/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200819.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 166
Headlines
AIRBUS SE: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action Filing
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Settlement Reached in 40G Solutions Suit
ASHFORD UNIVERSITY: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Young Says
AUDIOHOLICS LLC: Calcano Alleges Violation under ADA
BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Vincent Wong Reminds of Sep. 14 Deadline
BLACKBAUD INC: Allen Files Suit in South Carolina
BRINKER RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Aguirre Claims
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Klein Law Reminds of August 24 Deadline
CAMPING WORLD: Approval of Case Settlement Notice Sought
CAPITAL ONE: WeissLaw LLP Disclose Legal Investigation
CHEAP JOE'S ART: Paguada Asserts Breach of ADA
CHEETAH MOBILE: Rosen Law Reminds of August 24 Deadline
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Securities Suit
CLOVER HILL ENTERPRISES: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in Pennsylvania
CROSSING VINEYARDS: Mahoney Alleges Violation under ADA
DIAZ & ASSOCIATES: Francis Alleges Violation of FDCPA
DOBBERSTEIN LAW: Brewer Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
DONALD TRUMP: Class Cert. of Visa Immigrant Applicants Sought
DUNCAN ENTERPRISES: Paguada Alleges Violation under ADA
ENERGY TRANSFER: Regency Merger Related Suit Ongoing
ENVISION PHYSICIAN: Weller Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
FIRT UROLOGY PSC: Fust Alleges Violation under ADA
GATEWAY FIRST: Watkins Files Suit in Texas
GRACE WINERY: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in Pennsylvania
GREENSKY LLC: Offredo Balks at False Stem Cell Therapy Ads
INTEL CORPORATION: Schall Law Announces Securities Class Action
INTERMEX WIRE: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
JOHN WETZEL: Rokita Suit Seeks Class Certification
KASHIA BAND: Nolte Sues Over Unlawful Loan Collection
KIND MANAGEMENT: Paguada Alleges Violation under ADA
KIRKLAND LAKE: Vincent Wong Reminds of Aug. 28 Deadline
LA SELVA BAR: Underpays Employees, Rodriguez Claims
LACROSSE TECHNOLOGY: Paguada Asserts Breach of ADA
LCA VISION: Pieczynski Seeks OT Pay for Center Directors
MAJOR LEAGUE: Drug Test Not Reliable, Barrera Alleges
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 16 Deadline
MEDCARE FARMS: Mims Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads
MONTEREY COLLECTIONS: Stevens Asserts Breach of FDCPA
MORRIS COUNTY, NJ: Appeals Court Affirms Bessler Suit Dismissal
NATIONAL STORES: Medina et al. Seek Proper Pay for Mechandisers
NATIONWIDE CHILDRENS: Morris Seeks Collective Status for FLSA Suit
NATURAL SYNTHETICS: Guerra Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message Ads
NEW YORK LIFE: Court Certifies TAS and EA Classes in Gold Suit
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Bid to Dismiss Local TV Ads Antitrust Suit Pending
OMEGA FLEX: Court Denies Class Certification Motion as Moot
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Underway in Utah
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Putative Class Suit Underway in Missouri
PAR INC: E.D. Michigan Stays Badeen Class Suit Pending Appeal
PICKARD INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Paguada Claims
PROSHARES ULTRA: Vincent Wong Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
PUBLIC REPUTATION: Austin Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
RAC ENTERPRISES: Calcano Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
RAPID FUNDING: Benitez Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads
RYANAIR HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Birmingham Firemen's Suit Claims
SPORTS RESEARCH: Certification of Class & Subclass Sought
SURESCRIPTS LLC: 731 Pharmacy Alleges Monopoly in ePrescription
TD AMERITRADE: Continues to Defend Ford Class Action
TEXAS: Coleman Seeks Class Status for Suit Over Hep C Program
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Can't Use Arbitration to Thwart Class Action
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Policyholders Allege Overpaid Premiums
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Mediation in Blue Cross Suit Underway
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action
UMBRA LLC: Paguada Alleges Violation under ADA
UMG COMMERCIAL: Calcano Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
UNITED AIRLINES: Santos Files Suit in California
UNITED PARCEL: Santos Seeks Class Status for Labor Suit
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Haynes and Boone Discusses Scott Class Action
VIAGOGO ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Shiflett Class Action in Florida
WILLIAM PENN CORP: Mahoney Asserts Breach of ADA
YARDLEY INSURANCE: Mahoney Alleges Violation under ADA
*********
AIRBUS SE: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Airbus SE (OTC: EADSY, EADSF) between February 24,
2016 and July 30, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Airbus investors under the federal
securities laws.
To join the Airbus class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1773.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) Airbus's policies and protocols were insufficient to
ensure the Company's compliance with relevant anti-corruption laws
and regulations; (2) consequently, Airbus engaged in bribery,
corruption, and fraud in order to enhance its business with respect
to its commercial aircraft, helicopter, and defense deals; (3) as a
result, Airbus's earnings were derived in part from unlawful
conduct and therefore unsustainable; (4) the full scope and
severity of Airbus's misconduct; (5) resolution of government
investigations of Airbus would foreseeably cost Airbus billions of
dollars in settlements and legal fees and subject the Company to
significant continuing government investigation and oversight; and
(6) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 5,
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-1773.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.
View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200807005343/en/
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Settlement Reached in 40G Solutions Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that a stipulation of
settlement has been filed in the consolidated class action suit
related to the company's 40G
solutions.
On August 5, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and two of
its officers in Mona Abouzied v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.,
Chih-Hsiang (Thompson) Lin, and Stefan J. Murry, et al., Case No.
4:17-cv-02399.
The complaint in this matter seeks class action status on behalf of
the Company's shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its chief
executive officer, and its chief financial officer, arising out of
its announcement on August 3, 2017 that "the company see softer
than expected demand for its 40G solutions with one of its large
customers that will offset the sequential growth and increased
demand the company expect in 100G."
A second, related action was filed by Plaintiff Chad Ludwig on
August 16, 2017 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02512) in the Southern District
of Texas. The two cases were consolidated before Judge Vanessa D.
Gilmore.
On January 22, 2018, the court appointed Lawrence Rougier as Lead
Plaintiff and Levi & Korsinsky LLP as Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff
filed an amended consolidated class action complaint on March 6,
2018. The amended complaint requests unspecified damages and other
relief.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 4, 2018, which was
denied on March 28, 2019.
The Company disputes the allegations, and intends to continue to
vigorously defend against these claims.
On May 15, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend
the consolidated class action complaint for the purpose of adding
named Plaintiffs Richard Hamilton, Kenneth X. Luthy, Roy H. Cetlin,
and John Kugel (together with Lead Plaintiff Lawrence Rougier,
"Plaintiffs") to the case. The court granted the motion on May 16,
2019. The substantive allegations in the Plaintiffs' operative
second amended consolidated class action complaint remain
unchanged.
On May 28, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify the
case as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23 and seeking appointment of Plaintiffs as class representatives
and Levi & Korsinsky as class counsel.
On July 12, 2019, the Company filed a response in opposition to the
motion for class certification, and on August 26, 2019, Plaintiffs
filed their Reply Brief.
On November 13, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation recommending that the Plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification be granted, to which Defendants filed written
objections on November 27, 2019. On December 11, 2019, Plaintiffs
filed a response in opposition to Defendants' objections, and on
December 16, 2019, Defendants filed their reply brief. The court
entered an order adopting the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and
Recommendation over Defendants’ objections on December 20, 2019.
Thereafter, on January 3, 2020, Defendants filed a petition for
permission to appeal the class certification order to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs filed an answer in opposition
to Defendants' petition on January 13, 2020, and Defendants filed a
reply brief in further support of the petition for permission to
appeal on January 21, 2020.
On January 23, 2020, Defendants filed an unopposed motion in the
Fifth Circuit requesting that the court stay further proceedings
for 90 days to allow the parties to conduct settlement
negotiations. The Fifth Circuit entered an order granting the
motion on January 24, 2020.
On April 7, 2020, by joint motion of the parties, the Fifth Circuit
extended the order for another 40 days, up to and including June 2,
2020.
On June 2, 2020, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the matter pursuant to a mediator's recommendation. On June
4, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and
Notice of Settlement with the court, in order to allow the parties
to finalize their settlement and file a motion for preliminary
approval with the court no later than August 3, 2020.
On August 3, 2020, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement
with the Court. The Stipulation of Settlement contemplates—among
other things and contingent upon Court approval of the settlement
and customary terms and conditions—settlement of the action, a
release of all claims made in the action, and dismissal of the
claims made in the action with prejudice.
As consideration for entering into the settlement, Plaintiffs will
receive for distribution to the members of the class they purport
to represent (in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation of
Settlement) a payment of $15.5 million funded by AOI's applicable
directors' and officers' insurance policies.
Plaintiffs intend to apply to the Court for an award of attorneys'
fees to be paid out of the $15.5 million settlement fund. A hearing
at which the Court will consider whether to approve the settlement
has not yet been scheduled.
Applied Optoelectronics said, "Until it does, all non-settlement
related activity in the action will be stayed. Additional
information regarding the settlement can be obtained by reviewing
the settlement documents publicly filed with the Court in the
matter. After taking into account all currently available
information, the advice of our counsel, and the extent and
currently-expected availability of our existing insurance coverage,
we believe that the eventual outcome of this matter will not have a
material adverse effect on our overall financial condition, results
of operations or cash flows, and we have not recorded any accrual
with regard to this matter."
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells
various fiber-optic networking products worldwide. It offers
optical modules, lasers, transmitters and transceivers, and
turn-key equipment, as well as headend, node, and distribution
equipment. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas.
ASHFORD UNIVERSITY: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Young Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-05830 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2020) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's website
-- https://www.ashford.edu/ -- is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will
become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.
Ashford University, LLC provides educational services. The Company
offers operation of colleges and universities. Ashford University
serves customers in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
AUDIOHOLICS LLC: Calcano Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Audioholics, L.L.C. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Audioholics, L.L.C., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-06385 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 12, 2020).
Audioholics is a technocratic organization started in 1998 by Gene
DellaSala as a means of communicating no-nonsense product
reviews.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Vincent Wong Reminds of Sep. 14 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft. If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (OTCPINK:BAYRY)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/bayer-aktiengesellschaft-loss-submission-form?prid=8440&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 14, 2020
Lawsuit on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Bayer American Depositary Receipts between May
23, 2016 and March 19, 2019.
Allegations against BAYRY include that: 1) following its
acquisition of Monsanto Company, Bayer could be at risk of
suffering billions of dollars in judgments and reputational damage
if the lawsuits brought against Monsanto alleging that exposure to
its glyphosate-based Roundup product caused cancer were successful,
2) a result, Defendants' positive statements about the prospects of
the Monsanto acquisition and the benefits it would create for
Bayer's business were materially false and/or misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis.
To learn more, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
BLACKBAUD INC: Allen Files Suit in South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blackbaud Inc. The
case is styled as William Allen, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Blackbaud Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02930-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 12, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed pursuant to the Diversity-Other Contract.
Blackbaud (NASDAQ:BLKB) is a cloud computing provider that serves
the social good community--nonprofits, foundations, corporations,
education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious
organizations, and individual change agents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harper Todd Segui, Esq.
Whitfield Bryson LLP
217 Lucas Street, Suite G
Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
Tel: (919) 600-5000
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: harper@whitfieldbryson.com
BRINKER RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Aguirre Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO MARVIN AGUIRRE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRINKER RESTAURANT CORPORATION dba
CHILI'S; BRINKER INTERNATIONAL PAYROLL CO LP; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV28260 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles, Cty.) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiff Aguirre was employed by the Defendants as cook.
Brinker Restaurant Corporation dba Chili's owns and operate a
restaurant in Los Angeles, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
Lilit Tunyan, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 590-5550
Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
ltunyan@mahoney-law.net
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Klein Law Reminds of August 24 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Brookdale Senior Living Inc.
(NYSE: BKD) alleging that the Company violated federal securities
laws.
Class Period: August 10, 2016 and April 29, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 24, 2020
Learn more about your recoverable losses in DNK:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/brookdale-senior-living-inc-loss-submission-form?id=8441&from=5
The filed complaint alleges that Brookdale Senior Living Inc. made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Brookdale's financial performance was sustained
by, among other things, the Company's purposeful understaffing of
its senior living communities; (ii) the foregoing conduct subjected
Brookdale to an increased risk of litigation and, once revealed,
was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's financial results and reputation; (iii) as a result, the
Company's financial results were unsustainable; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
Shareholders have until August 24, 2020 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
For additional information about the BKD lawsuit, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link above.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
CAMPING WORLD: Approval of Case Settlement Notice Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as HARRY A. MILLS and MARY F.
MILLS, v. CAMPING WORLD RV SALES a/k/a CAMPING WORLD OF NEW
JERSEY-LAKEWOOD, MEYER'S RV CENTERS, LLC, Case No.
3:18-cv-02283-TJB (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:
1. approving notice to be sent to proposed settlement class;
2. appointing interim counsel; and
3. scheduling a fairness hearing.
Camping World is an American corporation specializing in selling
recreational vehicles, recreational vehicle parts, and recreational
vehicle service.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class are:
Andrew R. Wolf, Esq.
THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
1520 U.S. Hwy. 130, Suite 101
North Brunswick, NJ 08920
Telephone: (732) 545-7900
Facsimile: (732) 545-1030
- and -
Ronald L. Lueddeke, Esq.
Karri Lueddeke, Esq.
LUEDDEKE LAW FIRM
215 Morris Avenue
Spring Lake, NJ 07762
Telephone: (732) 449-2884
Attorney for the Defendants are:
Matthew W. Bauer, Esq.
CONNELL FOLEY LLP
1085 Raymond Boulevard, 19th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
CAPITAL ONE: WeissLaw LLP Disclose Legal Investigation
------------------------------------------------------
WeissLaw LLP, a national class action and shareholders' rights law
firm with offices in New York, Los Angeles and Atlanta, discloses
an investigation of Capital One Financial Corporation (NYSE: COF),
its Board of Directors, and certain Company officers for, among
other things, possible breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of
federal securities laws.
If you are a shareholder of COF who wishes to discuss the
investigation or have any questions about this notice and your
rights or interests, visit our website:
http://www.weisslawllp.com/capital-one-financial-corporation/
Or please contact:
Joshua Rubin, Esq.
WeissLaw LLP
1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Tel No: (212) 682-3025
(888)593-4771
E-mail: stockinfo@weisslawllp.com
On August 6, 2020, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
(the "OCC"), announced that it assessed a civil penalty of $80
million against the Company in connection with its 2019 data
breach. In July of 2019, COF announced that a hacker exploited a
weakness in the firewall of its cloud server to expose the personal
information of nearly 100 million U.S. customers and 6 million
Canadian customers. The breach, which occurred between March 22 and
23, 2019, compromised approximately 140,000 social security numbers
and 80,000 linked bank account numbers, and exposed the personal
information of customers who applied for credit card products
between 2005 and early 2019. The OCC found that COF "failed to
establish effective risk assessment processes . . . and [failed] to
correct [] deficiencies in a timely manner."
WeissLaw is investigating whether COF's Board made false or
misleading statements regarding the safeguarding and protection of
customers' personal information. If you wish to discuss this
investigation or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact Joshua Rubin of WeissLaw LLP at
(888)593-4771, or by e-mail at stockinfo@weisslawllp.com.
WeissLaw LLP has litigated hundreds of stockholder class and
derivative actions for violations of corporate and fiduciary
duties. We have recovered over a billion dollars for defrauded
clients. [GN]
CHEAP JOE'S ART: Paguada Asserts Breach of ADA
----------------------------------------------
Cheap Joe's Art Stuff, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Cheap Joe's Art Stuff, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-06372 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 12, 2020).
Cheap Joe's Art Stuff offers discount prices on painting, drawing
and art supplies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue
Ste 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
CHEETAH MOBILE: Rosen Law Reminds of August 24 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Cheetah Mobile Inc. (NYSE: CMCM)
between March 25, 2019 and February 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important August 24, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline
in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Cheetah
Mobile investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Cheetah Mobile class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1886.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) certain of Cheetah Mobile's apps were not compliant with
the terms of its agreements with Google; (2) as a result, there was
a reasonable likelihood that Google would terminate its advertising
contracts with the Company; (3) as a result of the foregoing,
Cheetah Mobile's ability to attract new users would be adversely
impacted; (4) as a result, Cheetah Mobile's revenue was reasonably
likely to decline; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about Cheetah Mobile's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 24,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1886.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
cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. ("Chembio" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:CEMI) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, and indexed under 20-cv-02961, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired Chembio securities between April 1,
2020, and June 16, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company
and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Chembio securities during
the class period, you have until August 17, 2020, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Chembio, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures,
and commercializes point-of-care ("POC") diagnostic tests that are
used to detect or diagnose diseases.
Amidst the SARS-CoV-2, or COVID-19, pandemic, the Company focused
on the development and commercialization of a serological or
antibody test.
In April 2020, Chembio's DPP COVID-19 antibody test was among the
first such tests to be granted Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA")
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA").
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Chembio's DPP COVID-19 test did
not provide high-quality results and there were material
performance concerns with the accuracy of the Company's DPP
COVID-19 test; (ii) the Company's DPP COVID-19 test generates a
higher than expected rate of false results and higher than that
reflected in the authorized labeling for the device, and was not
effective in detecting antibodies against COVID-19; (iii)
accordingly, it was not reasonable to believe that the test may be
effective in detecting antibodies against COVID-19 and, as a
result, there was a material risk to public health from the false
test results; (iv) all the foregoing, once revealed, was
foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's financial results; and (v) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On June 16, 2020, after the market closed, the FDA issued a press
release disclosing that it had revoked Chembio's EUA for the
Company's DPP COVID-19 Igm/IgG System, stating in relevant part:
"Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked the emergency
use authorization (EUA) of the Chembio Diagnostic System, Inc.
(Chembio) DPP COVID-19 IgM/IgG System, a SARS-CoV-2 antibody test,
due to performance concerns with the accuracy of the test . . . .
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."
As a result of the disclosure of the FDA letter, Chembio's stock
price fell $6.04 per share, or 60.83%, to close at $3.89 per share
on June 17, 2020, on heavier than usual volume of over 25 million
shares. [GN]
CLOVER HILL ENTERPRISES: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clover Hill Enterprises, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Clover Hill Enterprises, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-03933-WB (E.D. Pa., Aug. 12, 2020).
Cloverhill Enterprises, Inc. operates as a stealth mode company
that provides search engine optimization services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
Glanzberg Tobia & Associates PC
123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Tel: (215) 981-5400
Email: dglanzberg@aol.com
CROSSING VINEYARDS: Mahoney Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
Crossing Vineyards & Winery, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Crossing Vineyards & Winery, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-03934-GAM (E.D. Pa., Aug. 12, 2020).
Crossing Vineyards & Winery offers wine tastings, wine education
classes, public events and much more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
Glanzberg Tobia & Associates PC
123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Tel: (215) 981-5400
Email: dglanzberg@aol.com
DIAZ & ASSOCIATES: Francis Alleges Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diaz & Associates,
Inc. The case is styled as Shemuel Francis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Diaz &
Associates, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
5:20-cv-00943 (W.D., Tex., Aug. 12, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act.
Diaz and Associates, Inc. (DAI) is a debt purchaser and third-party
collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
Stein Saks, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
DOBBERSTEIN LAW: Brewer Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Brian Brewer, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. DOBBERSTEIN LAW
FIRM, LLC, and ALCO CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01244-NJ
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class
certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a
tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent
a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by
attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the
plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
himself as the class representative, and appoint his attorneys as
class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: meldridge@ademilaw.com
DONALD TRUMP: Class Cert. of Visa Immigrant Applicants Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as AFSIN AKER, et al., v. DONALD
J. TRUMP, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01419-APM (D. Colo.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. certifying the following class:
"all individual diversity visa immigrant applicants and
their derivative beneficiaries whose diversity visas were
issued prior to Presidential Proclamations 10052 and/or
10014 taking effect, but who were unable to enter the
United States due to travel restrictions and who have
subsequently been unable to obtain reissuance of their
visas through the individual consulates of the Department
of State pursuant to the Presidential Proclamations.
2. appointing Plaintiffs Afsin Aker, Mustafa Dogan Eker,
Dilara Avadin, Emre Akin, Erdal Tarman, Mustafa Madazli,
and Utkirbek Abdjumominov and family as class
representatives; and
3. appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.
Donald John Trump is the 45th and current president of the United
States.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles H. Kuck, Esq.
Phillip C. Kuck, Esq.
Danielle M. Claffey, Esq.
KUCK BAXTER IMMIGRATION, LLC
365 Northridge Rd, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30350
E-mail: ckuck@immigration.net
- and -
Greg Siskind, Esq.
SISKIND SUSSER PC
1028 Oakhaven Rd.
Memphis, TN 39118
- and -
Jeff D. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & HALL P.C.
12203 East Second Avenue
Aurora, CO 80011
DUNCAN ENTERPRISES: Paguada Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
Duncan Enterprises is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Duncan Enterprises, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-06362 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 12, 2020).
Duncan Enterprises is a manufacturer of arts and crafts supply in
Fresno, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue
Ste 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
ENERGY TRANSFER: Regency Merger Related Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Operating, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend the class action suit related to the company's
merger with Regency Energy Partners LP.
On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman ("Dieckman"), a purported Regency
Energy Partners LP (Regency) unitholder, filed a class action
complaint related to the Regency-ETO merger (the "Regency Merger")
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Regency
Merger Litigation"), on behalf of Regency's common unitholders
against Regency GP LP, Regency GP LLC, Energy Transfer LP, (ET),
Energy Transfer Operating, L.P. (ETO), Energy Transfer Partners GP,
L.P. (ETP GP), and the members of Regency's board of directors.
The Regency Merger Litigation alleges that the Regency Merger
breached the Regency partnership agreement. On March 29, 2016, the
Delaware Court of Chancery granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety.
Plaintiff appealed, and the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the
judgment of the Court of Chancery. Plaintiff then filed an Amended
Verified Class Action Complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss.
The Court of Chancery granted in part and denied in part the
motions to dismiss, dismissing the claims against all defendants
other than Regency GP LP and Regency GP LLC (the "Regency
Defendants"). The Court of Chancery later granted Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for class certification. Trial was held on
December 10-16, 2019, and a post-trial hearing was held on May 6,
2020.
The Regency Defendants cannot predict the outcome of the Regency
Merger Litigation or any lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to
the date of this filing; nor can the Regency Defendants predict the
amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the
Regency Merger Litigation.
Energy Transfer said, "The Regency Defendants believe the Regency
Merger Litigation is without merit and intend to vigorously defend
against it."
Energy Transfer Operating, L.P. engages in the natural gas
midstream, and intrastate transportation and storage businesses in
the United States. The company was formerly known as Energy
Transfer Partners, L.P. and changed its name to Energy Transfer
Operating, L.P. in October 2018. Energy Transfer Operating, L.P.
was founded in 1995 and is based in Dallas, Texas. Energy Transfer
Operating, L.P. operates as a subsidiary of Energy Transfer LP.
ENVISION PHYSICIAN: Weller Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
MITCHELL WELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENVISION PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. CACE-20-012992 (Fla.
Cir., 17th Jud., August 10, 2020) is a class action complaint
brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff received text messages sent
by Defendant to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in
4711 beginning on or around March 3, 2020 and continuing up until
June 3, 2020. But, despite Plaintiff's use of Defendant's preferred
opt-out language by replying with the word "Stop", Defendant
continued sending Plaintiff unsolicited telemarketing messages
until Plaintiff's counsel sent Defendant a written correspondence.
Envision Physician Service, LLC is a medical group and healthcare
management organization. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Tel: 305-479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and –
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: 305-975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: 954-400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE)
between February 21, 2017 and July 21, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important September 28, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
FirstEnergy investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the FirstEnergy class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1903.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) FirstEnergy and its representatives and affiliates had
orchestrated a $60 million campaign to corrupt the political
process in order to secure the passage of legislation favoring the
Company and its affiliates; (2) FirstEnergy and its representatives
and affiliates had secretly funneled tens of millions of dollars to
Ohio politicians to bribe those politicians in order to secure
votes in favor of Ohio House Bill 6 ("HB 6"), a $1.3 billion
ratepayer bailout for FirstEnergy's unprofitable nuclear
facilities; (3) FirstEnergy and its representatives and affiliates
had conducted a massive, misleading advertising campaign in support
of HB6 and in opposition to a ballot initiative to repeal HB6 by
passing millions of dollars through an intricate web of 'dark
money' entities and front companies in order to conceal the
Company's involvement; (4) FirstEnergy and its representatives and
affiliates had subverted a citizens' ballot initiative to repeal
HB6 by, among other unscrupulous tactics, hiring more than 15
signature gathering firms (and thus conflicting them out of
supporting the initiative) and bribing ballot initiative insiders
and signature collectors; (5) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' Class Period statements regarding FirstEnergy's
regulatory and legislative efforts were materially false and
misleading; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, FirstEnergy was
subject to an extreme, undisclosed risk of reputational, legal and
financial harm. 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
28, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1903.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
cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]
FIRT UROLOGY PSC: Fust Alleges Violation under ADA
--------------------------------------------------
Firt Urology, P.S.C. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Elizabeth Fust, David Allgood, Marcus Gray and Center For
Accessible Living, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Firt Urology, P.S.C., Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00562-CRS (W.D. Ky., Aug. 12, 2020).
First Urology, PSC is a medical group practice located in
Jeffersonville, IN that specializes in Nursing (Nurse Practitioner)
and Urology.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christina Brandt-Young, Esq.
Disability Rights Advocates
40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Tel: 212 644 8644 Ext. 126
Email: cbrandt-young@dralegal.org
- and -
David L. Leightty, Esq.
Priddy Cutler Naake & Meade, PLLC
2303 River Road, Suite 300
Louisville, KY 40206
Tel: (502) 632-5292
Fax: (502) 632-5293
Email: dleightty@earthlink.net
GATEWAY FIRST: Watkins Files Suit in Texas
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gateway First Bank.
The case is styled as Daniel Watkins and Jennifer Sanchez, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Gateway First Bank, itself and as successor by merger to Gateway
Mortgage Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02136-L (N.D.,
Tex, Aug. 12, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed over Diversity-Breach of Contract.
Gateway First Bank is an FDIC insured institution located in Jenks,
OK. It was founded in 1935 and has approximately $1.71 billion in
assets.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott R Frieling, Esq.
Allen Stewart PC
1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2750
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel: (214) 965-8700
Fax: (214) 965-8701
Email: sfrieling@allenstewart.com
- and -
Allen M Stewart, Esq.
Allen Stewart PC
1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2750
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel: (214) 965-8700
Fax: (214) 965-8701
Email: astewart@allenstewart.com
- and -
Andrew J Ross, Esq.
Allen Stewart PC
1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2750
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel: (214) 965-8700
Fax: (214) 965-8701
Email: aross@allenstewart.com
- and -
Edwin Lee Lowther , III, Esq.
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC
519 W. 7th Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Tel: (501) 312-8500
Fax: (501) 312-8505
Email: llowther@cbplaw.com
- and -
Hank Bates, Esq.
Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC
519 W 7th Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Tel: (501) 312-8500
Fax: (501) 312-8505
Email: hbates@cbplaw.com
- and -
Lee Brandon Lesher, Esq.
Robert A Higgins & Associates PC
112 Goliad
Benbrook, TX 76126
Tel: (817) 924-9000
Fax: (877) 697-8443
- and -
Randall K Pulliam, Esq.
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC
519 W. 7th Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Tel: (501) 312-8500
Fax: (501) 312-8505
Email: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
q
GRACE WINERY: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------
Grace Winery, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as John
Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Grace Winery, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-03935
(E.D. Penn., Aug. 12, 2020).
Grace Wines was established in 2011 by owner-wine-maker Michael
Savage, with a vintage of Cabernet Franc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
Glanzberg Tobia & Associates PC
123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Tel: (215) 981-5400
Email: dglanzberg@aol.com
GREENSKY LLC: Offredo Balks at False Stem Cell Therapy Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE OFFREDO 315 Sandstone Ridgeway Cleveland, OH 44017,
Plaintiff, vs. GREENSKY LLC, aka GreenSky Patient Solutions, LLC
1797 Northeast Expressway NE Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30329,
Defendant, Case No. CV 20 935892 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl., Cuyahoga Cty.,
August 12, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
against Defendant for soliciting commercial entities who provide
"elective care" stem cell injections without insurance
reimbursements.
The complaint asserts that Defendant supports entities like
Superior Health Care and others which falsely and fraudulently
advertised and represented to Plaintiff and others that "stem cell"
therapy procedures treat a litany of serious diseases, is risk free
and never fails, and that stem cell products are an approved safe
treatment for their problems, when in fact they are both unapproved
and without clinical support.
Defendant arranges for the funding of these procedures even though
it knows or should know they are bogus and have serious potential
for adverse risks, are not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), and that no studies have proven that their
product is safe or effective.
According to the FDA, other potential safety concerns for unproven
treatments include administration site reactions, the ability of
cells to move from placement sites and change into inappropriate
cell types or multiply, failure of cells to work as expected, and
the growth of tumors.
GreenSky LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia-based service provider and
program administrator to federally insured, federal and state
chartered banks that provide consumer (patient) loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James S. Wertheim, Esq.
JAMES S WERTHEIM LLC
23811 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 330
Beachwood, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 902-1719
E-mail: wertheimjim@gmail.com
INTEL CORPORATION: Schall Law Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Intel
Corporation ("Intel" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:INTC) for violations
of Sec10(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 April 23,
2020 and July 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 28, 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. Intel identified a fault in its
7-nanometer process that resulted in yield degradation in its
product output. This manufacturing problem resulted in a six-month
delay in the Company's schedule for 7-nanometer products. The
Company was likely to rely on third-party foundries to help produce
the 7-nanometer products. The delays and other problems put the
Company at risk of losing market share to competitors already on
the market with 7-nanometer products. 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 Intel, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN]
INTERMEX WIRE: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as STUART SAWYER, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. INTERMEX WIRE
TRANSFER, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-22212-BB (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order granting his unopposed motion for final
approval of class action settlement.
The Plaintiff notes that the reaction of the Class to the
Settlement has been overwhelmingly positive: Zero objections have
been filed, and only two Class Members have opted out.
The Plaintiff and Intermex have agreed to a $3.25 million class
settlement in this case. Under the deal, the 3,775 claimants are
expected to receive individual settlement distributions of
approximately $500 each.
Class Counsel's request for fees in the amount of one-third of the
Settlement Benefits, or $1,083,333.33, plus costs, falls in line
with other Telephone Consumer Protection Act class settlements in
the Eleventh Circuit and elsewhere, and is thus reasonable, the
Plaintiff says.
The lawsuit alleges Intermex caused nonconsensual, autodialed text
messages to be sent to noncustomers, in violation of the TCPA.
The Settlement provides relief to the following Class of persons:
"all noncustomers successfully contacted by Intermex by text
message, through use of the same texting platform that was
used to contact the Plaintiff, between May 30, 2015 and
October 7, 2019."
Intermex Wire provides electronic money remittance services.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William P. Howard, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
4030 Henderson Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33629
Telephone: (813) 500-1500
E-mail: billy@theconsumerprotectionfirm.com
- and -
Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
909 Davis St., Suite 500
Evanston, IL 60201
Telephone: (312) 729-5288
E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com
JOHN WETZEL: Rokita Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as MARK ROKITA, PATRICK McCAMEY,
BRIAN SINES, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. JOHN WETZEL,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00153-KAP (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff Mark Rokita
asks the Court for an order granting class certification pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 23(c).
The complaint asserts treatment for substance-use disorder -- a
disorder declared by definition as a disease by the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Center for Disease Control. Treatment had
become available to only a few inmates who's inception was after
June 2019 due to recent Court ruling, Mr. Rokita says.
John Edward Wetzel is the Pennsylvania Secretary of Corrections,
having been nominated by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett and
confirmed in May 2011.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]
KASHIA BAND: Nolte Sues Over Unlawful Loan Collection
-----------------------------------------------------
REGINA L. NOLTE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DINO FRANKLIN JR., TRIBAL CHAIRMAN OF THE
KASHIA BAND OF POMO INDIANS OF THE STEWARTS POINT RANCHERIA TRIBAL
COUNCIL, in his official and individual capacities; GLENDA JACOB
MCGILL, VICE CHAIR OF THE KASHIA BAND OF POMO INDIANS OF THE
STEWARTS POINT RANCHERIA TRIBAL COUNCIL, in her official and
individual capacities; TARA ANTONE, SECRETARY OF THE KASHIA BAND OF
POMO INDIANS OF THE STEWARTS POINT RANCHERIA TRIBAL COUNCIL, in her
official and individual capacities; SAVANNAH GOMES, TREASURER OF
THE KASHIA BAND OF POMO INDIANS OF THE STEWARTS POINT RANCHERIA
TRIBAL COUNCIL, in her official and individual capacities; MARLENE
ADAM, MEMBER AT LARGE OF THE KASHIA BAND OF POMO INDIANS OF THE
STEWARTS POINT RANCHERIA TRIBAL COUNCIL, in her official and
individual capacities; SUSAN G SMITH, MEMBER AT LARGE OF THE KASHIA
BAND OF POMO INDIANS OF THE STEWARTS POINT RANCHERIA TRIBAL
COUNCIL, in her official and individual capacities; ELAYNE MURO,
MEMBER AT LARGE OF THE KASHIA BAND OF POMO INDIANS OF THE STEWARTS
POINT RANCHERIA TRIBAL COUNCIL, in her official and individual
capacities; NAOMI ATCHLEY, in her individual capacity; ADRIENNE
ANTONE, in her individual capacity; DERICK FRANKLIN, in his
individual capacity; SANDY PINOLA in her individual capacity; and
JOHN DOES NOS. 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-05585-SK (N.D.
Cal., August 12, 2020) arises from the making and collection of
unlawful loans by an unconventional predatory lender: Kashia
Services, an entity formed by the Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of
the Stewarts Point Rancheria, a federally recognized Native
American tribe located in Sonoma County, California.
According to the complaint, the loans carry triple-digit interest
rates in excess of 700% and are illegal in many states, such as
Indiana, where Plaintiff Regina L. Nolte resides.
Although the Kashia Band of Pomo Indians may be motivated by its
intention to advance its own community, the Tribe's effort to
advance itself exploits desperately poor people in other
communities who, in their moment of despair, agree to take a small
dollar loan with triple-digit interest rates. The excessive
interest rates charged by Kashia Services are far in excess of the
interest rates permitted by the states in which the company makes
and collects on its loans. For example, Plaintiff obtained her loan
while in Indiana. Her loan had an interest rate of 734.28% -- a
rate almost 50 times higher than the maximum permitted under
Indiana law.
By entering into Indiana to make usurious loans to Indiana
consumers and unlawfully collect from their Indiana bank accounts,
the Kashia Band of Pomo Indians has violated applicable Indiana and
federal law. It is well settled that "[a]bsent a federal law to the
contrary, Indians going beyond reservation boundaries have
generally been held subject to non-discriminatory state law
otherwise applicable to all citizens of the State."
This lawsuit challenges the Defendants' and others' collection of
unlawful debts through its usurious lending enterprise. In
particular, the Defendants' conduct violates the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C.
Sections 1961–1968. The Defendants and others collected millions
of dollars in unlawful debts and conspired with each other and
others to repeatedly violate state lending laws resulting in the
collection of unlawful debts from Ms. Nolte and the class
members.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neil K. Sawhney, Esq.
GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 573-0336
E-mail: neil@guptawessler.com
- and -
Matthew H.W. Wessler, Esq.
GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
1035 Cambridge Street, Suite One
Cambridge, MA 02141
Telephone: (617) 286-2392
E-mail: matt@guptawessler.com
- and -
Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 424-7570
E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
KIND MANAGEMENT: Paguada Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Kind Management Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Kind Management Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-06377 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 12, 2020).
Kind LLC, stylized as KIND LLC and sometimes referred to as KIND
Snacks, KIND Healthy Snacks or KIND Bars, is a food company based
in New York City, New York. It was founded in 2004 by Daniel
Lubetzky. The company manufactures eight product lines.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue
Ste 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
KIRKLAND LAKE: Vincent Wong Reminds of Aug. 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Kirkland Lake Gold
Ltd. If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. (NYSE:KL)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/kirkland-lake-gold-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=8440&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 28, 2020
Class Period: January 8, 2018 - November 25, 2019
Allegations against KL include 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) as a result of the known, but undisclosed,
impending acquisition of Detour, the Company's projections relating
to its risks, reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs were false
and misleading; (iii) the Company's financial statements and
projections were not fairly presented in conformity with
International Financial Reporting Standards; (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.
To learn more, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
LA SELVA BAR: Underpays Employees, Rodriguez Claims
---------------------------------------------------
JOSE FIGUEROA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LA SELVA BAR AND
RETAURANT INC. (DBA RESTAURANTE LA SELVA), MARIBEL BRITO and RUTH
PATRICIA BRITO GUZMAN, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-03592 (E.D.N.Y., August 10, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from June 2018 until April 4,
2020 as a dishwasher and food preparer and sometimes made
deliveries.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked approximately 70 hours
per week, beginning work at 9:00 AM and ending around 8:00 PM, but
he was never paid by Defendants a lawful minimum wage nor was he
paid overtime throughout the duration of his employment.
Moreover, Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with any wage
statements, time sheets, or other documents showing the number of
hours he worked every week, and a wage notice at the time of hire
or at any point thereafter.
Maribel Brito and Ruth Patricia Brito Guzman were owners,
authorized operators, managers, and agents of the Corporate
Defendant.
La Selva Bar and Restaurant Inc. owns and operates Restaurante La
Selva located on 94-02 80th Street, Ozone Park, New York 11416.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL PC
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: 212-203-2417
Email: LS@StillmanLegalPC.com
LACROSSE TECHNOLOGY: Paguada Asserts Breach of ADA
--------------------------------------------------
Lacrosse Technology, LTD is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Lacrosse Technology, LTD, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-06379 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 12, 2020).
La Crosse Technology is a multinational manufacturer of electronic
products including weather stations, radio-controlled clocks, and
watches.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue
Ste 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
LCA VISION: Pieczynski Seeks OT Pay for Center Directors
--------------------------------------------------------
MIKE PIECZYNSKI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, -against- LCA VISION, INC. d/b/a LASIKPLUS,
Defendant, Case No. 6:20-cv-01457 (M.D. Fla., August 12, 2020) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, alleging that he and other Center Directors
are entitled to: (i) unpaid wages from Defendant for overtime work
for which they did not receive overtime premium pay, as required by
law, (ii) liquidated damages under the FLSA, and (iii) reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of this action.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, without
receiving overtime compensation as required by the FLSA.
Pursuant to Defendant's policy and pattern or practice, Defendant
did not pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees proper
overtime wages for hours they worked for its benefit in excess of
40 hours in a workweek.
LCA Vision, Inc. d/b/a LasikPlus is a Cincinnati,
Ohio-headquartered company that provides refractive surgery
services under the brand name LasikPlus.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
pmeirels@shavitzlaw.com
lpardell@shavitzlaw.com
MAJOR LEAGUE: Drug Test Not Reliable, Barrera Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
FELIPE BARRERA III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL (MLB);
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL D/B/A MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL,
DR. DANIEL EICHNER; SPORTS MEDICINE RESEARCH AND TESTING
LABORATORY; and LABORATOIRE DE CONTROLE DU DOPAGE, Defendants, Case
No. 7:20-cv-00198 (S.D. Tex., July 27, 2020) seeks to vacate an
arbitration award against the Plaintiff based on a diversion from
the MLB's Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program ("JDA") and
Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA"), and claims common law
fraud, misrepresentation, and negligence for proximately causing
the Plaintiff and similarly situated players to suffer damages
based on unreliable testing and "junk science" for detection of
Turinabol.
According to the complaint, the Arbitration Award issued on July
24, 2020, effectually suspended the Plaintiff for a minimum of
eighty (80) games during the 2020 MLB season, and possibly into the
2021 season. The Arbitration Award is null and void because it
violates the Plaintiff's rights under the JDA and CBA, since the
Arbitrator wholly ignored, and did not properly consider, the
irrefutable evidence in the record, which clearly demonstrates a
deviation from the JDA and CBA given that the test is clearly
unreliable -- even to a casual observer. The process is clearly a
sham.
The Arbitrator's reasoning was based on testimony presented by a
Dr. Eichner, which is so palpably faulty and contradictory, that no
judge or trier of fact could ever conceivably have made such a
ruling based on the objective evidence presented. Dr. Eichner has
contradicted his findings on multiple occasions, during the last
four years, causing the Plaintiff and similarly situated players to
suffer damages based on the theoretical "junk science" of
Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone ("DHCMT") testing.
Major League Baseball is an American professional baseball
organization. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
Eddie Hodges Jr., Esq.
KENNARD LAW, P.C.
2603 Augusta Dr., Suite 1450
Houston, TX 77057
Telephone: (713) 742-0900
Facsimile: (713) 742-0951
E-mail: alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com
eddie.hodges@kennardlaw.com
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 16 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of McDermott International, Inc.
(NYSE: MDR) (OTC: MDRIQ) between September 20, 2019 and January 23,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important September
16, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the case. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for McDermott investors under the federal
securities laws.
To join the McDermott class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1901.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants violated the federal
securities laws by failing to disclose that they knowingly and/or
recklessly made, and caused McDermott to make, materially false and
misleading statements, and/or omit material facts regarding the
sale of Lummus Technology, an asset of McDermott. These statements
were made with the intent to conceal the acute liquidity crisis
McDermott actually faced, to provide the Company time to prepare a
prepackaged plan of reorganization with its secured lenders and
other stakeholders, and to avoid a freefall Chapter 11 filing. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
16, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1901.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]
MEDCARE FARMS: Mims Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, CORINTHIA MIMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDCARE FARMS 2.0, LLC, a
California limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-01589 (C.D. Cal., August 10, 2020) arises from Defendant's
alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Defendant transmitted telemarketing
text messages by using an automatic telephone dialing system to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 8202 beginning on
or about May 15, 2020 without Plaintiff's prior express written
consent. Allegedly, Defendant engages in aggressive unsolicited
marketing to promote its services harming thousands of consumers in
the process.
The complaint asserts that Defendant's unsolicited text messages
caused Plaintiff actual harm such as invasion of her privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass,
conversion, inconvenience, and disruption to her daily life.
Medcare Farms 2.0, LLC is a cannabis dispensary. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: 305-975-3320
Email: scott@edelberglaw.com
MONTEREY COLLECTIONS: Stevens Asserts Breach of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monterey Collections,
LLC. The case is styled as Denee Stevens, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monterey
Collections, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01628 (C.D. Cal.,
Aug. 12, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act.
Monterey Collections, LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
Law Offices of Jonathan Stieglitz
11845 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Tel: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
MORRIS COUNTY, NJ: Appeals Court Affirms Bessler Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, issued an
Opinion affirming the Trial Court's Judgment granting the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned TROY
BESSLER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. COUNTY OF MORRIS, MORRIS COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, FRANK CORRENTE, and JOHN KOWALSKI,
Defendants-Respondents, Case No. A-1038-18T1 (N.J. Super. App.
Div.).
Plaintiff Troy Bessler appeals from an order granting summary
judgment under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA) in favor of
Defendants County of Morris, Morris County Sheriff's Department,
Frank Corrente, and John Kowalski.
In 1987, the Morris County Sheriff's Department hired the Plaintiff
as a corrections officer for the Morris County Correctional
Facility (Jail). On September 8, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a
complaint against County of Morris, Morris County Sheriff's
Department, Corrente, and Kowalski.
The complaint alleged a single count of adverse employment actions
and retaliation due to the Plaintiff's lawful exercise of his right
to speak out and expose official misconduct and violations of law,
which was in violation of the Plaintiff's right to freedom of
speech as guaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 6 of the New Jersey
Constitution and the NJCRA. The Plaintiff asserts he was subjected
to retaliation for engaging in activity protected under the New
Jersey Constitution, which guarantees a citizen's right to freedom
of speech, in that after reporting Defendant Corrente was illegally
using the jail's kennel to board his pet dog, the Defendants took
adverse action against him.
In May 2018, all four Defendants moved for summary judgment. After
a September 14 hearing, the trial court granted the Defendants'
motion in a September 19, 2018 written decision on the grounds that
the Plaintiff spoke as a public employee, not as a citizen, which
precluded his claims under the NJCRA. This appeal followed.
The Appellate Court says it reviews a grant of summary judgment de
novo, applying the same standard as the trial court. Woytas v.
Greenwood Tree Experts, Inc., 237 N.J. 501, 511 (2019) (citing
Bhagat v. Bhagat, 217 N.J. 22, 38 (2014)).
The NJCRA permits an individual to bring a civil action when that
individual's exercise of Constitutional rights has "been interfered
with or attempted to be interfered with, by threats, intimidation
or coercion by a person acting under color of law." "It is
well-established that a public employee does not relinquish his or
her First Amendment right to comment on matters of public interest,
otherwise available to citizens, simply as the result of the fact
of public employment," citing In re Gonzalez, 405 N.J.Super. 336,
346 (App. Div. 2009).
A public employee's statement is protected under the First
Amendment where "(1) in making it, the employee spoke as a citizen,
(2) the statement involved a matter of public concern, and (3) the
government employer did not have 'an adequate justification for
treating the employee differently from any other member of the
general public' as a result" of that statement, citing Gorum v.
Sessoms, 561 F.3d 179, 185 (3d Cir. 2009).
Therefore, even where a communication may be of public importance,
the claim will fail where the employee is not speaking as a
citizen, but rather is speaking pursuant to his or her duties,
citing Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 1 v. City of Camden, 842
F.3d 231, 244-45 (3d Cir. 2016).
According to the Opinion, here, the Plaintiff's reports to his
supervisors were pursuant to his ordinary job duties in that he was
paid to monitor the facilities and report anything improper,
unlawful, or against procedure. He discovered Corrente's dog was in
the kennel using the video monitors, which he regularly used as one
of his "tools" during the course of his daily activities to monitor
activities in the jail. He was mandated to, and did, report
unlawful acts and misconduct directly through the chain of command,
not only as to Corrente but as to others, and the avenue of
reporting was not one available to any citizen.
While the Plaintiff argues he was not responsible for the K-9 Unit
or for supervising superior officers and, therefore, his reports
regarding Corrente's dog were not within the scope of his duties,
that argument is not convincing, the Court opines. The Plaintiff
himself stated it was his obligation to report anything wrong, and
O'Brien, who also had nothing to do with the K-9 Unit, considered
it his obligation to report Corrente's dog to his direct supervisor
Pascale as well.
Because a review of the record in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiff shows his reports were in fact congruent with his duties
as a corrections sergeant, in that they were within the scope of
the regular duties he was paid to do, part of the practical
realities of his every day work, and were made through channels not
available to citizens generally, the Plaintiff's claims are
precluded under the NJCRA, and summary judgment was appropriate.
A full-text copy of the Superior Court's May 28, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybcpu5dw from Leagle.com.
Ashley V. Whitney, Esq., at 400 Main Street, in Chatham, New
Jersey, argued the cause for appellant (Law Offices of Gina Mendola
Longarzo, LLC, attorneys; Ashley V. Whitney, Esq., on the briefs).
Bryan P. Regan, Esq., Fort Lee Executive Park, at 2 Executive
Drive, Suite 530, in Fort Lee, New Jersey, argued the cause for
respondent County of Morris (Kaufman, Semeraro & Leibman, LLP,
attorneys; Bryan P. Regan, Esq., on the brief).
John M. Bowens, Esq.--jmb@spsk.com--argued the cause for Respondent
Morris County Sheriff's Department (Schenck, Price, Smith & King,
LLP, attorneys; John M. Bowens, Esq., on the brief).
John M. Barbarula, Esq., at 1242 RT-23, in Butler, New Jersey,
argued the cause for Respondent Frank Corrente (Barbarula Law
Offices, attorneys; John M. Barbarula, Esq., on the brief).
Robert J. Greenbaum, Esq., at 1500 Route 517, Suite 214, in
Hackettstown, New Jersey, argued the cause for Respondent John
Kowalski.
NATIONAL STORES: Medina et al. Seek Proper Pay for Mechandisers
---------------------------------------------------------------
RENA NICOLE MEDINA and ALYSSA BONHAM on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. NATIONAL STORES
INC.; PEGASUS TRUCKING LLC; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-07269 (C.D. Cal., August 12, 2020) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiffs against Defendants over the federal
claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the
state law.
Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as non-exempt hourly paid
"Merchandizers" at Defendant's store in Reno, Nevada from on or
about November 2019 to on or about December 2019.
According to the lawsuit, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and
others similary situated minimum and overtime wages in violation of
the FLSA and Nevada Constitution, failed to pay wages for all hours
worked pursuant to the Nevada Administrative Code, and failed to
timely pay all wages due and owing upon termination pursuant to
Nevada Revised Statute.
Defendants had also implemented unlawful payroll card practices,
unlawful payroll deductions in violation of the FLSA and unlawful
payroll card practices violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer
Act (EFTA).
National Stores Inc. is a Los Angeles, California-headquartered
family-owned company that offers brand name and private label
clothing for men, ladies, boys, girls, juniors, infants and
toddlers along with lingerie, shoes, and household items.
Pegasus Trucking LLC is a California-based trucking company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
Leah L. Jones, Esq.
Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq.
THIERMAN BUCK LLP
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NV 89511
Telephone: (775) 284-1500
Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
josh@thiermanbuck.com
leah@thiermanbuck.com
joshh@thiermanbuck.com
NATIONWIDE CHILDRENS: Morris Seeks Collective Status for FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE MORRIS, et al.,on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONWIDE
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, Case No. 2:20-cv-03194-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio,
Filed June 24, 2020), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. conditionally certifying collective Fair Labor Standards
Act class;
2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
Plaintiff's FLSA Claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail)
to:
"all current and former psychometricians employed by
Defendant during the past three years who were only paid
from the beginning of their shift until the end of their
shift and not paid for the work they performed pre- and
post- shift each day and were not paid 150% of their
regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek"; and
3. requiring the Defendants to, within 14 days of this
Court's order, identify all potential opt-in Plaintiffs by
providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all
potential opt-in the Plaintiffs who worked for the
Defendants at any location at any time within the past
three years.
Ms. Morris commenced this action against Nationwide Children's
Hospital, alleging violations of the FLSA, the Ohio Wage Act, and
the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Defendant's common business practices
throughout their operations violated these acts by not paying the
Plaintiffs and the Putative Opt-in Plaintiffs for tasks necessary
to the primary job duties they were required to perform before and
after their scheduled shift start and end time.
Nationwide Children's is one of the largest and most comprehensive
pediatric hospitals and research institutes in the United
States.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE
WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com
NATURAL SYNTHETICS: Guerra Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MICHAEL GUERRA, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff v. NATURAL
SYNTHETICS INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-06263 (S.D.N.Y., August 10, 2020) challenges Defendant's
alleged practice of sending unsolicited automated text messages to
Plaintiff's cellular telephones in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff received a text message to
his cellular telephone number from Defendant on or about April 4,
2020. Defendant allegedly used automatic telephone dialing system
in transmitting text messages to Plaintiff in an attempt to promote
its services without first obtaining Plaintiff's prior express
written consent.
As a result of receiving Defendant's text message, Plaintiff has
suffered nuisance, aggravation, intrusion upon seclusion and
invasion of privacy aside from expenses he has incurred, wasted
data storage capacity, and wasted time.
Natural Synthetics Inc. manages ITSME as its registered trademark,
which is a social network app that allows users to create their own
avatar and socially connect with other users as that avatar. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
50 Main Street, Suite 1000
White Plains, NY 10606
Tel: (914) 358-5345
Fax: (212) 571-0284
Email: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com
- and –
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Tel: 847-368-1500
Fax: 847-368-1501
Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
NEW YORK LIFE: Court Certifies TAS and EA Classes in Gold Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Supreme Court, New York County Division, issued a
Decision and Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned AVRAHAM GOLD, BRIAN CHENENSKY,
and SHEREE N. JOHNSON, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO., NEW YORK LIFE
INSURANCE AND ANNUITY CORP., NYLIFE INSURANCE CO. OF ARIZONA,
NYLIFE SECURITIES LLC (f/k/a NYLIFE SECURITIES INC.), JOHN DOES
1-50 (said names being fictitious individuals), and ABC
CORPORATIONS 1-50 (said names being fictitious companies,
partnerships, joint ventures and/or corporations), Case No.
653923/2012 (N.Y. Sup.).
The action was commenced as a putative class action brought on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees, who
claim wage deductions in the form of business expense debits owed
by Defendants New York Life Insurance Co., New York Life Insurance
and Annuity Corp., NYLIFE Securities LLC and NYLIFE Insurance Co.
of Arizona (NYL), in violation of the New York Labor Law.
The Court concludes that the prerequisites for class certification
have been met, and it is clear that in order to avoid inefficiency
and conflict, a class action is the superior method to resolve this
dispute.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
granted and leave is granted, pursuant to New York Civil Practice
Law and Rules (CPLR) 901 and 902, for the Plaintiffs to prosecute
their action on behalf of:
(1) the "TAS Class" which comprises every person who worked
for Defendants in the State of New York at any time since
December 21, 2001 as a TAS Agent, under an Agent's
Contract as modified by a Training Allowance Subsidy Plan
Agreement; and
(2) the "EA Class" which comprises every person who worked for
Defendants in the State of New York at any time since
December 21, 2001 as an Established Agent, under an
Agent's Contract, excluding any periods of work as a
retired agent, corporate agent or sub-agent, partner,
senior partner, or managing partner.
The Court also ruled that within thirty (30) days of the date of
service of the Order with notice of entry, Defendants New York Life
Insurance Co., New York Life Insurance and Annuity Corp., NYLWE
Securities LLC, and NYLIFE Insurance Co. of Arizona shall furnish
to the Plaintiffs' counsel lists of the names and last known
addresses of all persons employed by said Defendants, who performed
work as TAS Agents or Established Agents, excluding those with any
periods of work as a retired agent, corporate agent or sub-agent,
partner, senior partner, or managing partner.
The Plaintiffs shall send a notice to all of the individuals
identified by Defendants New York Life Insurance Co., New York Life
Insurance and Annuity Corp., NYLIFE Securities LLC, and NYLIFE
Insurance Co. of Arizona, within ninety (90) days of receipt of the
lists and such notice shall include a provision that such
individuals may "opt-out" of the class action, by sending a signed
form to plaintiffs' counsel; the form of such notice shall be
approved by the Court.
A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's May 28, 2020 Decision and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y798xl7c from
Leagle.com.
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Bid to Dismiss Local TV Ads Antitrust Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nexstar Media Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
and strike the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In
Re: Local TV Advertising Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06785,
is still pending.
Starting in July 2018, a series of plaintiffs filed putative class
action lawsuits against the Defendants and others alleging that
they coordinated their pricing of television advertising, thereby
harming a proposed class of all buyers of television advertising
time from one or more of the Defendants since at least January 1,
2014.
The plaintiff in each lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and money
damages caused by the alleged antitrust violations.
On October 9, 2018, these cases were consolidated in a
multi-district litigation in the District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois captioned In Re: Local TV Advertising
Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06785 ("MDL Litigation").
On January 23, 2019, the Court in the MDL Litigation appointed
plaintiffs' lead and liaison counsel.
The MDL Litigation is ongoing.
The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint was filed on April 3, 2019;
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 5, 2019. Before
the Court ruled on that motion, the Plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint on September 9, 2019. This complaint
added additional defendants and allegations. The Defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss and Strike on October 8, 2019.
That motion is currently pending.
Nexstar and Tribune deny the allegations against them and will
defend their advertising practices.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Nexstar Media Group, Inc. operates as a television broadcasting and
digital media company in the United States. The company focuses on
the acquisition, development, and operation of television stations
and interactive community Websites in small and medium-sized
markets. The company was formerly known as Nexstar Broadcasting
Group, Inc. and changed its name to Nexstar Media Group, Inc. in
January 2017. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas.
OMEGA FLEX: Court Denies Class Certification Motion as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as BONNIE GEORGE, et al., v.
OMEGA FLEX, INC., et al, Case No. 6:17-cv-03114-MDH (W.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge Douglas Harpool entered an order on Aug. 13, 2020:
1. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and the Defendants' motion to strike the
declarations of Mark Goodson and Alain Rousseau;
2. denying the Defendants' motions to exclude opinions of
Aaron Hedlund; and
3. granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' claim fails because they cannot
show reliance. The Plaintiffs must be able to establish that they
relied upon the alleged misrepresentation in making the purchase.
The Court has found the Plaintiffs cannot establish an underlying
tort or injury and as a result the Plaintiffs' conspiracy claim
fails. In light of the Court's ruling on summary judgment, the
Court denies the Motion for Class Certification as moot and further
denies Defendants' Motion to Strike the Declarations of Goodson and
Rousseau."
The Plaintiffs' class action lawsuit alleges violations of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, conspiracy, and unjust
enrichment. The Defendants manufacture and distribute corrugated
stainless steel tubing (CSST), a flexible pipe used to transport
natural or propane gas within homes and structures. Omega Flex
manufactured and sold TracPipe (TM) brand CSST in the U.S. from
approximately 1997 until September 2011. Titeflex manufactured and
sold Gastite (TM).[CC]
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Underway in Utah
----------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit in Utah.
On September 27, 2019, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the company and its former chief executive
officer and former chief financial officer in the United States
District Court of Utah, alleging violations under Section 10(b),
Rule 10b-5, Section 20(a), Section 20(A) of the Exchange Act.
On October 8, 2019, October 17, 2019, October 31, 2019, and
November 20, 2019, four similar lawsuits were filed in the same
court also naming the Company and the above referenced former
executives as defendants, bringing similar claims under the
Exchange Act, and seeking similar relief.
These cases were consolidated into a single lawsuit in December
2019. The Court appointed The Mangrove Partners Master Fund Ltd. as
lead plaintiff in January 2020.
In March 2020, an amended consolidated complaint was filed against
the company, its president of retail, its former chief executive
officer, and its former chief financial officer.
No estimates of the possible losses or range of losses can be made
at this time.
Overstock.com said, "We intend to vigorously defend this
consolidated action."
Overstock.com, Inc. operates as an online retailer in the United
States and internationally. The Company was formerly known as
D2-Discounts Direct and changed its name to Overstock.com, Inc. in
October 1999. Overstock.com, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Midvale, Utah.
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Putative Class Suit Underway in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit currently pending before the
Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri.
On April 23, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the Circuit Court of the County of St.
Louis, State of Missouri, alleging that the company over-collected
taxes on products sold into the state of Missouri.
No estimate of the possible loss or range of loss can be made at
this time.
Overstock.com said, "We intend to vigorously defend this action."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Overstock.com, Inc. operates as an online retailer in the United
States and internationally. The Company was formerly known as
D2-Discounts Direct and changed its name to Overstock.com, Inc. in
October 1999. Overstock.com, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Midvale, Utah.
PAR INC: E.D. Michigan Stays Badeen Class Suit Pending Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan issued
an order denying the Defendants' motion for reconsideration but
granting motion for stay pending appeal in the case captioned
GEORGE BADEEN, et al. v. PAR, INC., d/b/a PAR North America, et
al., Case No. 19-10532 (E.D. Mich.).
On March 31, 2020, the Court entered an order remanding this case
to state court. The Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration
or stay of the Court's remand order.
District Judge Victoria A. Roberts notes that the Defendants make
several arguments in support of their motion for reconsideration.
However, none of the Defendants' arguments demonstrates a palpable
defect by which the Court and the parties have been misled. Nor do
they demonstrate any correction would result in a different
disposition of the case, Judge Roberts adds.
The Court also addresses the Defendants' argument that the
Plaintiffs' motion for remand was untimely. Judge Roberts agrees
that the Defendants are correct that the Court did not address this
argument; the Court believes it to be meritless. Due to a stay
order and a subsequent order entered by the Court, the Plaintiffs
were prevented from filing a remand order earlier. Once the Court
lifted the stay order and settlement attempts failed, the
Plaintiffs filed their motion for remand in a timely manner and in
compliance with Court orders. Hence, the Court denies Defendants'
motion for reconsideration.
In deciding a motion to stay pending appeal, the Court considers
four factors: (1) the likelihood that the party seeking the stay
will prevail on the merits of the appeal; (2) the likelihood that
the moving party will be irreparably harmed absent a stay; (3) the
prospect that others will be harmed if the court grants the stay;
and (4) the public interest in granting the stay, citing SEIU Local
1 v. Husted, 698 F.3d 341, 343 (6th Cir. 2012) (per curiam)
(citation omitted). The factors are "interrelated considerations
that must be balanced together." Id.
Although the Court finds that the Defendants do not have a strong
likelihood to prevail on the merits of the appeal, it finds that
balancing the factors weighs in favor of a stay.
Judge Roberts explains that 28 U.S.C. Section 1453(c) encourages
federal appellate courts to adjudicate reviews of CAFA remand
orders in an expedited manner--typically within 60 days of the date
the appeal was filed. She notes that this case has been pending for
over ten years. In the scheme of things, she says, staying the
litigation for two months for the outcome of this appeal will cause
minimal--if any--harm to the Plaintiffs.
On the other hand, requiring the parties to continue to litigate in
state court could cause irreparable harm to all the parties if the
Court of Appeals finds this Court has jurisdiction Judge Roberts
states. The parties would incur unnecessary expenses and have no
way to recover them. She adds that a stay advances the public
interest by avoiding the risk that judicial resources of the state
courts be wasted.
Because balancing the factors weighs in favor of a stay, the Court
grants the Defendants' motion for stay pending appeal.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 21, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybbjq8yk from Leagle.com.
PICKARD INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Paguada Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
DILENIA PAGUADA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. PICKARD INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-06380 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2020) is a civil rights action
brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, www.pickardchina.com, and therefore
denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA").
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and a
member of member of a protected class of individuals under the
ADA.
Pickard Incorporated is an Illinois porcelain tableware and
dinnerware products company doing business in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
PROSHARES ULTRA: Vincent Wong Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Proshares Ultra
Bloomberg Crude Oil. If you suffered a loss, you have until the
lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as
lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Proshares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (NYSE:UCO)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/proshares-ultra-bloomberg-crude-oil-loss-submission-form?prid=8440&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020
Class Period: March 6, 2020 - April 27, 2020
Allegations against UCO include that: (1) decreased demand for oil
due to the coronavirus pandemic and increased oil supply and
diminished oil prices caused by the Russia/Saudi oil price war had
caused extraordinary market volatility; (2) a massive influx of
investor capital into the Fund, totaling hundreds of millions of
dollars, in a matter of days had increased Fund inefficiencies,
heightened illiquidity in the West Texas Intermediate ("WTI")
futures contract markets in which the Fund invested, and caused the
Fund to approach positional and regulatory limits (adverse trends
exacerbated by the Offering itself); (3) there was a sharp
divergence between spot and future prices in the WTI oil markets,
leading to a super contango market dynamic as oil storage space in
Cushing, Oklahoma dwindled and was insufficient to account for the
excess supply expected to be delivered pursuant to the WTI May 2020
futures contract. As a result, UCO could not continue to pursue the
passive investment strategy represented in the Registration
Statement, causing its results to significantly deviate from its
purported benchmark.
To learn more, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
PUBLIC REPUTATION: Austin Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT AUSTIN AND JESANIEL
MARRERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PUBLIC REPUTATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC D/B/A
PR.BUSINESS, a Florida limited liability company, Case No.
9:20-cv-80161-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:
1. certifying the proposed Rule 23 Classes:
"all persons or entities within the United States who (a)
received one or more calls from Pr.Business resulting in
an automated voicemail; (b) made using the Ytel system;
(c) to their cellular telephone numbers; (d) whose phone
numbers were on the October 28, 2019 ListGIANT list; and
(e) who are identified by the Plaintiffs' expert Aaron
Wolfson. Mr. Austin requests that the Court certify the
following proposed class under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure Rules 23(a) and (b)(3)"; and
"all persons or entities within the United States who (a)
received one or more calls from Pr.Business resulting in
an automated voicemail; (b) made using the Ytel system;
(c) to their cellular telephone numbers; (d) whose phone
numbers were obtained by Pr.Business from the same source
as Mr. Austin's number; and (e) who are identified by the
Plaintiffs' expert Aaron Wolfson";
2. appointing the Plaintiffs to serve as the class
representatives;
3. appointing Kaufman P.A. to serve as class counsel; and
4. directing the Plaintiffs to submit a proposed notice plan
and form of notice within a reasonable time.
This case is well-suited to class certification, the Plaintiffs
contend, because it involves a single type of telemarketing calls
(prerecorded voice messages) to purchased lists of telephone
numbers on the exact dates that Plaintiffs were called, the
complaint says.
Pr.Business offers a portfolio of marketing and other services to
businesses. One of Pr.Business's primary services, Voice Command,
is a search engine optimization like service for which Pr.Business
promises to increase the likelihood that businesses’ websites are
identified when consumers perform voice web searches using virtual
assistant technologies like Alexa and Cortana.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the proposed classes are:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
RAC ENTERPRISES: Calcano Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
RAC Enterprises, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAC Enterprises, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-06386 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 12, 2020).
RAC Enterprises LLC., is a manufacturer of steel packaging.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
RAPID FUNDING: Benitez Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
MARIANO BENITEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RAPID FUNDING SOLUTIONS LLC; DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01541-LAB-AHG (S.D.
Cal., August 10, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against
Defendants for their alleged negligent and willful violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Defendant placed calls on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number (831) 737-7919 by using an "automatic
telephone dialing system" in an effort to sell or solicit its
services even without Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to
receive such calls.
Plaintiff claims he was harmed by Defendants' unlawful calls which
caused her to incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for
which he paid, and those calls have invaded his privacy.
Rapid Funding Solutions LLC is a small business loan company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: 877-206-4741
Fax: 866-633-0228
Emails: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
RYANAIR HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Birmingham Firemen's Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part
the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned as CITY OF
BIRMINGHAM FIREMEN'S AND POLICEMEN'S SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION SYSTEM v.
RYANAIR HOLDINGS PLC and MICHAEL O'LEARY, Case No. 18-CV-10330
(JPO) (S.D.N.Y.).
On November 6, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the action, asserting
claims against Ryanair and its CEO Defendant O'Leary under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Act. The complaint alleges that Ryanair and
O'Leary knowingly made false or misleading statements about
Ryanair's personnel relations, profitability, and growth targets,
resulting in an inflated stock price over the Class Period (from
May 30, 2017, to September 28, 2018).
District Judge J. Paul Oetken notes that to state a claim under
Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5, a plaintiff must plead, among other
things, (1) "a material misrepresentation or omission by the
defendant" that (2) was made with the requisite "scienter," citing
Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S.
148, 157 (2008). Here, the Plaintiff has identified three
categories of potentially actionable statements: those concerning
Ryanair's labor relations, those concerning Ryanair's
profitability, and those concerning Ryanair's ability to meet its
growth targets.
Judge Oetken opines that the Plaintiff has adequately pleaded
materiality, falsity, and scienter with respect to the Defendants'
statements regarding the likelihood of unionization. The
Plaintiff's allegations with respect to the Defendants' other
statements, however, do not pass muster. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff's claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 are
dismissed, except for those relating to the Defendants' statements
addressing the likelihood of unionization.
In the event of dismissal, the Plaintiff has requested leave to
amend the complaint. Accordingly, leave to amend is granted. The
Court also rules that the Plaintiff's motion to strike is denied as
moot.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 1, 2020 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5reqxcs from
Leagle.com.
SPORTS RESEARCH: Certification of Class & Subclass Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK CAPACI and CYNTHIA FORD
on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the
general public, v. SPORTS RESEARCH, INC., a California APPOINT
CLASS COUNSEL, Case No. 2:19-cv-03440-FMO-FFM (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff Cynthia Ford will move the Court on September 17, 2020,
for an order:
1. certifying a Nationwide Class defined as:
"all U.S. citizens who purchased the Product in their
respective state of citizenship for personal and household
use and not for resale from January 1, 2015 until the date
class notice is disseminated (Class Period)."
Excluded from the Class are the Defendant's current and
former officers and directors, members of the immediate
families of the Defendant's officers and directors,
Defendant’s legal representatives, heirs, successors, and
assigns, any entity in which Defendant has or had a
controlling interest during the Class Period, and the
judicial officers to whom this lawsuit is assigned.
2. certifying a California sub-class defined as:
"all citizens who purchased the Product for personal and
household use and not for resale from January 1, 2015
until the date class notice is disseminated (Class
Period)."
Excluded from the Class are the Defendant's current and
former officers and directors, members of the immediate
families of the Defendant's officers and directors,
Defendant’s legal representatives, heirs, successors, and
assigns, any entity in which the Defendant has or had a
controlling interest during the Class Period, and the
judicial officers to whom this lawsuit is assigned.
3. appointing herself as a class representative for the
respective Classes;
4. appointing the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC as
Class Counsel for the respective Classes; and
5. approving notice to the Classes in accordance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B).
The complaint asserts claims for Defendant's violations of the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and the
False Advertising Law.
Sports Research is a family owned company providing lifestyle
products including Sweet Sweat, Collagen Peptides and MCT.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes are:
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
Lilach Halperin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES Of RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
mike@consumersadvocates.com
lilach@consumersadvocates.com
SURESCRIPTS LLC: 731 Pharmacy Alleges Monopoly in ePrescription
---------------------------------------------------------------
731 PHARMACY CORP. d/b/a IVAN PHARMACY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SURESCRIPTS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04391 (N.D. Ill., July 27, 2020)
alleges violation of federal and state antitrust laws.
According to the complaint, Surescripts, a health information
technology firm, is involved in the electronic prescription -- or
e-prescription -- industry in which it has engaged in a
long-running anticompetitive scheme to maintain its monopolies over
two markets: (1) electronic prescription routing ("routing") and
(2) prescription eligibility analysis ("eligibility"), together
referred to as "e-prescribing."
Routing is the transmission of prescription and
prescription-related information from a prescriber (physician)—--
via the prescriber's electronic health record ("EHR") system -- to
a pharmacy. Eligibility is the transmission of a patient's
formulary and benefit information from a payer -- usually the
patient's pharmacy benefit manager ("PBM")—-- to a prescriber's
EHR system.
In 2009, Surescripts had monopolies over routing and eligibility.
And because both of these markets were poised to experience
explosive growth due to federal incentives for e-prescribing,
Surescripts feared that other health information technology
companies could threaten its dominant positions. To neutralize
these competitive threats, Surescripts took a series of
anticompetitive actions to protect and maintain its monopolies.
Surescripts's conduct took multiple forms—locking pharmacies into
onerous contractual terms, threatening would-be competitors, and
entering into blatantly anticompetitive agreements with would-be
competitors.
Surescripts's anticompetitive course of conduct has resulted in the
total exclusion of any meaningful competition in e-prescribing,
repeated threats to customers to force exclusivity, higher prices,
reduced innovation, and lower output.
Surescripts, LLC was founded in 2008. The company's line of
business includes providing communication services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Freed, Esq.
Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
Bannockburn, IL 60015
Telephone: (224) 632-4500
E-mail: mfreed@fklmlaw.com
rwozniak@fklmlaw.com
bhogan@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
Theodore J. Hawkins, Esq.
Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
kgarvey@labaton.com
thawkins@labaton.com
jcrevier@labaton.com
TD AMERITRADE: Continues to Defend Ford Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Roderick
Ford (replacing Gerald Klein) v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation,
et al., Case No. 8:14CV396.
In 2014, five putative class action complaints were filed regarding
TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s routing of client orders and one putative
class action was filed regarding Scottrade, Inc.'s routing of
client orders.
Five of the six cases were dismissed and the United States Court of
Appeals, 8th Circuit, affirmed the dismissals in those cases that
were appealed.
The one remaining case is Roderick Ford (replacing Gerald Klein) v.
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14CV396 (U.S.
District Court, District of Nebraska).
In the remaining case, plaintiff alleges that, when routing client
orders to various market centers, defendants did not seek best
execution, and instead routed clients' orders to market venues that
paid TD Ameritrade, Inc. the most money for order flow.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants made misrepresentations and
omissions regarding the Company's order routing practices. The
complaint asserts claims of violations of Section 10(b) and 20 of
the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. The complaint seeks damages,
injunctive relief, and other relief.
Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which defendants
opposed. On July 12, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and
a recommendation that plaintiff's motion for class certification be
denied. Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's
findings and recommendation, which defendants opposed.
On September 14, 2018, the District Judge sustained plaintiff's
objections, rejected the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and
granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.
On September 28, 2018, defendants filed a petition requesting that
the U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, grant an immediate appeal
of the District Court's class certification decision. The U.S.
Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, granted defendants' petition on
December 18, 2018. Briefing on the appeal is complete.
The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce have filed amicus curiae briefs in support
of the Company's appeal.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit and
is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the ultimate
resolution of the lawsuit, or the potential loss, if any, that may
result.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides securities brokerage and
related technology-based financial services to retail investors,
traders, and independent registered investment advisors (RIAs) in
the United States. The company is based in Omaha, Nebraska.
TEXAS: Coleman Seeks Class Status for Suit Over Hep C Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as DORENA COLEMAN, CURTIS
JACKSON, AND FEDERICO PEREZ, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. PHIL WILSON, Acting Executive Commissioner,
VICTORIA FORD, Chief Policy and Regulatory Officer, MAURICE
MCCREARY, Chief Operating Officer, and MICHELLE ALLETTO, Chief
Program and Services Officer, in their official capacities with the
Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Case No.
1:20-cv-00847-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:
A. certifying a class defined as all individuals:
1. who are or will in the future be enrolled in the Texas
Medicaid Program as categorically needy individuals, as
defined by 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(A);
2. who have been or will be diagnosed as having a chronic
infection of the Hepatitis C Virus;
3. who have been or will be prescribed DAA treatment by a
qualified prescriber; and
4. who would be granted coverage for DAA treatment but for
application of the Policy’s fibrosis score threshold.
B. approving Plaintiffs as the class representatives;
C. approving Jeff Edwards, Mike Singley, Scott Medlock and
David James of Edwards Law Group, David Tolley and Allison
Turner of Latham & Watkins LLP; and Kevin Costello of the
Harvard Law School Center for Health Law & Policy
Innovation as counsel for the class; and
D. determining that this action may proceed as a class
action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)
and 23(b)(2).
The Plaintiffs contend that HHSC -- the agency responsible for
managing the Texas Medicaid Program -- has illegally limited access
to this cure for thousands of individual currently living with
chronic Hepatitis C Virus.
The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief:
specifically, a judgment declaring that Texas Health and Human
Services Commission's Policy violates federal law and an injunction
forbidding HHSC from relying on fibrosis score (a measure of liver
damage), as grounds for denying direct-acting antivirals (DAA)
treatment to qualified Medicaid beneficiaries.
The Plaintiffs are Texas Medicaid enrollees who are diagnosed as
chronically infected with the Hepatitis C Virus (HCV), a widespread
contagious disease of the liver. More than 17,000 people in the
United States die each year due to HCV, making it the deadliest
infectious disease in the United States (prior to the COVID-19
pandemic).
HHSC is an agency within the Texas Health and Human Services
System. In September 2016, Texas began transforming how it delivers
health and human services to qualified Texans, with a goal of
making the Health and Human Services System more efficient and
effective.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeff Edwards, Esq.
Scott Medlock, Esq.
Michael Singley, Esq.
David James, Esq.
EDWARDS LAW
1101 East 11th Street
Telephone: 512-623-7727
Facsimile: 512-623-7729
E-mail: jeff@edwards-law.com
scott@edwards-law.com
mike@edwards-law.com
david@edwards-law.com
- and -
Kevin Costello, Esq.
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL CENTER FOR HEALTH
LAW & POLICY INNOVATION
1585 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
Telephone: (617) 496-0901
E-mail: kcostello@law.harvard.edu
- and -
David C. Tolley, Esq.
Allison Lukas Turner, Esq.
Amanda Barnett, Esq.
Avery E. Borreliz, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
200 Clarendon Street, 27th Floor
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 880-4610
E-mail: david.tolley@lw.com
allison.turner@lw.com
amanda.barnett@lw.com
avery.borreliz@lw.com
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Can't Use Arbitration to Thwart Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kris Olson, writing for New England In-House, reports that a
collection agency that was not party to a contract between a
business and a consumer could not compel arbitration of the
consumer's claims against the collection agency over its practices,
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled.
Consumer advocates had been watching the case closely, fearing that
the SJC might reach the opposite conclusion, which would have
enabled the debt collection agency to scuttle a potential class
action lawsuit related to its alleged violations of 940 C.M.R.,
Section 7.04(1)(f), in which the Massachusetts attorney general has
defined unfair or deceptive acts or practices violating the state's
consumer protection statute, Chapter 93A, in the debt collection
context.
While noting that the "heavy hand" of the Federal Arbitration Act
favors arbitration, Justice Barbara A. Lenk wrote for the court
that the question in Landry v. Transworld Systems Inc. "is not
whether the subject matter of a particular claim falls within the
scope of the arbitration provision, but, rather, whether there is
an enforceable arbitration agreement" between Transworld and the
consumer, Philip Landry.
After reviewing the six theories under which a nonsignatory may
enforce a contract in Massachusetts, the SJC agreed with the lower
court that none of those circumstances applied to Transworld.
Specifically, Transworld argued that it could enforce the
arbitration provision in a rental car contract with Landry either
under an "agency" theory or as a third-party beneficiary.
But the SJC concluded that neither theory was applicable.
A nonsignatory agent might be able to enforce an arbitration
provision in a contract signed by its principal, but only in the
limited circumstance in which the claim against the agent arose
"under the contract in question," which it did not in this case, as
Landry's sole claim is that Transworld engaged in unlawful debt
collection practices, the court said.
As for the third-party beneficiary argument, the SJC noted that,
under Massachusetts law, a nonsignatory seeking to enforce an
arbitration agreement as a third-party beneficiary must point to
"clear and definite" evidence of the parties' intent that it
benefit from the provision, but the court could not discern any
such clarity here.
"The language in the arbitration provision is susceptible of
multiple interpretations; the arbitration provision is, at a
minimum, ambiguous as to whether Transworld can enforce it," Lenk
wrote. [GN]
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Policyholders Allege Overpaid Premiums
-----------------------------------------------------------
4505 MADISON LLC; and FISHER LAW LLC, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY
COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00590-BCW (W.D.
Wyo., July 27, 2020) seeks to recover overpaid insurance premium
paid to the Defendant.
According to the complaint, as a result of the widespread
stay-at-home orders, the Plaintiffs' operations experienced a
"radical reduction" in exposure to potential claims under the
insurance policy with the Defendant, as evidenced by reduced hours
of operation, reduced accessibility of the building, and limited
operation during the effective period for the stay-at-home orders.
Because the Plaintiffs experienced a significantly lower exposure
rate due to COVID-19, the Plaintiffs overpaid premiums to the
Defendant for the commercial general liability policy. As a result
of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Plaintiffs' current exposure is a
dramatic departure from the Plaintiffs' exposure when it purchased
its general commercial liability policy from the Defendant.
The Defendant failed to re-evaluate the appropriate premiums on its
commercial general liability policies in light of COVID-19, failed
to conduct any audits in response to COVID-19, and failed to return
any Premium Credit to the Plaintiffs and the Class.
The Travelers Indemnity Company of America provides insurance
services. The Company offers auto, homeowners, condos, renters,
flood, umbrella, boat, and yachts insurance services. The Travelers
Indemnity serves customers in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew V. Bartle, Esq.
David L. Marcus, Esq.
BARTLE + MARCUS LLC
116 West 47th Street, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 256-4614
Facsimile: (816) 222-0534
E-mail: mbartle@bmlawkc.com
dmarcus@bmlawkc.com
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Mediation in Blue Cross Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that mediation is
ongoing in the class action suit entitled, In re Blue Cross Blue
Shield Antitrust Litigation.
Triple-S Salud, Inc. (TSS) is a co-defendant with multiple Blue
Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) in a
multi-district class action litigation filed by a group of
providers and subscribers on July 24, 2012 and October 1, 2012,
respectively, that has since been consolidated by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern
Division, in the case captioned In re Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association Antitrust Litigation.
Essentially, provider plaintiffs allege that the exclusive service
area requirements of the Primary License Agreements with the Blue
Plans constitute an illegal horizontal market allocation under
federal antitrust laws. As per provider plaintiffs, the quid pro
quo for said "market allocation" is a horizontal price fixing and
boycott conspiracy implemented through BCBSA and whose benefits are
allegedly derived through the BCBSA’s BlueCard/National Accounts
Program.
Among the remedies sought, provider plaintiffs seek increased
compensation rates and operational changes. In turn, subscriber
plaintiffs allege that the alleged conspiracy to allocate markets
have prevented subscribers from being offered competitive prices
and resulted in higher premiums for Blue Plan subscribers.
Subscribers seek damages for the amounts that the Blue Plan
premiums allegedly have been artificially inflated as a result of
the alleged antitrust violations. Both actions seek injunctive
relief.
Prior to consolidation, motions to dismiss were filed by several
plans, including TSS - whose request was ultimately denied by the
court without prejudice. On April 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed suit in
the United States District Court of Puerto Rico against TSS. Said
complaint, nonetheless, is believed not to preclude TSS'
jurisdictional arguments.
Since inception, the Company has joined BCBSA and other Blue Plans
in vigorously contesting these claims. On April 5, 2018, the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,
Southern Division, issued it's ruling on the parties' respective
motions for partial summary judgment on the standard of review
applicable to plaintiffs' claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act
and subscriber plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on
the Blue Plan's single entity defense.
After considering the "undisputed" facts (for summary judgment
purposes only) and evidence currently on record in the light most
favorable to defendants, the court essentially found that: (a) the
combination of Exclusive Service Areas and the National Best
Efforts Rule are subject to the Per Se standard of review; (b)
there remain genuine issues of material fact as to whether
defendants' conduct can be shielded by the "single entity" defense;
and (c) claims concerning the BlueCard Program and uncoupling rules
are due to be analyzed under the Rule of Reason standard.
On April 16, 2018 Defendants moved the Federal District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama to certify for immediate
interlocutory appeal the court's April 5, 2018 Standard of Review
Ruling.
On June 12, 2018 Hon. Judge Proctor agreed to grant Defendant's
motion for certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1292(b).
Defendants filed their Notice of Appeal on July 12, 2018.
On December 12, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
denied Defendants' petition to appeal the District Court's Standard
of Review Ruling.
The parties re-commenced mediation with subscribers in April 2019
and with providers in September 2019.
Triple-S said, "Based on the state of negotiation with subscribers,
the Company has accrued $32,000 related to this legal proceeding."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Triple-S Management Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
a portfolio of managed care and related products in the commercial,
Medicare, and Medicaid markets in Puerto Rico, the United States.
The company operates through three segments: Managed Care, Life
Insurance, and Property and Casualty Insurance. Triple-S Management
Corporation was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in San Juan,
Puerto Rico.
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Tufin
Software Technologies Ltd. ("Tufin" or "the Company") (NYSE:TUFN)
for violations of the securities laws.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on or
about April 11, 2019 (the "IPO" or "Offering"), were encouraged to
contact the firm before June 5, 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. Tufin inflated its growth metrics and
overstated its customer relationships. The Company's business in
North America was deteriorating at the time of the IPO. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements and Offering Documents
were false and materially misleading throughout the IPO period.
When the market learned the truth about Tufin, investors suffered
damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation. [GN]
UMBRA LLC: Paguada Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------
Umbra LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Dilenia
Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Umbra LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06381 (S.D.
N.Y., Aug. 12, 2020).
Umbra LLC operates as a homeware design company. The Company offers
wall decor, hooks and closets, drapery, frames, jewellery boxes and
stands and chairs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue
Ste 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
UMG COMMERCIAL: Calcano Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
UMG Commercial Services, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UMG Commercial Services,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06383 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 12,
2020).
UMG Commercial Services, Inc. distributes music label
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
UNITED AIRLINES: Santos Files Suit in California
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Airlines, Inc.
The case is styled as Carlos Santos, individually, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United
Airlines, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
CGC20585926 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 12, 2020).
The case type is stated as Other non exempt compliants.
United Airlines, Inc. is a major American airline headquartered at
Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois. United operates a large domestic
and international route network spanning cities large and small
across the United States and all six continents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Ross Hawkins, Esq.
James Hawkins APLC
9880 Research Dr Ste 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Tel: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
UNITED PARCEL: Santos Seeks Class Status for Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as EMILIA SANTOS, an individual,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED
PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an Ohio Corporation; and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-03177-EMC (N.D. Cal., Filed May 29,
2018), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting her
motion for certification of a class consisting of:
"all current and former non–exempt employees of Defendant,
employed in California, who, during the class period, worked
in a distribution center as a part time preload supervisor,
or a position with similar duties and/or job titles, and who
have not signed an arbitration agreement with Defendant as of
the date of the filing of this Complaint, and who:
a) Were not paid for all hours worked, in any pay period that
is within the Class Period ("The Unpaid Time Subclass");
b) Worked more than 5 hours, or more than six hours if
subject to a valid first meal break waiver, and/or worked
more than 10 hours, or more than 12 hours if subject to a
valid second meal break waiver, and were not provided with
uninterruptable meal periods of at least 30-minutes ("The
Meal Break Subclass");
c) Signed a meal break waiver when they held a different
position than that of a Class Member, and did not sign a
new meal break waiver when they changed the position to
one of a Class Member ("The Meal Break Waiver Subclass");
d) Were not provided uninterruptable rest breaks of at least
10 minutes for each 4 hours of work ("The Rest Break
Subclass");
e) Were not provided with accurately itemized wage statements
listing all hours worked and other information required to
be listed under California Labor Code section 226(a) ("The
Wage Statement Subclass"); and/or
f) Were not paid all wages due and owing at the time of their
separation ("The Waiting Time Subclass").
United Parcel is an American multinational package delivery and
supply chain management company.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David R. Markham, Esq.
Maggie Realin, Esq
Lisa Brevard, Esq
THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
750 B Street, Suite 1950
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 399-3995
Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
mrealin@markham-law.com
lbrevard@markham-law.com
- and -
Walter L. Haines, Esq.
walterhaines@yahoo.com
UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Telephone: (888) 474-7242
Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Haynes and Boone Discusses Scott Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Haynes and Boone reported that the class action lawsuit styled
Scott, et al. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., et al., was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 14, 2020.
This lawsuit follows the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit in Peterson v. UnitedHealth Group Inc. that was
issued last year. In Scott, the plaintiffs, who were participants
in the plans at issue in Peterson, filed, on behalf of a class of
plaintiffs (the "Class"), a class action against UnitedHealth
Group, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries (collectively,
"UHC"), in their capacities as an insurer and/or third-party claims
administrator of employer-sponsored group health plans. The lawsuit
alleges the breach of UHC's fiduciary duties under ERISA as related
to UHC's practice of "cross-plan offsetting." The Class consists of
participants and beneficiaries in all group health plans that are
administered by UHC and contain "cross-plan offsetting"
(collectively, the "Plans").
Cross-plan offsetting is a practice that is used by UHC and other
third-party administrators ("TPAs") as a means of recouping a
benefit payment that was purportedly overpaid to an out-of-network
health care provider under one plan by reducing the benefit payment
owed to the same provider under another entirely separate plan. For
example, assume that a TPA performs claims administration services
for group health plans sponsored by Employer A and Employer B.
Assume further that the TPA erroneously overpaid a health care
provider by $1,000 for a participant claim under Employer A's plan,
while a participant in Employer B's plan incurred a $2,000 claim
with that same provider. Under the cross-plan offsetting
methodology, the TPA would offset the $2,000 payment owed to the
provider under Employer B's plan by the $1,000 overpayment under
Employer A's plan, thus netting a $1,000 payment to the provider
for the $2,000 claim submitted under Employer B's plan.
In Peterson, the Eighth Circuit did not decide the permissibility
of cross-plan offsetting under ERISA, but instead made its ruling
against UHC on the basis that the terms of the plans in question
did not authorize UHC to engage in cross-plan offsetting. Notably,
the DOL, which enforces ERISA, had filed an amicus brief in
Peterson in which it expressed its view that cross-plan offsetting
does violate ERISA. See our previous blog post regarding Peterson
here.
In Scott, the plaintiffs asserted the following causes of action
against UHC:
1. As a fiduciary of the Plans, UHC breached its duty of loyalty
under ERISA when it used assets of the Plans for the non-Plan
purpose of resolving a disputed debt to another Plan and not
providing benefits to the first Plan's beneficiaries.
2. UHC's use of self-insured plan assets to recoup alleged
overpayments by fully-insured Plans constituted a breach of
fiduciary duty and a "prohibited transaction" under ERISA based on
"self-dealing" because UHC took plan assets for its own account and
in its own interest, instead of paying benefits to a Plan's
beneficiaries.
3. UHC engaged in a prohibited transaction in violation of ERISA
when it diverted one Plan's assets to another Plan to resolve an
asserted overpayment because UHC cannot represent both sides of
that transaction.
4. UHC was a "party in interest" (under ERISA's prohibited
transaction rules) with respect to the Plans because it was a
fiduciary and service provider to those Plans. UHC's use of
self-insured Plans' assets to offset overpayments by fully-insured
Plans was both a breach of fiduciary duty and a prohibited
transaction under ERISA because UHC caused the Plans to transfer
plan assets designated for benefit payments to UHC as a "party in
interest."
5. UHC owed plaintiffs and the Class a duty to provide adequate
notice and a full and fair review of cross-plan offsets in
accordance with ERISA's claims regulations. UHC breached this duty
by failing to provide adequate notice or a full and fair review of
cross-plan offsets, in violation of ERISA and its claims
regulations.
Among other forms of relief, the Class requested that the district
court (i) issue a declaration that UHC's cross-plan offsets against
plaintiffs' Plans and the other Plans in the Class did not
constitute payment of their claims for covered services under their
Plans; (ii) order UHC to provide all accountings as necessary to
determine the amounts that UHC must remit to the Plans under ERISA
to restore losses and to disgorge any profits that UHC
impermissibly obtained from the use of plan assets or other
violations of ERISA; and (iii) permanently enjoin UHC from taking
cross-plan offsets.
Employer Next Steps in light of Scott
In anticipation of what could be a successful challenge in Scott to
the practice of cross-plan offsetting, employers/plan sponsors
should consider the following actions:
1. Review TPA service agreements and any benefit booklets issued
by the TPA that are incorporated into the group health plan
documents to determine whether the TPA uses cross-plan offsetting;
2. If cross-plan offsetting is used by the TPA, determine whether
the employer can opt out of that practice; and
3. Ensure that any service agreements with a TPA that uses
cross-plan offsetting contains adequate indemnification against any
losses or damages that the employer may incur in the event that
cross-plan offsetting is determined to be in violation of ERISA,
thus triggering claims that could be brought directly against the
employer, such as, for example, for a breach of fiduciary duty to
the plan and its participants. [GN]
VIAGOGO ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Shiflett Class Action in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Viagogo Entertainment
Inc. The case is styled as Lauren Shiflett, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Viagogo Entertainment Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-01880 (M.D.
Fla., Aug. 12, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed pursuant to Diversity-Deceptive Trade Practices.
Viagogo Entertainment Inc. provides internet based services. The
Company operates as an online platform for live sport, music, and
entertainment tickets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
Edelsberg Law, PA
20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
WILLIAM PENN CORP: Mahoney Asserts Breach of ADA
------------------------------------------------
William Penn Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. William Penn Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-03936 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 12, 2020).
William Penn is a retail store for premium stationery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
Glanzberg Tobia & Associates PC
123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Tel: (215) 981-5400
Email: dglanzberg@aol.com
YARDLEY INSURANCE: Mahoney Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------------
Yardley Insurance Services, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Yardley Insurance Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-03938 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 12, 2020).
Yardley Insurance Services, Inc. is an Auto insurance agency in
Middletown Township, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
Glanzberg Tobia & Associates PC
123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Tel: (215) 981-5400
Email: dglanzberg@aol.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 ***