normal, but some law students at Cal Western School of Law are now suing their school. After learning about rising tuition costs, Cal Western Law student Emily Casillas started a petition. "We felt like our education is diminishing," she said. She said the quality of her now-distance learning education varies from professor to professor, but she doesn't think pre-recorded lectures are effective. "It's wild to think that a year from now, I am supposed to be taking the bar exam and I am teaching myself the law," she said. Two class-action lawsuits were recently filed against Cal Western by its own students. They are suing for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, among other things. While students acknowledge the effects of the pandemic on their education, they are upset about paying full tuition and fees, and the rise in tuition this upcoming fall. "We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on student loans to go to school, so we want to know what we are paying for," Casillas said. "We pay for access to facilities and resources on campus and we are not allowed in any of these buildings." But Dean Niels Schaumann said they are doing everything they can to provide the best possible services to students under severe pandemic restrictions. In a statement to NBC 7, the Dean said, "Due to the State and County closure mandates, we are currently not permitted to open our campus facilities and library to anyone, with the exception of those individuals designated as essential personnel," continued Schaumann. "As soon as the State and County health departments allow, we will reopen our facilities for individual and small group study, and we have a plan in place for the safe reopening of our campus -- once we are legally permitted to do so." The statement also tells NBC 7 the school is investing heavily in technology and training, and have hired new faculty members. "Like almost all California law schools, California Western did post a tuition increase for fall 2020 but the percent increase this year is the same as it has been for the last few years and is less than many other California schools," said Schaumann. "Even after the increase, Cal Western's tuition remains below the median for California ABA-approved law schools." "California Western's commitment to the education and welfare of our students always has been, and will remain, our top priority. This unprecedented pandemic will not shake our resolve to keep delivering on that promise," stated Schaumann. [GN] CALIFORNIA INALLIANCE: Court OKs $225K Settlement in Osegueda Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motions for Final Approval of the Parties' Class Action Settlement in the case captioned JOSEPH OSEGUEDA, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated and/or aggrieved employees of Defendants in the State of California, Plaintiff, v. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INALLIANCE; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. No. 18-cv-00835 WBS EFB. (E.D. Cal.). The parties agree to a gross settlement fund of $225,000. The total net settlement fund is estimated to be $116,043.42, following distribution of the gross amount as follows: (1) $75,000 for class counsel fees; (2) $8,869.33 for litigation costs; (3) $5,000 for plaintiff as an incentive award; (4) $8,801.25 for ILYM's administration fees; (5) $8,473.50 for California Labor & Workforce Development Agency payments; and (6) $2,812.50 in allocations under the Private Attorneys General Act. Osegueda alleges that the Defendant Northern California InAlliance violated state and federal wage and hour laws. To determine the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the agreement, the court must consider a number of factors, including: Strength of the plaintiff's case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a governmental participant; and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. Strength of the Plaintiff's Case One particularly important consideration is the strength of plaintiff's case on the merits compared to the settlement amount offered. The court, however, is not required to resolve the underlying merits, for it is the very uncertainty of outcome in litigation and avoidance of wastefulness and expensive litigation that induce consensual settlements. Although plaintiff maintains his claims are meritorious and he would have prevailed at trial, he acknowledges that defendant possesses legitimate defenses to both liability and class certification. For example, plaintiff's main claim for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked during sleep time and the ninth hour of the workday would be precluded if InAlliance is exempt from California's Domestic Worker Bill of Rights, as defendant contends. The court finds the proposed settlement is a fair resolution of the issues in this case and will prevent potential uncertainty. This factor weighs in favor of settlement. Risk, Expense, Complexity, and Further Litigation Formal discovery in this case is still in its early stages. Absent settlement, the parties most likely would have had to litigate class certification and summary judgment, both of which would cause additional expense and substantially reduce, delay, or eliminate class members' recovery. Furthermore, defendant would have been likely to appeal a favorable judgment for plaintiff, resulting in further expense and exacerbating defendant's potential bankruptcy. This factor also weighs in favor of settlement. Risk of Maintaining Class Action Status If this case had proceeded to trial, plaintiff admittedly would have faced several risks regarding the maintenance of class status, mostly in regard to his off-the-clock claims. Plaintiff also acknowledges that, if the parties had continued to litigate this matter, defendant could have moved to decertify the FLSA collective action at any time prior to trial. This factor also weighs in favor of settlement. Amount Offered in the Settlement In assessing the amount offered in settlement, it is the complete package taken as a whole, rather than the individual component parts, that must be examined for overall fairness. The settlement avoids the potential to incur great litigation expenses for both parties and provides a non-insignificant benefit to class members. In light of the risks and expense of further litigation, the court finds the settlement amount to be fair and adequate. Extent of Discovery Completed While formal discovery in this action had only begun, settlement discussions between the two parties occurred after exchanging substantial relevant information and engaging in extensive arms-length negotiations under the supervision of David L. Perrault, a mediator well-versed in wage and hour class action matters. Given the plaintiff's sophisticated representation and the parties' joint agreement that the settlement reached was the product of arms-length bargaining, the court finds the discovery conducted adequately informed the settlement negotiation. Experience and Views of Counsel When approving class action settlements, the court must give considerable weight to class counsel's opinions due to counsel's familiarity with the litigation and its previous experience with class action lawsuits. Plaintiff has provided evidence that class counsel has substantial experience in prosecuting class actions, including employment actions and wage-and-hour matters. Based on his experience, plaintiff's counsel believes the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the class under the circumstances, as it reflects a reasoned compromise which not only takes into consideration the inherent risks in wage and hour class litigation, but the various issues in this case which had the potential to substantially reduce or completely eliminate recovery by class members. This factor supports approval of the settlement agreement. Presence of Government Participant No governmental entity participated in this matter. Accordingly, this factor is irrelevant to the court's analysis. Reaction of the Class Members to the Settlement Not a single class member submitted requests for exclusion prior to the June 16, 2020 deadline. No class members have objected to the settlement. This factor weighs in favor of the court's approval of the settlement. The court finds that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A full-text copy of the District Court’s July 20, 2020 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/KPbzwB from Leagle.com CASPER SLEEP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Casper Sleep Inc. (NYSE: CSPR) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about February 7, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering") of the important August 18, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the federal securities class action first filed by the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Casper investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Casper class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1871.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, the Offering Documents contained false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Casper's profit margins were actually declining, rather than growing; (2) Casper was changing an important distribution partner, costing it 130 basis points of gross margin in the first quarter of 2020 alone; (3) Casper was holding a glut of old and outdated mattress inventory that it was selling at steeply discounted clearance prices, further impairing the Company's profitability; (4) Casper was suffering accelerating losses, further placing its ability to achieve positive cash flows and profitability out of reach; (5) Casper's core operations were not profitable, but were causing the Company to suffer over $40 million in negative cash flows during the first quarter of 2020 alone and doubling its quarterly net loss year over year; (6) as a result of the foregoing, Casper's ability to achieve profitability, implement its growth initiatives, and expand internationally had been misrepresented in the Offering Documents, as the Company needed to shutter its European operations, halt all international expansion, jettison over one fifth of its global corporate workforce, and significantly curtail new store openings in order to avoid an imminent cash and liquidity crisis, let alone achieve positive operating cash flows; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, Casper's revenue growth rate was not sustainable and had not positioned the Company to achieve profitability. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 18, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1871.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] CDM FEDERAL: Gwyan Seeks OT Pay for Staff Under Federal Contract ---------------------------------------------------------------- MUNAH GWYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-02613 (S.D. Tex., July 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for paying the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated hourly-paid employees straight time for the recorded overtime hours they worked each week instead of paying them time-and-a-half for all overtime hours they worked in a workweek as mandated in the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid employee under federal contracts known as the Public Assistance Technical Assistance Contract III (PA TAC III) and Public Technical Assistance Contract IV (PA TAC IV) since 2017. CDM Federal Programs Corporation is a company that offers environmental consulting, engineering, construction, and operations services. It is part of an organization that secured contracts with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net marbuckle@eeoc.net CHEETAH MOBILE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 25 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP reminds investors of the upcoming August 25, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of Cheetah Mobile, Inc. ("Cheetah Mobile" or the "Company") (NYSE: CMCM) investors who purchased securities between March 25, 2019 and February 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Cheetah Mobile investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/cheetah-mobile-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On February 21, 2020, before the market opened, Cheetah Mobile disclosed that its Google Play Store, Google AdMob, and Google AdManager accounts were disabled on February 20, 2020 "because some of the 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, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that 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. [GN] CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CEMI) between March 12, 2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 17, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Chembio investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Chembio class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1883.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Chembio's Dual Path Platform ("DPP") COVID-19 serological point-of-care test did not provide high-quality results and there were material performance concerns with the accuracy of the Company's DPP COVID-19 test; (2) the Company's DPP COVID-19 test generates a higher than expected rate of false results and higher than that reflected in the authorized labeling for the device, and was not effective in detecting antibodies against COVID-19; (3) accordingly, it was not reasonable to believe that the test may be effective in detecting antibodies against COVID-19 and, as a result, there was a material risk to public health from the false test results; (4) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial results; and (5) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 17, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1883.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE: Servers Class Cond. Certified in Reynolds ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRISTINA MARY REYNOLDS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE BREWING HOLDINGS, LLC, et al, Civil Action No. 19-2184 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Juan R. Sanchez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (i) granted Reynolds' motion for conditional collective certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and (ii) denied her motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23. Plaintiff Reynolds, a former server at Iron Hill Brewery and Restaurant, alleges her former employers failed to pay her (and other servers) the minimum wage because they improperly calculated her pay using a tip credit for time she spent performing untipped side work. Reynolds brings the putative collective and class action against her former employers, alleging violations of the FLSA and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"). Defendants Chesapeake and Iron Hill Brewery, LLC own 16 restaurants doing business as Iron Hill Brewery & Restaurant. There are 10 restaurants located in Pennsylvania and the rest are located in New Jersey, Delaware, and South Carolina. At each restaurant, the Defendants employ servers to wait on customers, take orders, deliver food, and ensure customers enjoy their dining experience. The Defendants consider servers to be front of house employees who receive tips directly from customers. On May 20, 2019, Reynolds filed the class action Complaint against the Defendants alleging violations of the FLSA because the Defendants paid her and other servers less than minimum wage for hours in which she spent performing untipped side work. She asserts an identical claim under the PMWA. On Feb. 5, 2020, Reynolds moved to conditionally certify a collective "FLSA Class" pursuant to the FLSA. Her proposed collective FLSA Class is defined as: All servers who have worked for Chesapeake & Delaware Brewing Holdings, LLC and Iron Hill Brewery, LLC at any one or more of their Iron Hill Brewery & Restaurant locations at any point from May 20, 2016 through the present. Reynolds also asks the Court to approve dissemination of notice to class members and direct the Defendants to produce a list of contact information for servers employed within the class definition and paid using a tip credit. Reynolds also moves for class certification of a "PMWA Class" pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b). The proposed PMWA Class is defined as: All current and former servers who have worked for Iron Hill Brewery & Restaurants in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during the statutory period covered by the Amended Complaint and who do not opt-out of the action. The Defendants oppose both motions. Judge Sanchez holds that Reynolds has made a modest factual showing that she is similarly situated to other Iron Hill servers to conditionally certify the FLSA Class as a collective action. Reynolds has not, however, established predominance as required pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) to certify the PMWA Class. Accordingly, the Judge granted Reynolds' motion for conditional collective certification pursuant to the FLSA but denied her motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 19, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/GjILwq from Leagle.com. COMMERCIAL FINANCE: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Calls --------------------------------------------------------- TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. COMMERCIAL FINANCE & LEASING BANK OF CARDIFF, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-06374 (C.D. Cal., July 17, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated seeking damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and related regulations, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -1083 using automatic telephone dialing system, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services, beginning in or around March 2018. Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A). Plaintiff's cellular telephone number was added to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about June 4, 2008. Thus, Defendant's conduct is in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA. Commercial Finance & Leasing Bank of Cardiff, Inc. is a California-based business lending company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by; Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com COOL CLOUDS: Faces Class Actions Over Puff Bar Products ------------------------------------------------------- Eli Wolfe, writing for Salon, reports that a shadowy e-cigarette company that has reaped millions of dollars by exploiting a loophole to sell kid-friendly, flavored nicotine products says it is suspending sales in the U.S following revelations about its owners. Puff Bar, a California-based marketer of disposable e-cigarettes, announced the sales suspension on July 13 on its website. In a phone call with FairWarning, the company's Chief Financial Officer Patrick Beltran confirmed that U.S. sales were being halted until further notice, but said that international sales would continue for the time being. Beltran would not give a reason for the move. Despite the announcement, as of late July 13 the company website still listed other outlets that sell Puff Bar products. For months, Puff Bar had cultivated a sense of mystery about its ownership and operations. But as FairWarning reported on July 9, a new document filed with the California Secretary of State named Beltran and Nick Minas, both in their twenties, as CFO and CEO, respectively. The document was filed shortly after FairWarning began an investigation of the company, which was originally registered to a house owned by Minas' mother in the North Hollywood area of Los Angeles. FairWarning's story documented Minas' and Beltran's history of bending rules on e-commerce websites to sell e-cigarette products. Even with the disclosure, it's uncertain who really is in control of Puff Bar, which appears to be connected with other companies in the U.S. and China. In an interview, Minas and Beltran said that despite their titles, their job was running the Puff Bar website. They refused to say who hired them, and claimed not to know anything about another company that owns trademarks for some of the Puff Bar products. Beginning in 2019, Puff Bar rapidly gained popularity with its wide variety of fruity flavors and sleek design. The company got a giant boost in January, when the Food and Drug Administration banned most flavored e-cigarettes but carved out an exemption for disposable vape devices. Puff Bar, along with a handful of other brands, quickly capitalized. By April, the company was reportedly making millions of dollars in sales each week. Public health advocates, upset by the regulatory loophole, have asked lawmakers to take action against Puff Bar and other disposable e-cigarette makers. In June, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat, demanded that the FDA ban sales of Puff Bar products because the company has allegedly targeted children. Puff Bar is currently the target of at least two lawsuits. On July 1, the Boston-based Public Health Advocacy Institute sued Puff Bar and its distributor, Cool Clouds Distribution Inc., for allegedly promoting and selling e-cigarettes to children in Massachusetts. On the same day, a Florida law firm filed a class action against Cool Clouds in New Jersey. The complaint alleged that a 17-year-old became addicted to nicotine by using Puff Bar products. A few days after FairWarning's story was published, the New Jersey lawsuit was amended to add Puff Bar, Minas and Beltran as individual defendants. Beltran said he hadn't seen the latest lawsuit against his company. While the Puff Bar website is suspending U.S. sales, Puff Bar products are still for sale on various e-commerce websites. One of those is eliquidstop.com, a site owned by Minas and Beltran. On Reddit, a user who claims to represent the Puff Bar company has directed confused customers to make purchases at eliquidstop. Mark Gottlieb, executive director of the Public Health Advocacy Institute, said he was pleased to learn of the sales suspension, but worried that "those same highly addictive products will soon be available under another brand name and the public health community will be forced into a game of Whack-A-Mole. Ideally, the FDA's loophole for disposable flavored e-cigarettes should be closed and closed now, before another disposable brand gains the traction that Puff Bar managed to do in less six months." Minas and Beltran appear to have done well for themselves in recent months. According to public records, they purchased a home in Los Angeles in early June, and took out a nearly $927,000 mortgage on the property. [GN] CREDIT BUREAU: Objections to Discovery Order in Kang Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SUNG GON KANG, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT BUREAU CONNECTION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-CV-01359-AWI-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the Defendant's objections to the Magistrate Judge's order concerning a discovery dispute between the Defendant and the Plaintiff. The lawsuit is about a company that allegedly prepared and distributed a false consumer report about a consumer. The consumer is Plaintiff Sung Gon Kang, and the company that prepared and distributed the consumer report is Defendant Credit Bureau. According to the Plaintiff's complaint, he went to a car dealership in Huntington Beach, California to buy a car. After he selected the car that he wanted to buy, he applied for a car loan from the dealership. The dealership, in deciding whether to extend credit to him, ordered from the Defendant at least two consumer reports about him. The Defendant then prepared the consumer reports and sold them to the dealership. It included false information on the consumer reports that suggested that the Plaintiff was designated by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") as a "Specially Designated National and Blocked Person" associated with North Korea. OFAC is an executive agency of the United States Department of the Treasury that administers and enforces economic trade sanctions based on United States foreign policy and national security goals against threats to national security, foreign policy, and the national economy. Because the consumer reports sold by the Defendant to the dealership falsely suggested that the Plaintiff was on the SDN List, the dealership refused to extend credit to him absent a co-signer. The Plaintiff was "horrified and embarrassed" to be identified as an SDN associated with North Korea. The Plaintiff then contacted the Defendant about the false information on the consumer reports, asking it to completely remove any misleading OFAC information from the reports, and also asking Defendant to provide him with a complete copy of the Defendant's file about him. In response, a representative of the Defendant called him, telling him that there was no OFAC information associated with him. The Plaintiff then received in the mail from Defendant a single sheet of paper that appeared to be a printout of the Defendant's "Free OFAC Search" from its website, indicating that there was "no hit" for OFAC information associated with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff never received any other information from the Defendant. The Plaintiff is not the only victim of the Defendant's business practice of preparing and selling consumer reports to third parties with false OFAC information about consumers, according to the Plaintiff's complaint. Rather, there is a class of consumers that have been similarly victimized by the Defendant's practice of including false OFAC information on consumer reports requested by third parties and then failing to provide requesting consumers with complete copies of their consumer files. Based on these facts, Plaintiff filed the lawsuit against the Defendant on behalf of himself and a class of similarly-situated consumers. He pleaded five causes of action against the Defendant, some under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and some under California's Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ("CCRAA"). The causes of action are as follows: (1) violation of Section 1681g(a) of the FCRA, which requires consumer reporting agencies to provide consumers, upon request, with all information in the consumer's file at the time of the request; (2) violation of Sections 1785.10 and 1785.15 of the CCRAA, which require consumer credit reporting agencies to allow consumers, upon request, to visually inspect and receive a disclosure of all files maintained regarding the consumer at the time of the request; (3) violation of Section 1681e(b) of the FCRA, which requires consumer reporting agencies to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information when preparing consumer reports; (4) violation of Section 1785.14(b) of the CCRAA, which requires consumer credit reporting agencies to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the consumer report relates; and (5) violation of Section 1681i of the FCRA, which requires consumer reporting agencies to conduct a reasonable investigation into information in a consumer's file that is disputed by the consumer. During discovery in the lawsuit, the parties quarreled about whether and to what extent the Defendant is required to respond to certain document requests and interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiff. The document requests and interrogatories at the center of the quarrel essentially ask the Defendant to identify all instances since Oct. 2, 2011, that the Defendant reported to a third-party, such as a car dealership client, an "OFAC hit" for a consumer: a. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 3: All documents and electronically stored information in Your possession, custody, or control concerning individuals about whom You reported an OFAC Hit to a third party from Oct. 2, 2011 to the present. b. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 7: All documents and electronically stored information in Your possession, custody, or control concerning pertaining to Your policies and procedures concerning the accuracy of Your OFAC Hits in effect from Oct. 2, 2011 to the present. c. INTERROGATORY 5: Identify all natural persons about whom You provided an OFAC Hit to a third party from Oct. 2, 2011 to the present. d. INTERROGATORY 6: Identify the entity to which You provided each OFAC Hit you identified in Your response to Interrogatory 5 and the date of each. According to the Defendant, the Plaintiff's foregoing discovery requests are overly burdensome and costly; and on that basis, the Defendant moved the Magistrate Judge for a protective order under Rule 26(b)(2)(B). It argued that a protective order is warranted because the information sought in the Plaintiff's discovery requests is not reasonably accessible to it. The Defendant explained that it has an electronically stored database of consumer reports and OFAC hits that it provided to third-party clients, such as car dealerships. The database is comprised of approximately 12.5 million records, but some of those records do not relate to OFAC hits. The database is currently encrypted, meaning there is no searchable capability of the database currently in place. Therefore, in order for it to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests, the Defendant will have to undergo the following process, which, according to it, is unduly burdensome and costly. The Plaintiff opposed Defendant's motion for a protective order, arguing that the requested discovery is accessible to Defendant without undue burden or expense. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the parties' briefing and evidence, and based on that review, the Magistrate Judge denied the Defendant's motion for a protective order. The Defendant then objected to the Magistrate Judge's order, asking the District Court Judge to issue a protective order for it against the Plaintiff's discovery requests. Judge Ishii holds that while the Magistrate Judge may have misunderstood Darin Larsen's or Frank Larsen's references to "files" and "records," that misunderstanding was the fault of the Defendant, not the Magistrate Judge. The Defendant failed to clearly explain to the Magistrate Judge the distinction between "files" and "records" -- terms that were repeatedly used but not defined by the Defendant. Thus, by attacking the Magistrate Judge's factual misunderstandings about the Defendant's database, the Defendant is only shining a mirror on the vagueness and obscurity in its briefing. The Defendant argues that the Magistrate Judge erred by overruling its foundation objection to Jaffe's testimony. The District Judge disagrees. Because Jaffe is familiar with Frank Larsen's deposition testimony and declaration, wherein Frank Larsen discussed the Defendant's database and the processes and capabilities for decrypting and searching the database, the Magistrate Judge did not err in concluding that Jaffe possessed sufficient foundation to testify about the Defendant's database. Judge Ishii holds that whether evidence proves that the Plaintiff suffered alleged damages is a merits question that should be decided by summary judgment or trial, but it is not a consideration that impacts the scope of discovery under Rule 26(b)(1). The requested discovery is relevant to determining issues of class certification, such as the size and members of the putative class. Even if the District Judge were to consider the potential merits of the Plaintiff's claims as a limitation on their scope of discovery, the Defendant has failed to persuade the Court that the Plaintiff has not suffered damages. Accordingly, Judge Ishii denied the Defendant's objections to the Magistrate Judge's discovery order. A full-text copy of Judge Ishii's May 19, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/RhToWT from Leagle.com. CROSSROADS HOSPICE: Freeman Seeks Proper OT Pay for Hospice Aides ----------------------------------------------------------------- TRISTA L. FREEMAN, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. CROSSROADS HOSPICE OF NORTHEAST OHIO LLC, – and – CROSSROADS HOSPICE OF CINCINNATI LLC, – and – CROSSROADS HOSPICE OF CLEVELAND LLC, – and – CROSSROADS HOSPICE OF DAYTON LLC, – and – CARREFOUR ASSOCIATES LLC, – and – PERRY FARMER, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-01579-BYP (N.D. Ohio, July 17, 2020) alleges that Defendants fail to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons overtime in pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., the Ohio Revised Code Section 4111.03(D) and Section 4113.15 of the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and those similarly situated regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek, entitling them to overtime compensation under the FLSA and the Ohio Overtime Law. In addition to their hourly wages, Plaintiff and others similarly situated were paid non-discretionary "Oncall" pay and "Emergency Incentive Pay" that was not calculated into their regular rates for the purposes of calculating overtime compensation. Plaintiff worked at Defendants' Uniontown, Ohio location as a hospice aide from approximately April 2, 2019 until May 15, 2020. Defendants jointly provide health care in the home and in facilities throughout the Midwest, Northeast and South regions of the United States including Georgia, Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 34 N. High St., Ste. 502 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 824-5770 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com CU FOUNDATION: Faces Class Action Over Investment Returns --------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Gounley, writing for BusinessDen, reports that a former chairman of the University of Colorado Foundation who has donated millions has sued the organization, alleging what he sees as an underwhelming investment strategy is costing students. Clarence Herbst, who was chairman from 1992 to 1994 and also has served the organization in other roles, filed the lawsuit on July 15 in Denver District Court, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and violation of state law. In addition to the foundation, the lawsuit also names as defendants foundation CEO Jack Finlaw, UC President Mark Kennedy and others. Three recent graduates of the system's Boulder and Colorado Springs campus are also plaintiffs. Finlaw, who assumed the CEO role in 2004, said he wasn't surprised by the lawsuit -- "He's been threatening to sue us on this for longer than I've been here" -- and disputed the notion the foundation's recent returns have been underwhelming. "Our performance is in the top quartile," compared to other university endowments, Finlaw said. In the lawsuit, Herbst -- who said he has donated about $5 million to the foundation or CU itself -- alleges that the foundation's recent strategy of active investing is producing less returns, and costing more in fees, than if the organization had just dumped all its funds into an index fund. He said the foundation has underperformed the S&P 500 Fund by approximately 5.49 percent annually from 2010 to 2019. Herbst's lawsuit then notes that the cost of attending CU is rising, and suggests underperforming investments are part of the reason, along with cuts in state funding. The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of all students who have attended the CU system since 2009. "No ordinarily prudent person would have wasted tens of millions of dollars per year on investment advisory fees with PWP and dozens of other active management and hedge fund advisors when the CU Foundation could have invested in low cost index funds and saved CU tens of millions of dollars," the lawsuit reads. Herbst claims that the foundation did invest most of its assets in index funds until about 2003. In 2004, however, it named Chris Bittman its chief investment officer, "and at that point, the CU Foundation began its downfall by active investing," the lawsuit reads. Bittman left the role in 2009 to become a partner at Perella Weinberg Partners, and the foundation then contracted the firm to manage its investments. "Following the initial contract with PWP, the CU Foundation did not negotiate the percentage fees and costs it would pay PWP and other active manager firms engaged by PWP to ‘manage' the CU Foundation's assets, and it has not done so in the last ten years," the lawsuit states. "The CU Foundation did an insider transaction with Mr. Bittman and PWP." Bittman and PWP are not named as defendants in the lawsuit. Finlaw said that as of June 30, 2019 -- results for the fiscal year that just ended haven't been tabulated yet -- the foundation had an annualized return of 9.2 percent in the last 10 years. Average return for all university endowments over that same time was 8.4 percent, Finlaw said. Restrict that to endowments, like CU's, that are greater than $1 billion and the average return was 9 percent annually. Finlaw said the foundation has a "very diversified portfolio," that includes private equity and real estate investments, along with publicly traded stocks and some index funds. He said the foundation believes such diversification is required by state law. Of the impressive returns for S&P 500 funds in recent years, "my view is hindsight is 2020," Finlaw said, adding that returns wouldn't have been so impressive in the 2000s. "It might work for people like you and me who have much smaller portfolios," he said. Finlaw also said the foundation regularly reviews the performance of Perella Weinberg Partners and has had outside consultants do so as well. "We believe their fees are very reasonable," he said. Herbst is the retired chairman and CEO of Resinoid Engineering, which has facilities in Ohio and Illinois, and was founded by Herbst's father. According to its website, the company makes products for the automotive industry, among others. Herbst graduated from CU and currently lives in Colorado, according to the lawsuit. He has received numerous awards from the school system. The Herbst Academic Center at CU Boulder and McCord-Herbst Student Veterans Center at UCCS are named after him. Herbst has been disappointed in his alma mater's actions before. Crain's Chicago Business reported in 2015 that Herbst, disappointed by the school's decision to pour tens of millions into athletics, had "dropped his stadium seats, took the school out of his will and pulled three paintings he had lent the Boulder school from his private collection of Western art." Attorneys Matthew Johnson and Kimberly Berve of Dowd Bennett are representing Herbst in the lawsuit. [GN] DMO AUTO: Sends Unsolicited Robocalls, Demars Claims ---------------------------------------------------- WANDA DEMARS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DMO AUTO ACQUISITIONS LLC D/B/A DAN O'BRIEN KIA, Defendant, (D.N.H., July 17, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an unlawful practice of calling consumers, including the Plaintiff, on their landline and cellular telephones using an artificial or pre-recorded voice in an attempt to promote and market its products and services. The Defendant placed the robocalls without obtaining prior express consent from consumers. The practice caused actual harm to the Plaintiff and Class members which includes aggravation, nuisance, and invasions of privacy. DMO Auto Acquisitions LLC, d/b/a Dan O'Brien Kia, is an automotive dealership, with its corporate headquarters located at 158 Manchester St., Concord, New Hampshire. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Sacht, Esq. Jonathan M. Hixon, Esq. HACKETT FEINBERG P.C. 155 Federal Street, 9th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 422-0200 E-mail: cms@bostonbusinesslaw.com jmh@bostonbusinesslaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com EDDIE BAUER: Offers False Discounts to Consumers, Clark Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDDIE BAUER LLC and EDDIE BAUER PARENT LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01106 (W.D. Wash., July 16, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in a false discount advertising scheme at its Outlet Stores in order to induce consumers, including the Plaintiff, to purchase its products. Eddie Bauer's marketing plan is to trick its customers into believing that its products are worth, and have a value equal to, the inflated list price, and that the lower advertised sale price represents a special bargain. In fact, not only are the advertising savings always false; in many cases the sale price is actually higher than Eddie Bauer's true regular selling price for the product. The Defendants' fraudulent practice harms the Plaintiff and Class members as they pay more than they otherwise would have paid and buy products that they otherwise would not have bought. Eddie Bauer LLC is a clothing and accessories retail company. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Eddie Bauer Parent LLC, with its principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington. Eddie Bauer Parent LLC is an operator of a clothing store chain, with principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq. Che Corrington, Esq. 400 108th Avenue NE, Suite 500 Bellevue, WA 98004 Telephone: (425) 233-8650 Facsimile: (425) 412-7171 E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com pkl@hattislaw.com che@hattislaw.com EL GUACAMOLE: Faces Rojas Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- LAURA PEREZ ROJAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- EL GUACAMOLE TEX-MEX CORP. (D/B/A EL GUACAMOLE TEX-MEX) and JORGE LUIS CASTANEDA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03277 (E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself, and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law Sections 190 et seq. and 650 et seq., and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor codified at N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 12, Section 146-1.6, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Perez was employed as a cook, cashier, juice and smoothie preparer, and packager at the Defendants' restaurant located in New York. According to the complaint, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Perez appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Perez the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which she had to work over 10 hours a day. Further, Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Perez 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. El Guacamole Tex-Mex Corp. is a Tex-Mex restaurant based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ELANCO ANIMAL: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Investors of Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors of the upcoming July 20, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who acquired Elanco Animal Health Incorporated ("Elanco" or the "Company") (NYSE: ELAN) securities between January 10, 2020 and May 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). On May 7, 2020, before the market opened, Elanco announced its first quarter 2020 financial results, reporting revenue of $657.7 million and earnings per share of -$0.12, reflecting "a reduction of approximately $60 million in channel inventory." The Company's Chief Executive Officer attributed the disappointing results to "distributor performance," among other things, and stated that Elanco planned "to tighten [its] approach across many facets of [its] distributor relationships." On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.05, or over 13%, to close at $19.88 per share on May 7, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that, after consolidating its distributors from eight to four, the Company increased the amount of inventory, including companion animal products, held by each distributor; (2) that Elanco's distributors were not experiencing sufficient demand to sell through the inventory; (3) that, as a result, the Company's revenue was reasonably likely to decline; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Elanco would reduce its channel inventory with respect to companion animal products; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Elanco securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 20, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Frank R. Cruz The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz Los Angeles Tel No: 310-914-5007 E-mail: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com [GN] ENPHASE ENERGY: Claimsfiler Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuit: Enphase Energy, Inc. (ENPH) Class Period: 2/26/2019 - 6/17/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 17, 2020 According to the Complaint, Enphase Energy, Inc. is a global energy technology company that "deliver[s] smart, easy-touse solutions that manage solar generation, storage and communication on one intelligent platform." The Company asserts that it "revolutionized the solar industry with [its] microinverter technology" and that it "produce[s] a fully integrated solar-plus-storage solution." The Complaint 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. [GN] ENPHASE ENERGY: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Enphase Energy, Inc. Investors have until the deadline listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to --howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com -- Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENPH) Class Period: February 26, 2019 - June 17, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2020 Shareholders with $100,000 in losses or more are encouraged to contact the firm The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that its revenues, both U.S. and international, were inflated; (2) that the Company engaged in improper deferred revenue accounting practices; (3) that 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. [GN] ESTEE LAUDER: Mismanaged 401(K) Savings Plan, Gandy Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- KATHY L. GANDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESTEE LAUDER, INC.; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ESTEE LAUDER INC.; ESTEE LAUDER INC. FIDUCIARY INVESTMENT COMMITTEE; and JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05779 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of The Estee Lauder Companies 401(K) Savings Plan, alleges that the Defendants breached the duties they owed to the Plan, the Plaintiff, and the Plan's other participants by: (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost and performance; and (2) maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or similar investment options with lower costs and/or better performance histories. In addition, the Defendants breached their fiduciary monitoring duties by: (1) failing to monitor and evaluate the performance of the Committee Defendants or have a system in place for doing so; (2) failing to monitor the processes by which Plan investments were evaluated, their failure to investigate the availability of lower-cost share classes, and their failure to investigate the availability of lower-cost separate account and collective trust vehicles; and (3) failing to remove Committee members whose performance was inadequate in that they continued to maintain imprudent, excessively costly, and poorly performing investments within the Plan. As a result of the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, the Plan suffered millions of dollars of losses due to excessive costs and lower net investment returns. Had the Defendants complied with their fiduciary obligations, the Plan would not have suffered these losses, and Plan participants would have had more money available to them for their retirement. Estee Lauder, Inc. is a manufacturer of beauty care products with its principal place of business at 28 W. 23rd Street, 8th Floor, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 3 Terry Drive, Suite 205 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: (267) 685-0676 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com elechtzin@edelson-law.com FELIX ENERGY: Holbrook Sues Over Unpaid OT, Misclassification ------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD HOLBROOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FELIX ENERGY HOLDINGS II, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-00180 (W.D. Tex., July 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including paying the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated workers a flat amount for each day worked, failing to compensate them the proper overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, and misclassifying them as independent contractors. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a drilling consultant from approximately July 2018 until June 2019. Felix Energy Holdings II, LLC is an oil and natural gas exploration and production company operating worldwide and throughout the United States, with its principal place of business located in Denver, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com FIRST NATIONS: Class Action Launched Over Safe Drinking Water ------------------------------------------------------------- A Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench ruling has opened the door for a class-action lawsuit over a lack of safe drinking water on First Nations. Chief Justice Glenn Joyal ruled that a lawsuit filed by a First Nation in 2019 is now certified as a class action, which means any First Nation that is impacted by drinking water advisories may join the lawsuit. Chief Doreen Spence of the Tataskweyak Cree Nation, which is 700 kilometres north of Winnipeg, said the community hasn't been able to trust the tap water for years. "These inequalities of not having clean drinking water is unacceptable and basically I hope that moving forward with this action we hope that this will be rectified because I believe we are all Canadian and we deserve clean drinking water like everybody else," said Spence. Michael Rosenberg, who is the lead counsel on the lawsuit, is seeking compensation from the federal government regarding drinking water advisories of more than $2 billion. "This is an important day for class members, who will now have a chance to seek justice on the merits of their claims. Access to clean drinking water is a fundamental right, and all Canadians can understand the urgency of this case," said Rosenberg. "I am aware that past members are now counting on the federal government to follow through on this commitment by ensuring that all reserves have access to clean drinking water." According to the government's website, there are currently 61 long term water advisories in effect across the country. Spence said having clean drinking water is a basic human right. "We couldn't sit back and wait because we know it's never going to happen if we don't take a step forward," said Spence. Spence added that the community would need updated infrastructure to provide clean drinking water and while it would take some time, she said they are in it for the long haul. Currently, there are four First Nations in Alberta and one in B.C. that have proceedings before the federal court regarding clean drinking water. Those are active cases and because of that, they are not allowed to be part of the class-action lawsuit. [GN] FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Claimsfiler Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuit: Forescout Technologies, Inc. (FSCT) Class Period: 2/6/2020 - 5/15/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 10, 2020 SECURITIES FRAUD Lawsuit Overview According to the Complaint, Forescout Technologies, Inc. provides "security at first sight" by delivering software that enables device visibility and control that enables enterprises and government agencies to gain improved situational awareness of their environment (devices on their networks) and orchestrate actions to reduce cyber and operational risk. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions of material facts regarding the significant and disproportionate decline in Forescout's financial performance and the related risk Forescout's planned acquisition by Advent International Corp. would not close. As a result, Class members that purchased Forescout common stock during the Class Period did so at artificially inflated prices. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that by the start of the Class Period on February 6, 2020 -- when Forescout announced the Merger Agreement with Advent and positive fourth quarter 2019 earnings -- Forescout knew that its business had begun to suffer a dramatic and undisclosed downturn, including it its fast-growing Asia Pacific and Japan ("APJ") region that was impacted by COVID19 starting in January. In addition, Forescout was aware that its fourth quarter 2019 revenues were inflated through an abnormal transaction with one of its largest resale customers, Merlin International Inc., which a whistleblower has alleged to Advent was the result of a "channel stuffing scheme" in the fourth quarter of 2019. Because of these factors, Forescout knew that the consummation of the Transaction was exceptionally risky at the time it announced the Merger Agreement. Forescout neither disclosed these facts to investors nor Advent at the time it signed the Merger Agreement. Nor did Forescout disclose that its financial collapse would preclude the availability of the debt financing needed to close the transaction. In fact, while Forescout provided certain revised projections during the sales process to bidders, it did not disclose the true known extent of its financial downturn, including the early impacts of COVID-19 on the APJ region, nor the abnormal transaction with Merlin. [GN] FRANCHISE GROUP: Labrado vs JTH Tax Underway -------------------------------------------- The class action suit entitled, Rene Labrado v. JTH Tax, Inc., is underway and the case parties were scheduled to hold a status conference earlier this month, Franchise Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2020. On July 3, 2018, a class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles by a former employee for herself and on behalf of all other "similarly situated" persons. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company allegedly violated various provisions of the California Labor Code, including: unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid, wages not timely paid, non-compliant wage statements, failure to keep pay records, unreimbursed business expenses and violation of California Business and Profession Code Section 17200. The Complaint seeks actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages, injunctive relief and other damages. The Company highly disputes the allegations set forth in the Complaint and filed a motion to dismiss. On May 29, 2019, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, but granted the Company leave to file a motion to strike. The Company filed a motion to strike and on August 20, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion. The Court provided the Company with twenty days to file its answer to the Complaint and lifted the discovery stay. A status conference was held on March 3, 2020 where the Court set a hearing on the class certification for December 18, 2020. A further status conference was set for July 20, 2020. Franchise Group, Inc. is a franchisor operator and acquirer of franchised and franchisable businesses that can be scaled using the company's operating expertise. The company currently operates three reportable segments: Liberty Tax, Buddy's and Sears Outlet. The company is based in Virginia Beach, Virginia. GENERAL MOTORS: Holguin Suit Transferred to Michigan ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ernest Holguin, David Goldberg, James Kalkstein, Robert Smith, Carole Smith, Dennis Glazer, Marianne Glazer and Michael Roth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. General Motors LLC, Defendant, was transferred from the District of Delaware with the assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00615 to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) on July 15, 2020, and assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-11955-GAD-EAS. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other filed over Diversity-Contract Dispute. General Motors Company, commonly referred to as General Motors, is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial services, with global headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance Center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell D. Paul, Esq. Berger Montague PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: rpaul@bm.net - and - Abigail Gertner, Esq. Berger Montague PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-5702 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: agertner@bm.net GOOGLE INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Over Android Apps -------------------------------------------------------- Roger Montti, writing for Search Engine Journal, reports that Google was hit with a class action lawsuit claiming privacy violations via Android apps. The plaintiffs allege that Google misleads users with false impressions of control over their data. The lawsuit alleges that Google's privacy controls are fake and that Google is illegally intercepting and selling private information. The plaintiffs also claim that Google's privacy controls do not stop Google from harvesting and selling sensitive online activity information. The lawsuit presents what it describes as evidence that Google continues to access private information regardless of privacy settings. The full description of the lawsuit is: CLASS ACTION FOR (1) FEDERAL WIRETAP VIOLATIONS, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 2510, ET. SEQ.; (2) INVASION OF PRIVACY ACT VIOLATIONS, CAL. PENAL CODE Secs. 631 & 632; (3) INVASION OF PRIVACY; (4) COMPREHENSIVE COMPUTER DATA ACCESS AND FRAUD ACT, CAL. PENAL CODE Sec. 502. Google's Privacy Controls Alleged to be Lies The lawsuit claims that the privacy controls that Google provides are a deceit. It claims that Google's privacy controls do not stop Google from collecting data, regardless of what choices consumers make. How Google Leverages Apps to Violate User Privacy The plaintiffs state in their complaint that third party Android apps are required to use Google's Firebase SDK (software development kit) in order to participate in Google's other services like their advertising platform, promotion on Google Play and Google Analytics. They claim that the Firebase SDK allows Google to "intercept" the app activity. They say that this app activity data can reveal who you date, where you eat, what sites you have visited, what your hobbies are, and where you vacationed. The lawsuit says that this trove of information about a person not only is a privacy violation but poses a danger to individual personal security because a bad actor such as a criminal or rogue government entity could access that information. The lawsuit claims that the level of surveillance is beyond anything George Orwell ever imagined: "Google has made itself an unaccountable trove of information so detailed and expansive that George Orwell himself could not have imagined it." Does Google Not Honor their Privacy Policy? The lawsuit cites Google's global Privacy Policy as an example of how Google says one thing but does another. This is the part of Google's privacy policy they quote: "When you use our services, you're trusting us with your information. We understand this is a big responsibility and work hard to protect your information and put you in control. . . . [A]cross our services, you can adjust your privacy settings to control what we collect and how your information is used." The lawsuit alleges that the above promise to allow consumers to control their promise is not truthful. "Google in fact 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." Google Violates Privacy Via Third Party Apps? The complaint alleges that an Android user cannot avoid being spied on by Google. It states that third party apps enable Google to pry into a users most private and intimate information. Lawsuit Compares Google to a Voyeur The lawsuit uses the word Voyeur to describe Google. Voyeur is a strong word to use. A voyeur is a person who derives illicit pleasure from violating the privacy of others. The lawsuit alleges that Google derives illicit treasure from violating the privacy of others. It claims that Google enriches itself by collecting and selling the private and sensitive information of everyone who uses an Android app while presenting a facade of privacy to users. Lawsuit Presents Evidence The plaintiffs say that even though Google promises to not harvest information, they present what they believe is evidence that Google still collects and warehouses that information. They say present that Google's DV360 service is proof that Google is harvesting and commodifying hyper-personalized information for the benefit of marketers. Google DV360 is a reference to Google Display & Video 360. Google states that the program grants access to user information that was harvested by Google and third parties. This is how Google describes the reach and scale of user information Google is selling: "The audience profile analysis lets you understand the composition of your selected audience based on its overlap with all other audiences in Display & Video 360 (e.g. Google data, Partner data, and other datasets you have access to). . . .Use the Geographic distribution analysis tool to quickly assess where your most qualified users are (within a specific country, region, DMA, or postal code), then optimize targeting settings for your campaign accordingly." Google's Privacy Issue Google's business model has been under attack for privacy violation issues for years, primarily in Europe. This is in addition to investigations related to abuse of monopolistic advantages. It's clear that privacy is an important concern around the world. How browsers handle third party cookies is already undermining Google's ability to track users around the web. This is an important lawsuit. How it plays out may have an effect on Google's reach into the private corners of Internet users. The case is ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ and JULIEANNA MUNIZ individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-4688 (N.D. Cal.). [GN] GREENVILLE, NC: Summary Judgment in Favor of Greenville Reversed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KIDD CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC, ROCKY RUSSELL BUILDERS, INC., and TOMMY WILLIAMS BUILDERS, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. GREENVILLE UTILITIES COMMISSION, Defendant, Case No. COA19-910 (N.C. App.), the Court of Appeals of North Carolina reversed the trial court's order entering summary judgment in favor of GUC. The North Carolina General Assembly created GUC, a local government entity ("LGE") in 1991 by passing Session Law 1991-861, "An Act to Amend and Restate the Charter of the Greenville Utilities Commission of the City of Greenville." The bill delegated power to GUC for the proper management of the public utilities of the City of Greenville, including electric, natural gas, water, and sewer services. GUC provides water and sewer services to all of Pitt County. Starting in 2008, at the time of a developer's application for water and sewer service, GUC began requiring contractors and developers of new construction and new developments to pay service connection fees, which consist of two components: a tapping fee and a capacity fee. The tapping fee recovers the cost for physically making a service tap. Capacity fees, or impact fees, are collected in an effort to recover a proportional share of the cost of capital facilities constructed to provide service capacity for new development or new customers connecting to the water/sewer system. Capacity fees are imposed as a precondition to development approval, to the issuance of building permits, and to receiving service. In 2016, the state Supreme Court decided Quality Built Homes v. Town of Carthage ("Quality Built Homes I"), which examined the Town of Carthage's authority to impose impact fees on developers as a precondition for the issuance of building permits. It concluded that municipalities, including Carthage, did not have the statutory authority to impose impact fees for future services. Subsequent appeals led the Supreme Court to hold that a municipality's liability to refund unlawful impact fee revenue was subject to a three-year statute of limitations in Quality Built Homes v. Town of Carthage ("Quality Built Homes II"). In response to the Supreme Court's holding in Quality Built Homes I, on July 20, 2017, the General Assembly enacted the Public Water and Sewer System Development Fee Act to clarify a local government utility's authority to assess upfront charges for water and sewer services. The law grants local government utilities specific authority to assess one type of upfront charge -- a system development fee -- as long as that fee is calculated in accordance with the statute's "written analysis" process. The Act became effective on Oct. 1, 2017, providing, that nothing in the act provides retroactive authority for any system development fee, or any similar fee for water or sewer services to be furnished, collected by a local government unit prior to Oct. 1, 2017. After the legislature passed the System Development Fee Act, GUC hired Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc., an independent financial consultant, to perform the financial study required by N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 162A-205. GUC adopted Raftelis's new fee calculation system, which became effective on July 1, 2018. The Plaintiffs are North Carolina licensed general contractors who work in and around the Greenville, North Carolina area. They initiated a class action suit on April 24, 2018, alleging that the Defendant lacked the authority to collect impact fees from the three years prior to the commencement of the action, and thus within the three-year statute of limitations period, and sought recovery of all impact fees paid within that time period -- totaling $1.2 million dollars. The Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on 4 March 2019 contending that its Charter authorized GUC to collect impact fees prior to the enactment of the System Development Act. On 20 May 2019, Judge Lamont Wiggins heard arguments on the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant on June 3. 2019. The Plaintiffs timely noticed appeal. On appeal, the Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred by granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment because GUC's Charter does not specifically authorize GUC to charge impact fees for future water and sewer services. They further argue that GUC's Charter only authorizes the charging of uniform rates and charges, not impact fees. Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that the charging of impact fees is outside the authority of GUC because these fees are not reasonably necessary or expedient to carry GUC's express powers into execution and effect. After careful review, the Appellate Court concludes that GUC does not possess the authority to charge impact fees and that the charging of such fees was ultra vires. The Appellate Court finds that though GUC's Charter allows it to charge for "services rendered," the language at issue here fails to authorize GUC to charge for services to be rendered. While the Charter "clearly and unambiguously" empowers GUC to charge for contemporaneous use of its water and sewer systems, it does not contemplate charges for future services. And, though the Charter authorizes GUC to pay out its receipts for extending and planning for future improvements and expansions of said utilities," that does not change the limited sources through which those receipts can originate -- contemporaneous use. The impact fees charged by GUC were for future services and, therefore, not authorized by the Charter. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, the Appellate Court finds. The Appellate Court did not reach the Plaintiffs' arguments in the alternative. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court ruling. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's May 19, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/DIO3JC from Leagle.com. Whitfield, Bryson, and Mason, LLP, by Daniel K. Bryson -- dan@whitfieldbryson.com -- Martha A. Geer -- martha@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Scott C. Harris -- scott@whitfieldbryson.com -- and J. Hunter Bryson -- hunter@whitfieldbryson.com -- for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Hartzog Law Group, LLC, by Dan M. Hartzog, Jr. -- dhartzogjr@hartzoglawgroup.com -- and Katherine Barber-Jones -- kbarber-jones@hartzoglawgroup.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. GROCERY DELIVERY: Can't Compel Arbitration in Murray TCPA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GRACE MURRAY, Plaintiff, v. GROCERY DELIVERY E-SERVICES USA INC., doing business as HELLOFRESH, Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-12608-WGY (D. Mass.), Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Grocery Delivery E-Services USA, Inc. ("HelloFresh")'s motion to compel arbitration. The case features a time-traveling arbitration clause. On Dec. 30, 2019, Murray filed a complaint in the Court claiming that she received telemarketing calls from HelloFresh despite being listed on the National Do Not Call registry, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"). She asks the Court for damages and injunctive relief on behalf of herself as well as a purported class of nationwide people similarly affected. HelloFresh filed a motion to compel arbitration and an accompanying memorandum, which Murray opposed. The Court heard oral argument by videoconference on April 22, 2020 and denied the motion to compel arbitration. HelloFresh filed an appeal, and asked the District Court to stay further action while the appeal is pending. The Court denied that motion, observing that the claim for arbitration borders on the frivolous. HelloFresh, a Delaware corporation based in New York, provides a service delivering weekly meal kits to subscribers. Murray signed up for a trial subscription of HelloFresh on Sept. 25, 2015. When Murray signed up for her first and only HelloFresh delivery, there was a digital box that she checked indicating that she agreed to certain terms and conditions. Murray then canceled the subscription after one delivery and received a confirmation email of the cancelation on Jan. 5, 2016. Murray claims that she has been listed on the Do Not Call Registry since 2006. Murray's phone is a personal phone, not used for business. Murray alleges that, since canceling her HelloFresh subscription, she has received around 15 telemarketing calls from HelloFresh, despite asking it to place her on their own do-not-call list. HelloFresh states that it contracts with vendors to place calls to prior customers regarding the quality of services. Based on these facts, Murray brought an action under the TCPA for damages and injunctive relief. HelloFresh argues that the Terms and Conditions require Murray to arbitrate these claims. The parties agree that the 2015 Terms and Conditions did not include an arbitration clause. The Terms and Conditions did include the provisions that New York law would govern all disputes and that HelloFresh had the right to modify the terms. Due to changes in the law that favored arbitration, HelloFresh modified the terms for the 2017 year to include an arbitration provision. The arbitration clause covers all claims between the customer and HelloFresh and includes, among other things, a waiver of any right to bring a class action suit or class arbitration. HelloFresh states that it notified Murray of the change in the Terms and Conditions through emails containing a hyperlink to the new terms. Specifically, HelloFresh claims they sent Murray twenty-eight emails between April 2017 and January 2018 which stated, at the bottom: "Use of the HelloFresh service and website is subject to our Terms of Use." The concluding phrase linked to the new 2017 terms containing the arbitration provision. Murray avers that, to the best of her recollection, she never opened or clicked on any hyperlinks contained in the promotional email. Judge Young finds that at the time the box was clicked, HelloFresh's terms and conditions made no mention of arbitration. The arbitration clause was added two years later, long after Murray's sole use of HelloFresh's service. HelloFresh contends that Murray is nonetheless bound by the later-added terms because, when she clicked that box two years earlier, the terms and conditions stated that HelloFresh could unilaterally change the terms of the contract so long as it notified the customer and she agreed or was silent (which would be treated as agreement). The Judge rejected HelloFresh's effort to compel arbitration because it is a bridge too far. It is doubtful that such a later unilateral modification of the contract could bind Murray to arbitrate when there is no evidence that Murray ever agreed to surrender her rights to litigate in Court. Even were such a post-agreement arbitration clause enforceable, though, HelloFresh's modification failed to comply with its own notification requirements that were in effect when Murray clicked the box in 2015. The bottom line is that Murray never consented to any arbitration agreement with HelloFresh. Federal law may favor arbitrations, but it does not deprive litigants of their day in court absent an agreement to arbitrate. HelloFresh's unilateral modification provision, even if effective, does not salvage the belated arbitration clause because Murray was not properly notified. Accordingly, Judge Young denied HelloFresh's motion to compel arbitration. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 19, 2020 Memorandum of Decision is available at https://is.gd/BF4lT3 from Leagle.com. GROLAWN INC: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Wilson Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, DENNIS WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROLAWN, INCORPORATED, and JOHN ABEL, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-01559-BYP (N.D. Ohio, July 15, 2020) challenges Defendants' employment policies and practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a lawn tech from approximately April 2019 to December 2019. According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 54-56 hours per week but Defendant regularly paid Plaintiff less than one and one-half times his regular hourly rates for hours worked more than 40 hours per workweek. The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated lawn tech overtime as required by the FLSA, and failed to maintain accurate and complete records of employees' time. John Abel is the President and owner of Defendant Grolawn. Grolawn, Incorporated is a lawn care company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC The Caxton Building 812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490 Cleveland, OH 44115 Tel: (216) 912-2221 Fax: (216) 350-6313 Emails: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com H F DOLLAR: Faces Lopez et al. Suit Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------ EDUARDO CANAN LOPEZ and CELSO VERA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. H F DOLLAR & UP FRUIT AND VEGETABLE CORP., HUA FENG LIN, LANLAN LIN, and SU YU LIN, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03240 (E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated workers appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, failing to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment, and failing to keep payrolls records. Plaintiff Lopez was employed by the Defendants as a stocker of supplies from May 2013 until March 2020. Plaintiff Sanchez was employed by the Defendants as a stocker of vegetables and fruits from July 2014 until April 2018. H F Dollar & Up Fruit and Vegetable Corp. is a supplier of fruits and vegetables, with a principal place of business located at 61-27 Roosevelt Avenue, Woodside New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 HAMILTON BEACH: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Securities Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors of the upcoming July 21, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who acquired Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company ("Hamilton Beach Brands" or the "Company") (NYSE: HBB) securities between February 27, 2020 and May 8, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). On May 11, 2020, Hamilton Beach Brands disclosed that it could not timely file its first quarter 2020 quarterly report due to "certain accounting irregularities with respect to the timing of recognition of selling and marketing expenses and the classification of certain expenditures within the statement of operations at its Mexican subsidiary." The Company also revealed that its "Audit Review Committee has commenced an internal investigation" regarding "the realizability of certain assets of the Mexican subsidiary." On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.03, or nearly 9%, to close at $10.43 per share on May 11, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Hamilton had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, particularly with respect to one of its Mexican subsidiaries; (2) consequently, the Company's accounting included certain irregularities with respect to the timing of recognition of selling and marketing expenses and the classification of certain expenditures within the statement of operations at this Mexican subsidiary, as well as potential misconduct with respect to the realizability of certain assets of the Mexican subsidiary; (3) as a result of all the foregoing, Hamilton could not accurately attest to its financial results, particularly with respect to these metrics, and was consequently at an increased risk of delaying the filing of its period reports with the SEC; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Hamilton Beach Brands securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 21, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] HEALTH EXPRESS: Ogletree Attorneys Discuss FAA Court Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------- Dean J. Shauger, Esq. -- dean.shauger@ogletree.com -- and Ryan T. Warden, Esq. -- ryan.warden@ogletree.com -- of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, report that on May 21, 2018, in Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld class action waivers in arbitration agreements, ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) instructs "federal courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms - including terms providing for individualized proceedings." On July 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of New Jersey handed down a landmark decision of its own upholding the enforceability of employment arbitration agreements with class action waivers under the New Jersey Arbitration Act (NJAA), even if the agreements are exempted from the coverage of the FAA, by virtue of the FAA's Section 1 "transportation worker exemption." The decision is not only a watershed victory for businesses that employ or engage transportation workers who fall within the Section 1 exemption, but all businesses that employ or engage workers in New Jersey. The decision highlights the enormous value of an effective arbitration program and illustrates why businesses that do not already have arbitration agreements with their workers may want to carefully consider obtaining them. Background In Arafa v. Health Express Corp. (A-6-19), the Supreme Court of New Jersey considered two related cases: Colon v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC (A-7-19) and Arafa v. Health Express Corp. (A-6-19). In both cases, truck drivers brought suit against their putative employers in New Jersey state court asserting claims under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. In both cases, the putative employers sought to dismiss the claims and compel individual arbitrations based on their arbitration agreements with the plaintiffs. The question posed in both cases was whether the parties' arbitration agreements could be enforced under the NJAA, if exempt from FAA coverage. Section 1 of the FAA provides in relevant part: that "[the FAA shall not] apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." In Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, the Supreme Court of the United States narrowly interpreted this provision -- frequently referred to as the "FAA Section 1 exemption" or "transportation worker exemption" -- to apply only to contracts of employment of transportation workers, not to contracts of employment in general. Therefore, for the Section 1 exemption to apply, it needs to be determined that plaintiffs are transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce. In Colon, the trial court dismissed the complaint and compelled the named plaintiffs to individual arbitrations under the NJAA. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that they are transportation workers exempt from the FAA's coverage. While the Appellate Division remanded for further proceedings the question of whether the plaintiffs were, in fact, transportation workers, such that the FAA should not apply, the court found the resolution of that question immaterial to the result. Regardless of whether the FAA applied, the court ruled, the class action waiver provision contained in the parties' arbitration agreements must be enforced under New Jersey law and the plaintiffs must be ordered to pursue their claims in individual arbitrations, pursuant to the NJAA, which applies to all arbitration agreements made since 2003, except those contained in collective bargaining agreements. In Arafa, the trial court also granted the putative employer's motion to dismiss and ordered the plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims on an individual basis. However, the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the plaintiff was exempt from the FAA as a transportation worker. Because the agreement only referenced the FAA (and not the NJAA), the court further found that the inapplicability of the FAA undermined the entire premise of the parties' contract. That is, the court concluded the arbitration agreement was "unenforceable for lack of mutual assent" and stated that "all other arbitration issues [were] moot." On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Colon and Arafa plaintiffs asserted that they are transportation workers falling within the FAA's Section 1 exemption, and therefore their arbitration agreements could not be enforced pursuant to the FAA. Because the arbitration agreements designated the FAA as the '"sole and exclusive governing law,' plaintiffs argue[d] there was no 'meeting of the minds," regarding arbitration. The plaintiffs further argued that "absent express intent to apply the NJAA, the state law cannot be applied in the FAA's place." In response, the defendants argued that: (1) "the FAA choice of law provision should not be interpreted as in conflict with the purpose of the arbitration agreement"; and (2) "the FAA's inapplicability to the parties did not destroy the intent to arbitrate in general." Supreme Court of New Jersey's Decision Faced with the parties' competing positions, the Supreme Court of New Jersey found in favor of the defendants, holding that the NJAA may apply to the arbitration agreements even if they are exempt under Section 1 of the FAA. In doing so, the Supreme Court observed (as did the Appellate Division in Colon) that the NJAA governs '"all agreements to arbitrate made on or after January 1, 2003,' and exempts from its provisions only 'an arbitration agreement between an employer and a duly elected representative of employees under a collective bargaining agreement or collectively negotiated agreement.' N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-3(a)." Accordingly, the Supreme Court found that "since 2003, there has been no need to express an intent that the NJAA would apply because its application has been automatic, absent preemption." Therefore, the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the NJAA must be specifically invoked to apply. The Supreme Court then turned to the question of preemption. As there is no express preemption provision in the FAA, including in Section 1, and the "application of the NJAA" would not "frustrate the principal purpose of the FAA by discriminating against arbitration agreements," the Supreme Court held that the FAA does not preempt the NJAA. Finally, the Supreme Court considered the enforceability of the arbitration agreements and class waivers at issue under New Jersey law. In Colon, "plaintiffs voluntarily agree[d] to waive any right to a trial by jury in any suit filed hereunder," and to "adjudicate any dispute pursuant to [the arbitration agreement]." The Colon arbitration clauses further specified that plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate any claim "arising out of or in any way relating to the [employment] Agreement or the transportation services provided [t]hereunder." The Arafa arbitration clause involved similarly broad language specifying that the plaintiff agreed to resolve "all disputes" between the parties through binding arbitration. The Supreme Court found the language of the arbitration clauses in both cases sufficiently broad to conclude that the plaintiffs "knowingly and voluntarily waived their rights to pursue their statutory wage claims" in a judicial forum. "By the same principles of construction applied to the jury trial waiver provision," the Supreme Court found that "plaintiffs knowingly and voluntarily waived their ability to proceed as a class." As such, the Supreme Court held the Arafa plaintiffs must pursue individual arbitrations pursuant to the NJAA, while the Colon plaintiffs must pursue individual arbitrations pursuant to "either the FAA or the NJAA, which will be determined by the trial court upon remand." Takeaways This decision provides much needed relief to New Jersey employers at the end of a 12-month span that saw the passage of the historic New Jersey Wage Theft Act, and various other laws passed in furtherance of efforts to identify and severely punish wage law violations, particularly in the independent contractor misclassification context. To be sure, the decision is most critical for businesses that engage transportation workers, as it confirms their arbitration agreements with such workers can be enforced under the NJAA even if the FAA doesn't apply. But the decision is extremely important for all businesses that employ or engage workers in New Jersey, insofar as the highest court in the state has upheld the enforceability of employment agreements to arbitrate statutory claims on an individual basis based on a straightforward, common-sense reading of the language of the agreements. This is significant because even in cases in which the FAA applies, state law contract interpretation principles apply, and arbitration agreements may be invalidated based on generally-applicable contract defenses such as unconscionability, fraud, and duress. The Supreme Court's ruling provides clear guidance to lower courts that no magic language is required for an enforceable agreement to arbitrate on an individual basis and serves as a reminder that the Supreme Court of New Jersey has long articulated New Jersey's strong public policy in favor of arbitration. While many New Jersey employers will continue to carefully craft their arbitration agreements with their workers, the Arafa decision should provide them with a greater level of comfort that their agreements to arbitrate disputes, including on an individual basis, will be enforced by the courts of this state according to their terms, in most instances, regardless of whether the FAA applies. One potential exception could be agreements to arbitrate claims alleging employment discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation. In 2019, the New Jersey state legislature amended the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination to preclude enforcement of agreements to arbitrate such claims and to prohibit retaliation against employees for refusing to agree to arbitrate such claims. New Jersey employers may want to carefully consider the impact of this amendment when crafting their arbitration agreements, particularly where the FAA does not apply, because in such cases, they will be unable to avail themselves of the argument that it should be preempted by the FAA on the grounds that it discriminates against arbitration agreements. Nevertheless, the Arafa decision illustrates just how valuable an effective arbitration program can be, and why employers without one may want to carefully consider implementing one. That said, the Arafa decision is limited to New Jersey, and other states may have other requirements or present other obstacles to the formation or enforcement of arbitration agreements, particularly where the FAA does not apply. As such, a state-by-state analysis of such issues is required. However, given Arafa's clear pronouncements, in instances where workers have a reasonable connection to New Jersey, employers may want to consider drafting arbitration agreements with a view toward maximizing the likelihood that New Jersey law (including the NJAA) will apply to disputes regarding the interpretation and enforceability of the agreements, particularly in situations where employers are more concerned about ensuring the individual arbitration of wage claims, as opposed to discrimination and/or retaliation claims, where New Jersey law may present a problem. Such strategies may include the insertion of a choice of law provision selecting New Jersey law to govern such disputes, in the alternative, should the FAA be found not to apply. [GN] HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 10 Motion Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. between April 24, 2020 and June 3, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 10, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Hebron investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Hebron class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1868.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] or [email protected] for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) many of Hebron's acquisitions, including Beijing Hengpu and Nami Holding (Cayman) Co., Ltd., involved undisclosed related parties; (2) Hebron's disclosure controls regarding related party transactions were ineffective; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Hebron's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 10, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1868.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 www.rosenlegal.com [GN] HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Schall Law Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on July 20 disclosed that it is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. ("Hebron" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:HEBT) for violations of the securities laws. The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information pertinent to investors. Investment analyst firm Grizzly Research released a report on June 3, 2020, titled "We Believe Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. (HEBT) is an Insider Enrichment Scheme without Economic Basis." According to the report, the Company "is a stock manipulation scheme that engaged in undisclosed related party acquisitions and undisclosed private placement transactions that have artificially inflated the stock price." Based on this report, shared of Hebron fell by more than 36% on the same day. 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. The Schall Law Firm 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. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 Cell: 424-303-1964 [GN] HOLYOKE SOLDIERS' HOME: Faces Civil Rights Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Western Mass News reports that a civil rights class action lawsuit has been filed against 5 people formerly associated with the Holyoke Soldiers' Home. The lawsuit was filed by the estate of a veteran who contracted COVID-19 in the home. The veteran died in April. The lawsuit was filed at the United States Courthouse in Springfield, MA. "They defended our country, but the Commonwealth of Massachusetts failed to keep their promise," said attorney Thomas Lesser. The family of Joseph Sniadach, who was one of the 76 vets to die in the home after testing positive for COVID-19--claims his civil rights were violated by the former facility officials. "He was ready to go out as soon as COVID-19 ended, go to the casino again and have some fun. He never got that chance," Lesser noted. The lawsuit has been filed against the following people, including the former Superintendent, Bennett Walsh, former Medical Director, David Clinton, former Chief Nursing Officer, Vanessa Lauziere, former Assistant Director of Nursing, Celeste Surreira, and former Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Francisco Urena. "It details the unprofessional behavior of those five individuals in the words of that report, there was a litany of "utterly baffling" misjudgments mistakes, and blatant errors," Lesser explained. Lesser also said the findings of the independent investigation into the outbreak, ordered by Governor Charlie Baker, show these five people failed to create a safe and healthy environment. He said there have been cases in the past to support his complaint. "There are certainly cases where failure to act in a pandemic is actionable," Lesser said. It alleges they acted with indifference and unethical behavior in managing the Home's COVID-19 outbreak— thereby denying the veterans their basic needs of living and safety. "76 people died, and they've certainly entitled to $1 million each, and many people contracted COVID-19, and it's a figure that takes care of them and some number for punitive damages," Lesser explained. Because it was filed as a class-action lawsuit, the courts will have to certify the veterans affected by the deadly COVID-19 outbreak at the home as a class. The lawyers said they plan to add more plaintiffs to the case in addition to Sniadach, and they filed the complaint with that in mind. "It's filed on behalf of the estates of all the veterans who died at the Holyoke Soldiers Home. It's filed on behalf of all the veterans who needlessly contracted COVID-19," Lesser said. When asked if they plan to sue the state as an entity, Lesser said they must first send a presentment letter to the commonwealth. Lesser told Western Mass News, one person they do not plan to bring action against is the state's Health and Human Services Secretary Marylou Sudders. "Came with a response team, and did the appropriate things which were isolating people with COVID-19, sending them to the hospitals, all things that should've happened weeks and weeks before," Lesser noted. The independent investigation into the home, detailed one nurse's account of seeing social workers call families and push them into changing their loved one's status to "do not hospitalize." Meanwhile, Governor Charlie Baker was asked about the class action lawsuit, and while he declined to discuss the litigation, he said he has spoken to the families of the late vets. "I am more than aware of the pain and the sadness and the loss that they feel," Baker said. Western Mass News reached out to the lawyer for Bennett Walsh, who denied to comment at this time and also reached out to the others for comment, who too declined to make a statement. Tune in to Western Mass News starting at 6PM on ABC40 for the latest developments. [GN] HOT POT: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid OT, Rest Break & Shift Premium ------------------------------------------------------------------ VALENTIN CASTRO HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOT POT IRVINE 1 LLC d/b/a LITTLE SHEEP MONGOLIAN HOT POT, HOT POT SACRAMENTO 1 LLC d/b/a LITTLE SHEEP MONGOLIAN HOTPOT, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-12 d/b/a LITTLE SHEEP MONGOLIAN HOT POT, and MICHAEL PUI LUK, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-01343 (C.D. Cal., July 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated restaurant employees overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to pay them split shift premium, failure to provide the required rest breaks during their daily shifts, failure to give them proper wage statements, and failure to accurately keep track of all their worked hours. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a food preparer at the Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot restaurant located at 2575 Pacific Coast Hwy, Torrance, California from June 2013 until October 2018. Hot Pot Irvine 1 LLC, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot, is a Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business located at 15361 Culver Drive, Irvine, California. Hot Pot Sacramento 1 LLC, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot, is a Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business located at 7271 Franklin Boulevard, Sacramento, California. John Doe Corporation 1, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot is a Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business located at 1655 S Azusa Avenue, Suite E, Hacienda Heights, California. John Doe Corporation 3, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot is a Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business located at 2575 Pacific Coast Highway, Torrance, California. John Doe Corporation 4, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot is a Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business located at Fair Oaks Avenue, Pasadena, California. John Doe Corporation 5, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot is a Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business located at 4718 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, San Diego, California. John Doe Corporation 6, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot is a Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business located at 140 W Valley Boulevard, Suite 213, San Gabriel, California. John Doe Corporation 7, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot is a Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business located at 19062 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California. John Doe Corporation 8, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot is a Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business located at 4068 Grafton Street, Dublin, California. John Doe Corporation 9, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot is a Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business located at 34396 Alvarado Niles Road, Union City, California. John Doe Corporation 10, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot is a Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business located at 215 S Ellsworth Avenue, San Mateo, California. John Doe Corporation 11, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot is a Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business located at 102 Castro Street, Mountain View, California. John Doe Corporation 12, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot is a Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business located at 405 Mason Street, San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 W. 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com - and – Ted. K. Lippincott, Esq. LEVINE & BLIT, LLP 6300 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 1870 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (310) 281-0100 Facsimile: (310) 281-0140 E-mail: tlippincott@levineblit.com HV OCCUPATIONAL: Misclassifies Paramedics, Rapp Claims ------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTIAN RAPP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HV OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ADVISORS OF AMERICA, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, ROBERT MITCHELL and ADEN SCHILLIG, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02043-KMT (D. Colo., July 14, 2020) brings this complaint against Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as a Paramedic in or around August 2019. According to the complaint, Defendants improperly classified Plaintiff and other Paramedics as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA. Although Plaintiff and other Paramedics frequently work more than 50 hours per workweek and routinely more than 65 hours per workweek, Defendants failed to pay them for all their hours worked and/or failed to properly calculate Paramedics' proper rates of overtime pay. Robert Mitchell is HV's Vice President of Operations. Aden Schillig is HV's Clinical Director. HV Occupational Health Advisors of America, LLC provides comprehensive on site preventative and response treatment. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul F. Lewis, Esq. Michael D. Kuhn, Esq. Andrew E. Swan, Esq. LEWIS KUHN SWAN PC 620 North Tejon St., Suite 101 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Tel: (719) 694-3000 Fax: (866) 515-8628 Emails: plewis@lks.law mkuhn@lks.law aswan@lks.law IDEANOMICS INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 27 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Ideanomics, Inc. (NASDAQ: IDEX) between March 20, 2020 and June 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 27, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Ideanomics investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Ideanomics class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1888.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Ideanomics' Mobile Energy Global (MEG) Division (the "MEG Center") in Qingdao was not "a one million square foot EV expo center"; (2) the Company had been using doctored or altered photographs of the purported MEG Center in Qingdao; (3) the Company's electric vehicle business in China was not performing nearly as strong as Ideanomics had represented; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. According to the suit, these true details were disclosed by market research firms. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 27, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1888.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] J2 GLOBAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of Sept. 18 Plaintiff Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges investors in J2 Global, Inc. (NASDAQ: JCOM) to submit their losses now. A securities fraud lawsuit has been filed, and certain investors may have valuable claims. Class Period: Oct. 5, 2015 - June 29, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Sep. 8, 2020 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/JCOM Contact An Attorney Now: JCOM@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 J2 Global (JCOM) Securities Fraud Class Action: J2 Global is a digital media roll-up that has acquired 186 businesses since its inception. Its CEO describes the Company's "acquisition system" as its "single great competitive advantage." The complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period misrepresented and concealed that: (1) J2 Global engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (2) J2 Global used misleading accounting to hide requisite impairments and underperformance in acquisitions; and (3) several so-called independent members of the Company board of directors and audit committee were not disinterested. The complaint alleges that investors began to learn the truth on June 30, 2020, when research firm Hindenburg released a scathing report about J2 accusing the Company of engaging in undisclosed related party transactions and accounting manipulation. Hindenburg stated "[w]e . . . . believe J2's opaque acquisition approach has opened the door to egregious insider self-enrichment, which we believe approximates $117 million to $172 million" and concluded "We Believe J2 Global's Equity Is Uninvestable." In response, the price of J2 Global shares traded sharply lower. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving J2 Global intentionally misrepresented the success of its roll-up strategy," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you purchased shares of J2 Global and suffered significant losses, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding J2 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 JCOM@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] JENNER'S POND: Macloud Suit Transferred to Pa. Dist. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jan Macloud, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jenner's Pond Retirement Community, Simpson Senior Services, Simpson Senior Housing and Community Services, LLC, Simpson Meadows, Simpson House, Inc. and Jenner's Pond, Inc dba, AKA Jenner's Pond Retirement, Defendants, was transferred from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County with the assigned Case No. 20060135 to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on July 15, 2020, and assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-03485. Jenner's Pond, Inc is a Retirement community in Pennsylvania.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Glenn R. Davis, Esq. Latsha, Davis, Yohe & McKenna PC 1700 Bent Creek Blvd, Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Tel: (717) 620-2424 Email: gdavis@ldylaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Narrows Claims in Hernandez Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EDUARDO HERNANDEZ, GREG HOFER, MARGARET CRINER, ROBERT URANTIA, GLENN PARKER, and MAURO TUSO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-15679-BRM-TJB (D. N.J.), Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); and (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority in Support of its Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. The matter stems from J&J's purportedly false labelling of their Tylenol(R) Extra Strength Rapid Release Gelcaps. The Defendant is a New Jersey corporation in the business of manufacturing, marketing, and distributing over-the-counter products to consumers worldwide, including analgesic or pain-relieving medicines such as Tylenol. In 2005, the Defendant first introduced its Rapid Release Gelcaps that purported to relieve pain "even faster than before." After first being introduced to the public in 2008, the Rapid Release Gelcaps were recalled in 2009 until their re-release in 2017. Following the re-release, the Defendant heavily marketed the Rapid Release Gelcaps, emphasizing the speed at which the gels relieved pain. However, a 2018 study of the Rapid Release Gelcaps revealed the products "not only fail to work faster, but they actually work slower than their traditional acetaminophen counterparts, such as tablets." Indeed, the Plaintiffs contend the findings of the study render the Defendant's statements regarding the Rapid Release Gelcaps "false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair." Further, they claim the Defendant knew or should have known that its representations about the Rapid Release Gelcaps were false, misleading, and/or deceptive. The Plaintiffs are a group of consumers from California. Additionally, they represent a proposed class of hundreds of thousands of consumers who purchased and used the Rapid Release Gelcaps. Each Plaintiff purchased the Rapid Release Gelcaps relying on marketing and labelling that described the product as according faster relief than normal Tylenol tablets. Due to the purported benefit over tablets, the Defendant sold its Rapid Release Gelcaps at a higher price than its other acetaminophen tablets. The Plaintiffs claim they were deceived by the Defendant's representations regarding the Rapid Release Gelcaps and would not have purchased them had they not been misled to believe the Rapid Release Gelcaps would provide faster relief than other, cheaper acetaminophen products. On July 27, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a nine-count Complaint against the Defendant asserting claims for violation of California False Advertising Law ("FAL") individually and on behalf of the California Class (Count One), violation of California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") individually and on behalf of the California Class (Count Two), violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") individually and on behalf of the California Class (Count Three), violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act ("Song-Beverly Act") individually and on behalf of the California Class (Count Four), breach of implied warranty of merchantability individually and on behalf of the National Class (Count Five), breach of express warranty individually and on behalf of the National Class (Count Six), violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA") individually and on behalf of the National Class (Count Seven), unjust enrichment individually and on behalf of the National Class (Count Eight), and declaratory relief individually and on behalf of the National Class (Count Nine). In September 2019, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. The Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss in October 2019. And the Defendant filed a Reply to the Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. On Dec. 16, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File Supplementary Authority in support of its Opposition. The Defendant filed an Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave. Judge Martinotti granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Judge granted the Motion with respect to Counts Four, Five, Six, Seven, and Nine, and denied the Motion with regards to Counts One, Two, Three, and Eight. Regarding the Plaintiffs' claims under the UCL (Count One), FAL (Count Two), and CLRA (Count Three) ("Consumer Protection Claims"), taken in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the Judge finds that they have alleged the labeling of the Rapid Release Gelcaps plausibly confuse or mislead the public. First, the Plaintiffs allege J&J sells the Rapid Release Gelcaps as an alternative to - and at a higher price than - traditional acetaminophen tablets. Additionally, the Plaintiffs have alleged the Kucera Study has demonstrated the Rapid Release Gelcaps dissolve at a slower rate than traditional tablets and that Defendant knew or should have known this. Taken together, these allegations provide sufficient basis for the Plaintiffs' Consumer Protection Claims. Regarding the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment (Count Eight), the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs allege they are entitled to relief because J&J sold the Rapid Release Gelcaps by making false, misleading, and/or deceptive representations about the products' speed and capabilities and unjustly charged a premium to purchase the Gelcaps and therefore obtained monies that rightfully belong to the Plaintiffs. That statement is sufficient to state a quasi-contract cause of action. Additionally, the Jugde denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Submit Supplemental Authority. The Plaintiffs request leave to submit supplemental authority to address the purported preemption argument in the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. However, they concede that J&J does not raise any arguments based on preemption. Therefore, the Judge finds no basis to grant leave. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 19, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/ma29Ew from Leagle.com. KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY: KC Law Firm Seeks Tuition Reimbursement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Biz Journal reports that Joseph Hollander Craft LLC in Kansas City filed suit against Kansas State University seeking class-action status and reimbursement of tuition for students who couldn't use the campus because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Chris McHugh of Joseph Hollander Craft in Kansas City is the lead attorney. He's joined by attorneys from Sultzer Law Group PC and Leed Brown Law PC in New York. The case was filed July 6 in the U.S. District Court of Kansas. The plaintiffs are students Noah Plank and John Garfolo, who live in Saline County, Kan. The lawsuit argues that by accepting tuition payment, Kansas State University entered into a contract with the students, agreeing to provide educational services, experiences and opportunities that were detailed in marketing, advertisements and other public representations. In Columbia, an unnamed student sued the University of Missouri seeking class-action status in state court, calling for damages tied to tuition costs as schools shifted to online classes as the Covid-19 pandemic took hold. Kansas State shut down its campus on March 12 because of the pandemic and suspended and canceled all in-person classes. In the process, the lawsuit argues, the university took away college experiences and access to gyms, lab facilities, libraries, and other services that students paid for. Although the university provided online classes, the lawsuit argues that the students never reached an agreement with Kansas State for those types of services in exchange for their full tuition costs. The students accuse the university of breach of contract, conversion and unjust enrichment. The lawsuit seeks a pro rata refund of tuition and fees charged to cover in-person services and experiences, punitive and treble damages, attorney costs and court fees. Kansas State University has not filed an answer to the suit and declined to comment. [GN] KANSAS: Implements Changes Following 2018 Foster Care Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Howard, Kansas Department for Children and Families Secretary, in an article for The Wichita Eagle, reports that Gov. Laura Kelly's decision to issue an executive order creating an annual Foster Care Academic Report Card was the right one for Kansas' foster youth. "As secretary of the Kansas Department for Children and Families, I'm proud of the progress our agency has made throughout the Kelly administration to improve outcomes and the life trajectory for young people who experience state custody." When Kelly took office, her administration inherited a foster care system in crisis. Years of severe funding cuts to pay for failed tax policy had undermined the state safety net and the number of children in foster care were at record highs. Over the last 18 months, the DCF has improved practices, implemented new programs and made systemic changes, all with the aim of achieving better outcomes for youths in state custody. We affirmed our commitment to continue this work when we reached an agreement this month to settle the class action lawsuit filed against the state in 2018. DCF practitioners have been trained in new practice models that prioritize family involvement in safety and placement decisions. This year, Kansas was one of the first states to implement the federal Family First Prevention Services Act, providing vulnerable families with the skills training, support and resources they need to keep their children out of the foster care system when safely possible. These improvements have yielded increased stability for foster youth. Currently, 95.9% of foster children in the state are in a stable placement according to federal case review standards. In the second half of fiscal year 2020, the DCF also achieved a decrease in the number of children who had no overnight placement and stayed in an office from an average of 16 per month to six per month. As we have refocused our mission, we have made improving education a key priority because we know it is vital for the long-term success and well-being of all children. This report card, which tracks and reports educational outcomes of Kansas foster youth on an annual basis, will give us valuable insights into what gaps exist and how to better meet the educational needs of these children. I'm proud to say Kansas will be among the first states in the nation to produce and publish such a report. The report also provides accountability and transparency to the public. I am especially pleased that the report will include data by race and ethnicity, allowing us to identify and specifically target any disparate outcomes. While we don't yet know exactly what this data will show, I am eager to see where it leads us. This is an unprecedented opportunity for the child welfare and education systems to work together to support foster youth. I am thankful Kelly took swift action to issue the executive order, continuing her commitment to improve outcomes for foster youth. While educational outcomes are a key issue for Kansas foster children, the Foster Care Academic Report Card is only one of many initiatives we have undertaken at the department to improve outcomes for young people in state custody. While there remains work to be done to relieve our state's strained child welfare system, we have made significant progress in getting it back on the right track. Gov. Kelly and I are committed to continuing to improve outcomes for foster youth in Kansas. We've made progress, but we aren't yet where we want to be or where the children and families of Kansas need us to be. With the support of the governor, Legislature, engaged communities and child welfare stakeholders, I am confident we will succeed -- together. Laura Howard is Kansas Department for Children and Families Secretary. [GN] KINGOLD JEWELRY: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 31 Plaintiff Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Kingold Jewelry, Inc. (NASDAQ: KGJI) between March 15, 2018 and June 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important August 31, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action commenced by the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Kingold investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Kingold class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1891.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) 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. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 31, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1891.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] KIRKLAND LAKE: Dean Paul Alleges Misleading Securities Statements ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, DEAN PAUL MITZEL TTEE DGI HOLDINGS 401K, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KIRKLAND LAKE GOLD LTD. and ANTHONY P. MAKUCH, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05505 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and on behalf of all others similarly situated buyers of Kirkland securities, alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements about Kirkland's business, operational, and compliance policies throughout the Class period, between January 8, 2018 and November 25, 2019. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose these material facts to investors: (i) Kirkland lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting, especially as it related to its projections of risks, reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs; (ii) as a result of the known, but undisclosed, impending acquisition of Detour Gold Corporation, the company's projections relating to its risks, reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs were false and misleading; (iii) the company's financial statements and projections were not fairly presented in conformity with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS); and (iv) based on the foregoing, the Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects and/or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts. Following Kirkland's announcement of its acquisition deal with Detour, Kirkland's shares declined and several securities analysts, equally surprised by the deal, downgraded Kirkland's ratings and lowered the company's price target. As a result of Kirkland's wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of its securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. is a limited liability company that owns and operates gold mines in Canada and Australia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com KIRKLAND LAKE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 28 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. (NYSE: KL) between January 8, 2018 and November 25, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 28, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in asecurities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Kirkland investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Kirkland class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1892.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Kirkland lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting, especially as it relates to its projections of risks, reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs; (2) as a result of the known, but undisclosed, impending acquisition of Detour Gold Corporation, Kirkland's projections relating to its risks, reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs were false and misleading; (3) Kirkland's financial statements and projections were not fairly presented in conformity with International Financial Reporting Standards; and (4) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about Kirkland's business, operations, and prospects and/or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 28, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1892.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] LENDINGCLUB CORP: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Sosa Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- YONY SOSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05256 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2020) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's website -- https://www.lendingclub.com/ -- is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. LendingClub Corporation provides Internet financial services. The Company hosts an online financial community that brings together credit worthy borrowers and independent investors for their mutual benefits. LendingClub serves retail investors and borrowers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com LENNAR INC: Judge Yet to Decide on Bayview Hunters Residents Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Charlene Muhammad, writing for The Final Call, reports that activists are charging silent homicide rages in San Francisco's Bay View Hunters Point neighborhood and say national housing developer Lennar, Inc. is still digging up radioactive dirt in its plans to build upscale housing on the site of the old Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. As of June 16, the Hunter's Point naval shipyard was one of America's 10 most toxic sites and is currently on the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund site list, which means it is prioritized for cleanup because of radioactive contamination. A committee of attorneys, community leaders and doctors are angry but not dismayed at what they called blatant defiance in the face of a federal class-action lawsuit filed against Lennar for fraud, wrongful death, environmental racism, and for violating federal laws. A judge will have to decide whether the issue warrants certification as a class action lawsuit. Bayview Hunters Point residents suffer medically and economically, in addition to fear, anxiety, humiliation, pain, and emotional distress, among other things, according to the suit filed in San Francisco. "This is not just a silent homicide . . . it is a screaming loud homicide that is being ignored," said civil rights attorney Charles Bonner, who filed the class action on behalf of some 4,000 individuals who have been living, working, attending school or had substantial contact with the community in the Hunters Point Zip Code 94124 from 2004 to present. He said residents are currently being poisoned and alleged that San Francisco Mayor London Breed gave the green light to Lennar Corporation to start digging, but failed to notify the community. "It is criminal for Lennar to go and dig after we have filed the lawsuit, a $27 billion lawsuit on behalf of the 40,000 people who live in the 94124 zip code, the Hunters Point zip code. But yet, this is the doubling down on the fact that our lives don't matter," added civil rights attorney Bonner. He, epidemiologist Dr. Mark Alexander, Student Minister Rashidullah Muhammad of Mosque No. 26 in San Francisco, Elaine Brown, former Black Panther leader, and others, coordinated a virtual town hall June 24 to give residents an update on recent developments, which include allegations of Lennar's digging and community testing. The suit calls for an immediate halt to all development, construction, building, digging, erecting, disturbing of soil, dirt, earth, buildings, structures, pipes, and all activity at Hunters Point Navy Shipyard until independent verified reports can be obtained showing a total and complete remediation or clean up of all toxic substances, including radiative materials. Defendants, which include Lennar, Inc., Tetra Tech, Inc., and Five Point Holdings, LLC., were knowingly, purposely poisoning the predominantly Black population, the suit alleges. "We don't need to look at the demonstrations in Korea and Japan and London or Italy where people around the world are saying Black Lives Matter. Just right here, it's a doubling down. They're ignoring the whole world. Only Black bodies have mattered in this country since the beginning of the Constitution when we were only three fifths of a person," stated Atty. Bonner. Dr. Raymond Tompkins, retired professor and air quality expert, Catherine Muhammad and Danielle Carpenter, lead plaintiffs, and Dr. Ramona Tascoe, assistant to Dr. Ahimsa Porter Sumchai, principal investigator for the Hunters Point bio-monitoring program, were also panelists during the virtual town hall meeting and press conference. Lennar's re-digging has opened up old wounds for Christopher Carpenter's widow. "It's kind of like watching Chris' assassins or killers if you will walk around free while I'm still being punished by his death and my family," said Catherine Carpenter. Mr. Carpenter, who worked for Gordon Ball, a subcontractor with Tetra Tech, was honored as a community hero for sounding the alarm about radioactive saturated dust and other chemicals blowing into nearby school playgrounds and exposing safety violations by his employer, said advocates. He suffered for it. He was fired, contracted cancer, and died on March 6, 2016 at age 52. Mrs. Carpenter remains concerned for the safety of her community, which is more susceptible to Covid-19 because of the underlying high rates of asthma and other lung problems that it suffers as a result of Tetra Tech and Lennar, she stated. "My children still suffer from bloody noses being at George Washington Carver School," she said. "Them starting to rebuild is a blatant disregard to me and our family for his life. People that live there that know the toxicity of the land and continue to live there and know that or maybe not know that the end result could possibly be the same way our family is. It saddens me," said Mrs. Carpenter. "I just want to see this (moratorium) on the digging happen again but stop the building. Give us some kind of justification for Chris' life, that he didn't just once again pass away in vain," she added. Catherine Muhammad was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, and has had to undergo radiation treatments since, she charged, learning she was poisoned by radioactive dust kicked up during Lennar's excavation next to Muhammad University of Islam, a K-12 school. She's still suffering. "I'm constantly seeing the doctor having adjustments . . . having to take multiple blood tests every month to make sure everything is okay. And I'm still suffering from being poisoned up there at the school," said the Muhammad University of Islam San Francisco teacher. She thanked the Hunters Point leadership committee for keeping the community informed and the candle burning in their fight or movement for justice. San Francisco city officials have proven time and again they don't really care about Blacks there, she stated. "I guess they figured, well, if the world is caught up in this pandemic they can just slide right on in and start digging again without anybody noticing. But how many more of us have to get sick from cancer before they listen? How many more of us have to die before they take action," she asked. "At a time when the world is demanding change, in San Francisco, some things never change. We've got to keep fighting like our very lives depend on it," Ms. Muhammad added. "This is heart-wrenching stuff, and these are real testimonies of people who have died and who are suffering from cancer because of pre-existing conditions living in Hunters Point and now we've added coronavirus and insult to injury," said Ms. Brown. The first act by the leadership committee for the Hunters Point Residents' Lawsuit after learning the digging resumed was to amend and serve their complaint on behalf of approximately 8,000 more plaintiffs on June 26. They are asking the State Attorney General and San Francisco District Attorney to file criminal charges. They also plan to file complaints with the San Francisco Bay Area Quality Control Agency, asking them to levy millions of dollars in fines against Lennar in light of the new developments. "Mayor London Breed says that we ought to shelter in place, but yet at the same time she gave the green light to Lennar to go out and start digging and did not give notice to the community. That is a contradiction. That is basically a betrayal," stated Atty. Bonner. "Very loudly, contact Mayor London Breed, loudly, through telephone, through emails, through smoke signals, any way you can communicate to her that we are dying in Hunters Point, and that she has to stop the digging." "There should be live demonstrations down at City Hall, with everyone practicing social distancing. People are in the streets across the world about Black Lives Matters. This is the time to say Black Lives Matters in Hunters Point, stop the digging," the attorney said. "Go down to City Hall. Sit in City Hall. Don't leave City Hall until they stop the digging. Engage in direct action. That is what gets results—direct, civil, non-violent disobedience," continued Atty. Bonner. In addition, the committee urged residents to go to San Francisco General Hospital and demand urine testing to determine what kinds of toxins are in their systems. Diseases won't show up until nearly a decade later, said Min. Muhammad. Once the Covid-19 quarantine is lifted, he continued, the committee will begin testing poor residents on their own with a medical van they purchased. "History proves we can't trust the Department of Public Health to look out for our best interest. So we need the city and county of San Francisco to defer to the wisdom, the oversight and the expertise of Black health care professionals that are offering themselves to guide direct and oversee this process so that we no longer allow Russian Roulette to be played with Black lives in Bayview Hunters Point," said Min. Muhammad. According to Atty. Bonner, everyone from 2004 until now, who lived, worked or frequently visited people in that area, and therefore who would be exposed are part of the class. A limitation on amending the lawsuit expired in February, but he said his firm will still accept applicants who want to join and see what happens. "We're not going to turn anyone away, because we can see there's a continuing violation that's a continuing criminal act, a continuing negligence, so it's not even a matter of the statute of limitations here. We have a continuing private and public nuisance," stated Atty. Bonner. The Nation of Islam and followers of the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan in the San Francisco Bay Area have been fighting for what they call environmental injustice since 2006. The Muslims learned that Lennar Corporation, a multi-billion dollar housing developer, had begun grading a hill directly beside the school to make way for 1,500 homes on the site of the old Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. The company, which Min. Muhammad dubbed a "rogue corporation," purposely poisoned the community of Hunters Point with toxicological dust and dirt, asbestos filth and dirt, and exposed the Muhammad University of Islam, located right next to the shipyard, he stated. We finally got a breakthrough in when Justin Hubbard and Stephen Rolfe, two former Tetra Tech Inc. supervisors, were convicted for lying and falsifying records about clean up at the site, he noted. "We fought that fight and the city and county of San Francisco covered it up and protected the Lennar Corporation, and the Navy, covered it up. The EPA covered it up. All of the health agencies including San Francisco Health Department, under the leadership of Mitchell Katz, who's now the director of health in New York City, and of course, under the leadership of Governor Gavin Newsom," stated Min. Muhammad. Still, about a dozen lawsuits were filed after the Muslims charged a coverup. The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Tetra Tech in 2018 for submitting false records. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu for settlement. A lawsuit filed by approximately 400 current and employer San Francisco Police Department police officers, staff, and families who sued Tetra Tech last November is pending. The alleged officers and their family suffer from asthma, blood disorders, and lung cancer. Tetra Tech fully stood by its work at Hunters Point. The Final Call tried multiple times to reach Lennar, Inc., and they did not respond. "Even though there are laws on the books that there should be air monitors, even though there should be wind protections and screening and warnings given, yet, the other day, we discovered that the Lennar Corporation was once again digging on the shipyard the largest radiological testing laboratory in the world," stated Min. Muhammad. "And now we see earth movers excavating right next to head start, right next to housing developments, and we caught it on film . . . clips that prove that this rogue company has no concern for the health and wellbeing, and we're calling on the City of San Francisco that's taken such a bold, proactive role in containing the coronavirus by issuing shelter in place and mask laws and curfew laws, yet the Lennar Corporation appears to get away with murder with impunity," he continued. The Final Call had not yet received a response to its request for comment from Mayor Breed at press time. However she announced in January that the state's testing was appropriate on parcel A—a smaller plot that is part of larger parcels of land cleaned up and turned over to the city for use, in lieu of waiting for the entire shipyard to be decontaminated. Mayor Breed and other city officials sought out independent analysis from a panel of University of California at San Francisco and Berkeley experts last April. They determined that the radiation testing procedures established by state and federal regulatory agencies at the Hunters Point Shipyard were appropriate and sufficient. "Nothing is more important than the health and safety of the people living in the Bayview and Hunters Point, and this community deserves transparency," read their statement. (The Hunters Point Bio Medical Monitoring Clinic and Screening at 5021 Third Street is conducting urine and blood sampling testing for heavy metals and radionuclides or radioactive chemicals found in the toxic soil. Residents can contact Atty. Bonner's office to be connected to Dr. Ahimsa Porter Sumchai at 415-331-3070 or charles@bonnerlaw.com. Contacts for Gov. Newsom (916) 445-2841, Mayor Breed (415) 554-6141; and Sup. Walton (415) 554-7670.) [GN] LENNY JOHNS PIZZERIA: Quizhpi Sues Over Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL QUIZHPI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, - against - LENNY JOHNS PIZZERIA INC., d/b/a LENNY & JOHN'S PIZZERIA, and JOHN SCANDIFFIO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03301 (E.D.N.Y., July 23, 2020) is a civil action brought by Plaintiff and all other similarly situated kitchen workers to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq. ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Plaintiff and similarly situated non-exempt workers work or have worked as kitchen workers to prepare food items and restock food supplies for Lenny Johns Pizzeria Inc. d/b/a Lenny & John's Pizzeria, a company owned and operated by Scandiffio. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all similarly situated current and former non-exempt workers who elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA and specifically, the collective action provision of 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), to remedy violations of overtime provisions of the FLSA by Defendants. Defendants also failed to provide Notice and Acknowledgement of Pay Rate and Payday under Section 195(1) of the NYLL as well as accurate wage statements as required under Section 195(3) of the NYLL. Lenny Johns Pizzeria Inc. is a pizza restaurant incorporated in the state of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 323-6980 E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com LONGVIEW ER: Misclassifies Massage Therapists, Davis et al Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- HAILEY DAVIS and RACHEL ROWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LONGVIEW ER OPERATIONS, LLC, TYLER ER OPERATIONS, LLC, and GALVESTON ER OPERATIONS, LLC, all doing business as HOSPITALITY HEALTH ER, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00238-JRG (E.D. Tex., July 15, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as massage therapists. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs were required by Defendants to work more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, instead of paying them overtime wages, Defendants paid them a straight hourly rate only with no federal withholding, social security or Medicare taxes withheld. Allegedly, Defendants misclassified Plaintiffs and other similarly situated massage therapists as independent contractors, thereby failing to pay them overtime compensation as required by the FLSA. Longview ER Operations, LLC, Tyler ER Operations, LLC, and Galveston ER Operations, LLC operates as Hospitality Health ER. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq. HOMMEL LAW FIRM 5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115 Tyler, TX 75703 Tel: 903-596-7100 Fax: 469-533-1618 https://hommelfirm.com/contact/ MICHIGAN STATE POLICE: Ruling Lets Class-Action Bias Suits Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Michigan Court of Appeals has given the go-ahead for two class action lawsuits to go forward against the Michigan State Police over claims that the agency's testing and other hiring practices discriminate against Black applicants. The court ruled in two cases, one filed in 2015 and the other in 2017, in which African American candidates complain that state police officials have used non-job related criteria such as credit information to deny Black applicants jobs as well as promotions. In the 2015 lawsuit, MSP applicant Marlon Carter alleged MSP's pre-screening interview was discriminatory because it assigned numerical values to such criteria as credit history in determining if an applicant would move forward in the interview process. The lawsuit not only names the Michigan State Police but also its former director, Kriste Kibbey Etue, as well as the Civil Service Commission and its director. "Comments or reaction to a court action in a lawsuit involving the state are best referred to the AG's Office, but I can tell you that the MSP does not discriminate against any applicant in the recruiting or hiring process," state police spokeswoman Shanon Banner said in an email. A message seeking comment was left with a spokeswoman for Attorney General Dana Nessel. A Wayne County Circuit Court judge ruled last year that Carter's lawsuit lacked merit to certify it as a class-action complaint. But the Michigan Court of Appeals disagreed, writing in its ruling, which was released, that "there are questions of law or fact common to the members of the class that predominate over questions affecting only individual members." Both lawsuits were filed by attorney Leonard Mungo in Wayne County Circuit Court and filed on behalf of 698 Black applicants who sought to become Michigan State Police troopers. The 2017 lawsuit, filed on behalf of Carlos Bell and others with similar complaints, alleged the Michigan State Police's entrance exam, which has been revamped several times over the past 18 years, had a "disparate adverse impact on African-American applicants." Bell alleges "intentional discrimination arising from defendants' failure to monitor the adverse impact of the examination on African American applicants." A Wayne County Circuit Court judge ruled that the case should go forward as a class- action lawsuit, bringing together former MSP applicants who took the 2002 version of the MSP applicants' exam and the test given between March 2002 and December 2014. But the Michigan Civil Service Commission and the state's personnel director appealed. The three-judge panel for the Michigan Appeals Court upheld the circuit court ruling. Mungo said the decision on both cases "is tremendously huge" in pointing out "disparate" treatment of Black applicants in hiring and also promotions and job treatment. "The Court of Appeals has agreed that there is a problem and that African Americans are being giving disparate treatment as a group," Mungo said. The percentage of Black troopers in the Michigan State Police has dipped, said Mungo, to around 5% compared to 12.5% during the mid-1990s. "We're calling (the MSP) out on the exact sin that the Justice Department called out (state police agencies) for in the 1970s," he said. According to statistics provided by Banner, 113 of 1,945 MSP troopers and command officers, or 5.6%, are Black. Mungo said the Department of Justice leveled a consent decree against state police departments around the country, including Michigan, and ordered many hiring practices and policies to be scrapped or reform to ensure fairness among all applicants. Ensuring that African Americans and other racial minorities are adequately represented in the ranks on the Michigan State Police and other law enforcement agencies "is important in terms of Black Lives Matter and the police brutality of Blacks," said Mungo. [GN] MIDWEST MEDICAL: Underpays Employees, Reust Claims -------------------------------------------------- MEGAN REUST, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDWEST MEDICAL TRANSPORT COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case no. 1:20-cv-01548-PAB (N.D. Ohio, July 14, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an Emergency Medical Technician. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include the shift differential and retention bonuses in determining Plaintiff and similarly situated employees' regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating their overtime compensation, thereby failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees' exact overtime compensation pursuant to the FLSA. Midwest Medical Transport Company, LLC provides medical transport services to customers throughout the Midwest. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 614 W. Superior Ave., Suite 1148 Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: (216) 230-2955 Fax: (330) 754-1430 Email: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com - and – Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Tel: (330) 470-4428 Fax: (330) 754-1430 Emails: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com MODANI DALLAS: Underpays Inside Sale Employees, Juarez Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- ELOY JUAREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MODANI DALLAS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01872-S (N.D. Tex., July 15, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an inside sale employee in or about July 2015 and was paid on an hourly plus bonus and/or commission basis. Then, he was promoted to a salaried manager after approximately October 2018 until approximately March 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the putative action members were not paid by Defendant time and one-half their regular rate of pay despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours per seven-day workweek as an inside sale employees, thereby failing to pay them all overtime premium compensation. Modani Dallas, LLC sells home and office furniture and related accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. NILGES DRAHER VAUGHT PLLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (214) 251-4157 Fax: (214) 261-5159 Email: avaught@txlaborlaw.com MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Gets Subpoena as Part of Federal Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- WTVC, citing the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reports that flooring giant Mohawk Industries, based in Calhoun, Georgia, has been subpoenaed as part of a federal class-action lawsuit. The paper reports federal regulators are looking into whether Mohawk misled investors in order to hide financial troubles and defective product made at a north Georgia plant. Mohawk disclosed that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission recently issued subpoenas to the company. The Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi claims Mohawk and its chairman and chief executive officer, Jeffrey Lorberbaum, falsely booked revenue through a scheme to make deliveries on Saturdays when customers were closed and couldn't decline product they didn't need yet or that Mohawk knew was defective," according to the report. The suit cites the accounts of former employees who portray what they call this 'Saturday scheme' as a way for the company to 'conceal from investors the true reasons for the company's ballooning inventory. When the truth was finally revealed to investors through a series of partial disclosures beginning in July 2018, the price of Mohawk common stock plunged, wiping out $7.4 billion in shareholder value.' The newspaper reports Mohawk said in an SEC filing that it "intends to vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit" and it previously described the allegations as 'frivolous.' It did not immediately respond to Atlanta Journal-Constitution requests for further comment. [GN] MOTION PICTURE HEALTH: IATSE Members File ERISA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Hollywood Reporter reports that a pair of International Cinematographers Guild (IATSE Local 600) members are leading a class action lawsuit filed in California federal court against the Board of the Motion Picture Industry Health Plan, alleging that it violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by not treating all plan members fairly. Entertainment industry workers covered by the plan include members of IATSE's 13 Los Angeles locals, the largest being Local 600, Local 700 (Motion Picture Editors Guild) and Local 800 (Art Directors Guild). To qualify for coverage, members must work 400 hours (or 600 hours for newly-qualifying participants) in a six-month period. According to the complaint, the defendants voted to extend up to 300 hours for April and May to "active participants who are currently enrolled" and whose benefits period ended June 30, "thereby explicitly excluded participants on COBRA or on disability, and excluding participants working toward initial eligibility." In contrast, members with a qualifying period that ended March 21 were given a credit of 25 hours if they proved that were it not for COVID-19, they would have met the requirement, according to the complaint. "In doing so, defendants applied a more onerous standard to participants whose qualifying period end March 21. ... [Likewise those] who were on track to meet the requirement by April 25." Plaintiffs also allege in the filing that the Board's plan management was unfair in terms of premium waivers for dependents and COBRA coverage. These actions "forced" affected members to either pay for COBRA or other insurance coverage, or go without insurance amid the novel coronavirus pandemic, according to the filing. According to the complaint, which is posted below, before the production shutdown plaintiffs Greg Endries and Dee Nichols were on track to meet their hours by their March 21 deadline. Renaker, Hasselman Scott and Kantor & Kantor, attorneys for the plaintiffs, are asking for the 300-hour extension plus retroactive health benefits with a waiver of the premium for dependents "for those that would have qualified for eligibility had they received the extension" (or insurance reimbursement where applicable), as well as the same COBRA subsidies as other plan participants. Reps for the MPI Health Plan did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the complaint. [GN] MYLAN N.V.: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of August 25 Filing Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action litigation on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Mylan N.V. ("Mylan" or the "Company") (MYL) between February 16, 2016 and May 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased the common stock of Mylan during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than August 25, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. Mylan investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358. Background on the Mylan Securities Class Litigation Mylan, incorporated in the Netherlands and headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, is the second-largest generic drug manufacturer in the world. During the Class Period, Mylan's largest U.S. manufacturing facility was located in Morgantown, West Virginia. The action alleges defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions regarding Mylan's failure to comply with U.S. federal quality control regulations, particularly at its Morgantown facility. Under a scheme implemented by Mylan's President, defendant Rajiv Malik, Mylan chemists allegedly manipulated quality control test data to create the illusion that Mylan's drugs had achieved passing quality control results. On June 28, 2018, Mylan disclosed that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had conducted an investigation into the Morgantown facility in the spring of 2018, which culminated in the FDA's issuance of its second citation in less than two years. The FDA's investigation detailed 13 significant deficiencies in Mylan's operations, including poor quality control oversight, major lapses in equipment cleaning, and ineffective controls. On this news, the price of Mylan stock fell $1.12 per share, or approximately 3%, from a closing price of $37.45 on June 27, 2018, to close at $36.33 per share on June 28, 2018. On August 8, 2018, during Mylan's second quarter of 2018 earnings conference call, defendant Malik stated that Mylan had "undertaken a restructuring and remediation program in Morgantown" that included a "discontinuation of a number of products" and would have a "negative impact on production levels, product supply, and operations. On this news, the price of Mylan stock fell $2.62 per share, or 6.69%, from a closing price of $39.23 on August 7, 2018, to close at $36.61 per share on August 8, 2018, on extremely elevated trading volume. On November 9, 2018, the FDA issued a formal warning letter concerning "significant violations of current good manufacturing practice[s]" at Mylan's Morgantown plant, and reporting that products at the plant were "adulterated." On this news, the price of Mylan stock fell $1.01 per share, or 2.73%, from a closing price of $36.95 on November 9, 2018, to close at $35.94 per share on November 12, 2018. On February 26, 2019, during Mylan's fourth quarter and fiscal year 2018 earnings conference call, the Company announced an 18% decrease in net sales from the prior year, attributing this shortfall, in part, to its Morgantown restructuring, which included the discontinuation of almost 250 products. On this news, the price of Mylan stock fell $4.61 per share, or 15.05%, from a closing price of $30.62 on February 26, 2019 to close at $26.01 per share on February 27, 2019. On May 7, 2019, Mylan reported that its revenues and earnings-per-share were down year-over-year by 7% and 15%, respectively, as the Company discontinued manufacturing certain products in the Morgantown facility, and that its quarterly adjusted free cash flow was severely lacking, now matching its 2015 levels. On this news, the price of Mylan shares fell $6.73 per share, or 23.81%, from a closing price of $28.26 on May 6, 2019, to close at $21.53 per share on May 7, 2019, on extremely heavy trading volume. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America." [GN] NANUSHKA US: Guglielmo Seeks Website Access for Blind Buyers ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, JOSEPH GUGLIELMO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NANUSHKA US, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05562-JMF (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2020), arises from the Defendant's violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated blind consumers, alleges that the Defendant's website, www.nanushka.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. The website lacks a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred the Plaintiff and Class members from being able to determine what specific products were offered for sale. The access barriers on the website include, but not limited to: (1) absence of alt. text, which is the invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image that could allow blind users to differentiate what products were on the screen; (2) failure to add a label element or title attribute for each field; and (3) presence of same title elements on the website's pages. The Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers on its website effectively denied the Plaintiff and Class members the ability to use and enjoy the online products and services offered by the Defendant the same way sighted individuals do. Nanushka US, Inc. is a clothing company that owns and operates the website www.nanushka.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com NEW YORK: Class of Inmates With Disabilities in Johnson Certified ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MELVIN JOHNSON, JAMAL SCOTT, and ARMANDO TORRES, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO, in his official capacity, ACTING COMMISSIONER ANTHONY ANNUCCI, in his official capacity, and THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-6568-CCR (W.D. N.Y.), Judge Christina Reiss of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York granted the Named Plaintiffs' June 28, 2019 motion for class certification pursuant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) and appointment of class counsel under Rule 23(g). Named Plaintiffs Johnson, Scott, and Torres commenced the putative class action suit against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"), the Governor of New York, the Acting Commissioner of DOCCS, and the State of New York, on behalf of themselves and other inmates with disabilities in DOCCS custody who are housed in Regional Medical Units ("RMUs"). The Named Plaintiffs allege that inmates housed in RMUs are deprived of the right to participate equally in prison programs, services, and activities because of their disabilities. They further allege that the Defendants refuse to make reasonable modifications, or even conduct individualized assessments in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In their Complaint, the Named Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, an injunction ordering DOCCS to provide equal access or equivalent services for RMU inmates, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. Before the court is the Named Plaintiffs' June 28, 2019 motion for class certification pursuant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) and appointment of class counsel under Rule 23(g). DOCCS opposed the motion on Aug. 28, 2019. By agreement of the parties, the case was stayed from Sept. 6, 2019 to Nov. 1, 2019. On Nov. 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs replied in support of their motion. The Court heard oral argument on March 5, 2020, at which time it took the motion under advisement. The Named Plaintiffs are represented by Simeon L. Goldman, Esq. and Jessica Louise Barlow, Esq. The Defendants are represented by Assistant Attorney General Gary M. Levine and Assistant Attorney General Matthew D. Brown. In support of its opposition to class certification, DOCCS cites "Facility Operation Manuals" that instruct Facility personnel regarding procedures governing medical provider assessments of inmates who seek to participate in programs or services outside of the RMUs, including Policies for all five Facilities dated June 2019, as well as earlier versions of the Policies for Wende dated August 2015 and June 2017. In their Complaint, the Named Plaintiffs describe the proposed class as all individuals who are housed in an RMU who seek access to programs and services available to individuals housed in general population. However, in their motion for class certification, the Named Plaintiffs suggest an expanded class definition that would also include inmates who have disabilities that place them at risk of entering or returning to RMUs during their incarceration. At the Court's class certification hearing, the Named Plaintiffs agreed that the proposed class may be further modified as follows: "all individuals housed in an RMU from six months prior to the filing of the Complaint through the date the Complaint was filed." The Plaintiffs are represented by Disability Rights New York ("DRNY"), the federally authorized Protection and Advocacy System for people with disabilities in New York. Although the Plaintiffs' counsel, Jessica L. Barlow, Esq., has not previously served as lead counsel in a class action lawsuit, she will be assisted by the counsel who has done so. Both Attorney Barlow and her co-counsel are experienced in disability litigation and have independent knowledge and special expertise which render them amply able to provide adequate representation to the putative class. Judge Reiss determines that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the Requirements of Rule 23(a). The Judge finds that (i) because the Plaintiffs' proposed class is expected to exceed 300 individuals and will maximize the financial resources of the class members and their access to justice, it satisfies the numerosity requirement; (ii) the Named Plaintiffs have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that their claims involve questions common to all class members that outweigh any individualized determinations; (iii) the Named Plaintiffs' claims arise from the same conduct by the Defendants pursuant to "blanket policies," and their claims are typical of the class members' claims; and (iv) the Named Plaintiffs have established that they will adequately represent the interests of the class, and there is no apparent conflict of interest that would impair DRNY representation. Moreover, Judge Reiss finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). The Judge holds that the Named Plaintiffs have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) are met. With the class definition modified to ensure that the members may be identified based upon manageable, objective criteria, class certification is warranted. The Judge therefore grants the Named Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class subject to the revised class definition. In the exercise of that broad discretion and in recognition of the factors weighing in favor of granting class certification in thecase, the Judge modifies the class definition as follows: All incarcerated individuals with disabilities who were housed in the RMU at any Facility between Feb. 8, 2018 and Aug. 8, 2018, the date of filing of the Named Plaintiffs' Complaint. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Reiss granted the Named Plaintiffs' motion for class certification subject to the modified class definition set forth, and granted the Named Plaintiffs' request to appoint the class counsel. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 19, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/hi0wmw from Leagle.com. NEW YORK: Gallagher et al. Sue Over Voter Disenfranchisement ------------------------------------------------------------ Emily Gallagher, Suraj Patel, Katherine Stabile, Jillian Santella, Aaron Seabright, James C. McNamee, Kristin Sage Rockerman, Maria Barva, Miriam Lazewatsky, Myles Peterson, Samantha Pinsky, Christian O’Toole, Tess Harkin, Caitlin Phung, Antonio Pontex-Nunez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. New York State Board of Elections; Peter S. Kosinski, Andrew Spano, and Douglas Kellner, individually and in their official capacities as Commissioners of the New York State Board of Elections; Todd D. Valentine, Robert A. Brehm, individually and in their official capacities as CoExecutive Directors of the New York State Board of Elections; and Andrew Cuomo as Governor of the State of New York, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05504 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020), asserts new election rules, created by executive order in the middle of COVID-19 pandemic, stands to disenfranchise a massive number of voters including Plaintiffs, without any warning or anything resembling Constitutionally adequate protections. The case arises after the release of Governor Cuomo Andrew's Executive Order 202.26 wherein New York shifted from a voter-paid absentee voting system (voters applied their own stamps to the envelopes, which would then be postmarked by United States Postal Service) to a pre-paid absentee voting system (voters do not apply stamps to envelopes, and the USPS would therefore not postmark the envelopes). According to the complaint, the net effect is that thousands of voters will simply have their votes discarded, because they did not know to demand USPS step outside of its normal procedures and stamp their ballots (or indeed, did not know that they should not drop the ballots in a corner mailbox). Additionally, because of the unprecedented volume of absentee ballot requests, some voters, such as Plaintiff Katherine Stabile, did not receive a ballot until June 23 in the mail. Therefore, if allowed to throw out ballots as they intend to, the Board will disenfranchise more than 16,000 voters in Brooklyn alone, and hundreds of thousands statewide -- all for reasons beyond those voters' control. As a result, to throw out the ballots of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated would be to violate their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and corresponding portions of the New York State Constitution. New York State Board of Elections is the bipartisan agency vested with the responsibility for administration and enforcement of all laws relating to elections in New York State.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Remy Green, Esq. Elena L. Cohen, Esq. Jessica Massimi, Esq. Jonathan Wallace, Esq. COHEN&GREEN P.L.L.C. 1639 Centre Street, Suite 216 Ridgewood, NY 11385 Telephone: (929) 888-9480 Facsimile: (929) 888-9457 E-mail: remy@femmelaw.com - and - Ali Najmi, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALI NAJMI 261 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 401-6222 Facsimile: (888) 370-2397 E-mail: ali@najmilaw.com NINE POINT ENERGY: Lewis Files Suit in North Dakota --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nine Point Energy, LLC. The case is styled as Sarah Heggen Lewis, Emily Heggen and Marn Heggen, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. Nine Point Energy, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00124-CRH (D. N.D., July 15, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other filed over Diversity-Breach of Contract. Nine Point Energy is a private exploration and production company focused on the safe and efficient development of oil & gas assets in the Williston Basin.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua A. Swanson, Esq. Vogel Law Firm (Fargo) 218 NP Avenue PO Box 1389 Fargo, ND 58107-1389 Tel: (701) 237-6983 Email: jswanson@vogellaw.com - and - George A Barton, Esq. Law Office of George A. Barton 7227 Metcalf Ave. Suite 301 Overland Park, KS 66204 Tel: (913) 563-6255 Email: gab@georgebartonlaw.com - and - Robert James Pathroff, Esq. Vogel Law Firm (Bismarck) PO Box 2097 200 N. 3rd St., Ste. 201 Bismarck, ND 58502-2097 Tel: (701) 258-7899 Fax: (701) 258-9705 Email: rpathroff@vogellaw.com NO TAX 4 NASH: Elrod et al. Sue Over Recall Petition Robocalls -------------------------------------------------------------- RACHAEL ANNE ELROD, ANDREW KAUFMAN, and SARAH MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NO TAX 4 NASH, JIM ROBERTS, MICHELLE FOREMAN, KIMBERLY EDWARDS, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00617 (M.D. Tenn., July 17, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in an illegal practice of placing calls to the cellular phones of the Plaintiffs and Class members using an automatic telephone dialing system and an artificial or prerecorded voice without getting prior express consent in order to inform them on how to sign the recall petition campaign for the mayor and council members who supported the 34% property tax increase in Nashville, Tennessee. In receiving unwanted and unsolicited calls on their cellular telephones, the Plaintiffs suffered concrete harm in the form of lost time spent fielding the unwanted calls, loss of use of their cellular telephones as the calls came in, loss of capacity of the voice mailbox, invasion of their privacy, and intrusion upon their seclusion and evening time with their families. No Tax 4 Nash is a corporation, association of persons banded together for a specific purpose, or the trade name of a corporation or association based in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Spragens, Esq. SPRAGENS LAW PLC 311 22nd Ave. N. Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 983-8900 Facsimile: (615) 682-8533 NORITAKE CO: Blind Can't Fully Use & Enjoy Website, Guglielmo Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH GUGLIELMO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORITAKE CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05563-ER (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant discriminates against blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, by failing to design, construct, and maintain a website that is equally accessible to blind consumers and failing to take corrective actions to remove the access barriers on its website. The Defendant's website, noritakechina.com, contains several access barriers that hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to fully use and enjoy the facilities, goods, and services offered by the Defendant to the general public. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1) presence of broken links; (2) lack of label element or title attribute for each field; and (3) absence of alt. text, which is the invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image, making it difficult for blind consumers to differentiate what products were on the screen. The Plaintiff and Class members seek a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Noritake Co., Inc. is a drinkware and dinnerware company that owns and operates the website noritakechina.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com OKLAHOMA: Indian Tribe Members Sue over Traffic Fines ----------------------------------------------------- Members of federally recognized Indian Tribes have commenced a lawsuit against the State of Oklahoma and several cities and towns, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, to compel the State and its political subdivisions to disgorge of their ill-gotten gains and to recover the monies paid to courts, district attorneys, and political subdivisions that were paid as fines and costs for traffic offenses or misdemeanor crimes. They claim the fines were levied despite the Defendants having no jurisdiction to do so. The Plaintiffs have either been prosecuted for traffic offenses or misdemeanor crimes occurring within the Cherokee Reservation by the State of Oklahoma or its political subdivisions. These Plaintiffs have each paid money for fines, court costs, and/or supervision fees to the State of Oklahoma or its political subdivisions. According to the complaint, pursuant to the Court's holding, neither the State of Oklahoma, nor any of its political subdivisions has subject matter jurisdiction to criminally charge and prosecute members of a federally recognized American Indian tribe for crimes committed on the Cherokee Reservation. That subject matter jurisdiction is vested solely in the Cherokee Nation or in the United States. It is well recognized that crimes allegedly committed by members of a federally recognized tribe that occurred in Indian country must be subject to the sovereign immunity possessed by such Indian nations. In so doing, the political subdivisions have violated the rights of the Tribal members, as guaranteed by treaty, United States Federal Law and the United States Constitution. Specifically, the actions of these Defendants have violated the due process rights of the Tribal members by subjecting them to trial and punishment before a Court that had no subject matter jurisdiction. The case 1. TAYLEUR RAYE PICKUP 2. CHANDA LYNELLE BUTCHER 3. LINDSEY REANNA BUTCHER 4. CRYSTAL LEE LEACH 5. SHYANNE NICOLE SIXKILLER 6. And Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. 1. THE DISTRICT COURT OF NOWATA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 2. THE DISTRICT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 3. THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 4. THE DISTRICT COURT OF CRAIG COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 5. THE DISTRICT COURT OF MAYES COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 6. THE DISTRICT COURT OF ROGERS COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 7. KEVIN BUCHANAN, in his official capacity, District Attorney of Nowata and Washington Counties, Oklahoma 8. KENNY WRIGHT, in his official capacity, District Attorney of Delaware County, Oklahoma 9. MATT BALLARD in his official capacity, District Attorney of Craig, Mayes, and Rogers Counties, Oklahoma 10. STEVE KUNZWEILER, in his official capacity, District Attorney of Tulsa County, Oklahoma 11. APRIL FRAUENBERGER, in her official capacity, Court Clerk of Nowata County, Oklahoma 12. JILL SPITZER, in her official capacity, Court Clerk of Washington County, Oklahoma 13. CAROLINE WEAVER, in her official capacity, Court Clerk of Delaware County, Oklahoma 14. DEBORAH MASON, in her official capacity, Court Clerk of Craig County, Oklahoma 15. LAURA WADE, in her official capacity, Court Clerk of Mayes County, Oklahoma 16. CATHI EDWARDS, in her official capacity, Court Clerk of Rogers County, Oklahoma 17. DON NEWBERRY, in his official capacity as Court Clerk of Tulsa County, Oklahoma 18. THE TOWN OF ADAIR, OKLAHOMA 19. THE CITY OF BARTLESVILLE, OKLAHOMA 20. THE TOWN OF BIG CABIN, OKLAHOMA 21. THE TOWN OF BLUEJACKET, OKLAHOMA 22. THE CITY OF CATOOSA, OKLAHOMA 23. THE TOWN OF CHELSEA, OKLAHOMA 24. THE TOWN OF CHOTEAU, OKLAHOMA 25. THE CITY OF CLAREMORE, OKLAHOMA 26. THE CITY OF COLLINSVILLE, OKLAHOMA 27. THE TOWN OF COPAN, OKLAHOMA 28. THE CITY OF DEWEY, OKLAHOMA 29. THE TOWN OF DISNEY, OKLAHOMA 30. THE CITY OF GROVE, OKLAHOMA 31. THE CITY OF JAY, OKLAHOMA 32. THE TOWN OF KANSAS, OKLAHOMA 33. THE TOWN OF LANGLEY, OKLAHOMA 34. THE TOWN OF LOCUST GROVE, OKLAHOMA 35. THE CITY OF NOWATA, OKLAHOMA 36. THE TOWN OF OOLOGAH, OKLAHOMA 37. THE CITY OF OWASSO, OKLAHOMA 38. THE CITY OF PRYOR, OKLAHOMA 39. THE TOWN OF RAMONA, OKLAHOMA 40. THE TOWN OF SALINA, OKLAHOMA 41. THE TOWN OF SOUTH COFFEYVILLE, OKLAHOMA 42. THE TOWN OF SPAVINAW, OKLAHOMA 43. THE TOWN OF STRANG, OKLAHOMA 44. THE TOWN OF TALALA, OKLAHOMA 45. THE TOWN OF VERDIGRIS, OKLAHOMA 46. THE CITY OF VINITA, OKLAHOMA 47. THE TOWN OF WARNER, OKLAHOMA 48. THE TOWN OF WEST SILOAM SPRINGS, OKLAHOMA, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00346-JED-FHM (N.D. Okla., July 20, 2020).[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Lyons, Esq. LYONS AND CLARK, INC. 616 S. Main, Suite 201 Tulsa, OK 74119 Telephone: (918) 599-8844 Facsimile: (918) 599-8585 - and - John M. Dunn, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. DUNN, PLLC 616 South Main Street, Suite 206 Tulsa, OK 74119 Telephone: (918) 526-8000 Facsimile: (918) 359-5050 E-mail: jmdunn@johndunnlaw.com - and - Misty S. Fields, Esq. FIELDS & GARNER, PLLC 20 Court Place Pryor, OK 74361 Telephone: (918) 824-1114 Facsimile: (918) 512-1775 ONEIDA GROUP: Blind Buyers Can't Use Website, Guglielmo Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH GUGLIELMO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ONEIDA GROUP INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05564 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant denied blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, full and equal access to its website, www.oneida.com. The Defendant's website contains several access barriers that hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to fully use and enjoy the facilities, goods, and services offered by the Defendant to the general public. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1) presence of broken links; (2) lack of label element or title attribute for each field; and (3) absence of alt. text, which is the invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image, making it difficult for blind consumers to differentiate what products were on the screen. The Plaintiff and Class members seek a permanent injunction to correct the Defendant's discriminatory conduct so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Oneida Group Inc. is a global marketer of tabletop and food preparation products for the consumer and foodservice markets, headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com ORLANS PC: Court Dismisses Garland Class Suit --------------------------------------------- In the case, FREDDIE GARLAND, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ORLANS PC, LINDA ORLANS, and ALISON ORLANS, Defendants, Case No. 18-11561 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Denise Page Hood of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, (i) granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; (ii) denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss; (iii) denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants' Supplemental Brief; (iv) denied as moot the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class; and (v) dismissed the Plaintiff's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA) claim with prejudice and the Plaintiff's Regulation of Collection Practices Act ("RCPA") claim without prejudice. On May 17, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the proposed class action lawsuit, alleging that the Defendants violated the FDCPA, and the RCPA, when Defendant Orlans mailed one or more similar letters to the Plaintiff and others. The Plaintiff alleges two fair debt statutory claims, one under the FDCPA and one under the RCPA. Each claim is based on form letters sent to the Plaintiff and other putative class members on Orlans PC letterhead. The Plaintiff's letter from Orlans PC was dated May 18, 2017, and the first page of it is attached as Exhibit A to the complaint. His principal claim is that the Defendants send out foreclosure notices appearing to be from attorneys (or susceptible to that interpretation) that are instead processed by non-attorney staff and mailed without meaningful attorney review. Plaintiff and the class seek only statutory damages. The Defendants are Michigan's second-largest foreclosure law firm (Orlans PC) and its two principal owners and executives (Linda Orlans and Alison Orlans). The complaint alleges an RCPA subclass of homeowners who were sent foreclosure letters by the Defendants since April 17, 2011: All persons to whom Orlans PC caused to be sent any version of the Orlans PC Foreclosure Letter in connection with mortgages conveyed for residential real property located in Michigan, dated on or after April 17, 2011, which was not returned as undelivered by the U.S. Post Office, through the date that the Court issues an order certifying any class requiring notice in this matter, and through the date of entry of final judgment as to any class for which notice is not required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The complaint alleges that in Michigan, the vast majority of Orlans PC's foreclosures have been pursuant to Michigan's foreclosure by advertisement statute. The Defendants in the Motion do not challenge the allegation or offer any contrary evidence. The complaint further alleges that in each foreclosure by advertisement proceeding in Michigan handled by Orlans PC since at least 2011, Orlans PC has sent a letter to the debtor/mortgagor in substantial conformity with Exhibits A and B to the complaint. On July 18, 2018, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss. On Nov. 21, 2018, the Court entered an order holding the case in abeyance pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, No. 17-1307, 138 S.Ct. 2710 (June 28, 2018). On March 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision in Obduskey. It then ordered supplemental briefing regarding the Motion to Dismiss -- expressly limited to the effect of the Obduskey ruling on the case, and the parties filed supplemental briefs. In addition, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendants' Supplemental Brief. The parties have since submitted numerous other filings: (i) the Plaintiff's Citation of Supplemental Authority in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; (ii) the Plaintiff's Second Citation of Supplemental Authority in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; (iii) the Defendants' Further Citation of New, Supplemental, Authority in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); (iv) the Defendants' Citation of Additional New Supplemental Authority in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); (v) the Plaintiff's Third Citation of Supplemental Authority in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; (vi) the Defendants' Citation of New Sixth Circuit Authority in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); and (vii) the Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Judge Hood grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with respect to the FDCPA claim, with prejudice. The Plaintiff asserts that the purpose of the Orlans PC Foreclosure Letter was not to implement foreclosure, so it does not satisfy any of the three rationales given by the Obduskey court. He argues that is especially true because Orlans PC was not attempting to enforce a security interest when sending the letter to mitigate losses of their client. The Judge finds that the Plaintiff's arguments are inconsistent with the language of Section 1692a(6) which indicates that enforcement of security interests need not be the only business of a party that is involved in the nonjudicial foreclosures, but instead simply a business of the party (as is the case with Orlans PC). As the majority and Justice Sotomayor noted, Congress can amend the FDCPA if persons pursuing nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings should be included in the definition of "debt collector" at Section 1692a(6). As the Judge has concluded that there is no viable FDCPA claim before the Court, the Court no longer has federal subject matter jurisdiction over the matter. Although he has the discretion to exercise the Court's supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's RCPA claim, Judge Hood finds: (a) that the RCPA claim is rooted in Michigan law; and (b) more importantly, the issue of whether the RCPA applies to a non-judicial foreclosure has not been litigated in or decided by Michigan courts. For that reason, in the absence of federal subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Hood: (1) concludes that a determination of the RCPA's applicability to nonjudicial foreclosures would best be litigated in Michigan state courts; and (2) dismisses the Plaintiff's RCPA's claim without prejudice. Judge Hood denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss. The Judge (a) orders the Defendants and the Defendants' counsel to cease filing irrelevant and/or unnecessary statements regarding the character or history of the Plaintiff; and (b) advises the Defendants and their counsel that any further irrelevant and/or unnecessary statements may subject the author or speaker to being held in contempt of Court. The Judge is not persuaded that he should grant the relief sought by the Plaintiff, however, for several reasons. First, the Plaintiff (and the Court) previously noted in public documents that he was incarcerated immediately prior to filing the first cause of action, only months before filing the cause of action. Second, the statements regarding the Plaintiff's criminal history are, in fact, accurate. Third, the Court is not -- and will not be -- prejudiced against the Plaintiff due to uncivil and unnecessary statements made by another party in documents filed on the docket or made on the record. In its Motion to Strike Portions of Supplemental Brief, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendants filed a supplemental brief containing extensive argument and an exhibit that have nothing to do with the impact of the Obduskey decision on the pending motion to dismiss. The Defendants respond that they needed to address the subject matter jurisdiction of the cause of action if the FDCPA claim was dismissed. The Judge finds that the Defendants' arguments exceeded the parameters of the April 9, 2019 Stipulated Order. Obduskey did not address subject matter jurisdiction, nor did it address supplemental jurisdiction. The parties had the opportunity to fully address those issues when the Motion to Dismiss originally was briefed in 2018 -- and each party exercised that opportunity. The Judge concludes, however, that there is no need to strike the Defendants' Supplemental Brief and require them to refile the appropriate portions. The Court has the capacity, and has exercised that capacity, to consider only the arguments in Defendants' Supplemental Brief (and Reply) that stem from the Obduskey decision. The Judge concludes that the Plaintiff is entitled to an award of fees for the preparation and filing of the Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants' Supplemental Brief. The Defendants did not object to the Plaintiff's request for an award of $1,000, an amount the Court finds reasonable and warranted. Accordingly, the Judge orders that the Defendants pay the Plaintiff $1,000 for having to file the Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants' Supplemental Brief. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, Judge Hood (i) granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; (ii) denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss; (iii) denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants' Supplemental Brief; (iv) denied as moot the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class; and (v) dismissed the Plaintiff's FDCPA claim with prejudice and the Plaintiff's RCPA claim without prejudice. The Judge warned the Defendants about filing bad faith arguments or failing to comply with Court Orders. The Plaintiff is awarded $1,000 for having to file the Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants' Supplemental Brief. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 19, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/qr2u71 from Leagle.com. PACHA SOAP: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Guglielmo Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH GUGLIELMO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PACHA SOAP CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05567 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 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. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). These access barriers that Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of Plaintiff's full and equal access multiple times in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing the Defendant's Website in the future. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Pacha Soap Co. is a Nebraska-based soap manufacturer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com PEMBER COMPANIES: O'Bryan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Laborers ---------------------------------------------------------------- RANDY O'BRYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEMBER COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-04805 (W.D. Wis., July 20, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. According to the complaint, the Defendant did not compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all compensable travel time during work day and all non-discretionary compensation, such as bonuses, commissions, incentives, and/or other rewards. These practices resulted in the Plaintiff and the Class being denied overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a laborer at its shop in Menomonie, Wisconsin from April 2017 until June 2020. Pember Companies, Inc. is a company that specializes in construction, concrete and excavating work, with a principal office address of N4449 469th Street, Menomonie, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. Matthew J. Tobin, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com mtobin@walcheskeluzi.com PHOENIX, AZ: COVID19 Relief Bias vs Immigrants, Poder et al. Say ---------------------------------------------------------------- Poder in Action, an Arizona nonprofit corporation; Arizona Dream Act Coalition, an Arizona nonprofit corporation; and Aurora Galan Mejia, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The City of Phoenix, a municipal corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01429-DWL (D. Ariz., July 20, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs to stop the City of Phoenix from imposing restrictions based on immigration status for persons to participate in the City's COVID-19 emergency housing program to prevent evictions and homelessness. The program's emergency housing funds are to offset certain economic harms suffered by persons who live in the City of Phoenix and to assist with payments for residential rental, mortgage or utility expenses. The funds are for persons who need assistance to pay their designated vendors, and payments will go directly to landlords, mortgage companies and utilities. Under a statutory formula based on population, approximately $293 million was allocated to the City of Phoenix under the Coronavirus Relief Fund, a fund administered by the U.S. Department of Treasury under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act"). The City of Phoenix decided to use approximately $25 million of the Coronavirus Relief Fund to assist renters and homeowners to be able to stay in their homes. According to the complaint, the City restricts which immigrants can participate in the program. Only an immigrant applicant who meets the qualified immigration status requirements as defined in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 ("PRWORA") is eligible to participate in the program. There are many immigrants who live in the City who are in need of the emergency housing assistance but do not meet these requirements including Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA") recipients, persons with Temporary Protected Status, asylum applicants, U-Visa holders who are victims of serious crimes and others. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin Defendant from continuing to restrict participation in this program and eligibility for these funds based on immigration status. Plaintiff Poder in Action is a grassroots nonprofit organization based in Phoenix. Plaintiff Arizona Dream Act Coalition is an immigrant youth led nonprofit organization whose mission is to promote educational success of immigrant youth, increase civic engagement, integrate immigrants into Arizona's economy to the fullest extent possible and to advocate for immigrant rights.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ellen Sue Katz, Esq. Brenda Muñoz Furnish, Esq. Orien Nelson, Esq. WILLIAM E. MORRIS INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 3707 North Seventh Street, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85014 Telephone: (602) 252-3432 E-mail: eskatz@qwestoffice.net bmfurnish@qwestoffice.net onelson@qwestoffice.net - and - Daniel J. Adelman, Esq. ARIZONA CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST 514 West Roosevelt Street Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 258-8850 E-mail: danny@aclpi.org PINPOINT PAINTING: Fails to Pay Overtime, Harrison et al Claim -------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD HARRISON and MICHAEL A. HARRISON, Plaintiffs v. PINPOINT PAINTING, LLC, DOUG RAHMY, and ZAK FORSYTHE, Defendants, Case No. CV 20 934850 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl, July 14, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as painters and performed other duties for Defendants from approximately September 1, 2014 until on or about June 11, 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours but were not paid the overtime premium as required by the FLSA. Plaintiffs claim that they have suffered damages by failing to receive the total compensation. Thus, Plaintiffs seek to recover the total amount of unpaid wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorney fees and costs. Pinpoint Painting, LLC is a full service, interior & exterior painting company serving both Residential and Commercial markets in the Greater Cleveland & Akron areas. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alan I. Goodman, Esq. AIG LAW 55 Public Square, Suite 1330 Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: (216) 456-2486 Fax: (216) 456-2487 Email: agoodman@aiglaw.com PLAID INC: Illegally Collects Bank Data, Evans et al. Allege ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID EVANS, PATRICK LENAHEN, ADAM SMOTKIN, and OSWALDO HERRERA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. PLAID INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-04804-JSC (N.D. Cal., July 17, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and similarly-situated consumers, to seek declaratory and injunctive relief requiring Defendant to cease its misconduct, purge the data it has unlawfully collected from consumers' banking and other financial accounts, notify consumers of its misconduct, and inform consumers of the steps they can take to protect themselves from further invasions, as well as to seek economic redress for Defendant's violations of consumers' dignitary rights, privacy, and well-being caused by Defendant's unethical and undisclosed invasions into their financial affairs. According to the complaint, Defendant takes consumers' financial account login credentials, accesses their banking and other financial accounts several times per day, and then sells and otherwise misuses the highly personal and private information it has wrongfully obtained. Plaid discloses none of this to consumers. The Defendant gathers all this data through software embedded in widely-used financial technology apps such as Venmo, Coinbase, Square's "Cash App," and Stripe. Defendant's stated mission is to make it "easy" for consumers to "connect" their bank accounts to these financial technology apps, but Defendant conceals its conduct and true intentions from consumers. First, Plaid induces consumers to hand over their private bank login credentials to Plaid by making it appear those credentials are being communicated directly to consumers' banks. Second, Plaid uses consumers' login credentials to obtain direct and full access to consumers' personal financial banking information for Plaid's own commercial purposes wholly unrelated to consumers' use of the apps. Thus, a consumer who makes a single mobile payment on an app from a checking account unwittingly gives Plaid, years' worth of private, granular financial information from every account the consumer maintains with the bank, including accounts maintained for others such as relatives and children. Further, Defendant exploits its ill-gotten information in a variety of ways, including marketing the data to its app customers, analyzing the data to derive insights into consumer behavior, and, most recently, selling its collection of data to Visa as part of a multi-billion dollar acquisition. Plaid has unfairly benefited from the personal information of millions of Americans and wrongfully intruded upon their private financial affairs. Plaid Inc. is a San Francisco, California-based financial technology company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jon A. Tostrud, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 278-2600 E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com - and - Brian P. Murray, Esq. Lee Albert, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com lalbert@glancylaw.com - and - Paul C. Whalen, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C. 768 Plandome Road Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (516) 426-6870 E-mail: paul@paulwhalen.com PLAID: Denies Privacy Class Action Allegations ---------------------------------------------- PYMNTS reports that Plaid is facing a lawsuit which alleges that it has violated users' privacy and used customers' private data in inappropriate manners for years, affecting over 200 million individual accounts, according to a court filing with the northern district of California. The California-based financial services company, founded in 2012, works to build products to power digital finance and FinTech issues through its own data transfer network. But the lawsuit alleges that Plaid has made a practice of taking that information for itself through log-ins to customer accounts, and then selling the information or "otherwise highly misusing" it without disclosing anything to customers. Plaid, according to the court document, describes itself as an infrastructure company, according to co-founder Zach Perret. But the lawsuit alleges that this does not capture the full picture of what the company's "true purpose," which it claimed is "invading consumers' privacy for profit." Plaintiffs allege that the company has been able to glean information via software from well-known platforms like Venmo or CashApp under the pretense of helping customers access easy online banking. However, Plaid denied the allegations in a statement to PYMNTS. "This copycat lawsuit is baseless and Plaid will vigorously defend itself," a company spokesman said. "Plaid does not sell or rent consumers' personal information and personal information is only obtained with consent. We firmly believe that consumers should have permission-based access to and control over their financial data, and embody these principles in our practices." Visa agreed earlier this year to buy Plaid for $5.3 billion. The payments giant also participated in a funding round in 2018 that helped value Plaid at $2.6 billion. In addition, Microsoft has teamed with Plaid for a financial management solution called Money in Excel, which allows users a secure integration of their financial account, imported data and sharper insights into financial health overall. [GN] PLAID: Faces Another Class Action Over Privacy Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Emilia David, writing for Cointelegraph, reports that a new class action lawsuit complaint against fintech startup Plaid has been filed with more plaintiffs alleging the company violated the data privacy of users. The new complaint filed on behalf of four new plaintiffs alleged that Plaid -- which was bought by Visa for $5.3 billion this year -- collected information on over 200 million distinct financial accounts who use services such as Venmo, Coinbase, Square's Cash App and Stripe. The complaint states Plaid obtained "direct and full access to consumers' personal financial banking information for Plaid's own commercial purposes wholly unrelated to the consumers' use of the apps." It adds: "Plaid exploits its ill-gotten information in a variety of ways, including marketing the data to its app customers, analyzing the data to derive insights into consumer behavior, and, most recently, selling its collection of data to Visa as part of a multi-billion dollar acquisition. Plaid has unfairly benefited from the personal information of millions of Americans and wrongfully intruded upon their private financial affairs." This is the second class action complaint filed against Plaid. The first complaint, filed on June 25, alleged Plaid was "data plumbing" popular services like Venmo, Stripe, Cash App and Robinhood. A spokesperson for Plaid told Cointelegraph it believes this second complaint is baseless. "This copycat lawsuit is baseless and Plaid will vigorously defend itself. Plaid does not sell or rent consumers' personal information and personal information is only obtained with consent. We firmly believe that consumers should have permission-based access to and control over their financial data, and embody these principles in our practices." Cointelegraph reported Plaid has denied the accusations and said it has never sold user data. Coinbase also confirmed it does rely on Plaid for account verification but data has never been shared with the exchange. [GN] PRO WELD: Ozuna Seeks Proper OT Pay for Assembly Workers -------------------------------------------------------- SANTOS OZUNA, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. PRO WELD INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-2550 (S.D. Tex., July 20, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for its failure to pay the full overtime premium required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") that allows Defendant to gain an unfair advantage over competitors who follow the law in their employment practices. Mr. Ozuna worked for Pro Weld as an assembly worker from October of 2018 until July 21, 2019. According to the complaint, Defendant has many other employees who are/were paid on an hourly basis. These individuals were also assembly workers who regularly worked over 40 hours per week as well, and they were also not paid all overtime pay owed for hours they worked in excess of 40 per workweek, because a portion of their pay was characterized as "per diem" pay. Defendant's underpayment of the Plaintiff, often referred to as "wage theft," allowed Defendant to gain an unfair advantage in the marketplace as compared to their competitors that pay their employees all of the money required by law and who do not use improper and invalid "per diem" pay to reduce their overtime payments. Pro Weld Industrial Services, LLC is a Texas-based recruiting firm providing expert manpower for industrial companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. Vijay Pattisapu, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com vijay@buenkerlaw.com PROASSURANCE CORP: Scott+Scott Attorneys Announces Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, is reminding investors that a class action lawsuit is pending against ProAssurance Corporation ("ProAssurance" or the "Company") (NYSE: PRA) and certain of its officers and directors alleging violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased ProAssurance securities between April 26, 2019 and May 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), you are encouraged to contact a Scott+Scott attorney for additional information at (844) 818-6980 or rswartz@scott-scott.com. ProAssurance is one of the largest medical liability insurance providers in the United States. The lawsuit alleges the defendants misrepresented ProAssurance's underwriting and reserve standards, and failed to adequately reserve for losses. 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 for the fourth quarter of 2019. On this news, ProAssurance's stock price fell $4.18 per share, or 11%, to close at $33.40 per share on January 23, 2020. Then, on May 8, 2020, ProAssurance announced that the same 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. On this news, ProAssurance's stock price fell $4.38 per share, or 22%, to close at $15.95 per share on May 8, 2020. What You Can Do If you purchased ProAssurance securities between April 26, 2019 and May 7, 2020, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact Rhiana Swartz at (844) 818-6980 or--rswartz@scott-scott.com--The lead plaintiff deadline is August 17, 2020. About Scott+Scott Attorneys Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio. [GN] PROASSURANCE CORPORATION: Scott+Scott Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, is reminding investors that a class action lawsuit is pending against ProAssurance Corporation ("ProAssurance" or the "Company") (NYSE: PRA) and certain of its officers and directors alleging violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased ProAssurance securities between April 26, 2019 and May 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), you are encouraged to contact a Scott+Scott attorney for additional information at (844) 818-6980 or rswartz@scott-scott.com. ProAssurance is one of the largest medical liability insurance providers in the United States. The lawsuit alleges the defendants misrepresented ProAssurance's underwriting and reserve standards, and failed to adequately reserve for losses. 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 for the fourth quarter of 2019. On this news, ProAssurance's stock price fell $4.18 per share, or 11%, to close at $33.40 per share on January 23, 2020. Then, on May 8, 2020, ProAssurance announced that the same 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. On this news, ProAssurance's stock price fell $4.38 per share, or 22%, to close at $15.95 per share on May 8, 2020. What You Can Do If you purchased ProAssurance securities between April 26, 2019 and May 7, 2020, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact Rhiana Swartz at (844) 818-6980 or -- rswartz@scott-scott.com -- The lead plaintiff deadline is August 17, 2020. About Scott+Scott Attorneys Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio. [GN] PROTECH SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Action Over PUA Claims Handling -------------------------------------------------------------- Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against the company hired by the state to design a website for the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program, which had a security breach in the beginning and still has many claimants locked out of the system. Chicago and Cleveland lawyers, associating locally with Dustin McDaniel, filed the suit against Protech Solutions on behalf of three named plaintiffs, including one who said she has been a victim of the security breach. The lawsuit alleges Protech failed to protect personal and financial information. I haven't received responses yet from Protech or the state for comment on the lawsuit. It is seeking an emergency hearing to get people unlocked to receive claims. At one point, as many as 14,000 were said to be on hold. Protech got a $3 million contract to design the system. The Arkansas Times reported May 15 that an applicant for claims for the self-employed had discovered all information on all claimants was easily seen. The system was shut down for security fixes. The state has asked for an FBI investigation, still in progress. The state has also said it has insurance for such circumstances. Since then, though payments have begun, thousands of people have complained that their accounts are on hold and they can't penetrate state phone lines or web portals to get information. The state has blamed the problems on rooting out fraud, though an official acknowledged to legislators recently that some problems might be linked to simple errors on forms. UPDATE: A consulting firm with ties to Governor Hutchinson (see below in this article) apparently has been designated to provide responses for Pro Tech. It sent this statement from Kenneth French of the company: In an effort to protect individuals and the state, ProTech Solutions implemented a fraud detection instrument to catch all possible threats to the PUA program. In these cases, accounts are flagged and then reviewed by the state—at which point a decision is rendered by the state. This is a standard operating procedure. "As for the allegation of an identity incident, there is no evidence of this being linked to the PUA data incident on May 15. It is important to note, however, that the state has made available $1 million in identity protection insurance for all PUA applicants affected by the data incident. The individual must decide whether or not to accept that protection." This statement is silent on the security breach acknowledged in May for the entire database. It also is silent on the assertion by the state that it doesn't have the security plan the firm was supposed to provide under it's $3 million contract. If the governor's former aide, J.R. Davis, who provided this statement or ProTech or Workforce Services ever provides a number on those locked out; why they've remained locked out for weeks, and why it is so difficult for claimants to get answers from Workforce Services, I'll pass that along. The lawsuit says: . . . . at one of the worst times in the lives of Plaintiffs and Class members, when they find themselves unemployed in the midst of a pandemic and resulting recession, Protech negligently and recklessly made Plaintiffs' and Class members' path to recovery significantly harder by interfering with their access to PUA payments and putting their identity and credit standing at risk. You can get a flavor of the frustration from a continuing string of comments on an earlier item we did about PUA problems. The lawsuit continues: As a result of the Data Breach, the PUA Application System was temporarily shut down. Even after the PUA Application System was back up and running, Plaintiffs and other Class members were and are still locked out of their accounts pending a "fraud review." As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiffs and Class members must now be vigilant and review their credit reports for incidents of identity theft, and to educate themselves about security freezes, fraud alerts, and other steps to protect themselves against identity theft. Data security breaches have dominated the headlines for the last two decades, and it does not take an IT industry expert to know that the failure to take reasonable security precautions places individual's personal information at risk. The lawsuit details the consequences of security breaches and says they sometimes aren't discovered until long after the fact. The suit said one plaintiff received a payment June 8 and 15 and then was locked out; another has not received a benefit since June 1, and a third, Terry Morrow, was a victim of the data breach. On or about May 14, 2020, Morrow applied online for PUA benefits through the ADWS PUA website created, implemented, and maintained by Protech. During the application process, Morrow supplied her account information for her Skylight Net Spin Card with Regions Bank, so that her PUA payments could be made directly to that account. As a direct result of the Data Breach, Morrow was the victim of identity theft. The day after she applied online for PUA benefits through the PUA website created, implemented, and maintained by Protech, someone fraudulently used her name and SSN to set up an account with Bank of America in Texas ("BOA Account"), and without her authorization or knowledge transferred all her money from her Skylight Net Spin Card (i.e., $757.24) into the BOA Account. Morrow spent approximately 20 hours trying to get her money back, including filing a police report and dealing with the bank. As a direct result of the data Breach, Morrow fell behind on paying her utilities and other bills. Morrow has also been charged late fees and penalties on accounts that, as a direct result of Defendant's conduct, have become delinquent. As a direct result of the Data Breach, Morrow will have to expend additional time and energy protecting and monitoring her identity and credit. The suit says the class covered by the lawsuit numbers 30,000. It claims negligence and invasion of privacy and seeks injunctive relief, including to lift holds on the PUA accounts. Here's the motion for a preliminary injunction to restore access to PUA accounts. The case has been assigned to Judge Alice Gray. Thomas Zimmerman of Chicago, one of the lawyers filing the suit, told me that it had received a copy of the Protech Solutions contract. [GN] RUBIN AND ROTHMAN: Goldklang Asserts Breach of FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rubin and Rothman, LLC. The case is styled as Rochel Goldklang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rubin and Rothman, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-05451-VB (S.D. N.Y., July 15, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Rubin & Rothman, LLC is a New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts creditor's rights law firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic st Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (347) 668-9326 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CA: Court Dismisses Freeman with Leave to Amend ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, BENNIE FREEMAN, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN ASSISTANCE, et. al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02418-KJM-CKD PS (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff Freeman asserts seven causes of action against the County of Sacramento Department of Human Assistance alleging racial discrimination and harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"). The complaint's factual allegations are sparse, but the Plaintiff generally alleges that during his 15-year tenure working for the County, he has repeatedly been denied promotional positions because he is African American. The Defendant asks the Court to dismiss the complaint in its entirety under Rule 12(b)(6) because (1) the Plaintiff improperly attempts to assert a class action; (2) the Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that he exhausted his administrative remedies before filing suit; and (3) the Plaintiff's factual allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. With respect to his disparate treatment claim under Title VII, the Plaintiff appears to be attempting to assert a class action by alleging that the claim is brought by him on behalf of themselves and the class they seek to represent. Magistrate Judge Delaney finds that the Plaintiff has made no motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 asking the Court to certify the case as a class action. In addition, the Plaintiff is a non-lawyer proceeding without the counsel and admits that he is not an individual schooled in the law. It is well established that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. To the extent the Plaintiff is attempting to assert a disparate treatment claim on behalf of class members, the Plaintiff's claim should be dismissed. Next, the Magistrate Judge finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that he exhausted his administrative remedies under Title VII and the FEHA. Although it would be helpful to know the timeline of events and the contents of the EEOC charge, the Plaintiff's exhaustion allegations are sufficient. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies and complied with all statutory prerequisites to Title VII claims. It further alleges that he filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation individually and on behalf of himself with the EEOC and the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue. These allegations are enough to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). In addition, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient factual information to state plausible claims for relief under Title VII and the FEHA. The Magistrate Judge finds that the Plaintiff's factual allegations are deficient with respect to each of his claims. The complaint (i) fails to state a plausible claim for disparate treatment under Title VII or the FEHA; (ii) neither identifies the specific employment practice that the Plaintiff is challenging, nor shows a causal relationship between the facially neutral practice and the significant disparate impact on African American employees; (iii) provides no reasonable basis to infer that the Defendant refused to promote the Plaintiff because he complained of discrimination or filed a charge with the EEOC; and (iv) fails to allege facts to show that the actions were part of a "concerted pattern" and were repeated and routine. The Plaintiff may be able to cure the deficiencies in the complaint by alleging additional facts, the Court notes. Thus, the Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend, the Court holds. Should he choose to file an amended complaint, he is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make his amended complaint complete. Once the Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Delaney granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Judge dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 19, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/kHf26z from Leagle.com. In a further order dated June 18, 2020, the Court gave the Plaintiff more time to file an amended complaint, if any. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint no late than 60 days of the Court's June 2020 Order. SANTA BARBARA, CA: Settles Class Action Over Jail Conditions ------------------------------------------------------------ Mitchell White, writing for Santa Barbara News-Press, reports that the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department announced a settlement in a class-action lawsuit regarding conditions of confinement at the County Jail. The settlement from the Dec. 6, 2017, lawsuit was announced by the Sheriff's Office. The case involved plaintiffs Clay Murray, David Franco, Shareen Winkle, Maria Tracy and Erick Brown. The plaintiffs were represented by several different attorneys, including Disability Rights California, Prison Law Office, and King & Spalding LLP. The lawsuit alleged that conditions at the jail do not meet the minimum standards under the Constitution and federal law, with the plaintiffs arguing that the county and Sheriff's Office "failed to provide adequate mental health and medical care, overused and misused solitary confinement, discriminated against people with disabilities, and allowed for unsanitary and unsafe living conditions for people incarcerated at the jail," according to the plaintiffs. The lead plaintiff, Mr. Murray, is an Army veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder who uses a wheelchair. While in custody, the plaintiffs said he received no meaningful mental health treatment and was confined to a housing unit that was inaccessible to people with physical disabilities. "Activities as basic as taking a shower or using the toilet put Mr. Murray at risk of injury every day. Due to overcrowding and the lack of accessible beds, Mr. Murray was forced to sleep on the floor many nights." read a statement from Disability Rights California. Subject to court approval, the settlement binds Santa Barbara County and the Sheriff's Office to changes that authorities say have already been implemented and future commitments to improve living conditions for people confined in the jail, said Raquel Zick, sheriff's spokeswoman. "The County and the Sheriff's Office have been implementing process improvements and advancements over the last several years consistent with the settlement plan," Ms. Zick said. "The settlement plan will result in more out of cell time for inmates, specialized mental health units and timelines to address different acuity levels of medical and mental health conditions, increased observations of actively suicidal inmates and decreased use of safety cells." Improvements to the Main Jail will provide ADA-related modifications and adequate space for programming for vulnerable populations and will allow increased participation in recreational activities, Ms. Zick said. Both the Sheriff's Office and the county have agreed to continue to address the jail's "asserted deficiencies until durable solutions are implemented," Ms. Zick said, adding that many requirements have been partially or completely implemented. Sheriff Bill Brown issued a lengthy statement on the settlement, which he called "a milestone in our agency's delivery of correctional services" to those in custody. "(The settlement) sets the path toward much needed improvements in the processes, programs, and overall environment of the entire Main Jail campus," Sheriff Brown said. "As these measures are implemented, we will be able to provide better correctional services to our incarcerated community members. Although our Custody professionals have performed admirably for years, they have been hampered in their efforts by limited resources and an obsolete and inefficient jail facility that is more than 50 years old. The much-welcomed subject matter expert evaluations and remedial plans that are a part of this agreement will pave the way toward a comprehensive community of care for the entire inmate population." Sheriff Brown said he appreciates the support from the county Board of Supervisors in the settlement, and also expressed gratitude to custody staff and members of the county counsel's office to bring together "a roadmap for future progress." "As we enter into this agreement we know there will be many difficulties in meeting the myriad of requirements it contains, but I have confidence that the dedicated men and women in our Custody Operations Branch will rise up and see to it that we meet those challenges," Sheriff Brown said. The Sheriff's Office and the county have agreed to pay the plaintiff's counsel $1,132,809 for "reasonable fees and expenses incurred" when an investigation was launched into the conditions at the jail. "We have communicated with hundreds of people held in the Santa Barbara County Jail, and have heard again and again that the conditions there are simply intolerable. The design and conditions of this half-century old jail have no place in modern society," Aaron Fischer, litigation counsel at Disability Rights California said in a statement. "This settlement comes at a moment of critical urgency and great opportunity. The jail's dangerous conditions are compounded by the tremendous risk that the COVID-19 pandemic poses to our clients. And we are also seeing a long overdue discussion about institutional racism and mass incarceration, both of which disproportionately harm people -- especially people of color -- with mental health needs and other disabilities. With this settlement, the community should expect significant improvements in conditions at the Santa Barbara County Jail." A copy of the settlement can be found at https://www.sbsheriff.org/class-action-stipulated-judgement-and-notice-of-settlement/. [GN] SELECT HOTELS: Mirabueno Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Meal & Rest Breaks ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER MIRABUENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELECT HOTELS GROUP, LLC; HYATT CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV26806 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 16, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants alleging several violations pursuant to the California Labor Code including failure to: 1. provide the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated workers accurate and itemized wages statements; 2. compensate them appropriate minimum wages and overtime for all hours worked; 3. provide a minimum wage lawful meal periods and rest periods; and 4. give timely payment during employment and payment upon separation of employment. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a house-person or lobby attendant from October 2018 until February 15, 2020. Select Hotels Groups, LLC is a hospitality company doing business in California. Hyatt Corporation is a multinational hospitality company headquartered in the Riverside Plaza area of Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Lo, Esq. WORK LAWYERS, PC 22939 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 202 Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (866) 496-7552 Facsimile: (424) 355-8535 E-mail: Justin@WorkLawyers.com SURFSIDE COFFEE: Duffey Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, THERESA DUFFEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SURFSIDE COFFEE COMPANY LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, and CHRISTOPHER MELLGREN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00501 (M.D. Fla., July 15, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged unlawful pay practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a store manager. The complaint alleges that Defendant inappropriately and improperly classified Plaintiff and those current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff as exempt employees. As a result, although Plaintiff and those similarly situated employees customarily and regularly performed non-exempt work which consumed 90% or more of their time, Defendant failed to pay them overtime for all the hours they worked in excess of 40 each workweek. Christopher Mellgren owns, operates and manages Surfside and all of the retail store units. Surfside Coffee Company LLC is a Dunkin' Donuts franchise network in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus W. Viles, Esq. VILES & BECKMAN, LLC 6350 Presidential Court Fort Myers, FL 33919 Tel: (239) 334-3933 Fax: (239) 334-7105 Email: viles@viesandbeckman.com yllen@vilesandbeckman.com TACOS EL PAISA: Basurto Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Restaurant Staff ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case, AMELIA BASURTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TACOS EL PAISA INC. (D/B/A TACOS EL PAISA) and BLANCA SERRANO, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05483 (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for all hours worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek and failure to maintain accurate recordkeeping of total worked hours in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed as a waitress at the Defendants' restaurant located at 1548 St. Nicholas Ave, New York, New York from approximately January 8, 2020 until on or about May 11, 2020. Tacos El Paisa Inc., d/b/a Tacos El Paisa, is a Mexican restaurant operator located at 1548 St. Nicholas Ave., New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 TORO FOODS: Leon Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------- CARLOS LEON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TORO FOODS, LLC and GERARDO DEANDA, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00823 (W.D. Tex., July 14, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid and non-exempt cook at one of Defendant's restaurants from April 2018 until September 2018. Plaintiff claims that Defendant did not pay him and other Hourly Employees an overtime premium of 1.5x his regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Gerardo DeAnda is an owner, principal, officer and/or director of Toro. Toro Foods, LLC operates two restaurants in San Antonio, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com TWITTER: Faces Suit on Cryptocurrency Advertising Ban in Australia ------------------------------------------------------------------ Riddhi Jain, writing for itmunch, reports that cryptocurrency entrepreneurs are suing Twitter, Facebook and Google in Australia that would cost the tech companies up to US$300 billion, which is equivalent to A$436 billion. The individuals and companies filing the lawsuit claim that their businesses were harmed when the three companies "colluded" to ban cryptocurrency advertising in 2018. The Australian class-action lawsuit filed will be represented by a Sydney-based law firm, JPB Liberty. The 'David-and-Goliath' case has already attracted litigants with claims of over US$600 million (A$872 million). It is now under review by a senior barrister and pending funding. The funding for this 'no win, no fee' case is being organized by JPB Liberty from institutional venture capitalists, litigation funders and other ideologically aligned investors. The claimants are to receive 70% of the eventual settlement (or damages) and the funders will get 30%. Tech giants and the cryptocurrency ban The big tech firms are being sued by cryptocurrency businesses in Australia saying Google, Twitter and Facebook colluded to ban cryptocurrency advertising. Facebook and Twitter included the ban in their terms and conditions within weeks of each other in 2018. Google partially reversed the sweeping ban in September 2018. It allowed regulated exchanges to buy ads in Japan and the US. In 2019, Facebook said it wouldn't require pre-approval anymore for ads related to blockchain technology. However, cryptocurrency advertisements still have to undergo review. More on the Australian class-action lawsuit Cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, are largely used to move money across international borders and the blockchain technology that supports it is transforming data security. The entrepreneurs say that there were only a few regulated exchanges in 2018. The Australian class-action suit claims that the social media advertising ban on cryptocurrencies harmed their legitimate business growth as they were kept from using the world's biggest online advertising platforms to reach their potential target audience. JPB Liberty's Israeli-based Vice President of Technology & Public Affairs, Brian Bishko thinks Facebook is too powerful to exist and a danger to the world. Dr Bishko says if your business has a component that even minutely looks like a cryptocurrency, you will be caught in the same net. He adds that your business might get a few adverts but eventually tech giants would review your account and later, block it. Tech companies cannot be held accountable or responsible for the content being posted on their platform. This is due to a US legal protection that deems them to be a platform for content being shared and not the publisher. Google, Facebook and Twitter are increasingly taking editorial decisions over what content they would host on their respective platforms. The tech giants demonetize or delete accounts, reject ad requests and ban individuals and businesses that make a living off social media whose ideologies are not in sync with the tech companies. [GN] U.S. OIL FUND: Pomerantz Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO" or the "Company") (NYSEARCA:USO). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980. The investigation concerns whether USO and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. USO is an exchange traded fund ("ETF") purportedly designed to track the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of West Texas Intermediate ("WTI") light, sweet crude oil delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma. USO stated that it would achieve its investment objectives by investing substantially all of its portfolio assets in the near month WTI futures contract. However, extraordinary market conditions in early 2020, including the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and a price ware between Saudi Arabia and Russia, made USO's purported investment objective and strategy unfeasible. Because of the nature of USO's investment strategy, these and other converging factors caused the Fund to suffer exceptional losses and undermined its ability to meet its ostensible investment objective. However, rather than disclose the known impacts and risks to the Fund as a result of these exceptional threats, the Fund's principals instead conducted a massive offering of USO shares, ultimately selling billions of dollars' worth of USO shares to the market. Although the offering increased the fees payable to the Fund's principals, it also exacerbated the undisclosed risks to the Fund by magnifying trading inefficiencies and causing USO to approach position and accountability limits as a result of the Fund's massive positions in the WTI futures market. Ultimately, the Fund suffered billions of dollars in losses and was forced to abandon its investment strategy. Through a series of rapid-fire investment overhauls, USO was forced to transform from the passive ETF designed to track spot oil prices that its principals had pitched to investors to an almost unrecognizable actively managed fund struggling to avoid a total implosion. In April and May 2020, USO's principals belatedly acknowledged the extreme threats and adverse impacts that the Fund had been experiencing at the time of the March offering, but which they had failed to disclose to investors. With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN] UNITED STATES OIL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of United States Oil Fund, LP (NYSEArca: USO) between March 19, 2020 and April 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 18, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for USO investors under the federal securities laws. To join the USO class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1865.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. The complaint alleges that defendants stated that USO would achieve its investment objective by investing substantially all of its portfolio assets in the near month WTI futures contract. However, unbeknownst to investors, extraordinary market conditions in early 2020 made USO's purported investment objective and strategy unfeasible. Rather than disclose the known impacts and risks to the fund, USO held an offering of billions of dollars of USO shares in March 2020. Ultimately, the fund suffered billions of dollars in losses and was forced to abandon its investment strategy. It was not until late April and May 2020, that defendants acknowledged the extreme threats and adverse impacts that the fund had been experiencing at the time of the March offering, but which they failed to disclose to investors. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 18, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1865.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or --cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] UNITED STATES: Firm Releases Full Report in Class-Action v. DETR ---------------------------------------------------------------- 8 News Now reports that filing for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) has been a long, arduous journey for many, and it could come to an end soon. 8 News Now examined a 310-page report from Hutchison & Steffen, PLLC, detailing problems and issues that have delayed payments owed to applicants. It analyzes every angle you can imagine, following the course of COVID-19 and the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation's (DETR) response and handling of claims. It also looks at how other states have handled it. The report was released in advance of a hearing set, in which a judge could force DETR to pay all pending claims. Now, we'll break it down. It was put together by what's called a "special hearing master." In this case, that was an attorney who worked with both sides after the class-action lawsuit was filed. In the section concerning PUA claims, it starts with how a claim is made, how it is resolved and looks at issues with claims. The special master asks extensive questions of both DETR and the plaintiffs, who represent all in similar situations. Each answer is thoroughly detailed. One area explained in great detail has to do with the contracted call center, Alorica. It lists numerous issues, having to do with training, rude staff and a lack of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliancy. It goes on to say: "The evidence reviewed by the special master raises serious questions about Alorica's performance on behalf of the state. But instead of just listing problems, there were potential solutions listed, too. The special master listed 14 suggestions for the court to consider, gathered from thousands of claimant emails. And, there are ideas from the special master himself that will help in all aspects as we move forward. Those include creating a PUA appeal process, adding a "volunteer claim concierge corps," improving the call center, specifically relations with Alorica, and denying claims when fraud is expected. [GN] UNITED STATES: Kirkland & Ellis Helps Secure ICE Class Suit Win --------------------------------------------------------------- Emma Cueto, writing for Law360, reports that when he was 17, Wilmer Garcia Ramirez arrived in the United States after leaving his birth country of Guatemala, where his parents had arranged for him to work 11-hour days on various coffee plantations since the age of 9. As a child, he was placed in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, and a court later determined that it was not in Wilmer's best interest to be returned to his parents, opening the door for him to become a lawful resident. But when Wilmer turned 18, instead of being allowed to live with a family friend who agreed to sponsor him, he was transferred to a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center. More than two years after filing a class action suit on behalf of Wilmer and other unaccompanied teens in ICE detention, Kirkland & Ellis LLP and its nonprofit partners at the National Immigrant Justice Center and the American Immigration Council won a major court decision that the way the agency has handled cases like Wilmer's is not allowed under federal law. "We couldn't be happier with the court's decision," said Steve Patton, a litigation attorney who is of counsel at Kirkland & Ellis. "Lawyers always say when they win that the court's decision is thorough and well-reasoned, but here that old saw is spot-on." The case concerned children like Wilmer who were held in ORR custody as minors, but who aged out of that custody when they turned 18. Under federal law, such teenagers should be allowed to live in the "least restrictive" setting possible while their immigration case proceeds, such as living with a relative or sponsor. Under the law, these 18-year-olds should only be transferred to an ICE detention facility in circumstances when the teenager is considered a risk to themselves or the community, or if they are a flight risk. In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras concluded that ICE "frequently" fails to ask about alternative housing for these teenagers, such as group homes and sponsors, before transferring them to adult detention facilities and instead gives officers "unbridled discretion to make age-out custody determinations however they would like." The decision also found that ICE agents were not properly trained on the law, and that some of their training appeared directly contrary to it. According to Patton of Kirkland & Ellis and Mary Meg McCarthy, executive director of the National Immigrant Justice Center, the victory was a hard fought one. NIJC, which has partnered with Kirkland & Ellis in the past, first contacted Patton and the firm in fall of 2017, after noticing a sharp increase in the number of clients who were transferred to ICE detention facilities when they turned 18. The team of attorneys went to work talking to immigration services providers across the county, trying to see how different field offices were handling these types of cases. When it became clear that the new practices were widespread, the team filed a proposed class action in March 2018. Patton said that the attorneys chose to keep a "rifle shot" focus and make the claims as straightforward as possible. Once the case commenced and discovery got away, however, Patton said the attorneys met steep resistance from the agency. "It was as intense and hard-fought a resistance -- just adamant resistance -- to discovery as I think I've experienced in all my years of practice," he said. "It was hand-to-hand combat for almost the entire period of discovery." It was difficult, he said, to get the government to disclose "even basic information." In fact, he said, the judge eventually ordered weekly telephone conferences so that the parties could hash out discovery matters on a regular basis. Throughout the process, the non-profit attorneys acted as subject matter experts on immigration law and took point on talking to other immigration services providers about the situation on the ground for young immigrants aging out of ORR custody. The Kirkland & Ellis team, meanwhile, took the lead on a lot of the "nuts and bolts" of the litigation itself, Patton said. Patton estimated that at least a dozen Kirkland & Ellis attorneys worked on the case at some point during the two years of litigation, but the core trial team included seven attorneys: Michael B. Slade, who came aboard for the trial, and Tia Trout-Perez, who worked on the case from the start, as well as associates Britney A. Lewis, Erin Reynolds, Orla O'Callaghan and Paul Quincy, and Patton himself. The team faced arguments from ICE that the agency has the discretion to decide whether detention is warranted and that it isn't legally obligated to seek out alternatives. At trial, the chief of ICE's Juvenile and Family Residential Management Unit argued that that burden rested instead with the ORR. After that 18-day bench trial in April, in which the plaintiffs put on 37 witnesses, including a former immigration judge, statisticians, and a pediatrician who specializes in immigrant children, Judge Contreras ruled on July 2 that ICE had violated the law. "The statute requires the secretary of DHS -- acting through ICE officers in the field -- to take into account the statutory risk factors as they consider placing each age-out in the least restrictive setting available," Judge Contreras wrote. "Doing this necessarily requires making an inquiry aimed at determining what settings are available and which of these is the least restrictive. As was clear from the testimony presented at trial, ICE officers are consistently failing to take either of these steps." The judge has yet to rule on relief for the class. But McCarthy said that the 181-page decision on liability was already a major victory. "It was important to have such a thorough decision," she said. "I'm so glad that the court really took the time and the effort to review all the evidence that demonstrated that the government was not complying with the law." She also noted, as was also noted in the decision, that when ICE agents do make an effort to find sponsors or other alternatives to detention for teenagers, they are able to do so in most cases. Now that the ruling has been handed down, the attorneys are scheduled to begin discussions of relief for the class. The judge has indicated he intends to issue the ruling on relief quickly. There is no reason, McCarthy and Patton said, for these young people to remain locked up. "We have to have a process," McCarthy said. "We have to treat these young people fairly." Counsel for ICE did not respond to a request for comment. [GN] UNITED STATES: Settlement Fund to Bolster Tribal Agriculture Cos. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andy Balaskovitz, writing for MiBiz, reports that a settlement fund created from a landmark 2010 class action lawsuit is providing tens of millions of dollars to help tribes bolster agricultural companies, including access to critical lending needed to jumpstart operations. Most recently, the Native American Agriculture Fund awarded grants to Upper Peninsula-based tribes to expand fish processing and provide a revolving loan fund. The $250,000 awarded to Lake Superior Community Development Corp. in L'Anse will deploy loan capital to Native farms and ranches across the state and includes business training and tax preparation for Native producers. Those eligible for the revolving loan program include farmers, ranchers, harvesters and commercial fisheries that are part of any federally recognized tribe in Michigan, said Eddy Edwards. "In the end, the big goal is to try to let tribes and tribal people be more self sustaining in regional food production, which increases food security and sovereignty," Edwards said. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for self sufficiency through food security, such as not being reliant on commercial food processing operations, Edwards added. "Regional food systems are key to providing good food and more organics rather than corporate food processing we see a lot of," Edwards said. Edwards is a member of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, which was awarded $75,000 from NAAF last month to create an "integrated community food sovereignty system" through a certified fish processing facility and using fish byproducts to expand organic vegetable production. The funding will support traditional foods and expand the tribe's capacity to process fish. "Each and every family in the community is connected to fishing in some way. The KBIC supports its fishermen as well as other harvesters in keeping these traditions," KBIC President Warren "Chris" Swartz said in a statement. "As stewards of the resources, our goal is to facilitate sustainable harvest of fisheries resources to provide into the future for the seventh generation." Landmark opportunity The Native American Agriculture Fund is a charitable trust created under a landmark class action lawsuit settlement in 2010. In Keepseagle v. Vilsack, tribes alleged the U.S. Department of Agriculture discriminated against Native farmers and ranchers in loan programs since 1981. Edwards said the NAAF is vital, as tribal members still report a burdensome loan process through the USDA. The NAAF has roughly $266 million available in funding for business assistance, agricultural education, technical support and advocacy. The first funding round issued $10 million to 80 organizations across the U.S. The second round starting this year includes $15 million in grants. The pandemic also led NAAF to distribute $2 million in rapid response funding to 74 grantees. According to the 2017 U.S. Census of Agriculture, American Indian/Alaska Native farms represent 3 percent of all U.S. farms. In Michigan, the number of farms on reservation land increased by more than 10 percent from 2012 to 2017, comprising 2 percent of all Michigan farms. Although the numbers have grown in recent years, Edwards said a majority of Native farmers are "small time." Bay Mills Community College, the tribally controlled educational institution of the Bay Mills Indian Community, received nearly $300,000 in 2018 under a fast track program before the NAAF was created. The college operates the 40-acre Waishkey Bay Farm, which serves as an incubator and research center for sustainable agriculture. The funding allowed the farm to expand staff and student programming as well as buy new equipment. Edwards said the biggest need among Native agricultural startups is "equipment to do the job" at a commercial scale. "It's a great opportunity for economic development because food is something people buy everyday," he said. "There's a big swing to people becoming more aware of where their food is coming from, what it's made of and what the (growing) conditions are." As a Native Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI), the Lake Superior Community Development Corp. also assists members with the business side of establishing agriculture companies with accounting and tax preparation. "We don't want to just give them money, we want to make sure they're successful," Edwards said. "A lot of people might know how to farm and ranch but they don't know how to deal with the IRS." The revolving fund will provide loans up to $50,000. Edwards' organization also received NAAF rapid response funding for smaller grants of $2,500. He said the funding is about taking advantage of a program specifically designed to build agricultural capacity among tribes. "This is an opportunity through NAAF to provide funding to Native farmers and ranchers for the next 20 years," Edwards said, adding it will help "build capacity so they can be more self reliant." [GN] UNITED STATES: Two Immigrants Sue Over Citizenship, Right to Vote ----------------------------------------------------------------- Loop reports that a Jamaican-born woman residing in Philadelphia in the United States has sued the Trump Administration to become a US citizen and gain the right to vote in the November presidential elections. The woman, Maria Campbell-Davis, along with Syrian national, Abdel Wahab Alaussos, have both asked the US District Court in Eastern Pennsylvania to order the US government to quickly administer the oath to everyone in their position while there is still time to register to vote in the US elections. The two immigrants have taken action and filed a class action lawsuit against the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) which administers the oath of allegiance, and other federal agencies and officials. According to the lawsuit filed by four attorneys, including two from the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, the Jamaican and the Syrian said the right to cast a ballot is "a fundamental privilege of US citizenship". In relation to Campbell-Davis, she was interviewed for naturalisation in January of this year and was set to take the oath on March 19, US media reports indicated. The ceremony to take the oath was, however, cancelled due to the outbreak of the coronavirus, and it has not been rescheduled despite the immigration agency resuming its operations. The present situation means that Campbell-Davis is unable to vote in November, or petition for her Jamaican sons to migrate to the US. But both the Jamaican and Syrian are lawful permanent residents in the US. Meanwhile, the two immigrants said while the initial delay was understandable, it has now gone on too long. They want the US CIS to use all available means and technologies to conduct naturalisations by September 28, which is three weeks before October 19, the last day on which Pennsylvanians can register to vote in the November presidential elections. "A much larger, expedited effort is needed to accommodate the hundreds of plaintiffs (whose) paths to US citizenship have been delayed, to ensure that they are not needlessly harmed by any additional delays," the lawsuit stated. [GN] WALGREEN CO: Eidmann Sues Over False Infants' Acetaminophen Label ----------------------------------------------------------------- CAMERON EIDMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREEN CO., Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-04805 (N.D. Cal., July 17, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the False and Misleading Advertising Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated consumers, alleges that the Defendant's packaging and labeling of the Infants' Pain & Fever Acetaminophen is misleading and deceptive. The Infants' product packaging design could mislead a parent into thinking that the product is specially formulated or otherwise possesses some unique medicinal quality to make it specifically appropriate for infants as opposed to older children. The front of a box of the Infants' Product contains representations which are likely to deceive consumers into believing the Infants' Product is specially formulated for infants or otherwise unique for infants. In reality, the medicine contained in a bottle of Infants' Product contains the same active ingredient and formulation that is contained in a bottle of the Defendant's Children's Pain & Fever Acetaminophen Oral Suspension. Thus, there is no difference in the medicine sold in the Infants' Product and the Children's Product. But the Defendant does not disclose this important information anywhere on the Infants' Product packaging. This omission causes consumers, including the Plaintiff, economic damage because the Defendant charges substantially more money for its Infants' Product than its Children's Product. Walgreen Co. is an American company that operates a pharmacy store chain in the United States, with principal place of business located at 200 Wilmot Road in Deerfield, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gillian L. Wade, Esq. Sara D. Avila, Esq. Marc A. Castaneda, Esq. MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 396-9600 Facsimile: (310) 396-9635 E-mail: gwade@mjfwlaw.com savila@mjfwlaw.com awhitman@mjfwlaw.com - and - Hank Bates, Esq. David Slade, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W. 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com dslade@cbplaw.com WELLS FARGO: Claimsfiler Reminds of Aug. 14 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuit: Wells Fargo & Company (WFC) Class Period: 2/2/2018 - 3/10/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 14, 2020 According to the Complaint, Wells Fargo is a diversified financial services company that provides banking, investment, mortgage, and consumer and commercial finance products and services to individuals, businesses, and institutions in the U.S. and internationally. The Complaint 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) 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. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo" or the "Company") (NYSE: WFC) securities between February 2, 2018, and March 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Wells Fargo investors have until August 14, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their Wells Fargo investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. On February 2, 2018, Wells Fargo entered into a consent order with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the "FRS Consent Order"), committing to comply with directives regarding its governance and risk management policies. The FRS Consent Order was part of an enforcement action brought against the Company in connection with certain of its fraudulent practices. Then, on March 4, 2020, a 113-page report revealed that Wells Fargo "fell woefully" short of implementing meaningful corporate reforms and that its risk and compliance policies remained dangerously inadequate to prevent another consumer fraud from occurring, thereby violating the FRS Consent Order. On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.50, or over 6%, to close at $38.90 on March 5, 2020. Then, on March 10, 2020, the U.S. House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters requested that the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") investigate the Company's former CEO, for providing false statements in the context of his public testimony a year earlier, in March 2019, which directly related to Wells Fargo's compliance with the FRS and OCC Consent Orders and its progress in developing and implementing effective and meaningful reforms. On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.75, or over 7%, to close at $32.33, thereby injuring investors. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Wells Fargo had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting, particularly with respect to its risk and compliance management, policies and programs; (2) that the Company was not compliant with the regulatory consent orders entered into in 2018; (3) that the Company's remedial plans were inadequate, incomplete, and insufficient to prevent from future consumer abuses; (4) that as a result of the continued noncompliance with the regulatory consent orders, the Company was threatened with supervisory and/or enforcement actions and penalties; (5) that the Company's remedial measures and risk and compliance management remained inadequate to protect against consumer fraud; (6) 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 and omitted materials facts. If you purchased Wells Fargo securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN] WESTPAC: Maurice Blackburn Launches Class Action ------------------------------------------------ John Kavanagh, writing for BankingDay, reports that Westpac and its subsidiaries face two class actions, after two law firms announced that they were filing claims over car finance arrangements. Maurice Blackburn commenced proceedings in the Victorian Supreme Court alleging that Westpac and St George Finance "colluded with car dealers to sting consumers with unfair high interest loans". Earlier, Shine Lawyers said it would launch a class action in the Federal Court alleging that Westpac and its subsidiaries, as well as another finance company, breached their obligations under consumer credit law by failing to disclose to consumers the true nature of their commission structures when working with car dealers. The Shine claim covers Westpac, St George Bank, Bank of Melbourne and Capital Finance Australia. Westpac was criticised in the Hayne royal commission report for continuing to offer so-called "flex commission" arrangements to car dealers until they were outlawed in November 2018, even though it accepted earlier that the practice could be unfair. Flex commissions gave dealers a cut of the interest payable if they could persuade the borrower to pay a higher rate than the lender's base rate. In the Royal Commission's view that was an arrangement that simply added cost for the borrower, who knew nothing about the arrangement. Shine Lawyers class action practice leader Vicky Antzoulatos said: "If you bought a car from a dealership using 'in-store' finance from July 2014 to November 2018, you may have been the victim of a flex car loan rort. "Under the now-banned scheme, dealerships spruiked cars with finance, while failing to disclose that the interest rate on the loans was arranged with the lender in exchange for commissions." "In some cases, customers who bought the same car or a vehicle of similar value on the same day were charged between 6.5 per cent and 15.5 per cent interest over and above the base rate." Maurice Blackburn said that in some cases consumers were charged more than three times the base interest rate set by Westpac and St George. Maurice Blackburn national head of class actions, Andrew Watson, said: "Westpac and St George had set up an arrangement that rewarded the car dealers for gouging their customers. "This case will seek to prove that Westpac and St George failed to comply with their obligations under consumer credit protection laws and that this failure caused substantial losses for many consumers." Watson estimates the size of the class at around 400,000. Shine's class action is open to car buyers who took out a loan for personal use through their car dealer between July 2014 and November 2018, and Maurice Blackburn's between 2013 and 2018. [GN] WWE: Labaton Says Argument for Dismissal of Class Action Fails -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action plaintiff is urging a federal judge not to toss its lawsuit against the World Wrestling Entertainment over a relationship with Saudi Arabia that didn't materialize. A Warren, Ohio, police and firefighter pension fund has sued the WWE over a stock drop that occurred when the WWE announced that it failed to reach a broadcasting deal in the country. In a motion to dismiss filed in June, the WWE called the shareholder lawsuit "fraud-by-hindsight" and a "strained attempt" to place blame for the stock drop. New York federal judge Jed Rakoff has appointed Labaton Sucharow as lead counsel for the plaintiffs. The firm filed a response to the motion to dismiss on July 14. "Defendants' Motion is a scattershot effort to offer their own alternative version of numerous alleged facts, which is not appropriate at this stage of the case. In fact, even before Plaintiff filed the Complaint, Defendants threatened Plaintiff's counsel with sanctions, arguing that the initial complaints on file (none of which were filed by Plaintiff or its counsel) included allegations that conflicted with what Defendants contend actually happened," the plaintiff's response says. "Defendants frequently take the same approach in the Motion, which should be denied in its entirety." Multiple cases were filed earlier this year against the WWE. They allege WWE officers failed to tell investors about difficulties with negotiations with Saudi Arabia and the Orbit Showcase Network (OSN). The WWE called the Saudi-controlled direct broadcast satellite provider serving the Middle East and North Africa regions a key part of its financial future. However, the suits allege the Saudi deals were in jeopardy when company officials joined fans in criticizing that country's human rights record. Things came to a head with the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi on Oct. 2, 2018, believed to be directed by the Saudi government. A decision to hold a WWE live event in Saudi Arabia a month later was widely panned. This upset the Saudis, the complaint said. WWE revealed on Oct. 31, 2019, that the media rights deal had been delayed and the Saudi government owed the company tens of millions of dollars. Several wrestlers were stranded by the Saudis when WWE cut the live broadcasting feed of an event in the country. When the WWE revealed it failed to secure the Saudi broadcasting deal, stocks dropped on Feb. 6 to a low of $40.24 per share. Senior executives sold off stock in what the complaints alleged was insider trading. Vince McMahon sold more than 3.2 million shares for $261 million on March 27, 2019. The WWE says despite the deal falling through, its financial performance ended up in the range of where it predicted it would be. "This is an impermissible fraud-by-hindsight case focused on WWE's efforts to enter into a business arrangement that ultimately did not come to fruition," the motion to dismiss says. "The (lawsuit) represents a strained attempt by Plaintiff to assert securities fraud claims based upon rank speculation, innuendo, uninformed and unreliable internet postings and statements by persons unconnected to Defendants or the subject business dealings." Labaton Sucharow says the defense ignores key facts and that the complaint has met its burden, making dismissal inappropriate. [GN] XTO ENERGY: Lewis Files Suit in North Dakota -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against XTO Energy Inc. The case is styled as Sarah Heggen Lewis, Emily Heggen and Marn Heggen, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. XTO Energy Inc. and XTO Holdings, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00125-CRH (D. N.D., July 15, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other filed over Diversity-Breach of Contract. XTO Energy Inc. is an American energy company, principally operating in North America, specializing in the drilling and production of unconventional oil and natural gas assets, typically from shale rock through a process known as hydraulic fracturing. It is a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua A. Swanson, Esq. Vogel Law Firm (Fargo) 218 NP Avenue PO Box 1389 Fargo, ND 58107-1389 Tel: (701) 237-6983 Email: jswanson@vogellaw.com - and - George A Barton, Esq. Law Office of George A. Barton 7227 Metcalf Ave. Suite 301 Overland Park, KS 66204 Tel: (913) 563-6255 Email: gab@georgebartonlaw.com - and - Robert James Pathroff, Esq. Vogel Law Firm (Bismarck) PO Box 2097 200 N. 3rd St., Ste. 201 Bismarck, ND 58502-2097 Tel: (701) 258-7899 Fax: (701) 258-9705 Email: rpathroff@vogellaw.com [*] Class Action Crackdown May Hit Farmers' Fight for Justice ------------------------------------------------------------- Jamieson Murphy, writing for North Queensland Register, reports that farmers could find it harder to appeal unfair decisions if the government pushes ahead with broad sweeping changes to class action lawsuits. The government plans to crack down on organisations pursuing class actions, with many believing they are being used for profit rather than justice, but the Aussie Fighting Fund (AFFF) may inadvertently be caught out in process. For more than three decades, the AFFF has been an instrument of justice, allowing farmers an avenue to challenge decisions they would otherwise have to accept due to the large legal fees involved in appealing them. AFFF trustee and National Farmers Federation president Fiona Simson doesn't believe the regulation changes were intended to target organisations like AFFF, but it "could well fall under it" and it "would be a shame" if it did. "While the AFFF doesn't make a habit of funding class actions, it has in the past and it is at the moment, with the live cattle export shutdown case," Ms Simson said. "But it's not seeking to make money from those cases. Over the years, looking back at cases, we really haven't had many class actions, it's mostly been individuals. "The whole purpose of the AFFF is to assist farmers fight legal battles where a legal precedent could be made that would benefit the whole ag industry." Ms Simson pointed to the recent Marland Mushrooms case AFFF won, regarding the interpretation of piecework rates. "That was a really significant case, because the piecework rate had much wider implications to shearers and the horticulture sector," Ms Simson said. The planned changes would see any third parties funding litigation -- such as the AFFF -- regulated as if they're running a financial services business, like a bank or an insurance company. They would also see plaintiffs in a class action treated the same as investors who pool their money in a collective investment to make a profit -- like shareholders investing in a managed fund traded on the stock exchange. The government is still yet to reveal what the new class action regulations will look like, despite announcing they will come into effect by the end of August. "We're getting legal advice at the moment and we're talking to the Treasurer's office," Ms Simson said. "We haven't seen the minute detail. We need to get some advice and clarity about what the regulations look like, then see where we can go from there. "The government is really open to conversations. We think it's important to talk to the government about their plans and they've been very forthright." While there are still many questions to be answered, Ms Simson said it's been confirmed the changes won't make a different to the live export case. A parliamentary inquiry into the regulation changes heard evidence that the number of class actions in Australia had more than tripled in less than a decade. However, other witnesses also pointed out the total number of class actions amounted to less than 0.7 per cent of the nation's legal cases. The parliamentary committee is due to deliver a report into the regulation changes by the end of the year. [GN] [*] Court Dismisses Class Action Against 16 Auto Insurers --------------------------------------------------------- Canadian Underwriter reports that Ontario's Superior Court has quashed a proposed class action lawsuit against 16 Ontario auto insurers--a dispute related to insurers deducting HST tax from accident benefits paid out to minor auto accident injury victims--because only the LAT has jurisdiction to hear Statutory Accident Benefits (SABs) claims in the first instance. Ontario's Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) adjudicates disputes over auto insurance claims related to accident benefits. LAT started hearing SABS claims in April 2016, as part of the Liberal government's strategy at the time to help reduce auto insurance costs and rates. In 2014, the Ontario government amended Section 280 (3) of the province's Insurance Act to read: "No person may bring a proceeding in any court with respect to a dispute [regarding a SABs claim] . . . other than an appeal from a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal or an application for judicial review." Based on these words, "in my view, it is plain and obvious that the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant insurers [in the class action lawsuit] fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the LAT," Ontario Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba ruled in a judgement released July 10. The class action names 16 insurers: Economical, Allstate, Belair, Intact, Aviva, Unifund, Certas, The Commonwealth, Co-operators, Echelon, Wawanesa, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Travelers, TD Insurance, Gore Mutual, and CUMIS. Justice Belobaba's decision characterizes the allegations contained in the class action, which has now been tossed from court, meaning the allegations have not been tested nor proven. "At their core, the facts alleged by the plaintiffs in the amended statements of claim are about the insurers' improper inclusion of HST and their failure to provide the full amount of the SABs to which the plaintiffs were entitled," Justice Belobaba states in his decision. "The plaintiffs describe the defendant insurers' ‘wrongful conduct' as follows: that they ‘did not consistently pay or reimburse [their] insureds for applicable HST and/or included applicable HST in the calculation of the benefit entitlement under the SABS.'" None of these claims made in the class action suit will be adjudicated in court, the judge ruled. "To repeat what was said by the Court of Appeal in Stegenga: ‘These are matters the legislature has empowered the LAT to decide and has taken away from the court.'" That the legal action took the form of a class action does not change the fact that LAT has jurisdiction over SABs claims, the court went on to rule. "Every proposed class action begins with the filing of a single proceeding that must then be judicially certified as a class proceeding with a representative plaintiff," as Justice Belobaba explained. "Here, for example, Mr. [Bradley] Dorman as the ‘insured person' has filed a proposed class action against his defendant insurer [Economical] and the defendant regulator [Financial Services Commission of Ontario]. It is this initial and singular filing that is barred by s. 280 of the Insurance Act. The proposed class action cannot proceed because the filing of the initial action is prohibited by statute." As a result of the ruling, individual claimants may still pursue their HST claims by way of the LAT. But they will not be able to pursue their claims in court by way of a class action. "This means of course that many SAB claimants affected by the insurers' alleged ‘wrongful conduct' will not get their day in court," Justice Belobaba wrote. "Individual claimants with larger SAB claims and thus more significant HST disputes can appeal to the LAT--and some have done so, albeit with mixed results. But in the vast majority of minor injury cases where the disputed HST amounts are generally less than the $100 LAT filing fee, individual claims will not be pursued, and the impugned insurers will arguably be enriched in the millions of dollars. Such is the consequence of the jurisdiction design decision." Belobaba went on to observe in his decision that the class action plaintiffs could "take some comfort from the fact that the SAB Schedule has recently been amended so that as of June 3, 2019, insurers can no longer use HST to reduce SAB entitlements or amounts." Having found that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case, the court likewise found it did not have jurisdiction to approve settlements that Intact and Belair had made with claimants. Those settlements were not approved by the court. Notwithstanding its ruling in favour of the insurers, the court did allow the class action to proceed against the province's insurance regulator, FSCO. Essentially, the class action alleges that the regulator failed to act on complaints from consumers about the HST deductions. "There is nothing in s. 280 of the Insurance Act or in the Court of Appeal's decision in Stegenga that gives exclusive jurisdiction to LAT over claims of regulatory negligence against a third-party government regulator," Belobaba observed. "FSCO may well prevail on its cause of action submissions but this is a matter for the certification motion." FSCO contends in a court document that there is no cause against it, since no facts have been found about how the insurers actually handled HST in the plaintiffs' individual SABs cases. Without any such findings, the regulator argues, it's not possible to say the regulator was negligent or acted in bad faith. [GN] [*] Litigation Financing Can Provide Benefits to Minn. Businesses ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Fling, Esq. -- pfling@foxrothschild.com -- of Fox Rothschild LLP, in an article for Bloomberg Law, reports that litigation financing is often considered a tool used by individual and class action plaintiffs, but it also provides benefits to any sized business, says Fox Rothschild LLP's Paul Fling and summer associate Kaitie Eke. Following the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision allowing it in the state, businesses should consider litigation financing to mitigate the risk of litigation and free up cash flow. How knowledgeable are you regarding litigation financing? If you're involved with a business operating in Minnesota, it may be time to increase that knowledge, as it can benefit businesses and in-house legal departments. Recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court opened the door for litigation financing in Minnesota; a practice that was formerly prohibited. Litigation financing involves a third party (the litigation funder) providing funding for a party in a lawsuit -- typically the plaintiff—in exchange for a portion of that party's recovery. In Maslowski v. Prospect Funding Partners LLC, the Minnesota Supreme Court determined that Minnesota's prohibition against litigation financing "is no longer necessary" because "the rules of professional responsibility and civil procedure address the abuses of the legal process that necessitated" such prohibition. Notably, the court did leave the door open to challenge the validity of specific litigation financing agreements on the basis of equity, and acknowledged the Legislature's ability to further regulate the practice. Despite such unknowns, however, the Maslowski decision validates the use of litigation financing in Minnesota and throws the door wide open for entities to take advantage of what it has to offer. While some may associate litigation financing with plaintiffs' personal injury claims or class action lawsuits, those uses are just the tip of the iceberg. Litigation financing can be just as beneficial to businesses -- both small and large -- and in-house legal departments. Litigation financing's benefits, and potential threats, may prove especially poignant for companies in the age of Covid-19. Benefits of Litigation Financing for Businesses In light of Maslowski, Minnesota businesses should consider how litigation financing can help them achieve their goals. Often, businesses and in-house legal departments must decide between pursuing their legal rights -- for example, by litigating violations of noncompete agreements or protecting intellectual property rights -- or allowing such rights to go unprotected to mitigate financial risk. Litigation financing may ease the difficulty of such decisions and the Minnesota Supreme Court itself points out two significant benefits businesses enjoy when they engage litigation financing: mitigating risk and freeing up cash flow. Litigation financing mitigates the risk to a company as it pursues litigation. This mitigation begins even before execution of a financing agreement. Typically, litigation finance firms include knowledgeable professionals with significant litigation experience. These firms leverage this expertise and undergo due diligence prior to investing in a company's claims. This due diligence provides an objective third-party assessment of claims' merits and helps businesses make informed decisions about whether to pursue legal action based on predictions regarding the likely outcome of litigation. Further, litigation financing agreements themselves are often non-recourse. This means businesses that secure financing need only repay it if they recover a pre-determined amount through a judgment or settlement. Under such terms, litigation financing can enable a business to pursue its claims while minimizing the risk inherent in litigation. Litigation financing can also help businesses optimally manage cash flow, profitability, and assets. Often, litigation funders commit to paying the upfront fees and expenses of litigation. Simply put, this frees up money that businesses can use for operational expenses and growth, when otherwise such money would be put toward litigation. Third-party payment of litigation expenses also keeps such expenses off businesses' books, allowing companies to avoid the possible hit litigation could cause to profits. Additionally, the right litigation claim can be a valuable asset. By pursuing thoroughly vetted and funded claims, businesses can maximize the potential value of settlements or judgments and take full advantage of these assets. Businesses may also enjoy less direct benefits of litigation financing. Outside funds may provide companies with a wider array of representation choices, such as attorneys who do not work on a contingent basis. Further, by taking advantage of the benefits of litigation financing to pursue claims, businesses may better position themselves for success as defendants in other suits, where funds freed up by litigation funding may provide them with more leverage and flexibility in settlement discussions. Additional Business Considerations Post-Maslowski Businesses operating in Minnesota should also be aware of the potential threats litigation financing could have for their interests. Specifically, it often involves funding plaintiffs' claims or larger class action lawsuits against businesses. Backed by litigation firms, plaintiffs may be better funded and incentivized to pursue claims they otherwise would not have. Plaintiffs' claims may also be stronger. Just as businesses can gain the advantage of having potential claims vetted, so can individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs may therefore come into suits especially prepared and well-informed. Such considerations may be particularly consequential given current events. Many legal commentators predict that certain types of litigation will rise due to Covid-19, the economic downturn, and the increasing pressure on the health care system. As a result, an uptick in employment, medical malpractice, and insurance related claims could be right around the corner. With the backing of litigation funders, plaintiffs will likely be in a better position to pursue these claims. Businesses and in-house counsel should consider that such claims may increase and prepare to meet these challenges head on. [GN] [*] New Consumer Rights Law May Bring Little Change --------------------------------------------------- The Financial Express reports that while the Consumer Protection Act 1986 guaranteed protection of the rights of consumers, it was not equipped to deal with digital-age problems, where e-commerce and direct sellers get away with infractions. However, the government introduced a new Bill last year that created a regulator -- the previous consumer protection law had no regulator -- to secure consumers' rights. The new law comes into effect on July 20, and one of the biggest changes is the right of a consumer to sue a company at the place of her residence and not where the company specifies. More important, the consumer can also request attendance/hearings via video conference, which will cut the cost of litigation. The Act also fixes liabilities on sellers for misleading advertisement and faulty product/service, and states that cases must be closed at the earliest. The government is still to address some challenges, and the Economic Times reports that e-commerce rules will take a week or two to be notified. Despite several attempts by courts to give a verdict within 15 days of the hearing, cases have dragged on for outrageous lengths of time. Without a strong tort law ecosystem, the consumer will likely not get a fair deal. Class action will make a stronger case for the court to impose a pinching penalty on errant firms, which would then perhaps ensure that the consumer is not taken for granted. Else, a mere change in law will mean little. [GN] [*] Spilman Thomas Attorneys Discuss COVID-19 Class Action Trend ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Ford, Esq. -- jford@spilmanlaw.com -- Risa Katz-Albert, Esq. -- rkatz-albert@spilmanlaw.com -- Sarah Kowalkowski, Esq., Joseph Schaeffer, Esq., Chelsea Thompson, Esq., and James Walls III, Esq., of Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC, in an article for JDSupra, report that the 15th edition of unprecedented, weekly update on COVID-19-related litigation, showcases new and evolving trends. The lawyers note how COVID-19 has accelerated a pre-existing trend toward class action litigation. And the lawyers discuss specific trends involving workplace safety, mask requirements, shutdown orders, quarantine enforcement, and prisoners' rights. These cases, and others like them, show no signs of cooling down as the summer heats up. The lawsyers hope you find these cases, and the questions they raise, to be informative. What level of protection is needed for frontline workers? The Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas, a joint bargaining agency that represents numerous unions in the hospitality industry, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against three prominent Las Vegas hotel-casinos. Through this action, the Joint Board seeks to enjoin these hotel-casino Defendants from "promulgating and following unreasonable rules and procedures" related to union members' safety and the Defendants' response to confirmed COVID-19 cases. According to the Joint Board's complaint, workers at Defendants' hotel-casinos have contracted COVID-19 due to the Defendants' insufficient safety precautions, such as the recommendation (rather that the requirement) for guests to wear face masks. Compounding this problem, the Joint Board alleges that the Defendants failed to take appropriate corrective actions in response to their workers' positive COVID-19 results in failing to immediately conduct contact tracing and failing to immediately notify workers of their potential exposure. The Joint Board requests an injunction that will require Defendants to improve their procedures to protect workers from contracting COVID-19 and their procedures for responding to known outbreaks among their workers. The Joint Board's complaint can be found here, and news coverage can be found here. Some states are beginning to offer limited legal protections from lawsuits related to COVID-19. The governor of Tennessee entered an executive order effective July 2, 2020 that provides liability protection for health care providers in lawsuits related to contraction of, or suspected contraction of, COVID-19, except in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct. The order remains in effect until July 31, 2020 but may be extended. The Tennessee legislature has discussed granting COVID-related liability protection to businesses in other industries but has not reached an agreement. The governor's order can be found here, and news coverage can be found here. Will the number of class actions continue to trend upward in this new legal environment? Even before the COVID-19 pandemic made its way across America, class action lawsuits had been on the rise. Now, COVID-19 has caused that trend to pick up even more steam. As of the end of May 2020, at least 560 COVID-19-related class actions had been filed. About half of these new claims involve business interruption insurance coverage or education refunds. Many more cases seek refunds from gyms, entertainment venues, airlines, and other service providers who were forced to cancel or postpone services as a result of the pandemic. News coverage about this uptick in class action litigation is available here. Are prisons doing enough to protect inmates during the COVID-19 pandemic? The Southern Center for Human Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia have filed a federal lawsuit against the Clayton County (Georgia) Sheriff and members of his staff on behalf of four people held in the Clayton County Jail, seeking to make it into a class action. Among the allegations that the jail is understaffed, unsanitary, and failing to reasonably respond to the known risk of a COVID-19 outbreak, plaintiffs allege constitutional violations to the inmates' rights in the form of cruel and unusual punishment and due process issues. Damages sought include an order to release or transfer some of the inmates, specifically those most medically vulnerable, as well as improving jailhouse conditions through better social distancing measures and providing personal protective equipment. As of June 11, 2020, forty-five people (thirty-two inmates and thirteen employees) had tested positive for COVID-19, and it appears that the only cleaning supplies afforded to inmates are toilet paper and four fluid ounces of liquid soap per inmate per week, which are designated as their personal hygiene supplies. Further, the lawsuit alleges that the jail is 96% full, and cells that usually house only two inmates are being used for three or four people at a time. Of note, this is the third federal lawsuit against Clayton County's sheriff since June 2020, the others pertaining to excessive force and the Georgia Open Records Act in relation to information about COVID-19 testing in the facility. A legal advisor for the Clayton County Sheriff's Office has issued a statement that there is no outbreak in the facility and that they will defend against the claims in court. News coverage is available here. Are businesses in a Catch-22 over mask requirements? Some consumer-facing businesses are now required by law to enforce mask requirements, and others have done so voluntarily to protect customers and employees. But a new wave of lawsuits suggests that businesses are facing a Catch-22 over these requirements—either ignore them and face criminal liability or tort lawsuits from COVID-19-positive customers and employees, or enforce them and face lawsuits under the Americans with Disability Act or similar state laws. The Pittsburgh-area theme parks of Kennywood, Sandcastle, and Idlewild are the latest to experience this conundrum, which already has affected the Giant Eagle grocery chain. In a recent lawsuit against the theme parks, the plaintiffs, who allege that either they or their children suffer from autism or muscular dystrophy, argue that they are unable to wear masks because of breathing or sensory issues. These facts, according to the plaintiffs, should exempt them from the theme parks' mask requirements under either Pennsylvania Governor Wolf's order or the ADA. Nonetheless, the plaintiffs allege that they have been denied entry to the parks and lost the benefit of their season passes. They accordingly request an injunction against the mask requirement and compensatory and punitive damages. News coverage of the lawsuit is available here, and the complaint is available here. What prompted litigation over shutdown orders? The Republican National Committee and President Trump's plans to hold their convention in Jacksonville, Florida ran into a potential roadblock when a group of Florida residents, putatively representing the State of Florida, sued to prevent the convention from going forward. The plaintiffs allege that the RNC convention will be a public nuisance because it will bring thousands of people together in close proximity, under conditions likely to spread the novel coronavirus, and in an area already experiencing elevated infection rates. They ask the court for an order closing the convention's planned location or, alternatively, conditioning the convention's occurrence on compliance with now-familiar mitigation guidelines, such as social distancing and disinfectant measures. A copy of the complaint is available here. As COVID-19 resurges in the U.S., can governments enforce quarantines? Lawsuits across the country have challenged the state's various stay-at-home orders and quarantine mandates, and we have been tracking and reporting on their progress. Now, we have seen the exact opposite type of lawsuit -- where a governmental entity is suing an individual to enforce the quarantine. Hunt County is home to roughly 96,000 people in northeast Texas and is working to combat COVID-19 and was subject to the Texas Governor Greg Abbott's March 31, 2020 stay-at-home order. That order has since been lifted, and Texas had a phased reopening beginning on or about May 1, 2020. As part of its efforts to combat COVID-19, Hunt County created a fund that provides compensation to individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 to allow them to complete the mandatory quarantine without the financial pressure to return to work. Despite this financial assistance, Hunt County became aware that individual(s) who had tested positive for COVID-19 were nonetheless blatantly ignoring the mandated quarantine period, and continuing to go to work, go shopping, and otherwise interact with the community. Despite clear warnings and instructions to stay home until testing negative, the individual(s) continued to go into the community. In response, on July 1, 2020, Hunt County filed a lawsuit seeking a judicial order requiring an individual who had tested positive for COVID-19 to stay home until he/she/they tested negative. This case was sealed pursuant to HIPAA to protect the individual's privacy. The Court granted the order within a week, providing one of the first uses of the legal system to actually enforce a quarantine mandate. This lawsuit comes on the tails of some of Texas' record-breaking days for new infections. The seven-day positive testing rate (the percentage of positive cases to tests conducted averaged over seven days) for COVID-19 in Texas has reached 16.3% -- a record-breaking number that surpasses anything previously seen. Hospitals also are affected, as the number of Texans hospitalized for COVID-19 has reached new record highs. Governor Abbott admitted that "COVID-19 is now spreading at an unacceptable rate in Texas." This rapid spread of COVID-19 explains, in part, why Hunt County sought legal enforcement of a mandated quarantine on an individual with COVID-19. Hunt County is likely not an anomaly--Brooks County, in southern Texas, has also publicly warned that it intends to arrest and prosecute individuals who test positive for COVID-19 and flout mandatory quarantine. It is something to keep an eye on, particularly as some members of Texas' Congress are calling for a new, state-wide stay-at-home order. After all, Texas is only one of many states seeing a vicious resurgence of COVID-19 infection. News coverage can be found here and here. [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 ***