/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200805.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, August 5, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 156
Headlines
ABBVIE INC: Faces Teamsters Suit Over Monopoly of Bystolic Market
ABBVIE INC: UFCW Local 1500 Sues Over Monopoly of Bystolic Market
ACTS-AVIATION: Pagan Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
ADAPT CLOTHING: Faces Guglielmo ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
ADMIRAL SPORTSWEAR: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ADVANTIS MEDICAL: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Alghetta Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Barrett Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Carpino Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Cook Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Johnson Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
ALLINA HEALTH: Settlement in Larson Class Suit Has Final Approval
ALPHA INDUSTRIES: Guglielmo Sues in New York Over ADA Violation
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal in Anti-Steering Rules Litig. Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: B&R Supermarket Suit in New York Ongoing
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Fianna Family Dentistry Files Suit in Arkansas
ANIXTER INC: Tamayo Labor Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
ARCH INSURANCE: Staley Files Suit in Colorado
ARGOS USA: Kelly Class Suit Removed to District of South Carolina
ASPEN SPECIALTY: Denies Coverage for COVID Losses, Bradley Claims
ASSOULINE INC: Guglielmo Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
BALL GENTLEMEN'S CLUB: Jones Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Dancers
BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS: Rascon Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
BHANG CORP: Court Issues Protective Order in Ballard Suit
BLUE CROSS: Sanjiv Goel Fraud Suit Removed to C.D. California
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Neverson Appeals Ruling in Callahan Labor Suit
CARDINALHIRE INC: Tsernoh Files Suit in California
CAVALIA USA: Eaton Suit Removed From Super. Court to N.D. Calif.
CENTRAL TEXAS COLLEGE: Marrero Seeks Tuition Refunds Amid COVID-19
CGI FEDERAL: Settlement in Tollini Class Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
COLONY CAPITAL: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of Lawsuit
CONAGRA BRANDS: Appeal in Briseno Settlement Still Pending
CONAGRA BRANDS: Negrete Class Action Still Ongoing
CONAGRA BRANDS: West Palm Beach Firefighters' Suit Ongoing
CONRAD CREDIT: Angeles Sues in N.D. Ohio Alleging FDCPA Violation
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Williams FLSA Suit
CROCS INC: Cota Sues in S.D. California Alleging Violation of ADA
DAN POST BOOT: Hecht Alleges Violation under ADA
DD TRADERS INC: Hecht Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
EMPIRE MEDS: Masters Files Consumer Class Suit in S.D. California
EMPIRE RESORTS: Faces MH Haberkorn Stockholder Suit in Delaware
ENERGY RECOVERY: Frank R. Cruz Files Securities Class Action
ENERGY RECOVERY: Gross Law Announces Class Action Filing
ENERGY RECOVERY: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Class Action
ENPHASE ENERGY: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
EPIQ SYSTEMS: Karter Data Breach Suit Removed to C.D. California
EVERQUOTE INC: Faces Scavo TCPA Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
FUN.COM INC: Guglielmo Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
GEICO: Sued for Alleged "Woefully Inadequate" Insurance Discount
GM PROJECTS: Calle Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of FLSA
GRAHAM PACKAGING: Bernal Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
HALSTED FINANCIAL: Krasne Files Suit under FDCPA
HOME DEPOT: Carlson Suit Removed From Super. Court to W.D. Wash.
HOP ENERGY: Callery Suit Transferred to Pa. Dist. Ct.
HUMANA INC: Faces Winters TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
INSPERITY INC: Barbuto & Johansson Files Securities Class Action
INSPERITY INC: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action Filing
INSPERITY INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of September 21 Deadline
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline
KINGOLD JEWELRY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 31 Deadline
LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON, KY: Scott Sues Over Civil Rights Violation
MANAGED LABOR: Denies Health Insurance Coverage, Poliner Alleges
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Rivera FDCPA Suit Over Collection Letter
MIDLAND CREDIT: Kouassi Files Suit Over FDCPA Violation
MIDLAND CREDIT: Lebovits Asserts Breach of FDCPA
MIDLAND CREDIT: Weathers Sues in Illinois Over Violation of FDCPA
MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Armstrong Files Civil Rights Class Action
MORGANS HOTEL: De Moreno Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
NASHVILLE BOOTING: Faces Lawsuit Over Unlawful Business Practices
NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Faces Kovich Suit in S.D. West Virginia
NESPRESSO USA: Zine Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to N.D. California
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Santiago in Gulino Bias Suit
PHILLIPS 66: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Schweitzer ERISA Suit
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Court Issues Protective Order in Guzman Suit
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Antonov Asserts Breach of FDCPA
PSYCHEMEDICS CORP: Sagastume Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
RCI LLC: Williams-Young Files Consumer Suit in Florida
REGENT UNIVERSITY: Hedges Sues in New York Over Violation of ADA
RICHELIEU FOODS: Gonzalez BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Kelly Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
SAPUTO CHEESE: Vasquez Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Gross Law Announces Class Action Filing
STEEL SUPPLEMENTS: Avedyan Class Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
SUTTER VALLEY: Faces Skeri Suit in California Superior Court
TENDERLOIN HOUSING: Fennix Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
TERMINAL ISLAND, CA: Wilson Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
THIRTY MADISON: Young Suit Asserts Breach of ADA
TOOTSIE ROLL: Maisel Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. California
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Douglas Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Illinois
TRI-STATE INT'L: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Cruz Alleges
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Robbins LLP Announces Securities Class Action
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Blinds Can't Access Web Site, Hedges Says
WATKINS & SHEPARD: Romero Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir.
WATKINS INCORPORATED: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WATTS HEALTHCARE: Flournoy Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
WELLS FARGO: Robbins LLP Announces Securities Class Action
WHOLESOME HARVEST: Wilson Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
WW INTERNATIONAL: Quintanilla Suit Removed to C.D. California
*********
ABBVIE INC: Faces Teamsters Suit Over Monopoly of Bystolic Market
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 237 WELFARE FUND and TEAMSTERS LOCAL 237 RETIREES'
BENEFIT FUND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. ABBVIE INC., ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN SALES, LLC,
ALLERGAN USA, INC., FOREST LABORATORIES, INC., FOREST LABORATORIES
HOLDINGS, LTD., FOREST LABORATORIES IRELAND, LTD., and FOREST
LABORATORIES, LLC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05813 (S.D.N.Y., July 27,
2020), arises from the Defendants' illegal scheme to delay
competition in the United States and its territories for Bystolic.
Bystolic(TM) is a prescription medication containing the active
pharmaceutical ingredient nebivolol hydrochloride and approved by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of
hypertension. Bystolic(TM) is a beta blocker that blocks the
effects of the hormone epinephrine, thereby, causing the heart to
beat more slowly and with less force, which in turn lowers blood
pressure. In recent years, annual sales of Bystolic(TM) in the
United States have been over $600 million.
The Plaintiffs bring this action as end-payers of Bystolic(TM), on
their own behalf and on behalf of classes of all similarly situated
end-payers. End-payers are the final link in the chain of
distribution of pharmaceuticals; they include consumers and those
who pay for any portion of the price the consumer does not pay for
(e.g. insurers and health and welfare plans like Plaintiffs). The
Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' unlawful conduct has
prevented generic nebivolol hydrochloride manufacturers from
entering the market with competing generic products and has cost
Plaintiffs and the Classes hundreds of millions of dollars in
overcharge damages.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages, including multiple damages,
under the state antitrust and consumer protection laws enumerated
below. The Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief under federal
law.
The Plaintiffs are Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund and Teamsters
Local 237 Retirees' Benefit Fund. Local 237 consists of two health
and welfare benefit plans and is headquartered and with a principal
place of business in New, York.
AbbVie is an American publicly traded biopharmaceutical company
founded in 2013. AbbVie originated as a spin-off of Abbott
Laboratories. Allergan, Inc. was an American global pharmaceutical
company focused on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology,
medical aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and
urologics. Forest Laboratories was a company in the pharmaceutical
industry incorporated in Delaware, with its principal office in New
York City.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian Murray, Esq.
Lee Albert, Esq.
Greg Linkh, Esq.
Brian Brooks, 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
glinkh@glancylaw.com
bbrooks@glancylaw.com
- and -
Dena Sharp, Esq.
Scott M. Grzrencyzk, Esq.
Tom Watts, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com
scottg@girardsharp.com
tomw@girardsharp.com
ABBVIE INC: UFCW Local 1500 Sues Over Monopoly of Bystolic Market
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UFCW LOCAL 1500 WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. ABBVIE INC., ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN SALES,
LLC, ALLERGAN USA, INC., FOREST LABORATORIES, INC., FOREST
LABORATORIES HOLDINGS, LTD., FOREST LABORATORIES IRELAND, LTD., and
FOREST LABORATORIES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05837 (S.D.N.Y., July
27, 2020), arises from the Defendants' illegal scheme to delay
competition in the United States and its territories for Bystolic.
Bystolic(TM) is a prescription medication containing the active
pharmaceutical ingredient nebivolol hydrochloride and approved by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of
hypertension. Bystolic(TM) is a beta blocker that blocks the
effects of the hormone epinephrine, thereby, causing the heart to
beat more slowly and with less force, which in turn lowers blood
pressure. In recent years, annual sales of Bystolic(TM) in the
United States have been over $600 million.
The Plaintiff brings this action as end-payers of Bystolic(TM), on
its own behalf and on behalf of classes of all similarly situated
end-payers. End-payers are the final link in the chain of
distribution of pharmaceuticals; they include consumers and those
who pay for any portion of the price the consumer does not pay for
(e.g. insurers and health and welfare plans like Plaintiffs). The
Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' unlawful conduct has
prevented generic nebivolol hydrochloride manufacturers from
entering the market with competing generic products and has cost
the Plaintiff and the Classes hundreds of millions of dollars in
overcharge damages.
The Plaintiff and the Classes seek to recover damages, including
multiple damages, under the state antitrust and consumer protection
laws enumerated below. The Plaintiff and the Classes also seek
injunctive relief under federal law.
Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund is an employee welfare
benefits fund with its principal place of business at 425 Merrick
Avenue, in Westbury, New York.
AbbVie is an American publicly traded biopharmaceutical company
founded in 2013. AbbVie originated as a spin-off of Abbott
Laboratories. Allergan, Inc. was an American global pharmaceutical
company focused on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology,
medical aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and
urologics. Forest Laboratories was a company in the pharmaceutical
industry incorporated in Delaware, with its principal office in New
York City.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
Domenica Minerva, Esq.
Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
Veronica Bosco, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
kgarvey@labaton.com
dminerva@labaton.com
mperez@labaton.com
vbosco@labaton.com
- and -
Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
Paul Costa, Esq.
Adam Pessin, Esq.
Mary L. Russell, Esq.
FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 567-6565
Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
pcosta@finekaplan.com
apessin@finekaplan.com
ACTS-AVIATION: Pagan Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DORIS EDELMIRA PAGAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ACTS-AVIATION SECURITY, INC., a corporation, GATE SAFE, INC., a
corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV19907
(Filed May 22, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on July 27,
2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-06686 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for
failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods,
failure to pay overtime, failure to pay minimum wages, and failure
to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees under the
Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code.
ACTS-Aviation Security is part of a global aviation security and
customer service company serving over 350 airports and airlines in
more than 23 countries.[BN]
Defendant ACTS-Aviation is represented by:
Timothy M. Freudenberger, Esq.
Nancy N. Lubrano, Esq.
Brian E. Cole II, Esq.
CAROTHERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP
18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 622-1661
E-mail: tfreud@cdflaborlaw.com
nlubrano@cdflaborlaw.com
bcole@cdflaborlaw.com
ADAPT CLOTHING: Faces Guglielmo ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adapt Clothing, Inc.
The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Adapt Clothing, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-05915 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Adapt is a clothing company who recognize and represent the ideas
of positive change and personal advancement.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
ADMIRAL SPORTSWEAR: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Admiral Sportswear
LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Admiral Sportswear LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-05916 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Admiral Sportswear is a British owned sports brand that has history
in both football and fashion.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
ADVANTIS MEDICAL: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The San Dieg Labor Law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik
De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against Advantis Medical
Staffing, LLC, alleging that the company violated labor laws by
failing to provide accurate wages and not providing required rest
periods to their employees. The class action lawsuit against
Advantis Medical Staffing, LLC, is currently pending in the San
Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2020-00022305-CU-OE-CTL.
The lawsuit filed against Advantis Medical Staffing, LLC, alleges
the company (a) failed to pay minimum wages, (b) failed to pay
overtime wages, (c) failed to provide required meal periods, (d)
failed to provide required rest periods, (e) failed to provide
accurate itemized statements, (f) failed to provide wages when due,
and (g) failed to reimburse employees for required expenses, all in
violation of the applicable Labor Code sections listed in Labor
Code Sections ยงยง 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197,
1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s), and thereby gives
rise to civil penalties as a result of such alleged conduct.
Additionally, the complaint further alleges Advantis Medical
Staffing, LLC, committed acts of unfair competition in violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec.
17200, et seq. (the "UCL"), by engaging in a company-wide policy
and procedure which failed to accurately calculate and record the
correct overtime rate for the overtime worked by PLAINTIFF and
other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. As a result of DEFENDANT's
intentional disregard of the obligation to meet this burden,
DEFENDANT allegedly failed to properly calculate and/or pay all
required overtime compensation for work performed by the members of
the CALIFORNIA CLASS and violated the California Labor Code.
Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, is a labor law firm
with law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los
Angeles County, Orange County, Sacramento County, and San Francisco
County. The firm has a statewide practice of representing employees
on a contingency basis for violations involving unpaid
wages,overtime pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful
termination and other types of illegal workplace conduct. [GN]
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Alghetta Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELE ALGHETTA and ARMEEN ALGHETTA v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as
ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100,
Case No. 2:20-cv-09453-BRM-JAD (D.N.J., July 27, 2020), is brought
on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
alleging that the Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are
defective.
The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a
worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) called for the action following new
information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of
breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma
("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants.
Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the
breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that
has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast
implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a
permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in
breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and
can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly
treated.
The FDA determined the risk of developing BIA-ALCL was six times
higher with Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants when compared with
textured implants from other manufacturers, the lawsuit says.
In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases
of BIA-ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as a
result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are
as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants;
Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants;
Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled
Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL
texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander
(K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs
(K102806).
On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL
Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL
textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that
Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the
BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will
not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the
surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them
with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months,
until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on
or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019.
As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the
removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of
developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiffs contend that they will be
forced to expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs
associated with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost
opportunity costs associated with post-surgery recovery time.
The Alghetta case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN RE:
ALLERGAN BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION.
Michele Alghetta was implanted with Natrelle 168 BIOCELL Textured
Round Saline Breast Implants. She did not receive any update or
warning from ALLERGAN any time before or after her surgeries in
November 1993 and September 1997 about the clearly established link
between ALLERGAN'S BIOCELL Textured Breast Implants and BIA-ALCL.
Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and
silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or
"BIOCELL textured implants").[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
1212 SE Third Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315
Telephone: (954) 467-8800
Facsimile: (954) 320-9509
E-mail: jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Barrett Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
----------------------------------------------------------------
JILLIAN BARRETT v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.;
ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No.
2:20-cv-09456 (D.N.J., July 27, 2020), is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that the
Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are defective.
The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a
worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) called for the action following new
information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of
breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma
("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants.
Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the
breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that
has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast
implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a
permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in
breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and
can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly
treated.
The FDA determined the risk of developing BIA-ALCL was six times
higher with Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants when compared with
textured implants from other manufacturers, the lawsuit says.
In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases
of BIA-ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as a
result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are
as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants;
Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants;
Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled
Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL
texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander
(K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs
(K102806).
On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL
Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL
textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that
Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the
BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will
not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the
surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them
with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months,
until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on
or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019.
As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the
removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of
developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiff contends that she will be forced
to expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs
associated with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost
opportunity costs associated with post-surgery recovery time.
The Barrett case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN RE: ALLERGAN
BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Jillian Barrett was implanted with Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive
Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled Breast Implants. She did not
receive any update or warning from ALLERGAN any time before or
after her surgery in January 2016 about the clearly established
link between ALLERGAN'S BIOCELL Textured Breast Implants and
BIA-ALCL.
Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and
silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or
"BIOCELL textured implants").[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
1212 SE Third Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315
Telephone: (954) 467-8800
Facsimile: (954) 320-9509
E-mail: jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Carpino Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRIE CARPINO and MICHAEL CARPINO v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as
ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100,
Case No. 2:20-cv-09481 (D.N.J., July 27, 2020), is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated alleging
that the Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are defective.
The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a
worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) called for the action following new
information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of
breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma
("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants.
Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the
breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that
has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast
implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a
permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in
breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and
can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly
treated.
The FDA determined the risk of developing BIA-ALCL was six times
higher with Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants when compared with
textured implants from other manufacturers, the lawsuit says.
In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases
of BIA-ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as a
result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are
as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants;
Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants;
Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled
Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL
texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander
(K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs
(K102806).
On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL
Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL
textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that
Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the
BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will
not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the
surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them
with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months,
until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on
or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019.
As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the
removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of
developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiffs contend that they will be
forced to expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs
associated with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost
opportunity costs associated with post-surgery recovery time.
The Carpino case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN RE: ALLERGAN
BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Terrie carpino was implanted with Style TRF Allergan Natrelle
Inspira Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants. She did not
receive any update or warning from ALLERGAN any time before or
after her surgery in April 2017 about the clearly established link
between ALLERGAN'S BIOCELL Textured Breast Implants and BIA-ALCL.
Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and
silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or
"BIOCELL textured implants").[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
1212 SE Third Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315
Telephone: (954) 467-8800
Facsimile: (954) 320-9509
E-mail: jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Cook Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARY CAROLINE COOK v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.;
ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No.
2:20-cv-09428 (D.N.J., July 24, 2020), is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that the
Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are defective.
The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a
worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) called for the action following new
information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of
breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma
("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants.
Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the
breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that
has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast
implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a
permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in
breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and
can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly
treated.
The FDA determined the risk of developing BIA-ALCL was six times
higher with Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants when compared with
textured implants from other manufacturers, the lawsuit says.
In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases
of BIA- ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as
a result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are
as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants;
Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants;
Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled
Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL
texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander
(K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs
(K102806).
On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL
Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL
textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that
Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the
BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will
not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the
surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them
with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months,
until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on
or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019.
As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the
removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of
developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiff contends that she will be forced
to expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs
associated with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost
opportunity costs associated with post-surgery recovery time.
The Cook case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN RE: ALLERGAN
BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
The Plaintiff was implanted with Allergan's BIOCELL textured breast
implants after undergoing a double mastectomy. Thereafter, she
underwent a revision surgery, wherein she was again implanted with
Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants. The Plaintiff's textured
breast implants were later recalled by the FDA on July 24, 2019.
Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and
silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or
"BIOCELL textured implants").[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caroline Thomas White, Esq.
MURRAY LAW FIRM
650 Poydras St., Ste. 2150
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: 504-525-8100
Facsimile: 504-584-5249
E-mail: cthomas@murray-lawfirm.com
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Johnson Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEANA JOHNSON v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN,
INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:20-cv-09449
(D.N.J., July 27, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated alleging that the Defendants' BIOCELL
textured implants are defective.
The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a
worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) called for the action following new
information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of
breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma
("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants.
Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the
breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that
has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast
implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a
permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in
breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and
can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly
treated.
The FDA determined the risk of developing BIA-ALCL was six times
higher with Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants when compared with
textured implants from other manufacturers, the lawsuit says.
In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases
of BIA-ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as a
result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are
as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants;
Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants;
Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled
Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL
texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander
(K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs
(K102806).
On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL
Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL
textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that
Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the
BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will
not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the
surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them
with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months,
until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on
or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019.
As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the
removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of
developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiff contends that she will be forced
to expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs
associated with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost
opportunity costs associated with post-surgery recovery time.
The Johnson case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN RE: ALLERGAN
BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Jeana Johnson was implanted with Style TRM Natrelle Silicone-Filled
Textured Breast Implants. She did not receive any update or warning
from ALLERGAN any time before or after her surgery in April 2017
about the clearly established link between ALLERGAN'S BIOCELL
Textured Breast Implants and BIA-ALCL.
Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and
silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or
"BIOCELL textured implants").[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
1212 SE Third Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315
Telephone: (954) 467-8800
Facsimile: (954) 320-9509
E-mail: jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com
ALLINA HEALTH: Settlement in Larson Class Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan Richard Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota has entered final approval of the class
settlement in Judy Larson, et al.'s class action complaint against
Allina Health System, et al.
The case is Judy Larson, Janelle Mausolf, and Karen Reese,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Allina Health System; the Allina Health
System Board of Directors; the Allina Health System Retirement
Committee; the Allina Health System Chief Administrative Officer;
the Allina Health System Chief Human Resources Officer; Clay
Ahrens; John I. Allen; Jennifer Alstad; Gary Bhojwani; Barbara
Butts-Williams; John R. Church; Laura Gillund; Joseph Goswitz; Greg
Heinemann; David Kuplic; Hugh T. Nierengarten; Sahra Noor; Brian
Rosenberg; Debbra L. Schoneman; Thomas S. Schreier, Jr.; Abir Sen,
Sally J. Smith; Darrell Tukua; Penny Wheeler; Duncan Gallagher;
Christine Webster Moore; Kristyn Mullin; Steve Wallner; John T.
Knight; and John Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-03835
(SRN/TNL) (D. Minn.).
Judge Nelson finds that that the Settlement embodied in the
parties' Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate.
Accordingly, for the sole purpose of settling and resolving the
Action, the Judge certified the Action as a class action pursuant
to Rules 23(a) and (b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Settlement Class is defined as all current and former
participants and beneficiaries (excluding the Defendants and their
Immediate Family Members) of the Allina Health System 403(b)
Retirement Savings Plan and the Allina 401(k) Retirement Savings
Plan at any time between Aug. 18, 2011 and Nov. 21, 2019.
The Court appointed Named Plaintiffs Judy Larson, Janelle Mausolf,
and Karen Reese as the class representatives for the Settlement
Class; and appointed Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Bailey &
Glasser LLP, Izard Kindall & Raabe LLP, and Nichols Kaster, PLLP as
the Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.
The Plan of Allocation is finally approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate. The Class Counsel will direct distribution of the Net
Proceeds in accordance with the Plan of Allocation and the
Settlement Agreement.
The Action is dismissed without prejudice with a direction to the
clerk of the Court to enter final judgment pursuant to FED. R. CIV.
P. 54(b), finding that there is no just reason for delay of
enforcement or appeal of the instant Order. The dismissal without
prejudice is solely to allow the Court to supervise the
administration of the Settlement.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 22, 2020 Final Order
is available at https://is.gd/euXqHy from Leagle.com.
ALPHA INDUSTRIES: Guglielmo Sues in New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpha Industries of
Virginia, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Alpha Industries of
Virginia, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05917 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Alpha Industries, Inc. of Virginia manufactures apparels. The
Company offers jackets, pants, and other clothing apparels for
aviators, soldiers, and sailors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal in Anti-Steering Rules Litig. Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2020 for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the plaintiffs' appeal
in the putative class action suit entitled, In re: American Express
Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II), is pending.
A putative merchant class action in the Eastern District of New
York, consolidated in 2011 and collectively captioned In re:
American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II),
alleged that provisions in the company's merchant agreements
prohibiting merchants from differentially surcharging the company's
cards or steering a customer to use another network's card or
another type of general-purpose card ("anti-steering" and
"non-discrimination" contractual provisions) violate U.S. antitrust
laws.
On January 15, 2020, the company's motion to compel arbitration of
claims brought by merchants who accept American Express and to
dismiss claims of merchants who do not was granted.
Plaintiffs have appealed part of this decision.
American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
charge and credit payment card products, and travel-related
services to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Global Consumer Services Group, Global Commercial
Services, and Global Merchant and Network Services. American
Express Company was founded in 1850 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: B&R Supermarket Suit in New York Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the class action suit
initiated by B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's Market and Grove
Liquors LLC, is ongoing.
On March 8, 2016, plaintiffs B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's
Market and Grove Liquors LLC, on behalf of themselves and others,
filed a suit, captioned B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's Market,
et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., for violations of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, California's Cartwright
Act and unjust enrichment in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, against American Express
Company, other credit and charge card networks, other issuing banks
and EMVCo, LLC.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, through EMVCo, conspired to
shift liability for fraudulent, faulty and otherwise rejected
consumer credit card transactions from themselves to merchants
after the implementation of EMV chip payment terminals. Plaintiffs
seek damages and injunctive relief.
An amended complaint was filed on July 15, 2016. On September 30,
2016, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss as to claims
brought by merchants who do not accept American Express cards, and
on May 4, 2017, the California court transferred the case to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
charge and credit payment card products, and travel-related
services to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Global Consumer Services Group, Global Commercial
Services, and Global Merchant and Network Services. American
Express Company was founded in 1850 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Fianna Family Dentistry Files Suit in Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Medical &
Dental Supplies, Inc. The case is styled as Fianna Family
Dentistry, PLC, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. American Medical & Dental Supplies, Inc.,
doing business as: DDS Dental Supplies, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-02128-PKH (W.D. Ark., July 28, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
American Medical & Dental Supplies, Inc. is located in San
Fernando, CA, United States and is part of the Medical Equipment &
Supply Wholesalers Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Ryburn, Esq.
Ryburn Law Firm
650 S. Shackleford Rd., Ste. 231
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 228-8100
Fax: (501) 228-7300
Email: jason@ryburnlawfirm.com
ANIXTER INC: Tamayo Labor Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE TAMAYO, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated v. ANIXTER INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01142868-CU-OE-CXC (Filed
June 15, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on July 23, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-06662 to the proceeding.
The lawsuit alleges claims for relief, and seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums,
unpaid minimum wages, and final wages not paid timely in violation
of the Cal. Labor Code.
Anixter is a company based in Glenview, Illinois, and founded in
1957. The Company supplies communications and security products and
electrical and electronic wire and cable. Anixter is a Fortune 500
company.[BN]
Defendant Anixter Inc. is represented by:
Sheryl L. Skibbe, Esq.
Daniel C. Whang, Esq.
Elizabeth J. MacGregor, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
E-mail: sskibbe@seyfarth.com
dwhang@seyfarth.com
emacgregor@seyfarth.com
ARCH INSURANCE: Staley Files Suit in Colorado
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arch Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Chance Staley, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Arch
Insurance Company and Out of Towne, LLC d/b/a Red Sky Travel
Insurance, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02223 (D. Colo., July 28,
2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance filed
over the Diversity-Insurance Contract.
Arch Insurance is an insurance company in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher David Lindstrom, Esq.
Potts Law Firm LLP-Houston
3737 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 1900
Houston, TX 77098
Tel: (713) 963-8881
Fax: (713) 583-5388
Email: clindstrom@potts-law.com
ARGOS USA: Kelly Class Suit Removed to District of South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT AND CRYSTAL L. KELLY v.
ARGOS USA, LLC, Case No. 2020CP2700271 (Filed June 2, 2020), was
removed from the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas for the 14th
Judicial Circuit, Jasper County, to the U.S. District Court for
District of South Carolina (Beaufort) on July 27, 2020.
The District of South Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No.
9:20-cv-02746-RMG to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that they purchased a home in the
Palmetto Point subdivision in Bluffton, South Carolina. They allege
that Argos concrete was used in the construction of their
residence. They contend that Argos concrete used at their home
contained a high percentage of fly ash and improper filler.
Argos produces and distributes cements and aggregates.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Courtney C. Shytle, Esq.
MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
201 North Tryon Street, Suite 3000
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 343-2110
Facsimile: (704) 443-8710
E-mail: cshytle@mcguirewoods.com
ASPEN SPECIALTY: Denies Coverage for COVID Losses, Bradley Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY HOTEL CORP., doing business as Quality Inn & Suites
Bradley, and all others similarly situated v. ASPEN SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-04249 (N.D. Ill., July 20,
2020), arises out of Aspen Specialty's failure to provide insurance
coverage for losses incurred by the Plaintiff and those similarly
situated because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
The action seeks a declaratory judgment that affirms that the
COVID-19 pandemic and the corresponding response by civil
authorities triggers coverage, has caused physical property loss
and damage to the insured property, provides coverage for future
civil authority orders that result in future suspensions or
curtailments of business operations, and finds that Aspen Specialty
is liable for the losses suffered by policyholders.
The action also includes a claim against Aspen Specialty for breach
of its contractual obligation under its all-risk insurance policy
to indemnify the Plaintiff and others similarly situated, who have
suffered losses due to the measures put in place by civil
authorities' stay-at-home or shelter-in-place orders.
The Plaintiff brings this action for breach of contract and
declaratory relief on behalf of itself and a proposed class of
policyholders who paid premiums to Aspen Specialty in exchange for
all-risk commercial property insurance coverage that included lost
business income and extra expense coverage.
The Plaintiff operated the Quality Inn & Suites, a hotel located at
800 North Kinzie Avenue, in Bradley, Illinois. The Quality Inn &
Suites includes approximately 84 guest rooms, a lounge/bar,
restaurant, and a 12,000 square foot meeting room that can
accommodate up to 1,000 occupants.
Aspen Specialty is a surplus lines insurance carrier organized
under the laws of the State of North Dakota, with its principal
place of business in Rocky Hill, Connecticut. Aspen sold specialty
insurance products to a variety of commercial businesses, including
hotels and motels, throughout Illinois and the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mario M. Iveljic, Esq.
MAG MILE LAW LLC,
535 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 200
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (708) 576-1624
Facsimile: (847) 346-1947
E-mail: mario@magmilelaw.com
- and -
Robert R. Duncan, Esq.
DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC
161 N. Clark Street, Suite 2550
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 202-3283
Facsimile: (312) 202-3284
E-mail: rrd@duncanlawgroup.com
ASSOULINE INC: Guglielmo Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Assouline, Inc. The
case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Assouline, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-05921 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Assouline Publishing is a book publisher founded in 1994 by Prosper
and Martine Assouline. The Company has published about 1,500 titles
on subjects, including architecture, art, design, fashion,
gastronomy, lifestyle, photography and travel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
BALL GENTLEMEN'S CLUB: Jones Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Dancers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLE JONES v. THE BALL GENTLEMEN'S CLUB INC., CLUB BALL d/b/a
THE BALL GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, and JOHN NICHOLS, President of The Ball
Gentlemen's Club, Case No. 3:20-cv-00324 (E.D. Tenn., July 23,
2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated dancers seeking minimum wages and overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants willfully misrepresented
to her (and other similarly-situated dancers) the true nature of
the relationship, which was employer-employee, in an illegal effort
to force her to waive her FLSA protections and/or to convince her
she had no such legal protections. The only income she earned from
her work for the Defendants was the money paid to her by the
Defendants' customers at the customers' sole discretion.
The Plaintiff was a FLSA non-exempt employee employed by the
Defendants as an adult entertainer at their establishment in Knox
County, Tennessee.
The Defendants market themselves as an adult-oriented nightclub.
Their business model is to entertain paying customers by featuring
nude female dancers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James W. Friauf, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JAMES W. FRIAUF, PLLC
9724 Kingston Pike, Suite 104
Knoxville, TN 37922
Telephone: (865) 236-0347
Facsimile: (865) 512-9174
E-mail: james@friauflaw.com
BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS: Rascon Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS RASCON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BENCHMARK
ELECTRONICS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
56-2019-00530947-CU-OE-VTA (Filed July 22, 2019), was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on July 23,
2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-06632 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's complaint asserts claims for relief arising out of
his employment with Benchmark. The Plaintiff asserts claims for
failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods
under, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, and failure to timely pay all wages due
upon separation of employment, in violation of the Labor Code.
Benchmark Electronics is in the business of manufacturing
electronics and providing services to original equipment
manufacturers.[BN]
Defendant Benchmark Electronics is represented by:
Paul S. Cowie, Esq.
Brooke Purcell, Esq.
Andrea L. Isaacs, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
Telephone: 415 434 9100
Facsimile: 415 434 3947
E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com
bpurcell@sheppardmullin.com
aisaacs@sheppardmullin.com
BHANG CORP: Court Issues Protective Order in Ballard Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kenly Kato of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California has entered a Protective Order in
the case, Charles Ballard, Plaintiff, v. Bhang Corporation, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-02329-JGB [KKx] (C.D. Cal.).
Discovery in the action is likely to involve production of
confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special
protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose
other than prosecuting the litigation may be warranted.
Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the
prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery
materials, to adequately protect information the parties are
entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are
permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation
for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the
end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective
order for such information is justified in the matter.
It is the intent of the parties that information will not be
designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be
so or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or
items under the Order. Therefore, the parties stipulate to and
petition the Court to enter the Stipulated Protective Order.
The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not
only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or
extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts,
summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any
testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their
Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected
Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial
judge. The Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at
trial.
Even after final disposition of the litigation, the confidentiality
obligations imposed by this Order will remain in effect until a
Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order
otherwise directs. Final disposition will be deemed to be the
later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in the Action,
with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the
completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands,
trials, or reviews of the Action, including the time limits for
filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant
to applicable law.
Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of
confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court's
Scheduling Order.
A Receiving Party may use Protected Material that is disclosed or
produced by another Party or by a Non-Party in connection with the
Action only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle the
Action. Such Protected Material may be disclosed only to the
categories of persons and under the conditions described in the
Order.
If a Receiving Party learns that, by inadvertence or otherwise, it
has disclosed Protected Material to any person or in any
circumstance not authorized under the Stipulated Protective Order,
the Receiving Party must immediately (a) notify in writing the
Designating Party of the unauthorized disclosures, (b) use its best
efforts to retrieve all unauthorized copies of the Protected
Material, (c) inform the person or persons to whom unauthorized
disclosures were made of all the terms of this Order, and (d)
request such person or persons to execute the "Acknowledgment and
Agreement to Be Bound."
After the final disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a
written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must
return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy
such material.
Any violation of the Order may be punished by any and all
appropriate measures including, without limitation, contempt
proceedings and/or monetary sanctions.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 22, 2020 Protective
Order is available at https://is.gd/KXsciz from Leagle.com.
Ross Cornell, Esq. -- ross.law@me.com -- Counsel for Plaintiff,
CHARLES BALLARD.
Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. -- rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com -- Counsel
for Plaintiff, CHARLES BALLARD.
Anne Uyeda, Esq. -- auyeda@bienertkatzman.com -- Counsel for
Defendant, BHANG CORPORATION.
Adrian Lambie, Esq., Counsel for Defendants, CANNAROYALTY CORP. DBA
ORIGIN HOUSE and KAYA MANAGEMENT, INC.
BLUE CROSS: Sanjiv Goel Fraud Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SANJIV GOEL M.D., INC. v.
BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA DBA ANTHEM BLUE CROSS; ANTHEM BLUE CROSS
LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive
Case No. 56-2020-00542353-CU-CO-VTA (Filed June 11, 2020), was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Ventura to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Los Angeles) on July 29, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-06785 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging causes of action for
fraud, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, breach of written
contract by assignment, breach of implied in law
contract--emergency claims, and unfair business practices in
violation of California Business & Professions Code.
Anthem is a provider of health insurance in the United States.
Anthem is the largest for-profit managed health care company in the
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. As of 2018, the Company had
approximately 40 million members.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Amir Shlesinger, Esq.
Michelle L. Cheng, Esq.
Farah Tabibkhoei, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
Telephone: +1 213 457 8000
Facsimile: +1 213 457 8080
E-mail: AShlesinger@reedsmith.com
MCheng@reedsmith.com
FTabibkhoei@reedsmith.com
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Neverson Appeals Ruling in Callahan Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Intervenor Mishelle Neverson filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Carolyn Callahan v. Brookdale Senior
Living Communities, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-10726-VAP-SS, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought over alleged employment discriminatory practices.
The appellate case is captioned as Carolyn Callahan v. Brookdale
Senior Living Communities, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-55761, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant Mishelle Neverson's Mediation Questionnaire is
due on August 5, 2020;
-- Appellant Mishelle Neverson's opening brief is due on
September 28, 2020;
-- Appellees BKD Personal Assistance Services, LLC, BKD
Twenty-One Management Company, Inc., Brookdale Employee
Services Corporate, LLC, Brookdale Employee Services, LLC,
Brookdale Living Communities, Inc., Brookdale Senior Living
Communities, Inc., Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., Brookdale
Vehicle Holding, LLC, Carolyn D. Callahan, Does, Emeritus
Corporation and Summerville at Atherton Court, LLC's
answering brief is due on October 26, 2020; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Movant-Appellant MISHELLE NEVERSON, Proposed Intervenor, is
represented by:
Robert Kenneth Friedl, Esq.
Bevin Allen Pike, Esq.
Ryan Wu, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
E-mail: robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com
Plaintiff-Appellee CAROLYN D. CALLAHAN, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Andranik Tsarukyan, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
E-mail: andy.tsarukyan@jacksonlewis.com
- and -
Armen Zenjiryan, Esq.
REMEDY LAW GROUP LLP
610 East Providencia Avenue
Burbank, CA 91501-2495
Telephone: (818) 422-5941
E-mail: armen@remedylawgroup.com
Defendants-Appellees BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation, BROOKDALE EMPLOYEE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware
corporation, BROOKDALE EMPLOYEE SERVICES CORPORATE, LLC, a Delaware
corporation, SUMMERVILLE AT ATHERTON COURT, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, BROOKDALE VEHICLE HOLDING, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, BKD PERSONAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, EMERITUS CORPORATION, a
Washington corporation, BROOKDALE LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation, BKD TWENTY-ONE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., a
Delaware corporation, and BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC., a Delaware
corporation, are represented by:
Jeffrey Joseph Mann, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Telephone: (925) 932-2468
E-mail: jmann@littler.com
- and -
Shannon Rea Boyce, Esq.
John Kevin Lilly, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
2049 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 712-7304
E-mail: sboyce@littler.com
klilly@littler.com
CARDINALHIRE INC: Tsernoh Files Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cardinalhire, Inc.
The case is styled as Yevgeniya Tsernoh, individually, on behalf of
all aggrieved employees, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Cardinalhire, Inc., a California
Corporation, Does 1-10, business entities, forms unknown, Does
11-20, individuals, Does 21-30, inclusive and Vidality, Inc., a
California Corporation, Defendants, Case No. CGC20585613 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 28, 2020).
The case type of the case is stated as Other Non Exempt
Complaints.
CardinalHire is the talent marketplace where you can find jobs at
startups in Silicon Valley and from around the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ilya Filmus, Esq.
Infinity Law Group LLP
3450 Geary Blvd, Ste 210
San Francisco, CA 94118
Tel: (415) 426-3580
Email: ifilmus@infinitylawca.com
CAVALIA USA: Eaton Suit Removed From Super. Court to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY EATON and ANNA
DEVITO, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated
and aggrieved v. CAVALIA (USA) INC., a Vermont Corporation; CAVALIA
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-19- 579421 (Filed September 20, 2019),
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on July 29, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-05219 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to
provide required meal periods; failure to provide required rest
periods; failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures
incurred in discharge of duties; failure to furnish accurate
itemized wage statements; and failure to timely pay all wages due
to discharged and quitting employees in violation of the Labor
Code.
Cavalia is in the graphic arts and related design business.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Theodore E. Bacon, Esq.
Joanne C. Chan, Esq.
ALVARADO SMITH
235 Pine Street, Suite 1150
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 624-8665
Facsimile: (415) 391-1751
E-mail: tbacon@AlvaradoSmith.com
jchan@AlvaradoSmith.com
- and -
Steven L. Rodriguez, Esq.
RODRIGUEZ LAW, APC
26565 W. Agoura Road, Suite 200
Calabasas, CA 91302
Telephone: (818) 925-0054
Facsimile: (818) 449-0983
E-mail: steve@rodriguezlawapc.com
CENTRAL TEXAS COLLEGE: Marrero Seeks Tuition Refunds Amid COVID-19
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case NAYON M. MARRERO, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL TEXAS COLLEGE, Defendant,
Case No. 6:20-cv-00676-ADA-JCM (W.D. Tex., July 24, 2020) arises
out of the Defendant's failure to refund tuition and fees after it
curtailed and suspended on campus classes amid the COVID-19
pandemic.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated are college students who paid Defendant Central Texas
College ("CTC") tuition and fees for on campus educational
experience revolving around personal interactions with faculty and
students from different backgrounds and perspectives in in-person
classes, face-to-face peer and faculty interactions, and access to
on campus supports, such as room and board, career counseling,
gyms, recreational amenities, student centers, libraries, dining
halls, labs, campus events, and social and educational events.
Due to the Coronavirus in or around Spring 2020, CTC shifted its on
campus educational programs to online class instruction only. While
Plaintiff and Class thus paid Defendant high tuition and fees for
the on campus educational experience, Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated did not obtain those benefits during the 2020
Spring semester. The Defendant issued no tuition or fee refund to
students as a result of the altered educational system. Plaintiff
and Class therefore now seek to recover the prorated diminished
value of their educational experience in the switch from
traditional on campus learning to online instructional classes.
Plaintiff is a student at Texas A&M University in College Station,
Texas. Plaintiff paid tuition and fees to CTC in Spring 2020 for on
campus math and science courses not offered at Texas A&M
University.
Central Texas College is a community college in Killeen,
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ramona V. Ladwig, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
1910 Pacific Ave, Suite 14155
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 880-6362
Facsimile: (800) 635-6425
E-mail: ramona@kazlg.com
CGI FEDERAL: Settlement in Tollini Class Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRED TOLLINI, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CGI FEDERAL INC., a Delaware
Corporation; CGI TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLUTIONS INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-03275-MMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, granted the Plaintiff's unopposed revised
motion for preliminary approval of the parties' Stipulation of
Settlement and Release of the class and collective action.
On Nov. 21, 2019, Plaintiff Tollini, on behalf of himself and the
similarly situated employees of Defendant CGI, filed a Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the parties' Stipulation of Settlement and
Release of the class and collective action pursuant to Rule 23(e)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 29 U.S.C section 201,
et seq. The Court declined in January 2020 to grant the relief
sought, and afforded the parties leave to revise the motion and
supplement their submissions.
Plaintiff filed a revised motion for preliminary approval on April
8, 2020. Plaintiff, without opposition by the Defendant, seeks an
Order (1) certifying, for settlement purposes only, the class and
collective under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b); (2) preliminarily approving the
parties' Stipulation of Settlement and Release and Addendum to
Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims; (3) appointing
Plaintiff Tollini as the Representative for the Settlement Class
Members, and Class Counsel David Yeremian and Roman Shkodnik of
David Yeremian & Associates, Inc. as the counsel for the Settlement
Class Members; (4) approving the parties' proposed Class Notice;
and (5) scheduling a hearing on the final approval of the
Settlement and approval of the application of the Class Counsel and
the Plaintiff for their requested attorneys' fees, costs, and
service award.
Upon consideration of evidence and counsel arguments, Judge Chesney
entered the Preliminary Approval Order. The Judge conditionally
certified, for settlement purposes only and pursuant to Rules 23(a)
and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b), the following class and collective: All current
and former non-exempt individuals employed by defendant within the
State of California at any time during the period from April 30,
2014 through May 27, 2019.
Judge Chesney conditionally appointed (i) Plaintiff Tollini as the
Class Representative; (ii) David Yeremian, Esq. and Roman Shkodnik,
Esq. of David Yeremian & Associates, Inc., as the Class Counsel;
and (iii) ILYM Group, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator. The
Judge preliminarily approved the allocated Settlement
Administration expenses. The Settlement Administrator will prepare
a final version of the Notice of Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement, and will carry out the notice procedures set
forth in the Settlement Agreement and in the Order.
ILYM Group, Inc. will provide to all the parties' counsel a written
report noting the number of Class Notices sent, the number which
were returned as undeliverable, and the number of valid Opt Outs by
Class Members. In addition, said report will include, to the extent
practicable, (1) the number of email notices that were opened and
(2) the number of email notices that were returned as
undeliverable.
Any Settlement Class Member who intends to object to final approval
of the Settlement or the Class Counsel's motion for fees and costs
must submit an objection in writing to the Settlement Administrator
by Aug. 7, 2020, and also submit it to the Court by that date,
either by mailing it to the Clerk of the Court, U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue,
Box 36060, San Francisco, California, 94102, or by filing it in
person at any location of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. Any Class Member or purported Class Member
who fails to submit a timely written objection in both manners
described above will be deemed to have waived any objections and
will be foreclosed from making any objection to the Settlement and
from filing any appeal from any Final Order and Judgment issued by
the Court.
The Parties and Settlement Administrator are ordered to provide
notice of the settlement according to the terms of the Settlement
Agreement and in conformity with the Order.
All the proceedings and all the litigation of the action, other
than those pertaining to the administration of the Settlement, are
stayed pending the Final Approval Hearing.
The Court will conduct a Final Approval Hearing on Sept. 4, 2020,
9:00 a.m.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 22, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/CcbNoF from Leagle.com.
DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC., David Yeremian --
david@yeremianlaw.com -- Glendale, California, UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW
GROUP, PC, Walter Haines --whaines@uelglaw.com -- Huntington Beach,
CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff Fred Tollini, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated.
COLONY CAPITAL: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminded investors of the July 27,
2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action
filed on behalf of investors who acquired Colony Capital, Inc.
("Colony" or the "Company") (NYSE: CLNY) securities between August
9, 2019 and May 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
On November 8, 2019, the Company revealed its financial results for
the third quarter of 2019. Among other results, Colony reported a
GAAP net loss of $555 million, or $1.15 per share, which "notably
included reductions of goodwill, real estate and provision for loan
losses totaling $540.3 million . . . of which $387.0 million was
attributable to the reduction of goodwill primarily as a result of
the pending sale of the Company's industrial investment management
business and related real estate portfolio, and the decrease in
management fees from Colony Credit Real Estate, Inc. resulting from
impairments related to its portfolio bifurcation."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.48 per share, or
over 8%, to close at $5.00 per share on November 8, 2019.
Then, on May 8, 2020, the Company issued a press release revealing
its financial and operating results for the first quarter of 2020.
In the press release, the Company reported that its portfolio
companies had defaulted on $3.2 billion of debt secured by hotels
and healthcare-related properties and that Colony had received a
notice of acceleration covering $780 million of the defaulted
debt.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.08 per share, or
over 3%, to close at $2.02 per share on May 8, 2020, 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 Colony's sale of its industrial real estate portfolio and
the bifurcation of Colony Credit Real Estates portfolio were
foreseeably likely to negatively impact Colony's financial and
operating results; (2) that certain of Colony's remaining portfolio
companies carried unsustainable levels of debt secured by hotels
and healthcare-related properties and were thus at significant risk
of default; and (3) that as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Colony securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 27, 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.
Frank R. Cruz
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz
Los Angeles
Tel: 310-914-5007
E-mail: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
CONAGRA BRANDS: Appeal in Briseno Settlement Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2020, that a class member in the matter,
Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., has taken an appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the court's
decision approving the parties' settlement.
The company is a party to a number of putative class action
lawsuits challenging various product claims made in the Company's
product labeling.
These matters include Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. in which it is
alleged that the labeling for Wesson(R) oils as 100% natural is
false and misleading because the oils contain genetically modified
plants and organisms.
In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California granted class certification to permit plaintiffs to
pursue state law claims. The Company appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed class
certification in January 2017.
The Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the
decision and the case was remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings. On April 4, 2019, the trial court granted preliminary
approval of a settlement in this matter.
In the second quarter of fiscal 2020, a single objecting class
member appealed the court's decision approving the settlement to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The settlement will not be final until the appeal has been
resolved.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. The company was formerly known as ConAgra Foods, Inc. and
changed its name to Conagra Brands, Inc. in November 2016. Conagra
Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.
CONAGRA BRANDS: Negrete Class Action Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, Negrete v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al.
The company is a party to matters challenging the Company's wage
and hour practices. These matters include a number of class actions
consolidated under the caption Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et
al, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, in which the plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations
of California and/or federal law at several current and former
Company manufacturing facilities across the State of California.
Conagra said, "While we cannot predict with certainty the results
of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect this matter
to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
results of operations, or business."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. The company was formerly known as ConAgra Foods, Inc. and
changed its name to Conagra Brands, Inc. in November 2016. Conagra
Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.
CONAGRA BRANDS: West Palm Beach Firefighters' Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, West Palm Beach Firefighters'
Pension Fund v. Conagra Brands, Inc., et al.
The Company, its directors, and several of its executive officers
are defendants in several class actions alleging violations of
federal securities laws.
The lawsuits assert that the Company's officers made material
misstatements and omissions that caused the market to have an
unrealistically positive assessment of the Company's financial
prospects in light of the acquisition of Pinnacle, thus causing the
Company's securities to be overvalued prior to the release of the
Company's consolidated financial results on December 20, 2018 for
the second quarter of fiscal year 2019.
The first of these lawsuits, captioned West Palm Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Conagra Brands, Inc., et al., with
which subsequent lawsuits alleging similar facts have been
consolidated, was filed on February 22, 2019 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
In addition, on May 9, 2019, a shareholder filed a derivative
action on behalf of the Company against the Company's directors
captioned Klein v. Arora, et al. in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois asserting harm to the Company due to
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and mismanagement in connection
with the Pinnacle acquisition.
On July 9, 2019, September 20, 2019, and March 10, 2020, the
Company received three separate demands from stockholders under
Delaware law to inspect the Company's books and records related to
the Board of Directors' review of the Pinnacle business,
acquisition, and the Company's public statements related to them.
On July 22, 2019 and August 6, 2019, respectively, two additional
shareholder derivative lawsuits captioned Opperman v. Connolly, et
al. and Dahl v. Connolly, et al. were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting similar facts
and claims as the Klein v. Arora, et al. matter.
On October 21, 2019, the Company received an additional demand from
a stockholder under Delaware law to appoint a special committee to
investigate the conduct of certain officers and directors in
connection with the Pinnacle acquisition and the Company's public
statements.
Conagra said, "We have put the Company's insurance carriers on
notice of each of these securities and shareholder matters. While
we cannot predict with certainty the results of these or any other
legal proceedings, we do not expect these matters to have a
material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations, or business."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. The company was formerly known as ConAgra Foods, Inc. and
changed its name to Conagra Brands, Inc. in November 2016. Conagra
Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.
CONRAD CREDIT: Angeles Sues in N.D. Ohio Alleging FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conrad Credit
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Sarah Angeles, a/k/a
Sarah Faber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Conrad Credit Corporation, and John Does 1-25, Case No.
5:20-cv-01682-SL (N.D. Ohio, July 30, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Conrad Credit Corporation (Conrad) is a third-party debt collection
agency located in Escondido, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amichai E. Zukowsky, Esq.
23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160
Beachwood, OH 44122
Phone: (216) 800-5529
Fax: (216) 514-4987
Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Williams FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sigrid R. Williams filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in her lawsuit entitled Sigrid Williams v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, Case No. 4:18-cv-00884-JSW, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Oakland.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Sigrid Williams v. COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case No. 20-16455, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant Sigrid R. Williams' Mediation Questionnaire is
due on August 5, 2020;
-- Appellant Sigrid R. Williams' opening brief is due on
September 28, 2020;
-- Appellee Costco Wholesale Corporation's answering brief is
due on October 28, 2020; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant SIGRID R. WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself, all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Thomas Alistair Segal, Esq.
Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
315 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 315
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 888-7771
E-mail: thomas@setarehlaw.com
shaun@setarehlaw.com
Defendant-Appellee COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington
corporation, is represented by:
David D. Jacobson, Esq.
David D. Kadue, Esq.
Kiran A. Seldon, Esq.
Jinouth Desiree Vasquez Santos, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
E-mail: djacobson@seyfarth.com
dkadue@seyfarth.com
kseldon@seyfarth.com
jvasquezsantos@seyfarth.com
CROCS INC: Cota Sues in S.D. California Alleging Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crocs, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Crocs, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; Crocs Retail, LLC, a Colorado corporation;
Does 1-10, inclusive; Case No. 3:20-cv-01474-BAS-AHG (S.D. Cal.,
July 30, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Crocs, Inc., sells casual footwear for women, men and children.
Crocs offers a broad portfolio of all-season products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
DAN POST BOOT: Hecht Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------
Dan Post Boot Company is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Irene Hecht, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Dan Post Boot Company, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05856 (S.D. N.Y., July 28, 2020).
The Company offers men's, women's, and children shoes and
accessories. Dan Post Boot serves clients in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
Marcus & Zelman, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Tel: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
DD TRADERS INC: Hecht Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
DD Traders, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Irene
Hecht, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DD Traders, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05852
(S.D. N.Y., July 28, 2020).
DD Traders, Inc., doing business as DEMDACO, offers gifts and home
decoration products. The Company offers dolls, furniture, lighting,
frames, candles, magnets, boxes, ornaments, stationery, mirrors,
mugs, clocks, tote bags, and jewelry. DEMDACO serves customers in
the State of Kansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
Marcus & Zelman, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Tel: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
EMPIRE MEDS: Masters Files Consumer Class Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Empire Meds Delivery.
The case is styled as Crystal Masters, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Empire Meds Delivery, Case No.
3:20-cv-01468-BEN-MSB (S.D. Cal., July 30, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for FCC-Unsolicited
Telephone Sales.
Empire Meds Delivery is a cannabis delivery service, serving the
Mission Valley, area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yana A. Hart, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (619) 233-7770
Fax: (619) 297-1022
Email: yana@kazlg.com
EMPIRE RESORTS: Faces MH Haberkorn Stockholder Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Empire Resorts, Inc.,
et al. The case is captioned as The MH Haberkorn 2006 Trust; Kiley
Rose Haberkorn; Matthew H. Haberkorn; and Tippy Living Trust U/A
DTD September 10, 2013 v. Empire Resorts, Inc.; Edmund Marinucci;
Emanuel R. Pearlman; Genting (USA) Limited; Genting Malaysia
Berhad; Gerard Ewe Keng Lim; Hercules Topco LLC; Keith L. Horn;
Kien Huat Realty III Limited; Nancy A. Palumbo; and Ryan Eller,
Case No. 2020-0619 (Del. Ch., July 23, 2020).
The case is a verified stockholder class action complaint for
breach of fiduciary duties.
Empire Resorts is a company that owns the Monticello Raceway in the
Catskill Mountains 90 miles from New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Varallo, Gregory V, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZBERGER GROSSMANN LLP
500 Delaware Ave., Ste. 901
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 364-3600
E-mail: Greg.Varallo@blbglaw.com
ENERGY RECOVERY: Frank R. Cruz Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Energy Recovery, Inc. ("Energy
Recovery" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ERII) securities between
August 2, 2017 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Energy Recovery investors have until September 21, 2020 to file a
lead plaintiff motion.
On June 29, 2020, Energy Recovery announced the termination of its
15-year contract with Schlumberger Technology Corp.
("Schlumberger") for the exclusive use of Energy Recovery's VorTeq
hydraulic pumping system, citing "different strategic perspectives
as to the path to VorTeq commercialization." Without the agreement
in place, the Company will be wholly responsible for the
commercialization of the VorTeq technology.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.31 or over 14%, to
close at $7.60 per share on June 30, 2020, 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 the Company and Schlumberger had different strategic
perspectives regarding commercialization of VorTeq; (2) that these
differences created substantial risk of early termination of the
Company's exclusive licensing agreement with Schlumberger; (3)
accordingly, the revenue guidance and expectations of future
license revenue was false and lacked reasonable basis; and (4) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and
omitted material facts.
If you purchased Energy Recovery securities during the Class
Period, you may move the Court no later than September 21, 2020 to
ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of
the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the Class. If you purchased Energy Recovery securities,
have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R.
Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007,
by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
Frank R. Cruz
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz
Los Angeles
Tel No: 310-914-5007
E-mail: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
ENERGY RECOVERY: Gross Law Announces Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in Energy Recovery, Inc.
Shareholders who purchased shares in the company during the date
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
Energy Recovery, Inc. (NASDAQ:ERII)
Investors Affected : August 2, 2017 - June 29, 2020
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Energy Recovery, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company had different strategic perspectives
regarding commercialization of the Company's VorTeq technology than
Schlumberger Technology Corp., which had exclusive rights to the
use of VorTeq (ii) these differences created substantial risk of
early termination of the Company's exclusive licensing agreement
with Schlumberger; (iii) accordingly, the revenue guidance and
expectations of future license revenue was false and lacked
reasonable basis; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/energy-recovery-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=8142&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
ENERGY RECOVERY: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Energy
Recovery, Inc. ("Energy Recovery or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ERII)
securities between August 2, 2017 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Energy Recovery investors have until September 21,
2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their Energy Recovery 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 June 29, 2020, Energy Recovery announced the termination of its
15-year contract with Schlumberger Technology Corp.
("Schlumberger") for the exclusive use of Energy Recovery's VorTeq
hydraulic pumping system, citing "different strategic perspectives
as to the path to VorTeq commercialization." Without the agreement
in place, the Company will be wholly responsible for the
commercialization of the VorTeq technology.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.31 or over 14%, to
close at $7.60 per share on June 30, 2020, 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 the Company and Schlumberger had different strategic
perspectives regarding commercialization of VorTeq; (2) that these
differences created substantial risk of early termination of the
Company's exclusive licensing agreement with Schlumberger; (3)
accordingly, the revenue guidance and expectations of future
license revenue was false and lacked reasonable basis; and (4) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and
omitted material facts.
If you purchased Energy Recovery 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.
Howard G. Smith
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Tel No: 215-638-4847
E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
ENPHASE ENERGY: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP alerts investors
that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against
Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENPH) ("Enphase") on behalf of those
who purchased or otherwise acquired Enphase common stock between
February 26, 2019 and June 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Enphase common stock
during the Class Period may, no later than August 17, 2020, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For
additional information or to learn how to participate in this
litigation please click
https://www.ktmc.com/enphase-energy-inc-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=enphase.
According to the complaint, Enphase is a global energy technology
company that delivers smart, easy-to-use solutions that manage
solar generation, storage and communication on one intelligent
platform. Enphase asserts that it revolutionized the solar industry
with its microinverter technology, and that it produces a fully
integrated solar-plus-storage solution.
The Class Period commences on February 26, 2019, when Enphase
issued a press release on a Form 8-K with the SEC in which it
announced Enphase's financial results for the fourth quarter and
year-ended 2018. In the press release, Enphase stated that for the
fourth quarter of 2018 it had revenue of $92.3 million, an increase
of 18% sequentially and an increase of 16% year-over-year. The
press release further stated that Enphase's non-GAAP gross margin
was 30.7%, a decrease of 210 basis points from 32.8% in the third
quarter. For the full year ended December 31, 2018, Enphase
reported revenue of $316.159 million, with gross margins of 29.9%,
up from $286.166 million and 19.6% for the year ended December 31,
2017.
The complaint alleges that, on June 17, 2020, analyst Prescience
Point Capital Management ("Prescience Point") published a report in
which it wrote that "[a]t least $205.3m of ENPH's reported FY19 US
revenue is fabricated, and a significant portion of its
international revenue is fabricated as well." The report continued:
"[m]ost, if not all, of the 2,080 Bps expansion in ENPH's gross
margin since Q2'17 is also fabricated," and called on Enphase's
accountant, Deloitte, to "launch an in-depth investigation of
EPNH's accounting practices." Prescience Point further called on
"[r]egulatory and law enforcement agencies with subpoena power [to]
launch a full investigation of the Company, its accounting, its
disclosures and trading by insiders."
Following this news, Enphase's stock price fell by approximately
26% in one day, from its June 16, 2020 close of $52.76 per share to
a June 17, 2020 close of $39.04 per share.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) its revenues, both U.S. and international, were
inflated; (2) Enphase engaged in improper deferred revenue
accounting practices; (3) Enphase's reported basis point expansion
in gross margins was overstated; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, the defendants' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
Enphase investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud class
action lawsuit and their legal options are encouraged to contact
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or
Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (844) 877-9500 (toll free) or at
info@ktmc.com.
Enphase investors may, no later than August 17, 2020, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world. The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars). [GN]
EPIQ SYSTEMS: Karter Data Breach Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN KARTER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EPIQ SYSTEMS,
INC., a Missouri corporation, Case No. 30-2020-01145269-CU-MC-CXC
(Filed May 26, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court for the
State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on July 29, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:20-cv-01385 to the proceeding.
Mr. Karter alleges that Epiq was subject to a ransomware attack. He
also alleges that "this malware and ransomware" exfiltrated
sensitive data on Epiq's network(s) and the data is now in the
hands of the perpetrators [of the attack]. He further alleges that
the "information stolen from Epiq's network(s) included
nonencrypted and nonredacted personal information for Plaintiff
Karter and the members of the alleged Class."
EPIQ develops, markets, licenses, and supports proprietary software
products for bankruptcy trustees on a national basis. The Company
also develops communications systems for business-to-business and
enterprise-wide open file delivery.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jean Pierre Nogues, Esq.
MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 312-3152
Facsimile: (310) 312-3100
E-mail: jpn@msk.com
- and -
Michael F. Buchanan, Esq.
Peter A. Nelson, Esq.
Kade N. Olsen, Esq.
Christopher Wilds, Esq.
PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 336-2350
Facsimile: (212) 336-2222
E-mail: mbuchanan@pbwt.com
pnelson@pbwt.com
kolsen@pbwt.com
cwilds@pbwt.com
EVERQUOTE INC: Faces Scavo TCPA Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EVERQUOTE, INC., et
al. The case is styled as Carol Scavo, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. EVERQUOTE, INC., Does 1 through
10, inclusive and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-03713-JD (E.D.
Pa., July 30, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
EverQuote, Inc. operates as an Internet based marketing firm. The
Company, through its platform, enables consumers to connect with
auto insurance carriers and agents to meet their auto insurance
needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cynthia Z. Levin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
1150 First Avenue, Ste. 501
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Phone: (888) 595-9111
Email: czlevin@comcast.net
FUN.COM INC: Guglielmo Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fun.com, Inc. The
case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Fun.com, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05925
(S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
FUN.com started out in 1992 as a seasonal business that rented
Halloween costumes out of a garage and now has grown into one of
the web's largest online retailers. FUN.com offers exclusive Marvel
and DC apparel, and Disney-inspired shoes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
GEICO: Sued for Alleged "Woefully Inadequate" Insurance Discount
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hathaway's Geico, the country's second largest auto
insurer, is being targeted by a potential class action for
allegedly overcharging its policyholders during the pandemic.
A lawsuit filed in federal court in Illinois alleges that the 15%
"Geico Giveback" premium discount program the insurer announced in
April to reflect reduced driving during the coronavirus outbreak is
"woefully inadequate to compensate for the excessive premiums that
customers have paid as a result of COVID-19."
The plaintiff maintains that the discounts should be 30% for just
the period between mid-March and the end of April, based on a
report by The Center for Economic Justice and the Consumer
Federation of America.
The plaintiff accuses the insurer of enjoying "substantial windfall
in profits" during the pandemic, citing reports that for the first
quarter of 2020, Geico generated a pretax underwriting gain of $984
million, an increase of 27.8% over the same quarter in 2019.
The complaint further claims that the while the Geico program
applies a 15% discount on new and renewal auto insurance policies,
it does not apply the discount to the premiums that customers have
already paid or will continue to pay on policies already existing
at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.
When it announced its giveback program in April, Geico said the
discounts would total about $2.5 billion.
Geico had not yet responded to a request for comment on the lawsuit
as of press time.
As shelter-in-place policies went into effect in Illinois and in
other states, many auto insurers returned a portion of premiums to
policyholders, and some are continuing to do so, as a way to
reflect the reduced likelihood of claims as people drive less. Many
policyholders received back 15% to 20% on two to three months of
premium. The total returned has been estimated at more than $10
billion. According to California officials, that state's drivers
have received $1.21 billion in savings for March, April and May.
The plaintiff in the Illinois lawsuit, Briana Siegal, is a Geico
policyholder from Chicago. She is seeking certification of a class
that would include all Illinois residents who purchased personal
automobile, motorcycle, or recreational vehicle insurance from
Geico covering any portion of the time period from March 21, 2020
to the present.
The complaint further seeks disgorgement of the ill-gotten gains
obtained by Geico, declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages.
Geico's Approach
When it announced its discount, Geico said the 15% credit would
apply its auto and motorcycle customers as their policy comes up
for renewal between April 8 and Oct 7. The credit would also apply
to any new policies purchased during this period.
The average auto policy has a semi-annual premium of about $1,000
and generally covers more than one vehicle. Geico said it expects
credits to average about $150 per auto policy and $30 per
motorcycle policy. The company estimates the benefit to its 18
million auto and one million motorcycle customers will be
approximately $2.5 billion.
Current customers were told they could expect to see the discount
when they renew.
At Berkshire Hathaway's annual shareholder meeting in May, CEO
Warren Buffett was asked whether Geico will likely experience
unusually high profitability in 2020, even after giving customers a
15 percent credit to reflect reduced driving during the pandemic.
Noting the companies are handling the discounts differently, with
GEICO giving 15 percent over a period of six months, Buffett added
that other insurers are giving higher discounts over a shorter time
period and maintained that Geico's $2.5 billion is the largest
dollar amount.
He said there are a lot of variables to consider. "We made our best
guess as to what we're going to do to reflect the current reduced
accidents in our premiums that we receive really for the next
year," he said, pointing out that while the discounts apply for the
six months from April through October, policies renewing in October
extend into April.
"We've made a guess on it. And we'll see how it works out," Buffett
said.
During the first quarter, which ended prior to the start of the
discount period, Geico reported $984 million in pretax underwriting
earnings, a 28 percent increase over first-quarter 2019, as written
premiums grew 4.5 percent to $9.7 billion. With shelter-in-place
actions already impacting claims, frequencies fell 12-14 percent
for property damage and collision and 6-8 percent for bodily
injury, while claim severities rose 6-9 percent for the property
coverages and 4-6 percent for bodily injury.
In a recent outlook on personal lines insurance, Fitch Ratings
acknowledged that the premium returns may have fallen short of what
they could be but thinks insurers may pay a price.
"Recent premium returns and rebate actions do not fully offset
recent lower claims experience, but will foster price competition
that may lead to poorer performance when economic and claims
activity normalizes," said James Auden, managing director, Fitch
Ratings.
The biggest auto insurer, State Farm, offered a dividend on average
of 25 percent of premiums that customers owed during the period
March 20 and May 31, or about $20 per month for each vehicle
insured. This program amounts to about $2 billion, according to the
insurer.
State Farm said it has also filed rate reductions in various
states. The national average for those rate reductions is 11%, or
approximately $2.2 billion. [GN]
GM PROJECTS: Calle Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GM Projects Corp., et
al. The case is styled as Antonio Calle, Bayron Quintuna, Levyn
Rafael Herrera, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated v. GM Projects Corp., Gregory Micek, Case No.
1:20-cv-03430 (E.D.N.Y., July 30, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
GM Projects is in the Mechanical or Industrial Engineering
business.
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]
GRAHAM PACKAGING: Bernal Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SUAVECITA BERNAL,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. GRAHAM PACKAGING PET TECHNOLOGIES INC., a
Delaware corporation; GRAHAM PACKAGING COMPANY, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership; GRAHAM PACKAGING COMPANY, INC., a Delaware
corporation; GEC PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
CV-20-002825 (Filed June 29, 2020), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Stanislaus, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 28,
2020.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-at-00533 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for unpaid
overtime, unpaid minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods,
and failure to authorize and permit rest periods in violation of
the California Labor Code.
Graham Packaging provides plastic packaging solutions.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kimberly Arouh, Esq.
Jason E. Murtagh, Esq.
Natalie P. Peled, Esq.
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY LLP
600 West Broadway, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619 239 8700
Telephone: 619 702 3898
E-mail: kimberly.arouh@bipc.com
jason.murtagh@bipc.com
natalie.peled@bipc.com
HALSTED FINANCIAL: Krasne Files Suit under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Halsted Financial
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Shoshi Krasne, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Halsted Financial Services, LLC, LVNV Funding LLC and John Does
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03392 (E.D. N.Y., July 28,
2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Halsted Financial Services, LLC is a collections agency.[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
HOME DEPOT: Carlson Suit Removed From Super. Court to W.D. Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS CARLSON, individually
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT
U.S.A., INC., a foreign corporation; and THE HOME DEPOT, INC., a
foreign corporation, Case No. 20-2-10496-5-SEA (Filed June 26,
2020), was removed from the Superior Court for the State of
Washington for the County of King to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington (Seattle) on July 28, 2020.
The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-01150 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brought the action to recover alleged unpaid wages;
exemplary double and treble damages; attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses; and prejudgment interest. The Plaintiff alleges generally
that The Home Depot has failed to ensure that in-store supervisors
and specialists are provided rest breaks and meal periods as
required by Washington law. The Plaintiff also alleges that The
Home Depot has failed to pay supervisors and specialists additional
compensation when they miss, cut short, or take late a rest break
or meal period.
Home Depot is a large home improvement retailer in the United
States, supplying tools, construction products, and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Berger, Esq.
Elizabeth Hanley, Esq.
SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
810 Third Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle WA 98104-1657
Telephone: (206) 622-8000
Facsimile: (206) 682-2305
E-mail: berger@sgb-law.com
hanley@sgb-law.com
The Defendants are represented by:
D. Michael Reilly, Esq.
Taylor Washburn, Esq.
LANE POWELL PC
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200
P.O. Box 91302
Seattle, WA 98111-9402
Telephone: 206.223.7000
Facsimile: 206.223.7107
E-mail: reillym@lanepowell.com
washburnt@lanepowell.com
- and -
David G. Hosenpud, Esq.
601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 2100
Portland, OR 97204-3158
Telephone: 503 778 2100
E-mail: hosenpudd@lanepowell.com
HOP ENERGY: Callery Suit Transferred to Pa. Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Brian Callery, individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hop Energy, LLC and
DDM Energy, Defendants, was transferred from the Court of Common
Pleas of Chester County with the assigned Case No. 20-03904-CT to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on July 28, 2020, and assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-03652.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed pursuant to the Breach of Contract.
HOP Energy, LLC provides petroleum products. The Company offers
heating oil, propane, diesel, and gasoline, as well as sells and
installs HVAC products. HOP Energy serves customers in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward C. Sweeney
Wusinich & Sweeney, LLC
211 Welsh Pool Road, Suite 236
Exton, PA 19341
Tel: (610) 594-1600
Fax: (610) 594-6518
Email: esweeney@wspalaw.com
HUMANA INC: Faces Winters TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Winters, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Humana, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-01487-MTL (D.
Ariz., July 27, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and
markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone
calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff seeks damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
him in his cellular telephone in violation of the TCPA and related
regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions,
thereby, invading his privacy.
Humana Inc. is a for-profit American health insurance company based
in Louisville, Kentucky.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: 800 400-6808
Facsimile: 800 520-5523
E-mail: david@kazlg.com
ryan@kazlg.com
INSPERITY INC: Barbuto & Johansson Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. ("BARJO" or the "Firm") and Of Counsel,
Neil Rothstein, Esq. (with over 30 years of Securities Class Action
experience, including cases against ENRON and HALLIBURTON),
announce that a Securities Class Action lawsuit has been filed
against Insperity, Inc. (: NSP) (the "Company" or "Insperity"), and
encourages shareholders with losses exceeding $100,000 to contact
the Firm to discuss the case and their options as class members.
The deadline to petition the court to act as a lead plaintiff is
September 21, 2020.
The case, Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania v.
Insperity, Inc., et al., Case No.: 1:20-cv-05635-NRB, was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the Company's
common stock between February 11, 2019 and February 11, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges that Insperity
and certain of its executives made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations and
financial condition during the Class Period, causing artificially
inflated prices of the Company's securities.
Specifically, it is alleged, in part, that the Company failed to
disclose that Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large
medical claims and that as a mitigating measure, the Company would
be forced to increase the cost of its employee benefit plans,
causing stunted customer growth and reduced customer retention. It
is further alleged that the Company failed to disclose that the
aforementioned issues were reasonably likely to, and would,
materially impact Insperity's financial results.
If you purchased shares of Insperity during the Class Period and
would like to discuss your right to recovery for your economic loss
and application for lead plaintiff, you may, without obligation or
cost, contact attorney Anthony Barbuto, at (888) 715-2520, or via
email at anthony@barjolaw.com, or attorney Neil Rothstein via email
at neil@barjolaw.com. The Firm believes strongly that the choice of
a qualified lead plaintiff can have a significant impact on the
successful outcome of a case. [GN]
INSPERITY INC: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in Insperity, Inc.
Shareholders who purchased shares in the company during the date
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
Insperity, Inc. (NYSE:NSP)
Investors Affected : February 11, 2019 - February 11, 2020
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Insperity, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (a) the Company had failed to negotiate appropriate
rates with its customers for employee benefit plans and did not
adequately disclose the risk of large medical claims from these
plans; (b) Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large
medical claims; (c) as a mitigating measure, the Company would be
forced to increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing
stunted customer growth and reduced customer retention; and (d) the
foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially
impact Insperity's financial results.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/insperity-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=8142&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
INSPERITY INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of September 21 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 21, 2020 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against
Insperity, Inc. (NYSE: NSP), if they purchased the Company's shares
between February 11, 2019 through February 11, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
What You May Do
If you purchased shares of Insperity 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/nyse-nsp/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by September 21, 2020.
About the Lawsuit
Insperity and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.
The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include,
but are not limited to, that: (i) the Company had failed to
sufficiently disclose the risk posed by large medical claims from
its employee benefit plans or to negotiate suitable rates with its
customers for the plans; (ii) large medical claims were continuing
to impact the Company by significantly increasing operational
costs; (iii) increased costs of its employee benefit plans would
hinder customer growth and retention; and (iv) the foregoing issues
were reasonably likely to, and would, materially impact the
Company's financial results.
The case is Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania v.
Insperity, Inc., No. 20-cv-5635.
About Kahn Swick
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 โ 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.
Lewis Kahn
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Managing Partner
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Kandi Technologies Group, Inc.
(NASDAQ: KNDI) between June 10, 2015 and March 13, 2017, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the important August 10, 2020 lead
plaintiff deadline in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Kandi investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Kandi class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1873.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) certain areas in Kandi's previously issued financial
statements for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the
first three quarters for the year ended December 31, 2016 required
adjustment; (2) in turn, Kandi lacked effective controls over
financial reporting; and (3) as a result, defendants' positive
statements about Kandi'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-1873.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 achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN]
KINGOLD JEWELRY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 31 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 secure loans
fraudulently; (2) consequently, Kingold 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 achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by
numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has
secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN]
LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON, KY: Scott Sues Over Civil Rights Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Louisville/Jefferson
County Metro Government, et al. The case is styled as Attica Scott,
Corbin Smith, Kayla Meisner, Tyler Weakley, Stevie Schauer, Willa
Tinsley, Kentucky Alliance Against Racial and Political Repression,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government; Greg Fischer,
individually and in his official capacity as Mayor of Louisville;
Robert Schroeder, individually and in his official capacity as
Interim Chief of thE Louisville Metropolitan Police Department;
LaVita Chavous, individually and in her official capacity as
Assistant Chief of the Louisville Metropolitan Police Department;
J. Johnson, LOUISVILLE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER;
Louisville Metropolitan Police Department Officers John Does 1-15;
Jane Doe 1; Case No. 3:20-cv-00535-CRS (W.D. Ky., July 30, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
The Louisville/Jefferson County metro government (balance) is a
statistical entity in the U.S. state of Kentucky defined by the
United States Census Bureau to represent the portion of the
consolidated city-county of Louisville-Jefferson County that does
not include any of the 83 separate incorporated places
(municipalities) located within the city and county.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Aaron Tucek, Esq.
Ajmel Quereshi, Esq.
Andrew K. Jondahl, Esq.
Ashok Chandran, Esq.
Christopher Kemmitt, Esq.
Corey M. Shapiro, Esq.
Earl S. Ward, Esq.
Heather L. Gatnarek, Esq.
Kristen Johnson, Esq.
Mashayla R. Hays, Esq.
O. Andrew F. Wilson, Esq.
Samuel Shapiro, Esq.
ACLU OF KENTUCKY
325 W. Main Street, Suite 2210
Louisville, KY 40202
Phone: (502) 581-9746
Fax: (844) 274-0570
Email: corey@aclu-ky.org
heather@aclu-ky.org
mrhays02@gmail.com
MANAGED LABOR: Denies Health Insurance Coverage, Poliner Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN POLINER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MANAGED LABOR SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-00840-MMH-JRK (M.D. Fla., July 28, 2020), alleges that MLS
acted to unlawfully deny the Plaintiff and the proposed class
health insurance coverage under the Defendant's health insurance
plan.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of
class of persons currently or formerly employed by MLS (i) who were
either eligible participants in an Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 health insurance plan sponsored by MLS; or
(ii) who were improperly classified as part time employees from
June 1, 2013, to the present, after the enactment of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant acted to violate
the ACA by failing to provide health insurance benefits to full
time employees by fraudulently and falsely claiming the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated were part time employees.
The Plaintiff resided in St. Mary's, Georgia, during all times
material, and worked at MLS as a Transporter at the Jacksonville
International Airport in Jacksonville, Florida, from September 8,
2019, to March 26, 2020.
MLS provides outsourced labor to companies large and small.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
6940 West Linebaugh Ave., Suite 101
Tampa, FL 33625
Telephone: (813) 639-9366
Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
E-mail: mlf@feldmanlegal.us
lschindler@feldmanlegal.us
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of McDermott International, Inc. (NYSE: MDR) (OTC:
MDRIQ) between September 20, 2019 and January 23, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
McDermott investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the McDermott class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1901.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 violated the federal
securities laws by failing to disclose that they knowingly and/or
recklessly made, and caused McDermott to make, materially false and
misleading statements, and/or omit material facts regarding the
sale of Lummus Technology, an asset of McDermott. These statements
were made with the intent to conceal the acute liquidity crisis
McDermott actually faced, to provide the Company time to prepare a
prepackaged plan of reorganization with its secured lenders and
other stakeholders, and to avoid a freefall Chapter 11 filing. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
16, 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-1901.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 achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. 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
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com[GN]
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Rivera FDCPA Suit Over Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------------
YESHICA VIQUEZ RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-01440-H-MDD (S.D. Cal., July 27, 2020), seeks to recover
damages for the Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
The Plaintiff contends that in its efforts to collect an alleged
debt, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff by letter dated
December 26, 2019. The Letter conveyed information regarding the
alleged Debt.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has the interest and
right to be free from deceptive and/or misleading communications
from the Defendant. The Defendant deprived the Plaintiff of this
right.
The Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a
debt.
Established in 1953, MCM, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Encore
Capital Group, Inc., is a specialty finance company providing debt
recovery solutions for consumers across a broad range of
assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203-7600
Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Kouassi Files Suit Over FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Antoine Easie Kouassi,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00134-PDW-ARS (D. N.D., July 28,
2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management Inc. (Midland Credit) is a third-party
debt collector that was founded in 1953 and is based in San Diego,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
RC Law Group PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Lebovits Asserts Breach of FDCPA
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Chaim Lebovits, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. 7:20-cv-05857 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management Inc. (Midland Credit) is a third-party
debt collector that was founded in 1953 and is based in San Diego,
California.[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
MIDLAND CREDIT: Weathers Sues in Illinois Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Stacy Weathers, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04478 (N.D. Ill., July
30, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., is a licensed debt collector
founded in 1953. The Company's line of business includes extending
credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander James Taylor, Esq.
Marwan R. Daher, Esq.
Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com
osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Armstrong Files Civil Rights Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Minneapolis.
The case is styled as Nekima Levy Armstrong, Marques Armstrong,
Terry Hempfling and Rachel Clark, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. City of Minneapolis,
Medaria Arradondo, Minneapolis Chief of Police, in his individual
and official capacity, Robert Kroll, Minneapolis Police Lieutenant,
in his individual and official capacity, John M. Harrington,
Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner, in his
individual and official capacity, Matthew Langer, Minnesota State
Patrol Colonel, in his individual and official capacity and John
Does 1-2, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants,
Case No. 0:20-cv-01645-SRN-DTS (D. Minn., July 30, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights:
Other filed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act.
Minneapolis is a major city in Minnesota that forms "Twin Cities"
with the neighboring state capital of St. Paul. Bisected by the
Mississippi River, it's known for its parks and lakes. Minneapolis
is also home to many cultural landmarks like the Walker Art Center,
a contemporary art museum, and the adjacent Minneapolis Sculpture
Garden, famed for Claes Oldenburg's "Spoonbridge and Cherry"
sculpture.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Veena Tripathi, Esq.
Fish & Richardson P.C.
60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Tel: (612) 766-2044
Fax: (612) 288-9696
Email: tripathi@fr.com
- and -
Michael E Florey, Esq.
Fish & Richardson PC
60 S 6th St Ste 3200
Mpls, MN 55402
Tel: (612) 335-5070
Fax: (612) 288-9696
Email: florey@fr.com
MORGANS HOTEL: De Moreno Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ROCIO DE MORENO, individually
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. MORGANS HOTEL
GROUP MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a MONDRIAN LOS ANGELES, a Delaware limited
liability company; SBE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC, a Nevada limited
company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV21927
(Filed June 5, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July
23, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-06652 to the proceeding.
The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' violation of the Labor
Code, including failure to pay wages, minimum wages, and overtime
compensation.
Morgans hotel is doing business in gaming, lodging & restaurants
industry. SBE is a privately held, lifestyle hospitality company
that develops, manages and operates hotels, residences, restaurants
and nightclubs.[BN]
Defendant Morgans Hotel represented by:
Mia Farber, Esq.
Nima Darouian, Esq.
Jade M. Brewster, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Telephone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
E-mail: Mia.Farber@Jacksonlewis.com
Nima.Darouian@Jacksonlewis.com
Jade.Brewster@Jacksonlewis.com
NASHVILLE BOOTING: Faces Lawsuit Over Unlawful Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
localnews8.com reports that it's a story News 4 has followed for
years. People getting their car booted, only to wait hours for the
company to take it off. Now, the company Nashville Booting is
facing a Class Action Lawsuit.
"They've placed their boot and they have your money the moment they
place it. So, they can make you wait as long as they want unless
there are remedies like this that hold them accountable," Attorney
Mark Hammervold said.
A lawsuit filed and obtained by News 4 Nashville alleges Nashville
Booting engages in "unlawful booting practices" by violating a
Nashville ordinance.
"The Nashville ordinance says, in very clear terms, within one hour
of being contacted to remove a boot you have to remove the boot!"
Hammervold said.
Mark Hammervold says the company didn't do that for this client.
The suit says on October 26, 2019, Nashville Booting booted the
driver's car at 6:30 a.m.
The company put a sticker on his car, telling the driver to call
them. The suit claims the driver dialed the number at 8:51 a.m. and
got a recording, asking him to call a different number. He called
at 8:52 a.m., then again seven minutes later.
According to the lawsuit, the operator told the driver that he
would have to wait, because Nashville Booting "had approximately
100 other Boots to remove."
The driver claims Nashville Booting did not remove the boot within
an hour of calling, as required by Nashville ordinance.
The boot wasn't removed until 5:39 p.m., eight hours after the
driver contacted their office.
"Nashville has been on our radar for quite a few years. Actually,
just in the last 36 months, we've had 32 complaints."
Robyn Householder with the Better Business Bureau of Middle
Tennessee and Southern Kentucky says in some cases, Nashville
Booting did resolve the problem, but the complaints and allegations
are so vast, the BBB gave the company an F rating on their
website.
"Many times, the complaints note that these cars are in fact,
legally parked. They have the appropriate identification stickers
on them. But, they're booted anyway and then it's taking much
longer than an hour. Sometimes alleging five hours to get a company
response to remove the boot," Householder said.
News 4 Nashville tried getting a hold of Nashville Booting for the
past two days. We sent officials emails and called their office
numerous times. We are waiting to hear back. [GN]
NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Faces Kovich Suit in S.D. West Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Property &
Casualty Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Jenni
Kovich, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
insureds v. Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Company, a
foreign corporation, and Cody McConnell, Case No. 3:20-cv-00518
(S.D.W. Va., July 30, 2020).
The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.
Nationwide is one of the largest insurance and financial services
companies in the world, focusing on domestic property and casualty
insurance, life insurance and retirement savings, asset management
and strategic investments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent K. Kesner, Esq.
Ernest G. Hentschel, II, Esq.
KESNER & KESNER
P. O. Box 2587
Charleston, WV 25329
Phone: (304) 345-5200
Fax: (304) 345-5265
Email: bkesner@kesnerlaw.com
ehentschel@kkblaw.net
- and -
Robert V. Berthold, III, Esq.
BERTHOLD LAW FIRM
P. O. Box 3508
Charleston, WV 25335-3508
Phone: (304) 345-5700
Fax: (304) 345-5703
Email: rvb3@bertholdlaw.com
NESPRESSO USA: Zine Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as OMAR ZINE, individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated
v. NESPRESSO USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; NESTLE USA, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
MSC20-01185 (Filed June 25, 2020), was removed from the California
Superior Court for Contra Costa County to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on July 27,
2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-05144 to the proceeding.
The complaint asserts class action claims against the Defendants
for unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, wages not
timely paid upon termination, and failure to pay timely wages
during employment, in violation of the Labor Code.
Nespresso USA provides coffee machines and accessories. The Company
offers cups, spoons, milk frothers, and capsule dispensers.[BN]
Defendant Nespresso is represented by:
Linda Claxton, Esq.
Kathleen J. Choi, Esq.
Melis Atalay, Esq.
Sage S. Stone, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213 239-9800
Facsimile: 213 239-9045
E-mail: linda.claxton@ogletree.com
kathleen.choi@ogletree.com
melis.atalay@ogletree.com
sage.stone@ogletree.com
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Santiago in Gulino Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated June 30, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL.
v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY
OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (New York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
class-wide injunctive relief.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of
Education, Case No. 20-2406, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee Paula Santiago is represented by:
Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 806-1245
E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com
Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:
James Edward Johnson, Esq.
CORPORATION COUNSEL
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-2500
PHILLIPS 66: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Schweitzer ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFERY SCHWEITZER; JONATHAN SAPP; RAUL RAMOS; DONALD
FOWLER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF THE
PHILLIPS 66 SAVINGS PLAN; SAM FARACE; JOHN DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-20379 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's
order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.
Four participants in Phillips 66's retirement plan commenced the
putative class action against the plan's Investment Committee for
breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA). They allege that the Defendants failed to
monitor properly and divest ConocoPhillips stock from the
retirement plan.
In 2012, ConocoPhillips Corp., a large oil and gas company, spun
off Phillips 66 as a separate, independent company. ConocoPhillips
retained its upstream business, namely exploration and production,
while Phillips 66 took on the downstream business, including
refining, marketing, and transportation operations.
With the separation, about 12,000 ConocoPhillips employees became
employees of Phillips 66. Many of them had held assets in
individual retirement accounts in the ConocoPhillips Savings Plan
at the time of the separation. These accounts included large
investments in two single-stock funds comprised of ConocoPhillips
stock. As a result of the separation, each employee received one
share of Phillips 66 stock for every two shares of ConocoPhillips
stock held in their account. Afterward, Phillips 66 employees had
$2.9 billion in ConocoPhillips Plan assets, including $1.1 billion
invested in the ConocoPhillips Funds. The ConocoPhillips Plan
transferred these assets to the Phillips 66 Savings Plan, the newly
established retirement plan for Phillips 66 employees. After the
transfer, Phillips 66 Plan participants could retain or sell their
investments in the ConocoPhillips Funds, but could not make new
investments in the Funds.
As the Phillips 66 Plan is a defined contribution plan, each
participant has an individual account and benefits are based on the
amounts contributed to that participant's account. The Plan
participants decide how much to contribute to their accounts and
how to allocate their assets among an array of investment options
selected by the Plan's Investment Committee. The Phillips 66 Plan
allows participants to invest in two single-stock funds comprised
of Phillips 66 stock. Just a few months after the spin-off, the
Plan had $1.1 billion invested in the ConocoPhillips Funds and $0.9
billion in the Phillips 66 Funds. Together, these funds accounted
for 58% of the Plan's assets.
When ConocoPhillips spun off Phillips 66 on April 30, 2012,
ConocoPhillips's share price was about $55. Over the next two
years, its share price increased by more than 50%, reaching $86 by
June 2014. The Plaintiffs allege, however, that by the second half
of 2014, there were red flags indicating ConocoPhillips was a risky
investment. They point to publicly available information.
ConocoPhillips's share price fell to $69 by the end of 2014, $46 by
the end of 2015, and $40 by February 2016. When the Plaintiffs
filed this lawsuit in October 2017, the share price was $50.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Investment Committee and its members
("Fiduciaries") breached their fiduciary duties of diversification
and prudence under ERISA by failing to independently review the
merits of divesting the ConocoPhillips Funds. According to them,
the Fiduciaries incorrectly believed that ConocoPhillips was a
"qualifying employer security," an ESOP, and thus exempt from
certain diversification requirements.
The district court held that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim
based on the duty to diversify because the Phillips 66 participants
were not allowed to make new investments in the ConocoPhillips
Funds and could elect to exchange their assets out of the Funds at
any time. It also held that their duty-of-prudence claim was
foreclosed by the Supreme Court's holding in Fifth Third Bancorp v.
Dudenhoeffer.
The appeal followed.
On appeal, the Plaintiffs contend that the Fiduciaries breached
their duty to diversify under Section 1104(a)(1)(C) and their duty
of prudence under Section 1104(a)(1)(B) by failing to consider
reducing their holdings in the ConocoPhillips Funds. The
Fiduciaries first argue that the Plaintiffs' claims never get off
the ground because the ConocoPhillips Funds are "qualifying
employer securities," which are statutorily exempt from the
diversification requirement of Section 1104(a)(1)(C) and the
prudence requirement (only to the extent that it requires
diversification) of Section 1104(a)(1)(B).
Although ConocoPhillips had employed the Phillips 66 Plan's
participants, the Fifth Circuit holds that Phillips 66 is the only
entity now "acting" as the employer of employees covered by the
Phillips 66 Plan. The ConocoPhillips Funds are qualifying employer
stock only if they were issued by Phillips 66. They were not. The
ConocoPhillips Funds were not "employer securities" after the
spin-off and were no longer exempt from the duties under Section
1104(a)(1)(B) and (C).
The Fifth Circuit also holds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged
that the Fiduciaries did not offer sufficient investment options or
failed to warn Plan participants of the risk of a concentrated
portfolio. As a result, their Section 1104(a)(1)(C) claim fails.
The Fifth Circuit finds that the duty to diversify under Section
1104(a)(1)(C) imposes obligations on fiduciaries for defined
benefit plans that are different from those for defined
contribution plans, like the Phillips 66 Plan. As fiduciaries for
defined benefit plans choose the investments and allocate the
plan's assets, they must ensure the plan's assets as a whole are
well diversified. The fiduciaries for a defined contribution plan,
however, only select investment options; the participants then
choose how to allocate their assets to the available options.
These fiduciaries therefore need only provide investment options
that enable participants to create diversified portfolios; they
need not ensure that participants actually diversify their
portfolios.
The parties then engage over the prudence of retaining the
ConocoPhillips Funds without undertaking a proper investigation.
The Plaintiffs allege that single-stock funds are inherently
imprudent because they expose investors to extreme volatility and
risk, and they argue that the duty of prudence requires each
individual fund in a plan to be diversified. The Fiduciaries
respond that the Plaintiffs' duty-of-prudence claim fails under the
Supreme Court's decision in Dudenhoeffer, and that requiring each
fund to be diversified would conflict with modern portfolio theory,
which evaluates the prudence of an investment in the context of a
portfolio as a whole.
The Fifth Circuit holds that the second wing of the Plaintiffs'
duty-of-prudence claim that the ConocoPhillips Funds were imprudent
because of the risk inherent in failing to diversify, does not
implicate Dudenhoeffer and is not foreclosed by it. The Fifth
Circuit also holds that the Plaintiffs' claim that the district
court erred in dismissing their claim that the Fiduciaries failed
to comply with their duty to follow a regular, appropriate,
systematic procedure to evaluate the ConocoPhillips Funds as
investments in the Plan, fails for the reason that they cannot
enjoy their autonomy and now blame the Fiduciaries for declining to
second guess that judgment.
For these reasons, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's
dismissal of the Plaintiffs' suit.
A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's May 22, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/RjQm96 from Leagle.com.
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Court Issues Protective Order in Guzman Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California has issued a protective order in the
case, Guzman and Albright, individually on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Polaris Industries
Inc., et al. Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01543-JLS-KESx (C.D.
Cal.).
The Plaintiffs and the Defendants agree that during the course of
discovery it may be necessary to disclose certain confidential and
proprietary information relating to the subject matter of the
Action. They agree that the documents and other information,
including the substance and content thereof, designated by any
party as confidential and proprietary, and produced by that party
in response to any formal or informal request for discovery in any
of the cases consolidated in the matter, will be subject to the
terms of the Protective Order.
Magistrate Judge Scott holds that good cause exists to support the
entry of the Order because the information sought in discovery
includes information that at least one party considers confidential
and proprietary, including trade secret and confidential research,
development, or commercial information, or other information that a
party deems confidential and protectable under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26. Divulging such information without any
protection from disclosure to the general public, or to the parties
for purposes other than the Action, could be detrimental to the
ongoing business of the parties, particularly those parties who are
conducting business in a highly competitive environment.
The purpose of the Order is to expedite the flow of discovery
material, facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over
confidentiality and privilege, and protect material to be kept
confidential or privileged pursuant to the Court's inherent
authority, its authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(c) and Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), and the judicial
opinions interpreting such Rules. For good cause shown under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Judge granted the
parties' joint request and entered the Protective Order.
The Order covers Information that the Producing Party designates
"Confidential" or "Highly Confidential." Any party may object to
the propriety of the designation of specific material as
Confidential or Highly Confidential by serving a written objection
upon the Producing Party's counsel. Confidential Information and
Highly Confidential Information must be used only in the
proceeding, except that nothing in the Protective Order will be
construed as limiting any party from disclosing a potential safety
defect to an appropriate government agency.
Within 90 days of the termination of any party from all proceedings
in the proceeding, that party, its employees, attorneys,
consultants and experts must destroy or return (at the election of
the Receiving Party) all originals and/or copies of documents with
Confidential Information or Highly Confidential Information.
In the event that any person or party violates the terms of the
Protective Order or threatens to violate the terms of the
Protective Order, the aggrieved Producing Party may apply to the
Court to obtain relief against any such person or party violating
or threatening to violate any of the terms of this Protective
Order. The parties and any other person subject to the terms of
the Protective Order agree that the Court will retain jurisdiction
over it and them for the purpose of enforcing the Protective
Order.
In the event that any person or party violates the terms of the
Protective Order by disclosing Confidential Personal Information or
Highly Confidential Information relating to an individual third
party, or in the event that any person or party breaches the terms
of the Protective Order in a manner that requires disclosure to a
third party under pertinent privacy laws or otherwise, it will be
the responsibility of the breaching party to contact that third
party and to comply with any laws or regulations involving breaches
of Personal Information.
The Protective Order will remain in force and effect until
modified, superseded, or terminated by order of the Court. Unless
otherwise ordered, or agreed upon by the parties, the Protective
Order will survive the termination of this action. The Court
retains jurisdiction even after termination of the Action to
enforce the Protective Order and to make such amendments,
modifications, deletions and additions to the Protective Order as
the Court may from time to time deem appropriate.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 22, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/8SDVT5 from Leagle.com.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Antonov Asserts Breach of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Fedor Antonov, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-03402 (E.D. N.Y., July 28, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC provides debt recovery and
collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
Horowitz Law, PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Tel: (718) 705-8706
Fax: (718) 705-8705
Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com
PSYCHEMEDICS CORP: Sagastume Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ENMA SAGASTUME, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated v. PSYCHEMEDICS CORPORATION, an unknown business entity;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV22443 (Filed June
9, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on July 23, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-06624 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period
premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, and
final wages not timely paid in violation of the California Labor
Code.
Psychemedics Corporation is a United States corporation, which
provides patented, FDA-cleared, CAP certified clinical laboratory
services for the detection of drugs of abuse.[BN]
Defendant Psychemedics Corporation is represented by:
Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq.
Hanna B. Raanan, Esq.
Tiffany S. Woods, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
695 Town Center Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: 714-800-7900
Facsimile: 714-754-1298
E-mail: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com
hanna.raanan@ogletree.com
tiffany.woods@ogletree.com
RCI LLC: Williams-Young Files Consumer Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RCI, LLC. The case is
styled as Phyllis N. Williams-Young, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RCI, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00841-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla., July 28, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer
Credit.
RCI, established in 1974 and headquartered in Carmel, Indiana, is a
timeshare exchange company offering a vacation exchange.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630) 575-8181
Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
REGENT UNIVERSITY: Hedges Sues in New York Over Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regent University.
The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Regent University, Case No.
1:20-cv-05950 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Regent University is a private Christian university in Virginia
Beach, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
RICHELIEU FOODS: Gonzalez BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE GONZALEZ v. RICHELIEU
FOODS, INC., Case No. 2020CH04468 (Filed June 5, 2020), was removed
from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 23, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-04354 to the proceeding.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Biometric Information Privacy
Act.
Richelieu Foods is a private label food manufacturing company
founded in 1862, and headquartered in Braintree, Massachusetts.
Richelieu Foods is previously owned by investment group Brynwood
Partners.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher J. Esbrook, Esq.
Michael Kozlowski, Esq.
ESBROOK LAW LLC
77 W. Wacker Drive Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 319-7680
E-mail: christopher.esbrook@esbrooklaw.com
michael.kozlowski@esbrooklaw.com
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Kelly Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Hugh Kelly, Christine Kelly, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA
INC., Case No. 2006047069, was removed from the Pennsylvania Court
of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 30, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-03698 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. is a public, full-service,
consumer finance company focused on vehicle finance and third-party
servicing.
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kristopher Issac Devyver, Esq.
MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 667-6000
Email: kdevyver@mcguirewoods.com
SAPUTO CHEESE: Vasquez Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DON M. VASQUEZ, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
SAPUTO CHEESE USA INC., a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1 through
25, inclusive, Case No. 282978 (Filed May 27, 2020), was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Tulare to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on July 23, 2020.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01029-DAD-JDP to the proceeding.
The complaint alleges causes of action arising from the Defendants'
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay reporting time pay, failure to provide meal periods,
and failure to provide rest periods in violation of Labor Code.
Saputo is a Montreal-based Canadian dairy company founded in 1954
by the Saputo family. Currently, Saputo produces, markets, and
distributes a wide array of dairy products, including cheese, fluid
milk, extended shelf-life milk and cream products, cultured
products and dairy ingredients.[BN]
Defendant Saputo Cheese is represented by:
S. Brett Sutton, Esq.
Jared Hague, Esq.
Jonathan W. Black, Esq.
SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION, P.C.
5200 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 203
Fresno, CA 93704
Telephone: (559) 325-0500
Facsimile: (559) 981-1217
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Gross Law Announces Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in Sorrento
Therapeutics, Inc. Shareholders who purchased shares in the company
during the date listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:SRNE)
Investors Affected : May 15, 2020 - May 22, 2020
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's initial finding
of "100% inhibition" in an in vitro virus infection will not
necessarily translate to to success or safety in vivo, or in
person; (ii) the Company's finding was not a "cure" for COVID-19;
and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/sorrento-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=8142&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
STEEL SUPPLEMENTS: Avedyan Class Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ARLEN AVEDYAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STEEL
SUPPLEMENTS, INC., Case No. 2020-003209-CA-01 (Filed February 11,
2020), was removed from the Florida Circuit Court for the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on July 28,
2020.
The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-23117-XXXX to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that she received allegedly
offending text messages in Miami-Dade County.
The Defendant is doing business in health, wellness and fitness
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
Defendant Steel Supplements is represented by:
Jason P. Stearns, Esq.
Sarah A. Gottlieb, Esq.
FREEBORN & PETERS LLP
201 North Franklin Street, Suite 3550
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 488-2920
E-mail: jstearns@freeborn.com
sgottlieb@freeborn.com
SUTTER VALLEY: Faces Skeri Suit in California Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sutter Valley
Hospitals, et al. The case is captioned as LISA SKERI, ON BEHALF OF
HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC v.
SUTTER VALLEY HOSPITALS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; SUTTER BAY
HOSPITALS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; and DOES 1 TO 100, INCLUSIVE,
Case No. CGC20585671 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., July 20,
2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Garrett L. Wong. A case
management conference will beheld on Dec. 23, 2020.
Sutter is a not-for-profit integrated health delivery system
headquartered in Sacramento, California. Sutter operates 24 acute
care hospitals and over 200 clinics in Northern California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ross Elliott Shanberg, Esq.
SHANBERG STAFFORD & BARTZ LLP
5031 Birch Street, Suite 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 205-7515
Facsimile: (949) 205-7144
E-mail: rshanberg@ssbfirm.com
TENDERLOIN HOUSING: Fennix Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON FENNIX, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TENDERLOIN
HOUSING CLINIC, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive Case No. CGC-20-584834 (Filed June 9, 2020), was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and
for the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on July 29, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-05207 to the proceeding.
In the complaint, the Plaintiff asserts the following causes of
action: failure to pay minimum and straight time wages; failure to
pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure
to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to indemnify
necessary business expenses; failure to timely pay final wages at
termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
and unfair business practices in violation of the Labor Code.
Tenderloin operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization
offers property management, community organizing, and housing,
legal, and support services.[BN]
The Defendant Tenderloin is represented by:
Shirley C. Wang, Esq.
DAVIS WANG LAW
625 Market Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 278-1400
Facsimile: (415) 278-1401
E-mail: swang@daviswanglaw.com
TERMINAL ISLAND, CA: Wilson Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Lance Aaron Wilson, Maurice Smith, and Edgar Vasquez
filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Lance
Wilson, et al. v. Felicia Ponce, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-04451-MWF-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.
Felicia Ponce is the Warden at the Terminal Island federal prison.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 3,
2020, the Plaintiffs-Petitioners ask the Court for an order:
1. provisionally certifying the Petitioners' claims as a
class action on behalf of:
"all current and future prisoners incarcerated at Terminal
Island because they are in desperate need of that
preliminary relief before they 10 suffer substantial --
and potentially fatal -- harm";
2. appointing Petitioners as Class Representatives; and
3. appointing Class Counsel, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2) and any other applicable
rule of civil procedure or law.[CC]
The Petitioners have moved for preliminary relief to prevent
catastrophic harm to Terminal Island prisoners, many of whom are
medically vulnerable, as a result of Respondents' failure to take
adequate measures to address the COVID-19 pandemic.
Terminal Island is a largely artificial island located in Los
Angeles County, California, between the neighborhood of San Pedro
in the city of Los Angeles, and the city of Long Beach. Terminal
Island is roughly split between the Port of Los Angeles and Port of
Long Beach.
The appellate case is captioned as Lance Wilson, et al. v. Felicia
Ponce, et al., Case No. 20-55760, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Opening brief and excerpts of record are due not later than
August 25, 2020;
-- Answering brief is due on September 22, 2020, or 28 days
after service of the opening brief, whichever is earlier;
and
-- the optional reply brief is due within 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Petitioners-Appellants LANCE AARON WILSON, MAURICE SMITH, and EDGAR
VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Peter Bibring, Esq.
ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
140 S. Lake Avenue
Pasadena, CA 81101
Telephone: (213) 977-5295
E-mail: pbibring@aclusocal.org
- and -
Terry W. Bird, Esq.
Naeun Rim, Esq.
Oliver Rocos, Esq.
Dorothy Wolpert, Esq.
BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, DROOKS,
LINCENBERG & RHOW P.C.
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
Telephone: (310) 201-2100
E-mail: tbird@birdmarella.com
nrim@birdmarella.com
orocos@birdmarella.com
dwolpert@birdmarella.com
- and -
Peter Jay Eliasberg, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
1313 West 8th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
E-mail: peliasberg@aclusocal.org
- and -
Sara Norman, Esq.
Donald Specter, Esq.
PRISON LAW OFFICE
1917 Fifth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710-1916
Telephone: (510) 280-2621
E-mail: snorman@prisonlaw.com
dspecter@prisonlaw.com
Respondents-Appellees FELICIA PONCE, Warden, and MICHAEL CARVAJAL,
Director of the Bureau of Prisons, are represented by:
Paul B. Green, Esq.
Chung Hae Han, Esq.
Keith Miles Staub, Esq.
Damon Thayer, Esq.
Jasmin Yang, Esq.
USLA-OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY
300 North Los Angeles Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: (213) 894-0805
E-mail: paul.green@usdoj.gov
chung.han@usdoj.gov
keith.staub@usdoj.gov
damon.thayer@usdoj.gov
jasmin.yang@usdoj.gov
THIRTY MADISON: Young Suit Asserts Breach of ADA
------------------------------------------------
Thirty Madison, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Thirty Madison, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05866 (S.D. N.Y., July 28, 2020).
Thirty Madison, Inc., doing business as Keeps, provides personal
care products. The Company offers FDA-approved treatments for men's
hair loss.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
TOOTSIE ROLL: Maisel Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH MAISEL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
TOOTSIE ROLL INDUSTRIES, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 2020RG20062689 (Filed May 29, 2020), was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco/Oakland) on July 29, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-05204-SK to the proceeding.
The complaint concerns Tootsie Roll's sale of Junior Mints and
Sugar Babies in "theater boxes." The Plaintiff asserts that Tootsie
Roll's packaging of these products is "deceptive," as the packaging
at issue allegedly contains "an unlawful amount of empty space or
slack fill."
On behalf of a putative class of consumers, who purchased Junior
Mints and/or Sugar Babies in theater boxes in California from May
29, 2016, to May 2, 2018, the Plaintiff asserts violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law, the California's False
Advertising Law, the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and
claims of unjust enrichment, common law fraud, and breach of
implied warranty of merchantability.
The Plaintiff is alleged to be a resident of California, who
purchased the disputed Product in Alameda County.
Tootsie Roll manufactures and sells some of the world's most
popular confectionery brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Jack Clarkson, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
9255 W Sunset Blvd., Ste. 804
West Hollywood, CA 90069-3305
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
Defendant Tootsie Roll is represented by:
David M. Jolley, Esq.
DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP
1999 Harrison Street, 26th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612-3520
Telephone: (510) 451-3300
Facsimile: (510) 451-1527
E-mail: djolley@donahue.com
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Douglas Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Travelers
Indemnity Company. The case is styled as Catherine Douglas,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Travelers Indemnity Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-04472 (N.D. Ill.,
July 30, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
The Travelers Indemnity Company operates as an insurance company.
The Company offers home, auto, commercial, life, health,
recreational vehicle, business, travel, and other personal
insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
TRI-STATE INT'L: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Cruz Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHAEL CRUZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. TRI-STATE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05819-AJN
(S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2020), asserts claims against the Defendant for
its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web
site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site,
http://www.cpcompany.com/,and, therefore, denial of its goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the
complaint. Because the Web site is not equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, the Defendant violates the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people, who meet this definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2016 report, approximately
420,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
Tri-State International operates as truck dealer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Robbins LLP Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP announces that a purchaser
of Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. (NYSE: TUFN) filed a class
action complaint against Tufin on July 21, 2020 for alleged
violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933 pursuant to
the Company's April 2019 initial public offering ("IPO") and
December 2019 secondary offering ("SPO"). Tufin develops, markets,
and sells software-based solutions primarily in the United States,
Europe, and Asia.
Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. (TUFN) Accused of Inflating its
IPO Price
According to the complaint, Tufin held its IPO on April 11, 2019,
offering 7.7 million shares at $14.00 per share and raising
approximately $107.8 million in gross proceeds. In Tufin's offering
documents, the Company lauded increased revenues from the Americas
of $48.27 million for 2018, primarily in the United States, and
touted strong customer relationships and technology products as
part of its growth strategy. Under these pretenses, Tufin held its
SPO on December 5, 2019, issuing an additional 4,279,882 shares at
$17 per share for $72,757,994 in gross proceeds. Despite these
positive representations, on January 8, 2020, Tufin announced that
it expected to report total revenue in the range of $29.5 million
to $30.1 million, compared to its previous guidance of total
revenue in the range of $34.0 million to $38.0 million. Tufin also
revealed anticipated non-GAAP operating loss in the range of $1.1
million to $2.6 million compared to its previous guidance of
non-GAAP operating profit of up to $3 million, citing Tufin's
inability to close a number of transactions, primarily in North
America. Following this news, Tufin's stock fell 24% and its market
capitalization declined $145 million. Since then, Tufin's shares
have continued to trade well below its IPO price of $14 per share
and SPO price of $17 per share.
If you purchased Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. (TUFN) securities
traceable to its April 2019 IPO and/or December 2019 SPO, you have
until September 21, 2020, to ask the court to be appointed lead
plaintiff for the class.
Lauren Levi
Tel No: (800) 350-6003
E-mail: llevi@robbinsllp.com
Robbins LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights
law. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Blinds Can't Access Web Site, Hedges Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HEDGES, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05833
(S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2020), asserts claims against the Defendant for
its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web
site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site,
https://www.phoenix.edu/, and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the
complaint. Because the Defendant's Web site is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the Defendant
violates the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments,
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people, who meet this definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million, who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2016 report, approximately 420,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The University of Phoenix, Inc., operates the University of Phoenix
online college across the United States including the State of New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: 212 228.9795
Facsimile: 212 982.6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
danalgottlieb@aol.com
WATKINS & SHEPARD: Romero Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Alejandro Romero filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in his lawsuit entitled Alejandro Romero v. Watkins &
Shepard Trucking Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-02158-PSG-KK, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Riverside.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover wages and other payments for terminated
employees.
Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages, salary,
commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay,
pension and 401(k) contributions and other Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 benefits, for 60 days following the
member, that would have been covered and paid under the then
applicable employee benefit plans had that coverage continued for
that period, all determined in accordance with California Labor
Code.
The Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf and on behalf of
all other similarly situated former employees of the Defendants,
who worked for them outside of California and who were terminated
without cause in August 2019.
The appellate case is captioned as Alejandro Romero v. Watkins &
Shepard Trucking Inc., et al., Case No. 20-55768, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant Alejandro Romero Mediation Questionnaire is due
on August 5, 2020;
-- Appellant Alejandro Romero's opening brief is due on
September 28, 2020;
-- Appellees Schneider National Carriers, Inc. and Watkins and
Shepard Trucking, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
October 28, 2020; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ALEJANDRO ROMERO, on his own behalf and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, is represented by:
Eric Panitz, Esq.
PANITZ LAW GROUP APC
18000 Studebaker Road, Suite 700
Cerritos, CA 90703
Telephone: (562) 924-7800
E-mail: eric@panitzlaw.com
Defendants-Appellees WATKINS AND SHEPARD TRUCKING, INC., a Montana
corporation, and SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., a Nevada
corporation, are represented by:
Sabrina Alexis Beldner, Esq.
Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
Matthew Kane, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 956-3419
E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
abeverlin@mcguirewoods.com
mkane@mcguirewoods.com
WATKINS INCORPORATED: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Watkins Incorporated.
The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Watkins Incorporated, Case No.
1:20-cv-05926 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Watkins Incorporated is a manufacturer of health remedies, baking
products, and other household items.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
WATTS HEALTHCARE: Flournoy Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SONIKA FLOURNOY, on behalf of
herself, and others similarly situated v. WATTS HEALTHCARE
CORPORATION and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV08186
(Filed March 2, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on July 23,
2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-06607 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for failure to
pay wages for all time worked at minimum wage, failure to pay
proper overtime wages for daily overtime worked, all hours worked,
and failure to include all remuneration in calculating overtime
wages, and failure to timely pay wages in violation of Cal. Lab.
Code.
Watts Healthcare is a medical group practice located in Los
Angeles, California, that specializes in Dentistry and Internal
Medicine.[BN]
The Defendant Watts Healthcare represented by:
Alecia W. Winfield, Esq.
Brandie N. Charles, Esq.
Leah E. Peterson, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
Telephone: 310 553 0308
Facsimile: 310 553 5583
E-mail: awinfield@littler.com
bcharles@littler.com
peterson@littler.com
WELLS FARGO: Robbins LLP Announces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP announces that a purchaser
of Wells Fargo & Co. (NYSE: WFC) filed a class action complaint
against the Company for alleged violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 between February 2, 2018 and March 10, 2020.
Wells Fargo is a diversified financial services company that
provides banking, investment, mortgage, and consumer and commercial
finance products and services.
Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) Accused of Misleading Shareholders
According to the complaint, in 2016 and 2017, Wells Fargo engaged
in high-profile scandals that involved Company employees opening
scores of unauthorized deposit and credit accounts in customers'
names as well as other severe customer abuses. Following these
revelations, the Federal Reserve, Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency entered into a
consent orders with Wells Fargo to ensure the Company ameliorated
its oversight and governance failures. Wells Fargo repeatedly
touted its reform efforts and assured investors it was complying
with its consent orders. Notwithstanding, on March 4, 2020, the
U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee issued a
report revealing Wells Fargo "continues to struggle to implement
effective risk management and remediation programs" and failed to
demonstrate it can establish compliance management infrastructure
capable of preventing customer abuses. Finally, on March 11, 2020,
the Financial Services Committee held a hearing in which Wells
Fargo's former chair of its board of directors indicated Wells
Fargo was well aware it was not adequately responding to the
consent orders and had not implemented effective risk management
procedures. Following these disclosures, Wells Fargo's share price
fell 34% from a closing price of $41.40 per share on March 5, 2020,
to a closing price of $27.50 per share on March 12, 2020. [GN]
WHOLESOME HARVEST: Wilson Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JAKARI WILSON, an individual,
on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. WHOLESOME HARVEST BAKING, LLC, a Limited Liability
Company; BIMBO BAKEHOUSE LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. C20-00989 (Filed June 1, 2020),
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
Contra Costa County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on July 28, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-05186 to the proceeding.
The lawsuit asserts claims against the Defendants for unfair
competition, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide required meal periods, failure to provide
required rest periods, failure to reimburse employees for required
expenses in violation of California Labor Code.
The Defendants are doing business in the baking industry.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kathy H. Gao, Esq.
Claire M. Lesikar, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Telephone: 213 612 2500
Facsimile: 213 612 2501
E-mail: kathy.gao@morganlewis.com
claire.lesikar@morganlewis.com
WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wonderful Pistachios
& Almonds LLC. The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, Individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03433
(E.D.N.Y., July 30, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds is the world's largest grower and
processor of almonds and pistachios.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
WW INTERNATIONAL: Quintanilla Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Sandra Quintanilla, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. WW International, Inc., DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 56-02020-00542259, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Ventura to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on July 30, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-06843 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
WW International, Inc., formerly Weight Watchers International,
Inc., is a global company headquartered in the U.S. that offers
various products and services to assist in healthy habits,
including weight loss and maintenance, fitness, and mindset, such
as the Weight Watchers comprehensive diet program.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Tami Kameda Sims, Esq.
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSEMAN LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012
Phone: (310) 788-4685
Fax: (310) 788-4471
Email: tami.sims@kattenlaw.com
*********
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 ***