/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200806.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, August 6, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 157
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Miles Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
AFFINITY CONSULTANTS: Fabricant Slams Illegal Telemarketing Calls
ALLINA HEALTH: $808,200 Counsel Fees Awarded in Larson Class Suit
AMERICAN CAMPUS: Refuses Refunds to Leaseholders, Perna Suit Says
BANK OF AMERICA: DiFlauro and Martin Sue Over Illegal Charges
BARRIOS FOODS: Flores Sues Over Denied Breaks, Missing Pay Slips
BARTLETT DAIRY: Gibson Hits Antibiotics in Milk, Cries Mislabeling
BETTER MANAGEMENT: Fischler Claims Website is Blind-Inaccessible
BIRD RIDES: Court Issues Protective Order in Machowski Class Suit
BRIAD RESTAURANT: Class Notice & Notice Plan in Andersen Okayed
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Wins Bid to Dismiss Stein Securities Suit
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Lebovits Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTIC: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 17 Deadline
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Hayes Suit Seeks to Enjoin Voting on Proposal
CITY LUMBER: Burton Sues Over Unlawful Wage Deduction & Unpaid OT
COCA-COLA CO: Gil Files Product Mislabeling Suit Over Coke Vanilla
COMCAST CABLE: Joseph Files ERISA Suit Over Lost Insurance Benefits
COMPASS GROUP: E.D. Missouri Lifts Stay Entered in Jaye Suit
CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Jim Seeks Overtime Pay for Pre-shift Hours
COVENTBRIDGE USA: McSpirit Seeks Proper Wage Pay for Investigators
EL MOLCAJETE: Garcia Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
ENPHASE ENERGY: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 17 Deadline
ENPHASE ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
FIRST EAGLE: Nguyen Sues Over Unequal Pay, Wrongful Dismissal
FITTRACK LLC: Poonja Suit Over TCPA Violation Moved to N.D. Ill.
GF MANAGEMENT: Migyanko Says Hotel Beds not Wheelchair Accessible
GOOGLE LLC: Marquez Suit Over BIPA Breach Moved to N.D. Illinois
GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Guerriero Seeks OT Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
GUITAR CENTER: Lupolover Slams Illegal SMS Ads
HAIN CELESTIAL: Marsella Files Product Mislabeling Suit
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Pa.
HONEYWELL INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Kanefsky Class Suit Denied
IDEANOMICS INC: Lundy Hits Share Drop from Fake Reports
INSPERITY INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 21 Deadline
INTEL CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in Oregon Class Suit
INTERSTATE CLEANING: Wins Arbitration Bid in Gonzalez Suit
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT: Figueroa Sues Over Racial Discrimination
ITO INC: Underpays Employees, Mendoza Claims
J2 GLOBAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of September 8 Deadline
J2 GLOBAL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 8 Deadline
JPMORGAN CHASE: Gramatis Sues Over Treasury Futures Price-Fixing
KCI USA: District of Nebraska Issues Progression Order in Palmer
KDL MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime, Brown Claims
KIRKLAND LAKE: Lowey Dannenberg Reminds of August 28 Deadline
LENCHO OILFIELD: Birdwell Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Moore Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
LOPEZ FARM: Santiago Sues Over Unpaid OT, Meal & Rest Period Pay
MARRIOTT INT'L: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 16 Deadline
MONCON INC: Construction Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
NEW MEXICO: D.N.M. Denies Ortiz's Bid to Comply With Settlement
NEW TOASTIES DELI: Gomez Seeks Overtime Pay, Slams Tip Credit
OHIO: Court Awards $1.2MM in Attorney's Fees & Costs in Ball Suit
OREGON: Court Won't Dismiss Canales-Robles 14th Amendment Suit
POLLO SABROSO: Hernandez Claims Overtime, Slams Tip Credit
RELIANCE STANDARD: Examiners Seek Unpaid Overtime Premiums
ROCHESTER, MN: Settlement in Campbell Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
SEIU LOCAL 521: Settlement in Bermudez Suit Gets Final Approval
SK ENERGY: Ritual Coffee Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California
STUBHUB INC: Fuentes Slams Billing for Cancelled Game
TATE & KIRLIN: Compelled to Produce Statements in Matthias Suit
TPUSA-FHCS INC: Nattoo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Scott+Scott Attorneys Files Class Action
UNITED HEALTHCARE: All Existing Deadlines in Smith Suit Vacated
VERIZON CONNECT FLEET: Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay
VITA LOCATORS LLC: Price Seeks Unpaid Wages and Damages Under FLSA
VITOL INC: Harris Sues Over Rigged Gas Prices
VITOL INC: Kelly Sues Over Rigged Gas Prices
WELLS FARGO: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of Lawsuit
WEST VIRGINIA-AMERICAN: S.D.W.V. Refuses to Review Perez's Claim
WWE: Kansas Firefighters Pension Named Lead Plaintiff in Class Suit
*********
3M COMPANY: Miles Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEWAYNE MILES v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-02777-RMG (D.S.C., July 29,
2020), seeks damages for personal injury for the Plaintiff and for
those similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Miles case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
AFFINITY CONSULTANTS: Fabricant Slams Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Affinity Consultants Ltd. and Does 1
through 10, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05671 (C.D. Cal., June 23,
2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages
and all other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
Affinity Consultants Ltd. operates as Affinity Member Services.
Fabricant claims to have received auto-dialed telemarketing calls
from the company on his phone. Fabricant is registered in the
National Do-Not-Call registry. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
ALLINA HEALTH: $808,200 Counsel Fees Awarded in Larson Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan Richard Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota granted the Class Counsel's Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Case Contribution Awards for the
Class Representatives 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.).
The Court granted preliminary approval of the class settlement in
the Larson lawsuit in November 2019. The Class Counsel oversaw the
issuance of the Court-approved Class Notice, for which 69,558
individual Class Notices were mailed to Settlement Class members.
The mailing resulted in a 95.87% rate. The Class Notice was also
posted on a website, www.AllinaERISASettlement.com, through which
Settlement Class members could view a summary description of the
Action, its status, and access the Settlement Agreement and related
documents. The Class Counsel also received 448 telephone inquiries
about the Settlement from Settlement Class members, and received
and responded to 89 emails from the Settlement Class members.
The November 2019 Preliminary Approval Order addressed the rights
of the Settlement Class members to object to any aspect of the
Settlement, including the proposed award of attorneys' fees. Four
objections, representing less than 0.01% of those who received
mailed notice of the Settlement, were filed. The objections do not
challenge the fairness or reasonableness of the Settlement; they
only challenge the request for attorneys' fees. Patricia Hines
objects to the requested amount for the fees and expenses, and
requests that the Court limits fees and expenses to less than 20%.
Dr. Randall Johnson, who appeared at the hearing on the instant
motion and stated his objection on the record, also filed a written
objection. Dr. Johnson states that a one-third allocation for
attorneys' fees is too high, and believes that a 10% to 15%
allocation would be more reasonable. An unknown objector states
that the only winner in the case is the lawyers and wonders why
healthcare is so expensive. Finally, Sharon Atchley states that an
allocation of one-third plus a maximum of $50,000 for reimbursement
of expenses seems very excessive. She asks that fees and expenses
be limited to less than 20% of the Settlement.
Judge Nelson finds that the requested amount of attorneys' fees and
the requested amount of expenses are reasonable. Congress intended
that private individuals would play an important role in enforcing
ERISA's fiduciary duties. To that end, the class counsel's fees
should reflect the important public policy goal of providing
lawyers with sufficient incentive to bring common fund cases that
serve the public interest. While court-awarded fees must be
reasonable, if they are set too low, there will be insufficient
incentive for attorneys to bring large class action cases.
Accordingly, in the Eighth Circuit, courts have routinely awarded
attorney fees ranging from 25% to 36% of a common fund under the
percentage-of-the-fund method.
Given the benefit conferred on the Settlement Class, the limited
objections the fee and costs request, the risks incurred by the
Class Counsel since the outset of the litigation, with no promise
of recovery or payment, the professional experience of and
substantial work performed by the Class Counsel, and the Class
Counsel's commitment to oversee the claim process and future work
on the litigation, Judge Nelson finds that the requested attorneys'
fees and expenses are reasonable and appropriate. The four
Objectors do not sufficiently consider all of these factors, and
their objections are overruled, the Judge opined.
Moreover, the Defendants' independent fiduciary, Gallagher
Fiduciary Advisors, LLC, which was hired to analyze both the terms
of the Settlement and the Class Counsel's application for fees and
expenses, found the fee request reasonable, in light of the effort
expended by the Class Counsel in the litigation, and likewise found
the Settlement reasonable.
Ms. Hines and Ms. Atchley object to a maximum award of $50,000 in
expenses, but the Plaintiffs only request $12,413.78. The Judge
therefore finds their objections moot in that regard, and further
finds that these expenses were necessary for the prosecution of the
case.
Accordingly, Judge Nelson granted the Class Counsel's motion. The
Class Counsel is therefore awarded attorneys' fees of $808,252.50
and reimbursement of expenses in the sum of $12,413.78, to be paid
from the Settlement Fund.
The Judge finds that the amount of fees awarded is appropriate,
fair, and reasonable given the substantial risks of non-recovery,
the time and effort involved, and the result obtained for the
Settlement Class.
Each of the Class Representatives are awarded $5,000 as a Case
Contribution Award, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, in
recognition of their contributions to the Action.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 22, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/qu1pap from Leagle.com.
AMERICAN CAMPUS: Refuses Refunds to Leaseholders, Perna Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MONIQUE PERNA and LISA CROUCH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AMERICAN CAMPUS COMMUNITIES, INC.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00846 (M.D. Fla., July 29, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's refusal to grant any refunds to its leaseholders.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all people, who paid or are
paying the costs of room and board and attendant service fees for
the Spring 2020 academic semester for student housing in apartments
managed by the Defendant throughout the State of Florida.
At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, these people lost the
benefits of the room and board and/or the services for which they
had paid or are paying, according to the complaint. The Defendant
has responded to the pandemic and the resulting constructive
eviction of its tenants by retaining the unearned costs and fees,
and implementing a policy whereby it refuses to grant any refunds
to its leaseholders.
In March 2020, Florida colleges and universities announced that,
because of the global COVID-19 pandemic and to protect the health
and safety of the students and others, all classes would be moved
online for the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester. The Plaintiff
contends that students, who lived in on-campus housing were told to
move out, such that they had no meaningful choice but to comply.
Ms. Perna is the guarantor and co-signer for her son, Jakes's room
at Plaza on University apartments for the Fall 2019-Spring 2020
academic school year. Jake Perna, like many students, took out a
student loan, as well as worked part-time to cover costs associated
with college. As did many Americans, Jake was furloughed as a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ms. Crouch is the guarantor and
co-signer for her daughter's room at The Village at Science Drive
for the Fall 2019-Spring 2020 academic school year.
The Defendant touts itself as "The nation's largest developer,
owner, and manager of high-quality student housing communities"
(https://www.americancampus.com/about-us). The Defendant operates
at least 11 locations in Florida. The Defendant advertises its
apartments to students across the country as an alternative to
on-campus living, while offering amenities specifically geared to
college students, such as 24-hour fitness centers, swimming pools
with a hot tub and poolside cabanas, computer labs, and university
involvement.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
Heather H. Jones, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
4030 Henderson Boulevard
Tampa, FL 33629
Telephone: (813) 500-1500
Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
BANK OF AMERICA: DiFlauro and Martin Sue Over Illegal Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
John DiFlauro and Brian Martin individually and on behalf of a
class of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Bank
of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A., Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-22316 (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2020), seeks injunctive,
declaratory and compensatory relief for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, the California Unfair Competition Law the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act and breach of contract.
Bank of America is one the largest originators and services
mortgages throughout the United States. DiFlauro and Martin are
homeowners who were charged excessive fees of $6.00 or more for
making their mortgage payments online or over the phone. Such fees
are not expressly authorized in the terms of standard mortgage
agreements utilized by Bank of America, asserts the complaint.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
John R. Habashy, Esq.
Tiffany N. Buda, Esq.
LEXICON LAW, PC
633 W. 5th Street, 28th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 223-5900
Fax: (888) 373-2107
Email: john@lexiconlaw.com
tiffany@lexiconlaw.com
- and -
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
BARRIOS FOODS: Flores Sues Over Denied Breaks, Missing Pay Slips
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evelyn Flores, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Barrios Foods, Inc., and Does 1 through
100, Defendants, Case No. 37-2020-00022485 (Cal. Super., June 30,
2019), seeks redress for failure to authorize or permit required
meal periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate
wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment, failure to maintain time-keeping records,
injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's
fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Wage Orders.
Barrios Foods, Inc. operates several "Rally," "Checker's" and "Papa
John" franchises where Flores worked as a shift leader from
approximately March 1, 2019 to May 1, 2020. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
Heather Davis, Esq.
S. Emi Minne, Esq.
PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP
136 Main Street, Suite A
El Segundo, CA, 90245
Tel: (844) 294-3095
Email: amir@ protectionlawgroup.com
emi@protectionlawgroup.com
heather@protectionlawgroup.com
BARTLETT DAIRY: Gibson Hits Antibiotics in Milk, Cries Mislabeling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Gibson, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Bartlett Dairy, Inc. and
Farmland Fresh Dairies, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02848 (E.D.
N.Y., June 26, 2020), seeks monetary, punitive and statutory
damages, injunctive relief, reasonable costs and expenses of suit,
including attorneys' fees and any further relief under New York
General Business Laws and various state consumer protection
statutes as well as from unjust enrichment, breach of express and
implied warranties.
Bartlett Dairy, Inc. advertises, markets, and distributes
"Farmland" products in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware,
Maryland and Massachusetts. Farmland Fresh Dairies is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Bartlett Dairy.
Farmland includes the claim "No Antibiotics" on the retail
packaging of its dairy products. Gibson claims that these are
produced by cows who receive antibiotics and still contain
detectable levels of antibiotics, which are then ingested by
consumers. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim E. Richman, Esq.
8 W. 126th Street
New York, NY 10027
Telephone: (718) 878-4707
Facsimile: (212) 687-8292
Email: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com
BETTER MANAGEMENT: Fischler Claims Website is Blind-Inaccessible
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Better
Management Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02888 (E.D.
N.Y., June 30, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction,
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action
together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other
and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New
York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.
Defendant operates walk-in dental bars in New York City. Its
website, www.dntlbar.com is heavily integrated with its dental
bars, where customers are able to learn about its locations,
services, upcoming events and promotions, pay bills and schedule an
appointment. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that said
website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017-6705
Tel: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
chris@lipskylowe.com
BIRD RIDES: Court Issues Protective Order in Machowski Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issued a Stipulated Protective Order in the case captioned Amber
Machowski, et al. v. Bird Rides, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-01014-JAK-MRWx (C.D. Cal.).
The Plaintiffs assert they are individuals with mobility
impairments. The Plaintiffs allege that third parties use Electric
Vehicles in a manner that interferes with their access to
pedestrian rights of ways, and that the Defendants are failing to
ensure that those third-parties use Electric Vehicles properly and
in compliance with applicable laws. The Plaintiffs claim the
Defendants' conduct violates federal and state laws prohibiting
discrimination against individuals with disabilities and creates a
public nuisance.
The Defendants vigorously dispute the facts alleged in the
operative First Amended Complaint. The Defendants have filed
motions to dismiss, as well as a motion to strike the class
allegations. Both motions remain pending, and the Court has offered
its tentative views that it will at least grant the motion to
dismiss in part.
The Stipulated Protective Order defines "Protected Material" as any
Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as
"CONFIDENTIAL" or "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL--ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY."
The protections conferred by this 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. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at
trial.
Even after final disposition of this 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 this
Action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein
after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings,
remands, trials, or reviews of this Action, including the time
limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time
pursuant to applicable law.
Each Party or Non-Party that designates information or items for
protection under this Order must take care to limit any such
designation to specific material that qualifies under the
appropriate standards. The Designating Party must designate for
protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or oral
or written communications that qualify so that other portions of
the material, documents, items, or communications for which
protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the
ambit of this Order.
A Receiving Party may use Protected Material that is disclosed or
produced by another Party or by a Non-Party in connection with this
Action only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle
this Action. Such Protected Material may be disclosed only to the
categories of persons and under the conditions described in this
Order. When the Action has been terminated, a Receiving Party must
comply with the provisions of section 13 below (FINAL
DISPOSITION).
If the Designating Party timely seeks a protective order, the Party
served with the subpoena or court order will not produce any
information designated in this action as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL--ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY before a determination by the
court from which the subpoena or order issued, unless the Party has
obtained the Designating Party's permission. The Designating Party
will bear the burden and expense of seeking protection in that
court of its confidential material and nothing in these provisions
should be construed as authorizing or encouraging a Receiving Party
in this Action to disobey a lawful directive from another court.
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 this 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" that is attached as Exhibit A.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 15, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y86cbp2w from Leagle.com
Martin J. Phipps, Esq.--mphipps@phippsandersondeacon.com, Attorneys
for the Plaintiffs.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Anne Marie Estevez,
Esq.--annemarie.estevez@morganlewis.com, in Miami, Florida, Counsel
for Defendant Neutron Holdings, Inc.; Cristina Talley, Esq.,
Attorneys for Defendants City of Culver City and City of Long
Beach; Anne Marie Estevez, Esq., Attorneys for Defendant Neutron
Holdings, Inc.; Sean Patterson, Esq.--CSPatterson@duanemorris.com,
Attorneys for Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.; Bronwyn Pollock,
Esq.--bpollock@mayerbrown.com, Attorneys for Defendant Bird Rides,
Inc.
BRIAD RESTAURANT: Class Notice & Notice Plan in Andersen Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada's order staying the case captioned
JEFFREY ANDERSEN, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. BRIAD RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC., a New
Jersey limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-00786-GMN-BNW (D. Nev.),
from Feb. 21, 2020 to May 21, 2020, Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted the Parties'
Joint Motion for Approval of Class Action Notice to the Certified
Class and Notice Plan. A full-text copy of the order is available
at https://is.gd/DQutQc from Leagle.com.
Judge Navarro found that the proposed Notice and Exclusion Form
fairly, plainly and adequately advises the Class members of: (i)
the Class definition; (ii) the nature of the action; (iii) the
Class members' right to be excluded and the procedures for doing
so; (iv) Class Counsel's information; and (v) how to obtain
additional information. She further finds that the Class Notice
and Exclusion Form comports with due process. Accordingly, she
approved the Parties' proposed Class Notice and Exclusion Form.
The Class Notice and Exclusion Form, as approved by the Court, will
be sent by a third-party administrator to the Class members, by
First Class Mail to those addresses provided, as soon as
practicable. The class members will be entitled to opt-out of the
Class by submitting a complete Exclusion Form to the third-party
administrator containing the information stated in the Exclusion
Form within 60 days of the mailing of the Class Notice and
Exclusion Form. The date of the postmark on the mailing envelope
for any Exclusion Form will be the exclusive means used to
determine whether the Exclusion Form has been timely submitted.
Erin Hanks, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Scott Schrager -
bschrager@wrslawyers.com - Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman &
Rabkin, Daniel Bravo - dbravo@wrslawyers.com - Wolf, Rifkin,
Shapiro, Schulman, & Rabkin, LLP & Don Springmeyer -
dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com - Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and
Rabkin, LLP
Briad Restaurant Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kathryn B.
Blakey - kblakey@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, Montgomery Y.
Paek - mpaek@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, Neil C. Baker-
nbaker@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, Rick D. Roskelley -
rroskelley@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, PC & Roger L.
Grandgenett - rgrandgenett@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, PC.
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Wins Bid to Dismiss Stein Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
issued an order granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case
as captioned SHIVA STEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.; ANDREW S. CLARK;
KEVIN ROYAL; AND JOSEPH L. D'AMICO, Case No. 3:19-cv-00460-WQH-AHG
(S.D. Cal.).
District Judge William Q. Hayes rules that the Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Any motion for leave to
file an amended pleading must be filed within 30 days of this
Order.
On October 1, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. The
Plaintiff brings the following causes of action: (1) violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5 against all Defendants,
and (2) violation of Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 against Defendants Andrew S. Clark, Kevin Royal, and Joseph
L. D'Amico.
Defendant Bridgepoint contends that the Plaintiff fails to allege
facts demonstrating scienter. Defendant Bridgepoint also contends
that scienter requires more than a misapplication of GAAP
principles. Defendant Bridgepoint asserts that the problems
identified in the 2013 Restatement are different than the problems
identified in the 2018 Restatement.
Defendants Clark, Royal, and D'Amico contend that they did not
engage in fraud by addressing the problems identified in the 2013
Restatement and failing to anticipate future problems identified in
the 2018 Restatement.
The Plaintiff contends that the Complaint sufficiently alleges
facts demonstrating scienter. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant
Bridgepoint disregarded GAAP requirements for revenue recognition
because the same revenue recognition problems underlying the 2013
Restatement resurfaced in the 2018 Restatement. The Plaintiff also
contends that the 2013 Restatement and acknowledgment of internal
control problems were red flags that put the Defendants Clark,
Royal, and D'Amico on notice of Defendant Bridgepoint's revenue
recognition problems. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Clark,
Royal, and D'Amico were in positions to recognize the significance
of the red flags and investigate.
The Court concludes that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim for
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and SEC Rule 10b-5 because the Plaintiff fails to allege facts to
support the requisite element of scienter. Hence, the Plaintiff's
first claim is dismissed without prejudice.
The Court also concludes that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim
for violation of Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 because the Plaintiff fails to allege a requisite "primary
violation of federal securities law...." Hence, the Plaintiff's
second claim is dismissed without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 15, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc366fly from Leagle.com
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Lebovits Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAIM LEBOVITS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP, and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05657 (S.D.N.Y., July 22,
2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for
their alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
in 1977.
Plaintiff has a debt that was allegedly incurred to Barclays Bank
Delaware some time prior to December 23, 2019.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff received a collection letter
on or about December 23, 2019 from Defendant, whom Barclays Bank
contracted with to collect the alleged debt. However, the
collection letter did not clearly explain the term "other charges"
which misleads and deceives Plaintiff and which is also a threat to
collect an amount that is not provided in the contract or by law.
Capital Management Services, LP is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Website: https://steinsakslegal.com
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTIC: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Chembio Diagnostic System, Inc.
("Chembio" or the "Company") investors that acquired Chembio
securities (NASDAQ: CEMI) between April 1, 2020 through June 16,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The complaint filed in this action alleges that defendants misled
investors regarding the accuracy of the Company's Dual Path
Platform ("DPP Test") COVID-19 serological point-of-care test for
the detection of IgM and IgG antibodies aided in determining
current or past exposure to the COVID-19 virus.
The Complaint further alleges that on May 11, 2020, Defendants took
advantage of Chembio's inflated stock price, and closed a public
offering of approximately 2.6 million shares of Chembio stock at
$11.75 per share for gross proceeds of approximately $30.8
million.
On June 16, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked the
emergency use authorization of the DPP Test due to performance
concerns with the accuracy of the test, and on this news the
Company's shares fell sharply in value. The FDA further stated
that:
The Chembio antibody test was one of the first antibody tests
authorized by the FDA during the COVID-19 public health emergency.
At the time of authorization, based on the information that Chembio
submitted to the FDA at that time, the agency concluded that the
test met the statute's "may be effective" standard for emergency
use authorization, and that the test's known and potential benefits
outweighed its known and potential risks.
As the FDA has learned more regarding the capability for
performance of SARS-CoV-2 serology tests during the pandemic, and
what performance is necessary for users to make well-informed
decisions—through both the continued review and authorization of
serology tests as well as through a research partnership with the
National Institutes of Health's National Cancer Institute (NCI)—
the FDA was able to develop general performance expectations for
these tests, which are listed in our serology templates.
Data submitted by Chembio as well as an independent evaluation of
the Chembio test at NCI showed that this test generates a higher
than expected rate of false results and higher than that reflected
in the authorized labeling for the device. Under the current
circumstances of the public health emergency, it is not reasonable
to believe that the test may be effective in detecting antibodies
against SARS-CoV-2 or that the known and potential benefits of the
test outweigh the known and potential risks of the test, including
the high rate of false results.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm--http://www.portnoylaw.com--represents
investors in pursuing claims against caused by corporate
wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5
billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883 [GN]
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming August 17, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Chembio Diagnostics, Inc.
("Chembio" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CEMI) common stock between
March 12, 2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Chembio investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/chembio-diagnostics-inc/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.
In April 2020, the Company's COVID-19 antibody test was one of the
first to be granted Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").
Then, on June 17, 2020, before the market opened, the FDA revoked
the EUA for Chembio's Dual Path Platform COVID-19 serology test due
to concerns regarding the test's accuracy. Specifically, the FDA
found that the "benefits no longer outweigh its risks" and that "it
is not reasonable to believe that the test may be effective"
because it "generates a higher than expected rate of false results
and higher than that reflected in the authorized labeling for the
device."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $6.04, or nearly 60%,
to close at $3.89 per share on June 17, 2020.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Chembio common stock during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 17,
2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Hayes Suit Seeks to Enjoin Voting on Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Hayes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc., Richard L.
Eberly, Gail S. Page, Katherine L. Davis, Mary Lake Polan and John
G. Potthoff, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02918, (E.D. N.Y., July 1,
2020), seeks to enjoin the vote on a Reincorporation Proposal
scheduled to be held at the Annual Meeting until after Defendants
correct misrepresentations of material fact giving rise to a
cognizable claim for violation of the federal security laws.
Chembio develops diagnostic solutions and offers products for
treatment, detection and diagnosis of infectious diseases. On June
16, 2020, the Chembio filed a Proxy Statement with the SEC to
solicit stockholder approval of a proposal to change Chembio's
state of incorporation from the State of Nevada to the State of
Delaware. Under the Nevada Revised Statutes, a conversion such as
this must be approved by a majority of the voting power of the
stockholders. Defendants, however, claim in the Proxy that approval
of the Reincorporation Proposal requires only a majority of the
votes entitled to be cast and present in person or represented by
proxy at the Annual Meeting. This lesser standard excludes not only
shares that are not present or represented by proxy, but also
shares whose beneficial owners do not provide voting instructions.
Defendants erroneously disclosed that these uninstructed shares
will have no effect on the outcome of the Reincorporation Proposal,
asserts the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
William J. Fields, Esq.
Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
Samir Shukurov, Esq.
FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
1370 Broadway, 5th Floor, No. 5100
New York, NY 10018
Tel: (212) 231-1500
Fax: (646) 851-0076
Email: wfields@fksfirm.com
ckupka@fksfirm.com
sshukurov@fksfirm.com
- and -
Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
Samuel J. Adams, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 661-1100
Fax: (917) 463-1044
Email: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
sadams@pomlaw.com
CITY LUMBER: Burton Sues Over Unlawful Wage Deduction & Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK BURTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY LUMBER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-03290 (E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2020) is a collective and class
action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged unlawful
wage deduction in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
New York Labor Law and the New York Minimum Wage Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a delivery person.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant had a policy and practice of
deducting 30 minutes from Plaintiff's work time for a meal/lunch
period daily. However, Plaintiff did not receive a bona fide meal
break due to the demands of his job. AS a result, Defendant failed
and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff an overtime rate of at least
1.5 times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a week.
Moreover, Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and the putative
class members with accurate wage statement as required by NYLL.
City Lumber, Inc. operates a warehousing and distributing lumber
and building supplies business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
215-28 Hillside Avenue
Queens Village, NY 11427
Tel: 718-740-1000
Fax: 718-355-9668
Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com
COCA-COLA CO: Gil Files Product Mislabeling Suit Over Coke Vanilla
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Gil, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Coca-cola Company, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-05064 (S.D. N.Y., July 1, 2020), seeks injunctive relief
resulting from negligence, unjust enrichment and breach of contract
and for violation of the Consumer Protection from Deceptive acts of
New York business laws.
The Coca-Cola Company manufactures, distributes, markets, labels
and sells "Coke Vanilla." Gil disputes Coca-Cola's claim that their
beverages are flavored only with vanilla and asserts that they
contain non-vanilla flavors which imitate and extend vanilla but
are not derived from the vanilla bean. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Ste. 311
Great Neck NY 11021-5101
Tel: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
COMCAST CABLE: Joseph Files ERISA Suit Over Lost Insurance Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Newton Joseph, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Comcast Cable Communications Management,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-61239 (S.D. Fla., June 25, 2020),
seeks appropriate equitable relief, statutory penalties, attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses and such other and further relief pursuant
to Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985.
Joseph worked for Comcast as a Sales Representative from March 20,
2017 until July 9, 2019, when he was terminated. Comcast is the
plan sponsor and plan administrator of the Comcast Comprehensive
Health and Welfare Benefit Plan. Said plan provides medical
benefits to employees and their beneficiaries.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff lost insurance coverage
and incurred medical bills, due to Comcast's deficient COBRA
election notice. Spectrum allegedly did not inform Plaintiff to
enroll in continuation coverage. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Brandon Hill, Esq.
WENZEL, FENTON AND CABASSA PA
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
Email: gnichols@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
bhill@wfclaw.com
- and -
Chad A. Justice, Esq.
JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC
1205 N Franklin St., Suite 326
Tampa, FL 33602
Tel. (813) 566-0550
Fax: 813-566-0770
E-mail: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com
COMPASS GROUP: E.D. Missouri Lifts Stay Entered in Jaye Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Eastern Division, issued an Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion
to Lift the Stay Entered by the Court on March 25, 2020 and for
Leave to File a First Amended Complaint in the case captioned
FRANCIS JAYE and SEAN MADELMAYER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., d/b/a CANTEEN
VENDING SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:20CV266 RLW (E.D. Mo.).
Defendant Compass Group USA, Inc. ("Compass") has filed a response
indicating they do not oppose the Plaintiffs' motion. District
Judge Ronnie L. White notes this action, Jaye v. Crane
Merchandising Systems, Inc., et al. ("Jaye"), was transferred to
him from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
based upon the first-to-file rule. The district court found Jaye
substantially overlaps with an earlier case filed in this district,
Moore v. Compass Group USA, Inc., Cause No. 4:18-cv-1962-SEP (E.D.
Mo.) ("Moore") and transferred Jaye for consideration of how this
Court should proceed in connection with Moore.
On March 9, 2020, the Court ordered the parties to file a status
report with the Court indicating how the parties plan to proceed in
light of the first-filed case Moore. The parties failed to timely
respond, and on March 25, 2020, the Court stayed the case pending
further notice from the parties.
The Plaintiffs filed the present motion to lift the stay on May 22,
2020, along with a request to file the First Amended Class Action
Complaint attached to the motion. The Plaintiffs contend while
Moore seeks to certify a nationwide class, Jaye only seeks to
represent a Texas class. Further, the Plaintiffs defer to the Court
on whether the case should be consolidated with Moore or stayed
pending a ruling on class certification in Moore. The Court notes
the Plaintiffs have not filed appropriate motions reflecting this
request. However, because Defendant Compass does not oppose the
Plaintiffs' motion, the Court will lift the stay and allow the
Plaintiffs to file their amended complaint.
Accordingly, the Court:
-- grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift the Stay Entered by
the Court on March 25, 2020 and for Leave to File a First
Amended Complaint;
-- rules that the stay in this matter is lifted, and the Clerk
of the Court shall reopen the case;
-- directs the Clerk of the Court to file Document 36-1 as the
Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint; and
-- rules that an Order Setting Rule 16 Conference shall be
filed by separate order.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd7tulhb Leagle.com
CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Jim Seeks Overtime Pay for Pre-shift Hours
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Jim, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00618, (D. N.M., June 25, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act and
the Portal to Portal Act.
CoreCivic is a corporation that owns and operates detention
facilities across the United States where Adrian Jim worked for
CoreCivic as a correctional officer in Albuquerque. Jim claims to
undergo pre-shift security screening that lasts approximately 10-20
minutes per day and is uncompensated. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
- and -
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
920 Rockefeller Building
614 W. Superior Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113
Tel: (216) 696-5000
Fax: (216) 696-7005
Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
- and -
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
COVENTBRIDGE USA: McSpirit Seeks Proper Wage Pay for Investigators
------------------------------------------------------------------
JANE MCSPIRIT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, -against- COVENTBRIDGE (USA) INC., Defendant,
Case No. 7:20-cv-05754 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2020) is a class action
which seeks to recover overtime compensation, agreed upon wages,
and other damages for Plaintiff and surveillance investigators,
claims investigators, and similarly situated investigators who work
or have worked for Defendant CoventBridge (USA) Inc. across the
U.S.
According to the complaint, Defendant is liable under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for, inter alia, failing to properly
compensate Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective. Plaintiff and the
FLSA Collective were not paid the proper premium overtime
compensation of 1.5 times their, consistent with Defendant's
policies and patterns or practices.
Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff and the New York Class the
earned wages to which they are entitled under the New York Labor
Law ("NYLL") and the supporting New York State Department of Labor
Regulations, pursuant to the agreed-upon terms of Plaintiff's
employment. Defendant also failed to pay Plaintiff and the New York
Class on a timely basis as required by NYLL.
Further, Defendant has failed to supply Plaintiff and the New York
Class with a proper time of hire annual wage notice and with an
accurate statement of wages with every payment of wages as required
by NYLL.
McSpirit was employed by Defendant as an Investigator from on or
about February 2017 until in or around 2019.
CoventBridge (USA) Inc. is the largest worldwide investigative
solutions company headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
EL MOLCAJETE: Garcia Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Marxlenin Galindo Garcia, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. John Doe Corp., El Molcajete
Restaurant Corp. and Gerardo Diaz, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04957
(S.D. N.Y., June 29, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages and redress for failure to provide itemized wage
statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New
York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.
Defendants own, operate, or control two Mexican Restaurants,
located in the Bronx, under the names "Los Girasoles" and "El
Molcajete," where Garcia were employed as a cook. He claims to have
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime
and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
Email: michael@faillacelaw.com
ENPHASE ENERGY: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Enphase
Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ:ENPH) ("Enphase") investors that a securities
fraud class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Enphase common stock between
February 26, 2019 and June 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Important Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Enphase common stock during the Class Period may, no later
than August 17, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class. For additional information or to learn
how to participate in this litigation please click
https://www.ktmc.com/enphase-energy-inc-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=enphase.
According to the complaint, Enphase is a global energy technology
company that delivers smart, easy-to-use solutions that manage
solar generation, storage and communication on one intelligent
platform. Enphase asserts that it revolutionized the solar industry
with its microinverter technology, and that it produces a fully
integrated solar-plus-storage solution.
The Class Period commences on February 26, 2019, when Enphase
issued a press release on a Form 8-K with the SEC in which it
announced Enphase's financial results for the fourth quarter and
year-ended 2018. In the press release, Enphase stated that for the
fourth quarter of 2018 it had revenue of $92.3 million, an increase
of 18% sequentially and an increase of 16% year-over-year. The
press release further stated that Enphase's non-GAAP gross margin
was 30.7%, a decrease of 210 basis points from 32.8% in the third
quarter. For the full year ended December 31, 2018, Enphase
reported revenue of $316.159 million, with gross margins of 29.9%,
up from $286.166 million and 19.6% for the year ended December 31,
2017.
The complaint alleges that, on June 17, 2020, analyst Prescience
Point Capital Management ("Prescience Point") published a report in
which it wrote that "[a]t least $205.3m of ENPH's reported FY19 US
revenue is fabricated, and a significant portion of its
international revenue is fabricated as well." The report continued:
"[m]ost, if not all, of the 2,080 Bps expansion in ENPH's gross
margin since Q2'17 is also fabricated," and called on Enphase's
accountant, Deloitte, to "launch an in-depth investigation of
EPNH's accounting practices." Prescience Point further called on
"[r]egulatory and law enforcement agencies with subpoena power [to]
launch a full investigation of the Company, its accounting, its
disclosures and trading by insiders."
Following this news, Enphase's stock price fell by approximately
26% in one day, from its June 16, 2020 close of $52.76 per share to
a June 17, 2020 close of $39.04 per share.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) its revenues, both U.S. and international, were
inflated; (2) Enphase engaged in improper deferred revenue
accounting practices; (3) Enphase's reported basis point expansion
in gross margins was overstated; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, the defendants' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (844) 877-9500 (toll free) or (610) 667-7706, or via
e-mail at info@ktmc.com.
Enphase investors may, no later than August 17, 2020, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world. The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was
not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information
about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 877-9500 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com [GN]
ENPHASE ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENPH)
between February 26, 2019 and June 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important August 17, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline
in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Enphase
investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Enphase class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1878.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) Enphase's revenues, both U.S. and international, were
inflated; (2) Enphase engaged in improper deferred revenue
accounting practices; (3) Enphase's reported base points expansion
in gross margins were overstated; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 17,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1878.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
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com [GN]
FIRST EAGLE: Nguyen Sues Over Unequal Pay, Wrongful Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
OANH NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST EAGLE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC; THE
BLACKSTONE GROUP INC.; MATTHEW MCLENNAN; KIMBALL BROOKER; MATTHEW
LAMPHIER; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05810
(S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1977, the New York State
Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New
York State Pay Equity Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants retaliated against the
Plaintiff by terminating her despite her valuable contributions to
First Eagle due to her complaints and claims about discrimination
against female employees in the workplace by paying them less than
male employees. The Defendants did not take any actions to fix the
inequality issues brought up by the Plaintiff and decided to
terminate her on the basis of alleged future platform changes in
the company.
As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff has
suffered, and continues to suffer severe mental anguish and
emotional distress including, but not limited to, humiliation,
embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and
self-confidence, and emotional pain.
The Plaintiff was employed as a research analyst at First Eagle
Investment Management, LLC in New York in 2007 and as a senior
research analyst in 2014 until her last day of employment on
December 31, 2019.
First Eagle Investment Management, LLC is an investment management
company, with its principal place of business located at 1345
Avenue of the Americas, 48th floor, New York, New York.
The Blackstone Group is a multinational private equity alternative
investment management and financial services firm, with its
principal place of business located at 345 Park Avenue, New York,
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeanne M. Christensen, Esq.
Bryan L. Arbeit, Esq.
WIGDOR LLP
85 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 257-6800
Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
E-mail: jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com
barbeit@wigdorlaw.com
FITTRACK LLC: Poonja Suit Over TCPA Violation Moved to N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ASIF J. POONJA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FITTRACK, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability Company, Case No. 2020 CH 04651 (Filed
June 22, 2020), was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court for
Cook County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on July 29, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-04445 to the proceeding.
The complaint alleges a cause of action against the Defendant for
allegedly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending
unsolicited commercial text messages to the wireless telephone
numbers of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals
using equipment that constituted an "automatic telephone dialing
system."
Fittrack provides a sensor solution for existing gym-equipment, to
allow users to automatically track and monitor their fitness
workouts.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Eric L. Samore, Esq.
Ronald Balfour, Esq.
SMITHAMUNDSEN, LLC
150 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 894-3200
GF MANAGEMENT: Migyanko Says Hotel Beds not Wheelchair Accessible
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Migyanko, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. G.F.
Management, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00944 (S.D. N.Y., June
24, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction,
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action
together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other
and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
G.F. Management, LLC operates as GF Hotels & Resorts. Migyanko, a
wheelchair user, attempted to check-in at GF's Cranberry Garden Inn
in Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania. Cranberry Garden Inn's
accessible rooms has sleeping beds that have a sleeping surface
that is 36 inches from the floor whereas Migyanko's wheelchair is
approximately 18 inches from the ground (the average height of
wheelchair seats generally is 18-20 inches) thus making it
impossible for him to independently transfer from his wheelchair to
the bed. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Tel: (412) 322-9243
Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
GOOGLE LLC: Marquez Suit Over BIPA Breach Moved to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS MARQUEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 20CH500 (Filed March 23, 2020), was removed
from the Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July
29, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-04454 D to the proceeding.
Mr. Marquez seeks relief based on Google's alleged violations of
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. In particular, the
Plaintiff alleges that Google "systematically and automatically
collected, captured, or otherwise obtained" the "biometric
identifiers" and "biometric information" of him and the putative
class members and that Google "does not publicly provide a
retention schedule or guidelines for permanently destroying the
'biometric identifiers' and biometric information the Plaintiff and
the putative class members, in violation of BIPA.
By filing the notice of removal, Google says it does not concede
any allegation, assertion, claim, or demand for relief in the
Complaint of the Plaintiff, or that any damages exist. Google
expressly denies that it has violated the BIPA.
Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. Nelson, Esq.
NELSON & NELSON, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C.
420 N. High Street
PO Box Y
Belleville, IL 62222
Telephone: (618) 277-4000
E-mail: dnelson@nelsonlawpc.com
- and -
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
David W. Hall, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Ste. 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
dhall@hedinhall.com
- and -
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
E-Mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
pfraietta@bursor.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kathleen A. Stetsko, Esq.
Susan Fahringer, Esq.
Ryan Spear, Esq.
Nicola C. Menaldo, Esq.
Sunita Bali, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
131 S. Dearborn Street No. 1700
Telephone: 312 324 8400
Facsimile: 312 324 9400
E-mail: KStetsko@perkinscoie.com
SFahringer@perkinscoie.com
RSpear@perkinscoie.com
NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com
SBali@perkinscoie.com
GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Guerriero Seeks OT Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Guerriero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Graphic Packaging International, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01410, (N.D. Ohio, June 26, 2020), seeks
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act.
Graphic Packaging manufactures paperboard cartons and packaging
machinery for manufacturers in the consumer packaged goods,
beverage and foodservice markets. Guerriero worked at its Solon,
Ohio facility as an hourly employee. He claims to have rendered 10
to 20 minutes of unpaid pre-shift work that are integral and
indispensable to the work. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
34 N. High St., Ste. 502
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 824-5770
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
GUITAR CENTER: Lupolover Slams Illegal SMS Ads
----------------------------------------------
Michael Lupolover, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Guitar Center, Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-05721 (C.D. Cal., June 26, 2020), seeks injunctive
relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Guitar Center sells music equipment from its store in Westlake
Village, CA. Lupolover claims to have received auto-dialed
telemarketing SMS from Guitar Center on his phone. Lupolover is
registered in the National Do-Not-Call registry. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
HAIN CELESTIAL: Marsella Files Product Mislabeling Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
William Marsella and Robert Paterson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hain Celestial Group,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-04936 (S.D. N.Y., June 26, 2020),
seeks injunctive relief resulting from negligence, unjust
enrichment and breach of contract and for violation of the Consumer
Protection from Deceptive acts of New York business laws.
Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets,
labels and sells rice drink beverages under their "Rice Dream"
brand. Marsella and Paterson disputes Hain's claim that their
beverages are flavored only with vanilla; and assert that they
contain non-vanilla flavors which imitate and extend vanilla but
are not derived from the vanilla bean. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Ste. 311
Great Neck NY 11021-5101
Tel: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Healthcare Services Group, Inc. 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 company continues
to defend a putative shareholder class action suit in he U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On March 22, 2019, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The initial complaint, which was filed by a plaintiff purportedly
on behalf of all purchasers of our securities between April 11,
2017 and March 4, 2019, alleges violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the matters related to our EPS
calculation practices.
On September 17, 2019, the complaint was amended to, among other
things, extend the Class Period to cover the period between April
8, 2014 and March 4, 2019, and to name additional individuals
affiliated with the Company as defendants.
The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief on behalf of the plaintiff class.
While the Company is vigorously defending against all litigation
claims asserted, this litigation—along with the ongoing
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation—could
result in substantial costs to the Company and a diversion of the
Company's management's attention and resources, which could harm
its business.
Healthcare Services said, "In addition, the uncertainty of the
pending lawsuit or potential filing of additional lawsuits could
lead to more volatility and a reduction in the Company's stock
price. At this time the Company is unable to reasonably estimate
possible losses or form a judgment that an unfavorable outcome is
either probable or remote."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Healthcare Services Group, Inc., incorporated on November 22, 1976,
provides management, administrative and operating services to the
housekeeping, laundry, linen, facility maintenance and dietary
service departments of the healthcare industry, including nursing
homes, retirement complexes, rehabilitation centers and hospitals
located throughout the United States. The Company operates through
two segments: housekeeping, laundry, linen and other services
(Housekeeping), and dietary department services (Dietary). The
company is based in Bensalem, Pennsylvania.
HONEYWELL INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Kanefsky Class Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. 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 company's motion
to dismiss the putative class action suit initiated by David
Kanefsky has been denied.
On October 31, 2018, David Kanefsky, a Honeywell shareholder, filed
a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 related to the prior accounting
for Bendix asbestos claims.
An Amended Complaint was filed on December 30, 2019, and on
February 7, 2020, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss.
On May 18, 2020, the court denied the company's Motion to Dismiss.
Honeywell said, "We believe the claims have no merit."
Honeywell International Inc. is a worldwide diversified technology
and manufacturing company. The Company provides aerospace products
and services, control, sensing and security technologies,
turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic
and advanced materials, process technology for refining and
petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions. The
company is based in Morris Plains, New Jersey.
IDEANOMICS INC: Lundy Hits Share Drop from Fake Reports
-------------------------------------------------------
Megan Lundy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ideanomics, Inc., Alfred Poor, Bruno Wu and
Conor McCarthy, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04944, (S.D. N.Y., June
29, 2020), seeks redress for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Ideanomics is a financial services company. Ideanomics common stock
trades on the NASDAQ stock exchange.
Ideanomics had allegedly produced fake photos of having a "one
million square foot electric vehicle expo center" in Qingdao,
China. It misrepresented its electric vehicle business in China as
performing well and in reality only occupied 215,000 square feet.
On this news, Ideanomics' stock price fell from its June 24, 2020
close of $3.09 to a June 25, 2020 close of $2.44 per share, a one
day drop of $0.65 or approximately 21%. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
Nathaniel Silver
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Tel: (617) 398-5600
Fax: (617) 507-6020
Email: jeff@blockesq.com
steti@blockesq.com
INSPERITY INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 21 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on July 21 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Insperity, Inc. ("Insperity" or "the Company") (NYSE: NSP) for
violations of Secs.10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
11, 2019 and February 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 21, 2020.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Insperity failed to negotiate adequate
rates with its customers and also failed to disclose the risk of
large medical claims from the same customers. The Company suffered
from a trend of large medical claims negatively impacting its
operations. The Company mitigated this problem by raising rates,
which hampered growth. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Insperity,
investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm--http://www.schallfirm.com--represents
investors around the world and specializes in securities class
action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
Contacts
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
INTEL CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in Oregon Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2020 for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2020, that an amended complaint has
been filed in the consolidated class action suit pending before the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
As of July 22, 2020, consumer class action lawsuits relating to
certain security vulnerabilities publicly disclosed in 2018 were
pending in the U.S., Canada, and Israel.
The plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes of
purchasers of the company's products, generally claim to have been
harmed by Intel's actions and/or omissions in connection with the
security vulnerabilities and assert a variety of common law and
statutory claims seeking monetary damages and equitable relief.
In the U.S., numerous individual class action suits filed in
various jurisdictions were consolidated in April 2018 for all
pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon. In March 2020, the court granted Intel's motion to dismiss
the complaint in that consolidated action but granted plaintiffs
leave to file an amended complaint, which they did in April 2020.
In Canada, in one case pending in the Superior Court of Justice of
Ontario, an initial status conference has not yet been scheduled.
In a second case pending in the Superior Court of Justice of
Quebec, the court has stayed the case until January 2021.
In Israel, both consumer class action lawsuits were filed in the
District Court of Haifa. In the first case, the District Court
denied the parties' joint motion to stay filed in January 2019, but
to date has deferred Intel's deadline to respond to the complaint
in view of Intel's pending motion to dismiss in the consolidated
proceeding in the U.S. Intel filed a motion to stay the second case
pending resolution of the consolidated proceeding in the U.S., and
a hearing on that motion has been scheduled for November 2020.
Additional lawsuits and claims may be asserted seeking monetary
damages or other related relief.
Intel said, "We dispute the pending claims described above and
intend to defend those lawsuits vigorously. Given the procedural
posture and the nature of those cases, including that the pending
proceedings are in the early stages, that alleged damages have not
been specified, that uncertainty exists as to the likelihood of a
class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class
or classes if certified, and that there are significant factual and
legal issues to be resolved, we are unable to make a reasonable
estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, that
might arise from those matters."
Intel Corporation offers computing, networking, data storage, and
communication solutions worldwide. It operates through Client
Computing Group, Data Center Group, Internet of Things Group,
Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group, Programmable Solutions Group,
and All Other segments. The company was founded in 1968 and is
based in Santa Clara, California.
INTERSTATE CLEANING: Wins Arbitration Bid in Gonzalez Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARIATNA GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. INTERSTATE CLEANING
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-07307-KAW (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California granted the
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration.
Gonzalez filed the putative class action against Defendants ICC and
Juan Navarro, asserting violations of various California labor
laws. Defendant ICC is a national janitorial maintenance services
company. The Plaintiff began her employment with Defendant ICC on
Oct. 25, 2016. The Defendants assert that on that date, the
Plaintiff signed an agreement to arbitrate wage and hour disputes.
The Plaintiff states that around October 2016, she went to the San
Francisco Premium Outlet and inquired about a position with the
janitorial services office. She met with Defendant Navarro and
Jesus Ochoa, who provided her with documents and information
regarding open positions with Defendant ICC. At the conclusion of
what she understood to be in an interview, the Plaintiff was told
to arrive for work on Oct. 25, 2016 for a 7:00 a.m. shift.
The Plaintiff further states that on Oct. 25, 2016, she arrived
about 10 minutes before her shift. Mr. Ochoa then presented her
with a stack of at least 10 documents to sign, which required her
signature before she could begin working. The Plaintiff states she
was given less than 10 minutes to review the documents, which were
in both English and Spanish. Because her shift was about to begin,
she did not have sufficient time to read, yet alone understand
anything presented because she cannot read or write in English and
the Spanish documents used complex language she was not familiar
with.
The Plaintiff asked Mr. Ochoa what the documents were for, and Mr.
Ochoa responded that they were required documents and part of her
employment application. He then proceeded to indicate where
Plaintiff should sign. Thus, the Plaintiff states that she was not
provided enough time to read the documents and was rushed to sign
them since she had so little time before she had to begin her
shift.
The Defendants respond that although the Plaintiff was hired on
Oct. 25, 2016, she did not begin work that day. Rather, her first
shift was not scheduled until Nov. 11, 2016. In support, the
Defendants provide the Plaintiff's time detail record for her first
week of work, which shows work starting on Nov. 11, 2016, and her
first wage statement, which is for the same gross pay as the time
detail record. The Defendants further explain that the delay
between the Plaintiff filling out the new hire paperwork on Oct.
25, 2016 and her first shift on Nov. 11, 2016 was due to the new
hire paperwork needing to be processed, as that paperwork included
a I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification form.
On Sept. 19, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant putative class
action, asserting various wage and hour violations. On Jan. 16,
2020, the Defendants filed the instant motion to compel
arbitration. On March 12, 2020, the Plaintiff filed her opposition.
The Plaintiff argues that the Arbitration Agreement is void due to
fraud in the inception of the contract. On March 19, 2020, the
Defendants filed their reply.
Magistrate Judge Westmore finds that the Plaintiff has not
satisfied her burden of showing that there was fraud in the
inception of the contract. The evidence in the record shows that
while the Plaintiff was hired on Oct. 25, 2016, she did not have a
shift until Nov. 11, 2016. The Plaintiff also has not satisfied
her burden of showing that she could not understand the Arbitration
Agreement. She does not state that the Arbitration Agreement used
such complex language, or that the language contained therein
prevented her from understanding that she was agreeing to give up
her right to bring a lawsuit on her wage and hour claims. Finally,
the Plaintiff produces no evidence in support of her argument that
she does not recognize the Arbitration Agreement and that her
signature looks slightly different than how she normally signs. It
does not show by a preponderance of the evidence that she was not
presented with the Arbitration Agreement.
In the alternative, the Plaintiff argues that the arbitration
agreement is unenforceable because it is unconscionable. She
argues that other indications of oppression or surprise exist,
pointing to her only being given ten minutes to review the
documents before her shift began. As discussed however, the
evidence in the record shows that the Plaintiff did not have a
shift on the day she signed the Arbitration Agreement.
Nonetheless, the Plaintiff has established that there is procedural
unconscionability because the contract is one of adhesion, and
therefore the Magistrate considers whether there is a high level of
substantive unconscionability.
Magistrate Judge Westmore concludes that the discovery limitations
are substantively unconscionable. The Plaintiff has given specific
examples of how the discovery limits would constrain her ability to
bring her case. The Plaintiff identifies three witnesses that she
would likely need to depose, including Defendant Navarro, Mr.
Ochoa, and a Person Most Knowledgeable regarding Defendant ICC's
policies and practices. She also points out that the limitation on
interrogatories prevents her from asking how the Defendants tracked
her time entries or when her exact dates of employment were, as she
is only permitted a single interrogatory identifying potential
witnesses. The Plaintiff is placed in the position where the
default discovery would be inadequate, and she would have to meet a
high burden (and potentially monetary costs) to obtain additional
discovery.
Next, the Plaintiff argues that four terms in the Arbitration
Agreement demonstrate a lack of mutuality. Binding authority,
however, establishes that none of these terms are substantively
unconscionable. Magistrate Judge Westmore concludes that the
unilateral modification term is not substantively unconscionable.
As there are no California cases holding that a PAGA waiver is
substantively unconscionable, the Ninth Circuit has found that the
unenforceability of the waiver of a PAGA representative action does
not make this provision substantively unconscionable.
Finally, the Plaintiff argues that the Arbitration Agreement is
unconscionable because it does not meet the requirements for a
written decision. California courts have found that an arbitrator
must issue a written decision that is sufficient to permit judicial
review. Magistrate Judge Westmore finds that the Plaintiff cites
no authority in support of her argument, and there is nothing in
the Arbitration Agreement to suggest that a decision in "summary
form" would be satisfied by simply citing a statute. She finds
that the term is not substantively unconscionable.
Because the unconscionable term can be severed, the Magistrate
Judge finds that there is no substantive unconscionability. As the
Plaintiff must demonstrate both procedural and substantive
unconscionability, the Magistarte Judge concludes that the
Arbitration Agreement, without the discovery limitations, is
enforceable.
Because the procedural unconscionability is minimal, and the
substantive unconscionability is eliminated through severance, the
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration is granted. The Court
will stay the proceedings in the instant case pending resolution of
the arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 15, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Fqbetw from Leagle.com.
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT: Figueroa Sues Over Racial Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Z. Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Investment Management I, LLC and Calet
Marquez, individually, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-81019 (S.D. Fla.,
June 30, 2019), seeks monetary, equitable, and declaratory relief
for violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Investments Limited is a property leasing, management and
maintenance company providing its services to commercial accounts.
Figueroa worked for Investments Limited as a non-exempted,
full-time, hourly maintenance employee from September 2015 to March
2020 until he was subjected to a retaliatory discharge. Figueroa, a
black man, claims to have been subjected to racist and offensive
statements during his employment. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
ITO INC: Underpays Employees, Mendoza Claims
--------------------------------------------
WENDY DIAZ MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ITO, INCORPORATED d/b/a Kikka and
Tonny Soesanto, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02090-GGG-DPC (E.D.
La., July 22, 2020) brings this complaint against Defendants for
its alleged unlawful pay practice in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff has worked for Defendants as cook, clerk, and customer
attendant within Defendants' Whole Foods Market business location
in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants never paid him and other
similarly situated Defendants' workers an overtime rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek despite being non-exempt employees
and routinely working in excess of 40 hours per week.
Tonny Soesanto is the CEO for Kikka and devised the plant to
underpay Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective for their overtime
work.
Ito, Incorporated d/b/a Kikka operates a small in-store sushi
restaurants and a sushi supplier company in the New Orleans
metropolitan area, and beyond. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cesar R. Burgos, Esq.
Robert J. Daigre, Esq.
Gabriel O. Mondino, Esq.
George McGregor, Esq.
Leila M. Bonilla, Esq.
BURGOS & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.
3535 Canal St., Suite 2100
New Orleans, LA 70119-6135
Tel: (504) 488-3722
Fax: (504) 482-8525
Website: http://www.burgoslawfirm.com/attorneys/
J2 GLOBAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of September 8 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of J2 Global
Inc. ("J2 Global" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: JCOM) between October
5, 2015 and June 29, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
If you purchased J2 Global securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit J2 Global Shareholder
Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414
or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (1) J2 Global engaged in undisclosed related party
transactions; (2) J2 Global used misleading accounting to hide
requisite impairments and underperformance in acquisitions; (3)
several so-called independent members of the Company's board of
directors and audit committee were not disinterested; and (4) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.
On June 30, 2020 before the market opened, Hindenburg Research
published a report explaining that J2 Global had, among other
issues: (i) failed to disclose questionable transactions with
related parties; (ii) utilized misleading accounting to hide
underperformance and impending impairments; and (iii) failed to
disclose a lack of board independence.
On this news, shares of J2 Global fell $6.29 per share, or over 9%
to close at $63.21 per share on June 30, 2020, damaging investors.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 8, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased J2 Global securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/j2globalinc-jcom-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-282/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP--https://www.bernlieb.com--has
recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to
representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by
some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country
to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a
result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class
actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's
"Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500
for ten consecutive years. [GN]
J2 GLOBAL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of J2 Global, Inc. (NASDAQ: JCOM)
between October 5, 2015 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important September 8, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action commenced by the firm. The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for J2 Global investors under the
federal securities laws.
To join the J2 Global class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1893.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) J2 Global engaged in undisclosed related party
transactions; (2) J2 Global used misleading accounting to hide
requisite impairments and underperformance in acquisitions; (3)
several so-called independent members of the Company' board of
directors and audit committee were not disinterested; and (4) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
8, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1893.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm--http://www.rosenlegal.com--representsinvestors
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.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]
JPMORGAN CHASE: Gramatis Sues Over Treasury Futures Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Gramatis, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Clearing
Corp., JPMorgan Securities LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-03810 (N.D. Ill., June 29, 2020), seeks damages and
declaratory relief under Section 22 of the Commodity Exchange Act
for unlawful and intentional manipulation of U.S. Treasury futures
contracts.
Defendants allegedly manipulated the prices of Treasury Futures by
"spoofing," or bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the
bid or offer before execution including submitting or canceling
bids or offers with intent to create artificial price movements
upwards or downwards. This artificially creates demand, and
correspondingly, futures prices were artificially suppressed or
inflated accordingly.
Gramatis transacted in Treasury Futures including purchases and
sales of futures on domestic exchanges. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven A. Kanner, Esq.7
Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC
2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
Bannockburn, IL 60015
Telephone: (224) 632-4500
Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
Email: skanner@fklmlaw.com
dmillen@fklmlaw.com
bhogan@fklmlaw.com
KCI USA: District of Nebraska Issues Progression Order in Palmer
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska issued a Case
Progression Order in the case captioned CATHERINE PALMER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KCI
USA, INC., Case No. 4:19CV3084 (D. Neb.).
Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson grants the parties' Joint Motion
to Extend Case Progression Order Deadlines. The amended final
progression order is amended, among other things, as follows:
1) The deadlines for identifying expert witnesses and to
complete expert disclosures1 for all experts expected to
testify at trial, (both retained experts, (Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(B)), and non-retained experts, (Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(C)), are:
* For the plaintiff: August 18, 2020;
* For the defendant: September 17, 2020; and
* Plaintiff's rebuttal: September 25, 2020; and
2) The deadline for completing written discovery under Rules
33, 34, 36 and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
is September 18, 2020. Motions to compel written discovery
under Rules 33, 34, 36 and 45 must be filed by October 2,
2020.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 15, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydayudr2 from Leagle.com
KDL MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime, Brown Claims
---------------------------------------------------
DAVID BROWN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. KDL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC., a Florida Limited
Liability Company, and RIVER OAKS OUTDOOR, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, and WILLIAM I. KRIEG, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00816 (M.D. Fla., July 22, 2020) is a collective
action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Lawn Maintenance worker
from approximately June 2018 to November 2019.
Plaintiff claims that he worked for Defendants in excess of 40
hours in various workweeks throughout the duration of his
employment with Defendants, but he was not paid overtime for the
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.
Allegedly, Defendants implemented and enforced an unlawful policy
whereby all lawn maintenance workers were denied of any overtime
compensation at one and one-half times of their regular rate of pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
William I. Krieg owned and operated KDL and River Oaks.
KDL Management Services, LLC and River Oaks Outdoor, LLC provide
total outdoor landscaping and landcare to their customers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul M. Botros, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Tel: (954) 318-0268
Fax: (954) 327-3017
Email: pbotros@forthepeople.com
KIRKLAND LAKE: Lowey Dannenberg Reminds of August 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lowey Dannenberg P.C., a preeminent law firm in obtaining redress
for consumers and investors, has filed a federal securities class
action in the Southern District of New York on behalf of its client
and all similarly situated investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired common stock of Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. ("Kirkland" or the
Company") (NYSE: KL) from January 8, 2019 to November 25, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a)
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Sec.
240.10b-5. The class action is titled Brahms v. Kirkland Lake Gold
Ltd., No. 1:20-cv-4953 (S.D.N.Y.).
If you are a shareholder who purchased Kirkland securities during
the Class Period, you have until August 28, 2020 to ask the Court
to appoint you as the Lead Plaintiff for the Class. Any member of
the proposed Class may move to serve as the Lead Plaintiff through
counsel of their choice. To obtain a copy of the complaint or to
discuss this lawsuit, contact Christian Levis at clevis@lowey.com
or by calling 914-733-7220 or Andrea Farah at afarah@lowey.com or
by calling 914-733-7256.
Headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, Kirkland is a gold mining and
exploration company with operations in Canada and Australia.
Historically, Kirkland pursued a strategy based on high-grade
underground mining with low all-in sustaining costs. During the
months leading up to November 25, 2019, Kirkland negotiated the
acquisition of Detour Gold Corporation ("Detour"). The acquisition
was dilutive of Kirkland's reserve grade and increased its all-in
sustaining costs.
The Complaint alleges that Kirkland made false and misleading
statements to the public throughout the Class Period and failed to
disclose that: (i) Kirkland lacked adequate internal controls over
financial reporting, especially as it relates to its projections of
risks, reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs; (ii) the
Company's projections relating to its risks, reserve grade, and
all-in sustaining costs were false and misleading in light of the
impending acquisition of Detour; (iii) the Company's financial
statements and projections were not fairly presented in conformity
with International Financial Reporting Standards; and (iv) based on
the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects and/or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material
facts.
On November 25, 2019, the company announced that it had agreed to
acquire Detour. On news of this acquisition, Kirkland's shares
fell from $47.62 per share to $39.44, a decline of $8.18, more than
17%.
About Lowey Dannenberg
Since its inception in 1967, Lowey has specialized in the
prosecution of complex civil class action lawsuits and has grown
into one of the most successful shareholder litigation firms in the
field. Its investor litigation group has recovered billions of
dollars in the aggregate and has achieved landmark, long-term
corporate governance changes at public companies. Over decades of
zealous advocacy, Lowey has developed a profound knowledge of
securities and antitrust class action litigation.
Contact
If you have any questions or want to discuss this lawsuit, contact
Christian Levis at clevis@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7220 or
Andrea Farah at afarah@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7256. [GN]
LENCHO OILFIELD: Birdwell Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, CARL BIRDWELL, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LENCHO OILFIELD SRVICES INC. and LAWRENCE
DECULIT, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00855 (W.D. Tex., July 22,
2020) arises from Defendants' alleged unlawful payroll practice and
classification of their workers in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Solids Control
Technician.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the other similarly
situated Solids Control Technicians were routinely scheduled by
Defendants to perform work for 12 or more hours each workday over
the past three years. However, Defendants paid them a day rate only
denying them of overtime compensation at one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek.
Lawrence Deculit is the President of Lencho Oilfield Services Inc.
Lencho Oilfield Services Inc. provides solids control services to
the oil and gas industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
TRAN LAW FIRM, LLP
2537 S. Gessner, Suite 104
Houston, TX 77063
Tel: (713) 223-8855
Fax: (713) 623-6399
Emails: ttran@tranlawllp.com
service@tranlawllp.com
LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Moore Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
George Moore, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons
and entities similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lighthouse
Insurance Group, LLC and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-03690, (N.D. Ill., June 24, 2020), seeks damages, injunctive
relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Lighthouse Insurance is engaged in the marketing and sale of
various insurance products and services and relies on telemarketing
to generate business, usually involving the use of an automatic
telephone dialing system. Moore have never dealt with Lighthouse
Insurance yet still received messages. Morris is on the national
Do-Not-Call Registry. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
David B. Levin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
Northbrook, IL 60062
Phone: (224) 218-0882
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com
LOPEZ FARM: Santiago Sues Over Unpaid OT, Meal & Rest Period Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
NAZARIO MARTINEZ SANTIAGO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREGORIO LOPEZ; LOPEZ FARM
CONTRACTING; LOPEZ FARMS, LLC; LAURITZEN CUSTOM FARMING, INC.;
GEORGE HELMUTH, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
20CECG02163 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., July 27, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of Labor Code,
California Business & Professions Code, and Wage Order by failing
to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated farm
laborers the required minimum wage and overtime pay for all hours
worked in a workweek, failing to provide all required meal periods
and authorize all rest periods or pay premium pay in lieu thereof,
failing to adequately reimburse them for all reasonable and
necessary work expenditures, and failing to timely pay all final
wages due to them at the time of their separation.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt farm
labor employee on a seasonal basis from approximately August 20,
2018 to approximately September 2018.
Lopez Farm Contracting is an agricultural contracting business
located in Kerman, California.
Lopez Farms, LLC is an agricultural business located in
California.
Lauritzen Custom Farming, Inc. is an agricultural business located
in Fresno, California.
George Helmuth, Inc. is an agricultural business located in Kerman,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
STANSBURY BROWN LAW
2610 1/2 Abbot Kinney Blvd.
Venice, CA 90291
Telephone: (323) 207-5925
E-mail: dbrown@stansburybrownlaw.com
MARRIOTT INT'L: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
Michael Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriott International, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-00766 (W.D. Tex., July 1, 2020), seeks to recover
compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Texas Common
Law.
Marriott operates global lodging company with more than 7,000
properties across 131 countries and territories throughout the
United States. Garcia was employed by Marriott as a call center
agent in San Antonio, Texas from February 2019 until August 2020,
providing customer support to its customers. He claims to have been
denied overtime for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per
workweek. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
ANDERSON2X, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Tel: (361) 452-1279
Fax: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
cgordon@a2xlaw.com
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 16 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 21
announced 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--http://www.rosenlegal.com--representsinvestors
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.
CONTACT:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com [GN]
MONCON INC: Construction Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Santos Guzman Garcia, Herbert Bercian, Roberto Martinez Joaquin,
Silas Rosales Pleitez, Fermin Duvon and Jesus Aravelo, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Moncon, Inc. and Stephen McKernan and Herman Benitez, as
individuals, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-05024, (E.D. N.Y., June 30,
2020), seeks to recover damages for violations of New York State
labor laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act, compensatory and
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and all other
legal and equitable remedies.
Moncon, Inc. is a construction company owned by Stephen McKernan
and Herman Benitez where Plaintiffs are construction workers. They
claim to have worked in excess of 40 hours per day without overtime
premium and denied accurate wage statements. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Email: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com
NEW MEXICO: D.N.M. Denies Ortiz's Bid to Comply With Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for District of New Mexico issued an order
denying John P. Ortiz's Motion to Comply in the case captioned
DWIGHT DURAN, et al. v. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, et al., Case No.
77-721 KK/SCY (D.N.M.).
Michelle Lujan Grisham is the governor of New Mexico.
In his Motion to Comply, Class Member Mr. Ortiz seeks: (1)
enforcement of Paragraph 15 of the Second Revised Settlement
Agreement (SRSA) approved by the Court on February 14, 2020, (2)
the removal of certain New Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD)
employees, and (3) an order prohibiting NMCD from transferring him
to the Otero County Prison Facility.
To the extent that Mr. Ortiz seeks enforcement of the SRSA as a
member of the Plaintiff class, the Court says he must do so through
current class counsel.
Magistrate Judge Kirtan Khalsa notes that here, class counsel have
shown that they are fully able and willing to seek relief from the
Court as warranted by filing appropriate motions on behalf of the
class in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
this Court's Local Rules. Thus, if Mr. Ortiz believes that NMCD has
failed to comply with the SRSA's terms, he should confer with class
counsel regarding how to proceed.
To the extent that Mr. Ortiz is attempting to pursue individual
claims that fall outside of the SRSA's provisions, he must bring
such claims in an independent lawsuit. If Mr. Ortiz wishes to
retain an attorney on his own for any claim unrelated to the SRSA,
he may consult the United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico's "Guide for Pro Se Litigants," which lists resources
for legal representation. The Court will direct the Clerk to mail a
copy of the Guide to Mr. Ortiz.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y84lqssd Leagle.com
NEW TOASTIES DELI: Gomez Seeks Overtime Pay, Slams Tip Credit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Gomez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. New Toasties Deli, Inc., Yon C. Figueroa,
Jane Doe and Jason Doe, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-05028 (S.D.
N.Y., June 29, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages and redress for failure to provide itemized wage statements
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor
Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.
According to the complaint, Defendants own, operate, or control a
Deli Restaurant, located in New York, New York under the name
"Toasties" where Gomez was employed. He claims to have worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they
worked. Toastie's failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay them appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Gomez was ostensibly employed as a delivery
worker but spent a significant amount of time spent performing
non-tipped duties. He was paid lower than the required tip-credit
rate but was deducted a tip credit because their non-tipped duties
exceeded 20% of each workday, thus allowing Toasties's to pay the
tip-credit instead of the minimum wage rate. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
Email: michael@faillacelaw.com
OHIO: Court Awards $1.2MM in Attorney's Fees & Costs in Ball Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio issued an
Opinion and Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's
Fees and Costs Pursuant to Settlement Agreement in the case
captioned PHYLLIS BALL, et al. v. JOHN KASICH, et al., Case No.
2:16-cv-282 (S.D. Ohio).
The Plaintiffs sought $1.2 million in accordance with their
settlement agreement with the Defendants.
John Kasich is the former governor of Ohio.
On March 31, 2016, six individuals and the Ability Center of
Greater Toledo (Plaintiffs) filed this action seeking declarative
and injunctive relief against the following in their official
capacities: the Governor of Ohio and the Directors of the Ohio
Department of Developmental Disabilities, the Ohio Department of
Medicaid, and Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities
(Defendants).
In their complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that Ohio's provision of
services to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities
violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Social Security Act.
On April 24, 2020, the Court issued an Opinion and Order approving
the class action settlement between the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants. The Plaintiffs request $1.2 million in accordance with
their settlement agreement with the Defendants, indicating that the
requested award is only 21% of the fees and costs to which the
Plaintiffs would otherwise be entitled" under the lodestar method
of calculating attorney fees. Complex civil rights cases like the
instant litigation often require multiple attorneys with
specialized expertise.
The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that the assembled litigation
team was necessary to litigate this case effectively, particularly
in light of the Defendants' vigorous defense of this case, which
supports the reasonableness of the negotiated fee. Within their
respective firms, lead counsel assigned litigation roles and tasks.
Class counsel guarded against inefficiencies, including duplication
of effort, by careful management and delegation of tasks among
counsel and the various work groups.
The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' requested attorneys' fees
are reasonable given the complexity of the case, the efforts taken
to litigate the case efficiently, counsel's reasonable market-based
rates, the arms-length negotiated settlement between sophisticated
counsel, the benefit obtained for the class, and awards in similar
cases. The negotiated award is far less than the Plaintiffs'
reasonable lodestar, further supporting the reasonableness of the
Plaintiffs' request for an award of $1.2 million for fees and
costs.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8pdgnrg from Leagle.com
OREGON: Court Won't Dismiss Canales-Robles 14th Amendment Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland
Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying the Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned HECTOR FERNANDO
CANALES-ROBLES, SAAMIR LOPEZ-CERVANTES, and TREI HERNANDEZ, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. COLETTE
S. PETERS, former Director, Oregon Youth Authority (OYA) and
current Director, Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC); JOSEPH
O'LEARY, Acting Director, OYA; FARIBORZ PAKSERESHT, former
Director, OYA; ROBERT JESTER, former Director, OYA; BOBBY MINK,
former Director, OYA; MICHAEL RIGGAN, former Superintendent,
MacLaren; DAN BERGER, Superintendent, MacLaren; SID THOMPSON,
former Superintendent, MacLaren, Case No. 6:16-cv-01395-AC (D.
Ore.).
The Plaintiffs bring this class action asserting a single claim
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (Section 1983) for violation of their
rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The
Plaintiffs specifically allege the lack of legal materials and
resources available to inmates housed at the MacLaren Youth
Correctional Facility (MacLaren) effectively deprived them of
meaningful access to the courts and prevented them from filing
timely petitions for post-conviction relief.
The Defendants move for summary judgment based on the petitions for
post-conviction relief filed by Canales-Robles and Lopez-Cervantes.
The Defendants contend the Marion County Court rulings are entitled
to preclusive effect and thus bar relitigation of the claims or
issues in this court, that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine forbids this
court from considering a de facto appeal of the Marion County Court
rulings, or that the Court should stay this action while the Marion
County Court rulings are pending on appeal.
The Plaintiffs respond that the issues addressed by the Marion
County Court are distinct from those currently before this court,
are not entitled to preclusive effect, and do not implicate the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Plaintiffs also argue that this court
has considered, and rejected, the Defendants' Rooker-Feldman and
abstention arguments. Finally, the Plaintiffs note that the
Defendants' arguments are not relevant to Hernandez, who still is
housed at MacLaren and has not filed a petition for post-conviction
relief.
In the Opinion and Order, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta finds
that the claim and relevant issues before the Court are separate
and distinct from those addressed and pending in the
post-conviction-relief proceedings, are not barred by issue
preclusion, claim preclusion, or the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and
do not implicate important state interests requiring Younger or
Pullman abstention. Consequently, the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment is denied.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 15, 2020 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8ezy3d7 from Leagle.com
POLLO SABROSO: Hernandez Claims Overtime, Slams Tip Credit
----------------------------------------------------------
Cristal Marmol Hernandez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pollo Sabroso Restaurant Corp.,
Maximo Santiago and Magalis Diaz, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-05041
(S.D. N.Y., July 1, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages and redress for failure to provide itemized wage
statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New
York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.
Defendants own, operate, or control a Dominican Restaurant, located
in the Bronx, New York under the name "Pollo Sabroso" where
Hernandez was employed as a waitress. She claims to have worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they
worked. Pollo Sabroso failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay them appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Hernandez was ostensibly employed as a waitress
but spent a significant amount of time spent performing non-tipped
duties. She was paid lower than the required tip-credit rate but
was deducted a tip credit because their non-tipped duties exceeded
20% of each workday, thus allowing Pollo Sabroso to pay the
tip-credit instead of the minimum wage rate. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
Email: michael@faillacelaw.com
RELIANCE STANDARD: Examiners Seek Unpaid Overtime Premiums
----------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Green, Cheryl Kilfoil, Heather Sinclair, Lisa Donovan and
Molly Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-03878, (N.D. Ill., July 1, 2020), seeks
to recover minimum wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of
this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Maine wage and hour
laws and Oregon wage and hour laws.
Reliance is an insurance carrier where Plaintiffs worked as claims
examiners. They claim to be denied overtime pay for hours rendered
in excess of 40 hours per week. Kilfoil, Sinclair, Donovan and
Ramirez are from Maine while Green is from Oregon. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 West Washington, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312) 419-1008
Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
- and -
Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (281) 572-0727
Facsimile: (281) 572-0728
Email: travis@hedgpethlaw.com
- and -
Jack L. Siegel, Esq.
Stacy W. Thomsen, Esq.
SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
4925 Greenville, Suite 600
Dallas, TX 75206
Tel: (214) 790-4454
Fax: (469) 339-0204
Email: jack@siegellawgroup.biz
stacy@siegellawgroup.biz
ROCHESTER, MN: Settlement in Campbell Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, James Campbell and Sarah Louisell, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City
of Rochester and Rochester Economic Development Authority,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-1846 (WMW/HB) (D. Minn.), Judge
Wilhelmina M. Wright of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement.
Judge Wright has reviewed and considered all papers filed in
connection with the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion, including the
Settlement Conference Term Sheet and all exhibits referenced
therein. The Judge is satisfied that the terms and conditions set
forth are the result of good faith, arm's-length settlement
negotiations between competent and experienced counsel, and that
the requirements for granting preliminary approval of the
settlement are otherwise satisfied.
Accordingly, the terms of the Settlement Agreement as reflected in
the Settlement Conference Term Sheet and additional exhibits are
preliminarily approved, subject to further consideration at the
Final Approval Hearing as provided for in the Order, Judge Wright
ruled.
Judge Wright conditionally certified, for settlement purposes only,
the following settlement class under Rule 23(b)(3), Fed. R. Civ.
P., defined as:
Persons who rented an apartment at any of the following
addresses in Rochester, Minnesota (now known as Residence at
Discovery Square) during the periods indicated: (i) 507 3rd
Ave. SW - Oct. 1, 2016 to July 7, 2017; (ii) 509 3rd Ave.
SW - Oct. 1, 2016 to July 7, 2017; (iii) 519 3rd Ave. SW -
Oct. 1, 2016 to July 7, 2017; (iv) 506 4th Aves. SW -
Oct. 1, 2016 to July 7, 2017; (v) 514 4th Ave. SW -
Oct. 1, 2016 to July 7, 2017; (vi) 304 5th St. SW -
Oct. 1, 2016, to July 7, 2017; and (vii) 315 6th St. SW
- Jan. 1, 2017 to July 7, 2017.
The Housing Justice Center, Schnitker Law Office P.A., and Morphew
Law Office P.L.L.C., are appointed as Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class.
The Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. on Aug. 19,
2020.
The Judge approved the Notice Program, Class Notice, and Claim Form
as set forth in the exhibits to the settlement. The Class counsel
will cause the Class Notice and Claim Form to be disseminated in
the manner as set forth in the Notice Program on or before the
Notice Date. Prior to the Final Approval Hearing, the parties,
through their counsel, will file with the Court a sworn statement
attesting to compliance with the Notice Program. The Court
appointed Three Rivers Community Action agency as the Claims
Administrator in the action.
Any Settlement Class member can opt out of the class settlement by
providing written notice of the member's intent to opt out by the
opt-out deadline set in the Class Notice.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 22, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/hfd86z from Leagle.com.
SEIU LOCAL 521: Settlement in Bermudez Suit Gets Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JORGE BERMUDEZ, VIRGINIA VALDEZ, and ANGELICA PEDROZO,
as individuals, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 521,
and COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-04312-VC
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division,
granted (i) Plaintiff Valdez's Motion for Final Approval of the
class action settlement reached with Defendants Service Employees
International Union, Local 521 and County of Santa Clara; and (ii)
Plaintiff's request for an award of attorney fees, costs and an
enhancement award.
Judge Chhabria found the Settlement and Settlement Agreement
sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate. The Judge further
found that the settlement class, as defined in the Court's
preliminary approval order satisfies the prerequisites for
maintaining a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23.
Within 21 days after the distribution of the settlement funds and
the first payment of attorneys' fees, the parties will file a
post-distribution accounting in accordance with the District's
Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, the Court rules.
The Judge also found the Plaintiff's request for attorney fees
costs and service enhancement to be fair, reasonable and
appropriate. The Judge thus granted the Plaintiff's motion for
attorney' fees, costs and enhancement payment. Attorney fees in
the amount of $24,731.45 and costs in the amount of $268.55, and a
service award to Valdez of $500 are approved.
Five percent of the Attorney Fees ($1,250) will be withheld by the
Defendants and not distributed to the Plaintiff's counsel until
after the Post-Distribution Accounting is filed, upon further order
of the Court.
In sum, the Court grants final approval of the Settlement and
Settlement Agreement.
The Court certified the following Settlement Class:
All public-sector members of Local 521 from September 10, 2015
through the Preliminary Approval Date who: (1) submitted to the
Defendants a written request to terminate their membership with
Local 521, and thereafter continued to have union dues deducted
from their paychecks based on a temporal limitation on
resigning from union membership, or (2) who submitted an
Employee Authorization for Payroll Deduction of Union Dues or
Service Fees form with the "Service Fee" box checked, and
thereafter continued to have union dues deducted from their
paychecks based on Local 521's policy of not treating such
forms as indicating a request to resign from union membership.
Banys, P.C. is designated as class counsel in the case.
Orders relating to the final approval of the Class Settlement are
available at at https://is.gd/3v5kMk and https://is.gd/S2hIPL from
Leagle.com.
Christopher D. Banys -- cdb@banyspc.com -- BANYS, P.C., San Luis
Obispo, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff Virginia Valdez.
SK ENERGY: Ritual Coffee Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as RITUAL COFFEE ROASTERS, INC.,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. SK ENERGY
AMERICAS, INC.; SK TRADING INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD.; VITOL INC.;
DAVID NIEMANN; and BRAD LUCAS Case No. 2:20-cv-06486-JAK-PJW (Filed
July 21, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California to U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on July 29, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-05213-SK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Sallie Kim.
The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint for damages,
restitution, and injunctive relief against the Defendants for
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the California's
Cartwright Act, the California Business and Professions Code, and
California' Unfair Competition Law. This action is brought against
the Defendants for allegedly entering into a per se unlawful
agreement to restrain competition in the spot market for gasoline
formulated for sale in California and for particular gasoline
blending components used.
The Defendants provides gas distribution services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Terry Gross, Esq.
Adam C. Belsky, Esq.
GROSS & BELSKY P.C.
201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 544-0200
Facsimile: (415) 544-0201
E-mail: terry@grossbelsky.com
adam@grossbelsky.com
Interested Party Pacific Wine Distributors, Inc., is represented
by:
Samantha Stein, Esq.
HAUSFELD, LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
E-mail: sstein@hausfeld.com
STUBHUB INC: Fuentes Slams Billing for Cancelled Game
-----------------------------------------------------
Edgar Fuentes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Stubhub, Inc. and Trueaccord Corp.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00710 (C.D. Cal., July 2, 2020), seek
injunctive, declaratory and compensatory relief for violation Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Fuentes used StubHub to sell two NBA e-tickets for $1,998.00.
StubHub receives a service fee at the time of sale so Fuentes would
only get $1,698.30. Said game was cancelled after the passing of
Kobe Bryant and Fuentes requested a refund from his supplier. He
had already informed StubHub about not receiving the mobile tickets
and the cancelled sale. Despite this, he was still billed by
StubHub for $399.60 which became $799.20 when it was transferred to
TrueAccord for collection. [BN]
Fuentes is represented by:
Yana A. Hart, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233-7770
Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
Email: yana@kazlg.com
TATE & KIRLIN: Compelled to Produce Statements in Matthias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production in the case captioned ROBIN
MATTHIAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. TATE & KIRLIN ASSOCIATES, INC. and LVNV FUNDING, Case No.
19-cv-182-slc (W.D. Wis.).
Plaintiff Robin Matthias brings this action on behalf of himself
and other similarly-situated individuals, alleging that Defendants
Tate & Kirlin Associates, Inc. (T&K) and LVNV Funding, LLC, sent
him and other consumers a form collection letter that failed to
clearly state the name of the current creditor to whom their debt
is owed, in violation the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA).
Mr. Matthias moved to compel the Defendants to produce: (1)
evidence of their net worth-including financial statements, profit
and loss statements, income statements, balance sheets, valuations,
and federal tax returns-for the past three years, and (2) the
account histories of all class members.
Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker opines: "I am granting the
motion to the extent that I will order defendants to produce a
current audited financial statement with the underlying
accountant's notes, but if they do not have one, they must produce
their most current financial statements, profit and loss
statements, income statements, balance sheets, valuations, and
federal tax returns. I am denying the motion in all other
respects."
Judge Crocker maintains that Matthias has not provided any reason
why it is necessary to double check the Defendants' identification
of potential class members or to confirm class membership; hence,
Mr. Matthias's motion to compel the class members' account
histories is denied.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd5qpc96 from Leagle.com
TPUSA-FHCS INC: Nattoo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Jermaine Nattoo, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. TPUSA-FHCS, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-14207
(S.D. Fla., June 23, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
TPUSA-FHCS, Inc. operates as Teleperformance USA where Nattoo
worked as a call center agent. Nattoo claims to have worked more
than forty hours per workweek without receiving the proper overtime
pay for all their overtime hours worked to include
non-discretionary bonuses in the computation of overtime pay. He
also claims that he was not compensated for necessary pre-shift and
post-break activities. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103
Davie, FL 33324
Telephone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Scott+Scott Attorneys Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
securities and consumer rights litigation firm, on July 21
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Tufin
Software Technologies Ltd. ("Tufin" or the "Company"), certain
directors and officers of the Company and the underwriters of
Tufin's April 2019 initial public offering ("IPO") and its December
2019 secondary public offering ("SPO") (collectively,
"Defendants").
The action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, asserts claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act"), 15 U.S.C. Secs.77k, Sec.77l(a)(2), and Sec.77o, on behalf of
investors who purchased Tufin ordinary shares in or traceable to
both the IPO and SPO and who were damaged thereby (the "Class").
Tufin is an Israeli company that develops, markets, and sells
software and cloud-based security solutions primarily in the United
States, Europe, and Asia.
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the
Securities Act by issuing false and misleading registration
statements and prospectuses in connection with both its IPO and its
SPO. Specifically, the complaint states that Defendants misled
investors with respect to the Company's North American business,
customer relationships and growth metrics, and the fact that
Tufin's business was deteriorating, and, as a result, Tufin's
representations regarding its sustainable financial prospects were
overly optimistic -- all of which was known to, and concealed by,
Defendants at the time of the IPO and SPO.
On January 9, 2020, Tufin released preliminary unaudited revenue
and non-GAAP operating loss estimates for the fourth fiscal quarter
of 2019, revealing 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, and an anticipated
non-GAAP operating loss in the range of $1.1 million to $2.6
million, compared to the Company's previous guidance of non-GAAP
operating profit in the range of $0.0 million to $3.0 million.
Tufin's "inability to close a number of transactions, primarily in
North America" was cited as the primary reason for Tufin's revenue
shortfall.
On this news, Tufin's share price fell $4.14 per share, or 24.04%,
to close at $13.08 per share on January 9, 2020.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from July 21, 2020, the date of this notice. Any
member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the proposed class.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Jonathan Zimmerman of Scott+Scott at (888) 398-9312, or
via email at jzimmerman@scott-scott.com.
About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices
in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio. [GN]
UNITED HEALTHCARE: All Existing Deadlines in Smith Suit Vacated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Oakland Division, issued a Scheduling Order in the case captioned
JANE SMITH and JANE ROE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE CO. and UNITED
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Case No. 4:18-cv-06336-HSG (N.D. Cal.).
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., ruled that all existing
deadlines in the case, including those reflected in the Amended
Scheduling Order issued on February 14, 2020, continue to be
vacated.
The parties shall submit a joint status report on or before
September 14, 2020, updating the Court as to the status of
settlement discussions or, alternatively, proposing new deadlines
for proceedings in this matter if discussions between the parties
appear unlikely to resolve the matter.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 15, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ychbhvog from Leagle.com
JENNIFER S. ROMANO, Esq.--jromano@crowell.com, NARAIN KUMAR,
Esq.--nkumar@crowell.com, CROWELL & MORING LLP, in Los Angeles,
California, represented the Defendants.
MICHAEL W. LIEBERMAN, Esq.--mlieberman@crowell.com, CROWELL &
MORING LLP, in Washington, D.C., represented the Defendants.
JARED L. FACHER, Esq.--jfacher@crowell.com, CROWELL & MORING LLP,
in New York City, represented the Defendants.
PSYCH-APPEAL, INC., Meiram Bendat, Esq.--info@psych-appeal.com, in
West Hollywood, California, represented the Plaintiffs.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP, D. Brian Hufford,
Esq.--dbhufford@zuckerman.com, Jason S. Cowart,
Esq.--jcowart@zuckerman.com, Anant Kumar,
Esq.--akumar@zuckerman.com, Nell Z. Peysern,
Esq.--peyser@zuckerman.com, in New York City, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs and the Putative Class.
VERIZON CONNECT FLEET: Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Garnick and Tshacha Romeo, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated who consent to their inclusion in a
collective action, Plaintiff, v. Verizon Connect Fleet USA LLC,
Defendant Case 20-cv-01474 (M.D. Fla., June 29, 2020) seeks
overtime wages, compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages,
declaratory and injunctive relief including costs and attorneys'
fees under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
Verizon Connect offers automation and optimization solution where
Garnick and Romeo worked as Business Development Representatives
selling Verizon telematics products and services making outbound
and inbound calls and sending out emails to solicit businesses.
They claim to be denied a premium for all hours worked over forty
in each and every workweek. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
MITCHELL L. FELDMAN, ESQ., P.A.
1201 Peachtree Street, NE
400 Colony Square, #200
Atlanta, GA 30361
Tel: (877) 946-8293
Fax: (813) 639-9376
Email: mlf@feldmanlegal.us
VITA LOCATORS LLC: Price Seeks Unpaid Wages and Damages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Price, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. Vita Locators, LLC,, Defendant, Case No. No.
20-cv-01868, (D. Colo., June 24, 2020) seeks unpaid wages, minimum
wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, costs and reasonable
attorney's fees for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, the Colorado Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage of
Workers Act.
Vita is in the business of matching renters with apartment
complexes that have vacancies and makes money by charging landlords
a percentage of renters' first month's rent. Price worked for Vita
as an apartment locator.
She claims that she was not paid an hourly wage rate, nor did Vita
pay her overtime premiums for hours that she worked in excess of 40
per week and/or 12 per day, and/or 12 per shift. She also claims
not to be compensated for the missed 10-minute rest periods that
she did not avail of. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam M. Harrison, Esq.
David H. Miller, Esq.
SAWAYA & MILLER LAW FIRM
1600 Ogden Street
Denver, CO 80218
Tel: (720) 527-4369
Email: aharrison@sawayalaw.com
- and -
Claire E. Hunter, Esq.
HKM Employment Attorneys LLP
730 17th Street, Suite 750
Denver, CO 80202
Email: chunter@hkm.com
VITOL INC: Harris Sues Over Rigged Gas Prices
---------------------------------------------
Donald Harris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Vitol Inc., SK Energy Americas, Inc. and SK
Trading International Co., Ltd. and Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-04293, (N.D. Cal., June 29, 2020), seeks relief under state
antitrust and consumer protection laws including for violations of
the Cartwright Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.
In February 2015, an explosion damaged an oil refinery complex in
Torrance, California thus causing an unexpected undersupply of
refined gasoline. Vitol, SK Energy Americas and SK Trading
International negotiated large contracts to supply gasoline and
gasoline blending components for delivery in California in excess
of more than 10 million gallons.
Harris purchased fuel at retail in California during the said
period. He claims that Vitol and SK manipulated the spot market
price for gasoline for profit. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Dennis Stewart, Esq.
Kirk B. Hulett, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
600 B Street, 17th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 595-3299
Email: dstewart@gustafsongluek.com
khulett@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
Ling S. Wang, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
VITOL INC: Kelly Sues Over Rigged Gas Prices
--------------------------------------------
Craig Kelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Vitol Inc., SK Energy Americas, Inc. and SK
Trading International Co., Ltd., David Niemann and Brad Lucas,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04101, (N.D. Cal., June 19, 2020), seeks
relief under state antitrust and consumer protection laws including
for violations of the Cartwright Act and California's Unfair
Competition Law.
In February 2015, an explosion damaged an oil refinery complex in
Torrance, California thus causing an unexpected undersupply of
refined gasoline. Vitol, SK Energy Americas and SK Trading
International negotiated large contracts to supply gasoline and
gasoline blending components for delivery in California in excess
of more than 10 million gallons.
Kelly purchased fuel at retail in California during the said
period. He claims that Vitol and SK manipulated the spot market
price for gasoline for profit. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Judith A. Zahid, Esq.
Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
Qianwei Fu, Esq.
ZELLE LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 693-0700
Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
Email: jzahid@zelle.com
qfu@zelle.com
jdugan@zelle.com
- and -
James R. Martin, Esq.
Jennifer Duncan Hackett, Esq.
ZELLE LLP
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 375
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 899-4100
Email: jmartin@zelle.com
jhackett@zelle.com
WELLS FARGO: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC)
between April 5, 2020 and May 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important August 3, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline
in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Wells Fargo investors under the federal securities
laws.
To join the Wells Fargo class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1861.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) Wells Fargo planned to, and did, improperly allocate
government-backed loans under the Paycheck Protection Program
("PPP"), and/or had inadequate controls in place to prevent such
misallocation; (2) the foregoing foreseeably increased Wells
Fargo's litigation risk with respect to PPP allocation, as well as
increased regulatory scrutiny and/or potential enforcement actions;
and (3) as a result, Wells Fargo's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 3,
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-1861.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm--http://www.rosenlegal.com--representsinvestors
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]
WEST VIRGINIA-AMERICAN: S.D.W.V. Refuses to Review Perez's Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ROBERT PEREZ v. WEST VIRGINIA-AMERICAN WATER
COMPANY, AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, and EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY,
Consolidated with CRYSTAL GOOD, et al. v. WEST VIRGINIA-AMERICAN
WATER COMPANY, et al., Case Nos. 2:16-1606, 2:14-1374 (S.D.W.V.),
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the Plaintiff's:
(1) Motion for Review [of claim], filed May 16, 2020;
(2) Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Set Aside the
Dismissal, and Restore Complaint to Its Original Position
and Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion to Reconsider"),
filed May 20, 2020;
(3) Amendment to Review Motion and Claim Right to Proceeds,
filed June 2, 2020; and
(4) Motion Regarding Counsel Issues, filed June 5, 2020.
The Plaintiff's motion for Withdrawal of All Motions for Review,
Retraction of All Pleadings, filed June 2, 2020, is granted insofar
as the Plaintiff seeks to retract his pending motions.
The case arose out of the Plaintiff's allegation that his home at
4904 Big Tyler Road, in Cross Lanes, Kanawha County, West Virginia,
caught on fire during a break in the waterline in the area causing
low to no water pressure for the fire department to extinguish the
fire. Neighboring fire departments attempted to bring water, but
were unsuccessful in extinguishing the house fire.
The Plaintiff sought relief for personal injury, damages for the
loss of his home and personal property, loss of unreasonable
inferences with the use of property, fear, anxiety, annoyance or
inconvenience due to the actions of the Defendants.
On May 29, 2020, Defendant West Virginia-American Water Company
filed a response to the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration
under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
response outlines the procedural history of this case and its
consolidation with the case styled, Crystal Good v. American Water
Works Co., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-01374 (S.D.W. Va. filed Jan. 13,
2014). As noted by the Defendant, the Plaintiff did not opt out or
object to the Amended Settlement Agreement ("ASA") prior to the
Court's approval in the consolidated Good case.
District Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr., opines that the Plaintiff's
various motions provide no basis for relief. The Plaintiff does not
confront the relevant language in the ASA and, despite any regrets
he has about participating in the class action settlement, he is
bound by the terms of the ASA. The Plaintiff agreed to the
settlement procedures and indeed already received payment for at
least one of his claims.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybgop7fu
Leagle.com
WWE: Kansas Firefighters Pension Named Lead Plaintiff in Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, CITY OF WARREN POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT INC. et al, Defendants.
SZANIAWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT INC. et al,
Defendants, Case Nos. 20-cv-2031 (JSR), 20-cv-2223 (S.D. N.Y.),
Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York appointed Firefighters' Pension System of the
City of Kansas City Missouri Trust ("Kansas City FPS") as the Lead
Plaintiff, and its chosen counsel, Labaton Sucharow LLP, as the
lead counsel.
The Plaintiffs in the cases bring a putative class action on behalf
of similarly situated shareholders of World Wrestling Entertainment
Inc. ("WWE") against WWE and three of its executives for alleged
violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 ("the
Exchange Act"). On May 12, 2020, the Court consolidated the two
actions for all purposes.
The Plaintiffs in the consolidated suit allege harm stemming from
events following WWE's entry into strategic relationships with
Saudi Arabia, including agreements to broadcast and host live WWE
events in the Middle East and North Africa region. They allege
that the once positive relationship between WWE and Saudi Arabia
began to deteriorate in 2018 and 2019 as a result of, inter alia,
WWE fan pushback against the policies of Saudi Arabia, the killing
of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and the Saudis' discontent with
WWE's portrayal or women.
According to the Plaintiffs, these tensions ultimately led to Saudi
Arabia refusing to pay millions of dollars to WWE, WWE refusing to
hold events in the country, and the lucrative media deal between
the two parties falling through. They further allege that
throughout the time the relationship between WWE and Saudia Arabia
was deteriorating, WWE kept this deterioration secret.
The Plaintiffs claim that when the truth came out in a series of
partial disclosures from April 2019 to February 2020, WWE stock
prices dropped, injuring shareholders. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs
allege that before these corrective disclosures occurred, a number
of WWE executives, i.e. the individual Defendants in the case, sold
millions of their WWE shares and realized enormous profits. The
Plaintiffs allege that these actions violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5.
Now before the Court are motions by two WWE shareholders, John R.
Howland and the Kansas City FPS, for appointment as the Lead
Plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
(the "PSLRA").
Although Howland is the presumptive Lead Plaintiff under the PSLRA,
Kansas City FPS has successfully rebutted the presumption through
evidence indicating that Howland, however well-meaning and
motivated to prosecute the litigation, will not adequately protect
the interests of the class. In contrast, Kansas City FPS raises no
such adequacy concerns and otherwise meets the requirements of the
PSLRA. Judge Rakoff thus appointed Kansas City FPS as the Lead
Plaintiff in the consolidated action.
Having appointed Kansas City FPS the Lead Plaintiff, the Judge must
decide whether to appoint its chosen counsel, Labaton Sucharow, as
the lead counsel. Labaton Sucharow's resume demonstrates that it
possesses experience litigating securities class actions and has
had success in these matters in the past. It demonstrates that the
firm is experienced and competent such that approval is warranted.
Further, the Judge has examined Labaton Sucharow's retainer
agreement with Kansas City FPS, and while that agreement is not
binding on the Court, it reinforces the Court's confidence in
Labaton Sucharow's professionalism. The Judge thus appointed
Labaton Sucharow as the lead counsel.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 22, 2020 Memorandum
Order is available at https://is.gd/UsPIdf from Leagle.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 ***