/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200825.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, August 25, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 170
Headlines
AIRBUS SE: Pomerantz Law Announces Securities Class Action
AKIMA LLC: Order on Discovery of Class Info in Avery Suit Issued
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit in California Pending
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Calif. Class Action Suit
ALLFI INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Fabricant Alleges
ANCESTRY.COM: Relies on Arbitration Clause to Fight Class Action
AR RESOURCES: Faces Coleman FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
AUTO CARE: Faces Reisman Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
BAUSCH HEALTH: To Pay $94MM Costs to Resolve Canadian Class Action
BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline
CABOT OIL: Gainey McKenna Announces Class Action Lawsuit
CABOT OIL: Kahn Swick Reminds of October 13 Deadline
CABOT OIL: Kirby McInerney Announces Securities Class Action
CABOT OIL: Windler Sues Over Decline in Securities' Market Value
CARNIVAL CORP: Atachbarian Sues over Drop in Share Price
CARSON CITY, MI: Bragg Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
CARSON CITY, MI: Howell Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
CARSON CITY, MI: James Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
CARSON CITY, MI: Philpot Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
CARSON CITY, MI: Plair Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
CASPER SLEEP: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds Investors of Class Action
CCS INDUSTRIES: Faces Cruz Suit in New York Over Violation of ADA
CHIC HOME: Monegro Files Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Kahn Swick Announces Securities Class Action Filing
COBB COUNTY, GA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Simister Suit Says
CORAVIN INC: Faces Monegro Suit in New York Over Violation of ADA
CORECIVIC INC: $3.7MM Deal on Privileged Calls Suit Gets Prelim. OK
DELTA DENTAL: Zvi et al. Sue over Non-Compete Deal
DEUTSCHE BANK: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
DICK'S SPORTING: Court Denies Bid to Amend Battle Born Suit
DPL ASSOCIATES: Faces Neretta FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. New York
E GROUP LLC: Hinman Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
EASTMAN KODAK: Bragar Eagel Reminds of October 13 Deadline
EASTMAN KODAK: Faces Tang Suit Over Artificially Inflated Stocks
EASTMAN KODAK: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Class Action
EASTMAN KODAK: Rigrodsky & Long Announces Fraud Class Action
EASTMAN KODAK: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Ramirez Sues Over Anti-Gambling Laws Violation
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Schall Law Reminds of Class Action
ENERGY RECOVERY: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
ENERGY RECOVERY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 21 Bid Deadline
ENERGY RECOVERY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 21 Deadline
ENPHASE ENERGY: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of Class Action
ERIE INSURANCE: Amy M. Cobb Seeks Pay for COVID-19 Loss
ERIE INSURANCE: Dimitrios Sues Over Denial of Insurance Coverage
FABLETICS LLC: Faces Calcano Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over ADA Violation
FE INVESTORS: Lieff Cabraser Alerts of Class Action Filing
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 28 Motion Deadline
FIRSTENERGY CORP: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of September 28 Deadline
GENERALI US: Refuses to Reimburse Cancelled Trips, Paterson Says
GLOBAL EQUIPMENT: Faces Monegro ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Portnoy Law Reminds of Sept. 23 Motion Deadline
HARGREAVES LANSDOWN: Faces Class Action on YouTube Fundie Fallout
HOME LOAN: Sued by Slater Over Discrimination Against Women on ML
HYPER WEAR: Calcano Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Pelayo Sues Over Defect in Gamma 1.6L GDI Engines
J2 GLOBAL: Kaskela Law Announces Securities Class Action
J2 GLOBAL: Kirby McInerney Alerts of Class Action Filing
J2 GLOBAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 8 Deadline
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Potts Suit Moved From Calif. to New Jersey
KELLER WILLIAMS: Samataro Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
KIRKLAND LAKE: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
L.C. INDUSTRIES: Monegro Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
LAKE CITY CREDIT: Huaracha Sues in W.D. Tex. Over FDCPA Violation
MDL 2782: Curry v. PHC-Cleveland Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2843: Wilson v. Facebook Moved to Northern Dist. of California
MDL 2885: Evans v. 3M Co. Moved to Northern District of Florida
MDL 2945: 10 Ahern Rentals Trade Secret Suits Moved to W.D. Mo.
MDL 2949: 40 Hip Implant Suits vs. Wright Medical Consolidated
MDL 2951: Court Centralizes 4 Suits vs. StubHub
MEI PHARMA: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
MERCURY LUGGAGE: Faces Monegro ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
MODERN MARKETING: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
MOUNT NITTANY: Faces Mahoney ADA Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
NATIONAL GENERAL: Post Securities Suit Balks at Sale to Allstate
NETGEAR INC: Bid for Preliminary Settlement Approval Pending
NIXY INC: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
PENN CREDIT: Faces Bailey FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
PETER THOMAS: Monegro Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
POLYNT COMPOSITES: Skroh Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
PROASSURANCE CORP: Schall Law Reminds of Class Action
PROASSURANCE CORPORATION: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
PROSHARES ULTRA: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 28 Deadline
PROSHARES ULTRA: Robbins Geller Alerts of Class Action Filing
PURDUE PHARMA: City Intends to Join Class Action Filing
QUADRE INVESTMENTS: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
SAFEWAY STORES: Court Dismisses Aguilar Suit With Prejudice
SCOR SE: Actors Playhouse Seeks Pay for COVID-19 Losses
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Illegally Tapes Inmates' Calls, Pratt Says
SEVILLE CLASSICS: Faces Monegro ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
SHADE MOUNTAIN: Mahoney Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
SHISEIDO AMERICAS: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
SIGHT AND SOUND: Calcano Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
SISTINA RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, Cuji Alleges
SKINFIX US: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
SKY SOLAR: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
SNOWIE LLC: Monegro Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
SPORT OBERMEYER: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
SPORTS LICENSING: Monegro Sues in New York Alleging ADA Violation
SUNRISE CREDIT: Neal Sues in Nevada Alleging Violation of FDCPA
SUPERME LLC: Calcano Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
SUPERME LLC: Tenzer-Fuchs Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
TERRAPIN RIDGE: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
TOCCA INC: Monegro Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
TOM PEACOCK: Bradford Sues in S.D. Texas Alleging TCPA Violation
TOYOTA FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Cambridge Claims
UNIEK INC: Faces Paguada Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
UNITED SPECIALTY: Mueller Files Class Suit in E.D. New York
UNITED STATES: Faces Joelson ATCA Class Suit in S.D. California
UNITED STATES: Thomas Sues in Fed. Cl. Over Tucker Act Violation
VEERU DHILLON: Rosa Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 28 Bid Deadline
VIKING CLIENT: Faces Latypov FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. New York
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces May Suit in D.N.J. Over AEB System Defect
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Swinburne Sues Over Faulty Start/Stop Systems
VOLKSWAGEN: Class Action Alleges Defects of Front Assist Feature
WALDAMEER PARK: Mahoney Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
WALMART INC: Faces Waters Sues Over Breach of Class Settlement
WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS: Lett Suit Removed to District of New Jersey
WB STUDIO: Blumenthal Files Class Action Lawsuit
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS: SphinxIIIHouston Sues Over Coverage Denial
WORLD WRESTLING: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Saudi Arabia Biz Pending
WORLD WRESTLING: Continues to Defend Wrestlers' Class Suits
WORLDWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces Enomoto Employment Suit in Calif.
WYNDRIDGE FARMS: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
ZYNGA INC: Rosiak Sues Over Data Breach and Compromised PII
*********
AIRBUS SE: Pomerantz Law Announces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Airbus SE ("Airbus" or the "Company") (OTCMKTS: EADSY;
EADSF) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and
indexed under 20-cv-10084, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise, acquired Airbus securities in the U.S. between February
24, 2016, and July 30, 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 Airbus securities during the
class period, you have until October 5, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.
Airbus was founded in 2000 and is based in Leiden, the Netherlands.
The Company is a multinational aerospace corporation, operating
through its Commercial Aircraft, Defense and Space, and Helicopters
divisions. The Company's American Depository Receipts ("ADRs")
trade in the U.S. on the over-the-counter market (the "OTC") under
the ticker symbol "EADSY," and the Company's foreign ordinary
shares ("foreign ordinaries") trade in the U.S. on the OTC under
the ticker symbol "EADSF."
In August 2012, the United Kingdom ("U.K.") Serious Fraud Office
("SFO") announced that it had opened a formal criminal
investigation into one of Airbus's subsidiaries, GPT Special
Project Management Ltd. ("GPT"), which Airbus acquired in 2007.
The allegations called into question a service contract entered
into by GPT prior to its acquisition by Airbus, relating to
activities conducted by GPT in Saudi Arabia.
Unbeknownst to investors and the public, however, Airbus was at an
increased and foreseeable risk of facing significant potential
liabilities for other alleged illegal activities that would later
be investigated by governmental authorities around the world.
These activities, combined with the investigation into GPT,
implicated all three of Airbus's divisions, calling into question
the sustainability of the Company's reported earnings during the
Class Period.
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: (i) that Airbus's policies and protocols
were insufficient to ensure the Company's compliance with relevant
anti-corruption laws and regulations; (ii) that, consequently,
Airbus engaged in bribery, corruption, and fraud in order to
enhance its business with respect to its commercial aircraft,
helicopter, and defense deals; (iii) that, as a result, Airbus's
earnings were derived in part from unlawful conduct and therefore
unsustainable; (iv) the full scope and severity of Airbus's
misconduct; (v) that 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 (vi) that,
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
On August 8, 2016, Reuters reported that the U.K. had opened a
corruption probe into Airbus. Specifically, the SFO announced that
it had "opened a criminal investigation into allegations of fraud,
bribery, and corruption in the civil aviation business of Airbus,"
which "relate to irregularities concerning third party
consultants." The investigation followed Airbus's flagging of
"misstatements and omissions" involving outside contractors in
certain export financing applications to U.K. regulators and the
European Export Credit Agencies earlier in the year, which the
Company had found through an internal probe.
On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $0.21 per share, or 1.49%, to close
at $13.86 per share on August 8, 2016, and Airbus foreign
ordinaries fell $0.82 per share, or 1.45%, to close at $55.58 per
share on August 8, 2016.
France and the U.S. later opened their investigations into the
subject of the SFO's allegations in 2017 and 2018, respectively.
On January 31, 2020, media outlets reported that Airbus had agreed
to a deal with U.S., U.K., and French prosecutors to settle bribery
and export-control violations against the Company for EUR3.6
billion ($4 billion). Pursuant to the settlement, Airbus also
agreed to appoint an external compliance officer for at least two
years to monitor the Company's handling of its defense-related
sales and disclosures.
On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $0.72 per share, or 1.93%, to close
at $36.68 per share on January 31, 2020, and Airbus foreign
ordinaries fell $2.21 per share, or 1.48%, to close at $147.00 per
share on January 31, 2020.
Then, on March 15, 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported that
Airbus executives had previously raised red flags about fees paid
to a number of middlemen working with its helicopter division, led
at the time by the Company's current Chief Executive Officer
("CEO"), Defendant Guillaume M.J.D. Faury ("Faury"), that may have
violated global bribery and corruption rules, according to internal
documents related to Airbus's $4 billion bribery settlement, which
were not previously made public and/or reported.
On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $3.44 per share, or 15.71%, to close
at $18.46 per share on March 16, 2020, and Airbus foreign
ordinaries fell $7.97 per share, or 9.3%, to close at $77.75 per
share on March 16, 2020.
Finally, on July 30, 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported that
the SFO had charged GPT and three individuals with corruption in
connection with a defense contract the U.K. had arranged with Saudi
Arabia. These charges were the culmination of the investigations
initiated by the SFO back in August 2012.
On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $0.67 per share, or 3.56%, to close
at $18.13 per share on July 31, 2020, and Airbus foreign ordinaries
fell $2.85 per share, or 3.8%, to close at $72.10 per share on July
31, 2020.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]
AKIMA LLC: Order on Discovery of Class Info in Avery Suit Issued
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEVIER AVERY, on behalf of himself, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. AKIMA, LLC, an Alaska limited
liability company; AKIMA SUPPORT OPERATIONS, LLC, an Alaska limited
liability corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendant(s), Case No. 2:19-cv-00924-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Allison Claire of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California, Sacramento Division, has issued an order granting
the parties' stipulation on the discovery of the putative class
member identities and contact information.
Avery has filed a class action lawsuit alleging various wage and
hour violations by the Defendant, as well as claims under
California's Private Attorneys General Act on behalf of other
allegedly aggrieved individuals. Following a good faith meet and
confer process, the parties have agreed to engage in a Belaire-West
notification process as to all current and former non-exempt
employees who were employed by the Defendant at the Tracy Defense
Distribution Depot and supervised by Mike Frisby at any time
between April 3, 2015 and the present ("Notice Group"). The
Defendant is still evaluating its records but estimates that there
are approximately 40 Notice Group members.
Magistrate Judge Claire ordered that CPT Group, a third party
administrator, will mail the notice letter (Exhibit A) to the
Notice Group. The Defendant will provide to the Administrator a
list in Microsoft Excel or comparable format stating the names,
last known addresses, e-mail addresses, and last known telephone
numbers of the individuals in the Notice Group (to the extent
available from the Defendant's personnel records) within 10
calendar days of the Court's order on the stipulation.
If an individual in the Notice Group does not want his/her name,
address, e-mail addresses, or telephone number to be provided to
Plaintiff, he/she must sign and return a postcard (Exhibit B) to
the Administrator within 45 calendar days after the mailing of the
notice letter.
Sixty days after mailing the notice letter, the Administrator will
provide both parties with a list in Microsoft Excel or comparable
format stating the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, and
telephone numbers of all individuals in the Notice Group who did
not sign and return the postcard. The Administrator will also
provide Defendant with a list of the individuals in the Notice
Group who signed and returned the postcard.
The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's Counsel will keep any information
discovered by this process confidential, will use such information
only for purposes of the litigation, and will return the
information to the Defendant or certify its destruction (including
all copies) at the end of the litigation.
The Plaintiff will bear the costs of the Administrator for the
performance of its duties described.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://is.gd/G1Vror from Leagle.com.
Devier Avery, Plaintiff, represented by David Glenn Spivak --
david@spivaklaw.com -- The Spivak Law Firm & Stephanie Brenna
Greenberg -- stephanie@spivaklaw.com -- The Spivak Law Firm.
AKIMA Support Operations, LLC, an Alaska Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, represented by Heather Dawn Hearne -- hdh@kullmanlaw.com
-- The Kullman Firm.
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit in California Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated class action suit remains pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.
On November 5, 2018, a class action lawsuit against Align and three
of its executive officers was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of our common stock between July 25, 2018 and October
24, 2018.
The complaint generally alleges claims under the federal securities
laws and seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount and costs
and expenses incurred in the litigation.
On December 12, 2018, a similar lawsuit was filed in the same court
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock
between April 25, 2018 and October 24, 2018.
On November 29, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint against Align and two of our executive
officers alleging similar claims as the initial complaints on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock from
May 23, 2018 and October 24, 2018.
A motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint was filed on
January 17, 2020 and a ruling on the motion is pending.
Align believes these claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself. Align is currently unable to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits and therefore cannot determine the
likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.
Align Technology, Inc., incorporated on April 3, 1997, designs,
manufactures and markets a system of clear aligner therapy,
intra-oral scanners and computer-aided design/computer-aided
manufacturing (CAD/CAM) digital services used in dentistry,
orthodontics and dental records storage. The Company operates
through two segments: Clear Aligner segment and Scanner and
Services (Scanner) segment. The company is based in San Jose,
California.
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Calif. Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.
On March 2, 2020, a class action lawsuit against Align and two of
its executive officers was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between April 24, 2019 and
July 24, 2019.
The complaint filed in the Southern District of New York alleges
claims under the federal securities laws and seeks monetary damages
in an unspecified amount and costs and expenses incurred in the
litigation.
On April 16, 2020, the Court approved the parties' stipulation to
transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. The lead plaintiff in this matter was
expected to file an amended complaint by August 4, 2020.
Align believes these claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself. Align is currently unable to predict the
outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the
likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.
Align Technology, Inc., incorporated on April 3, 1997, designs,
manufactures and markets a system of clear aligner therapy,
intra-oral scanners and computer-aided design/computer-aided
manufacturing (CAD/CAM) digital services used in dentistry,
orthodontics and dental records storage. The Company operates
through two segments: Clear Aligner segment and Scanner and
Services (Scanner) segment. The company is based in San Jose,
California.
ALLFI INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Fabricant Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLFI INC.; and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-06449 (C.D. Cal., July 20, 2020) seeks
to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
ALLFI INC. is engaged as a lending company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
ANCESTRY.COM: Relies on Arbitration Clause to Fight Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that Ancestry.com is hoping to invoke an
arbitration clause to fight a class action lawsuit.
The company filed a motion to compel arbitration Aug. 5 in San
Diego federal court in Marta Carrera Chapple's lawsuit, which
claims Ancestry.com wrongfully renewed memberships automatically.
The lawsuit claims it enrolls members in programs that feature
automatic renewals without first obtaining their affirmative
consent, in violation of the California Automatic Renewal Law.
But the company says the arbitration agreement was spelled out
clearly in the terms and conditions of its members' agreements. It
says other courts in other class actions have upheld the clause.
"Plaintiff's arbitration agreement also expresses a clear and
unmistakable intent to commit issues of arbitrability to the
arbitrator," the motion says. "Thus, to the extent plaintiff
contends her claims are not subject to the arbitration agreement
for any reason, this issue must be decided in arbitration."
Chapple's lawsuit alleges she never would have signed up for
Ancestry.com if she knew it would enroll her in an automatically
renewing program. She claims there are hundreds of other customer
complaints posted on various consumer webstites.
Zach Dostart of Dostart Hannink & Coveney is representing plaintiff
Marta Carrera Chapple. [GN]
AR RESOURCES: Faces Coleman FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AR Resources, Inc.,
et al. The case is captioned as NEFELI COLEMAN, ON BEHALF OF
HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. AR RESOURCES, INC. and
JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-09612-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., July 29,
2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael A. Shipp.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
AR Resources is a national debt collection company that specializes
in collection solutions for business to business, consumer, and
property management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
CHULSKY KAPLAN LLC
280 Prospect Ave., 6G
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 803-6611
Facsimile: (877) 827-3394
E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com
AUTO CARE: Faces Reisman Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Reisman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AUTO CARE WARRANTY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-10449 (D.N.j., Aug. 13, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant to secure redress for its violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant invaded the Plaintiff's
privacy by causing unsolicited phone calls to be made to the
Plaintiff's and other class members' cellular telephones through
the use of an automatic telephone dialing system without prior
express written consent. The Defendant made one or more
unauthorized phone call to the Plaintiff's cellular phone using an
automatic telephone dialing system and/or pre-recorded messages in
an attempt to profit.
In response to the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff
seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited
phone to consumers, and an award of statutory damages to the
members of the Classes under the TCPA equal to $500.00 per
violation, together with court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees,
and treble damages (for knowing and/or willful violations).
The Plaintiff lives in Middlesex County, New Jersey.
The Defendant operates a service that offers consumers extended car
warranties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (732) 695-3282
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: ari@marcuszelman.com
BAUSCH HEALTH: To Pay $94MM Costs to Resolve Canadian Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that Bausch Health Companies Inc. says
it is ending significant legal matters from the Valeant era by
agreeing to pay $94 million plus administration costs to resolve a
Canadian securities class action.
The action filed in Quebec Superior Court in 2015 alleged
violations of Canadian securities laws over a stock plunge that hit
investors about five years ago.
As part of the settlement, the company and the other defendants
admit no liability and deny all allegations of wrongdoing.
The Quebec-based pharmaceutical company says the settlement
resolves substantively the same matters as a U.S. securities class
action that was settled last year for US$1.21 billion.
Bausch chairman and CEO Joseph Papa says the settlements and recent
resolution of the legacy Securities and Exchange Commission
investigations turn the page on legal problems and enables the
company to focus on its current operations.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals, which was briefly Canada's most valuable
company, ran up a staggering US$30 billion in debt -- roughly three
time its annual revenues -- through a spate of acquisitions before
its share price plunged on lawsuits and investigations. [GN]
BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of the pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (BAYRY)
Class Period: 5/23/2016 - 3/19/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-bayer-aktiengesellschaft-american-depositary-shares-securities-litigation
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]
CABOT OIL: Gainey McKenna Announces Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation ("Cabot Oil" or the
"Company") (NYSE: COG) in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on behalf of those who purchased or
acquired the securities of Cabot Oil between October 23, 2015, and
June 12, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Cabot Oil investors under the federal
securities laws.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Cabot Oil had
inadequate environmental controls and procedures and/or failed to
properly mitigate known issues related to those controls and
procedures; (2) as a result, Cabot Oil failed to fix faulty gas
wells, thereby polluting Pennsylvania's water supplies through
stray gas migration; (3) the foregoing was foreseeably likely to
subject Cabot Oil to increased governmental scrutiny and
enforcement, as well as increased reputational and financial harm;
(4) Cabot Oil continually downplayed its potential civil and/or
criminal liabilities with respect to such environmental matters;
and (5) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On July 26, 2019, Cabot Oil filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, reporting its
financial and operating results for the quarter ended June 30, 2019
(the "2Q19 10-Q"). The 2Q19 10-Q disclosed that the Company had
received two proposed Consent Order and Agreements related to two
Notices of Violation ("NOVs") it had received from the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection back in June and November
2017, respectively, for failure to prevent the migration of gas
into fresh groundwater sources in the area surrounding Susquehanna
County, Pennsylvania. Following the release of the 2Q19 10-Q, Cabot
Oil's stock price fell $2.63 per share, or 12.07%, to close at
$19.16 per share on July 26, 2019.
Then, on June 15, 2020, following a grand jury investigation, the
Pennsylvania attorney general's office charged Cabot Oil with
fifteen criminal counts arising from its failure to fix faulty gas
wells, thereby polluting Pennsylvania's water supplies through
stray gas migration. On this news, Cabot Oil's stock price fell
$0.67 per share, or 3.34%, to close at $19.40 per share on June 15,
2020.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Cabot Oil
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
October 13, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]
CABOT OIL: Kahn Swick Reminds of October 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until October 13, 2020 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Cabot Oil
& Gas Corporation (NYSE: COG), if they purchased the Company's
securities between October 23, 2015, and June 12, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
What You May Do
If you purchased securities of Cabot and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-cog/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by October 13, 2020.
About the Lawsuit
Cabot and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.
On June 15, 2020, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania announced
fifteen criminal counts against the Company, including nine
felonies, following recommendations from a grand jury investigation
that noted the Company's "long-term indifference" to pollution
damage to water supplies caused by its faulty gas wells.
On this news, the price of Cabot's shares plummeted.
The case is Windler v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, et al,
20-cv-02827.
About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include former Louisiana
Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's
premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a
variety of clients - including public institutional investors,
hedge funds, money managers and retail investors - in seeking to
recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana. [GN]
CABOT OIL: Kirby McInerney Announces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of those who acquired Cabot Oil & Gas
Corporation ("Cabot" or the "Company") (NYSE:COG) securities during
the period from October 23, 2015 through June 12, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until October 13, 2020 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Cabot failed to maintain appropriate
environmental controls and also failed to mitigate known problems
with controls and procedures. The Company failed to fix
malfunctioning gas wells, polluting the water supply of
Pennsylvania. The Company downplayed its civil and criminal
liability for this and other environmental problems. 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 Cabot, investors suffered damages.
If you acquired Cabot securities during the Class Period, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. [GN]
CABOT OIL: Windler Sues Over Decline in Securities' Market Value
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Gordon Windler, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. CABOT OIL & GAS CORPORATION, DAN O. DINGES,
and SCOTT C. SCHROEDER, Case No. 4:20-cv-02827 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 13,
2020), seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Cabot securities between October 23, 2015, and
June 12, 2020, both dates inclusive.
Cabot primarily focuses its oil and gas efforts on the Marcellus
Shale located in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. Cabot's gas
procuring activities in Pennsylvania have been the subject of
controversy for over a decade, with the Company repeatedly denying
any responsibility for environmental damage observed in the state.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Cabot had inadequate environmental controls and procedures and/or
failed to properly mitigate known issues related to those controls
and procedures; (ii) as a result, Cabot, among other issues, failed
to fix faulty gas wells, thereby polluting Pennsylvania's water
supplies through stray gas migration; (iii) the foregoing was
foreseeably likely to subject Cabot to increased governmental
scrutiny and enforcement, as well as increased reputational and
financial harm; (iv) Cabot continually downplayed its potential
civil and/or criminal liabilities with respect to such
environmental matters; and (v) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On July 26, 2019, during intraday trading hours, Cabot filed a
quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, reporting the Company's financial and operating results
for the quarter ended June 30, 2019 (the "2Q19 10-Q"). The 2Q19
10-Q disclosed that the Company had received two proposed Consent
Order and Agreements ("CO&As") related to two Notices of Violation
("NOVs") it had received from the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection ("PaDEP") back in June and November 2017,
respectively, for failure to prevent the migration of gas into
fresh groundwater sources in the area surrounding Susquehanna
County, Pennsylvania. Following the release of the 2Q19 10-Q,
Cabot's stock price fell $2.63 per share, or 12.07%, to close at
$19.16 per share on July 26, 2019.
Then, on June 15, 2020, during pre-market hours, following a grand
jury investigation, the Pennsylvania attorney general's office
charged Cabot with fifteen criminal counts arising from its failure
to fix faulty gas wells, thereby, polluting Pennsylvania's water
supplies through stray gas migration. On this news, Cabot's stock
price fell $0.67 per share, or 3.34%, to close at $19.40 per share
on June 15, 2020.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff acquired Cabot securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.
Cabot is an independent oil and gas company that explores for,
exploits, develops, produces, and markets oil and gas properties in
the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
CARNIVAL CORP: Atachbarian Sues over Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------
ABRAHAM ATACHBARIAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION; CARNIVAL
PLC; ARNOLD W. DONALD; DAVID BERNSTEIN; and MICKY ARISON,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-23011 (S.D. Fla., July 21, 2020) is a
class action on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who
sold put option contracts or purchased call options for the shares
of Carnival common stock (the "Class") during the period of January
27, 2020 through May 1, 2020 (the "Class Period").
According to the lawsuit, the Company's statement regarding no
diagnosed COVID-19 case linked to Carnival was materially false and
misleading when made because Defendants knew of confirm cases of
COVID-19 infections on Carnival ships, including, among others, the
Diamond Princess.
During the Class Period, the Defendants had both the motive and
opportunity to commit fraud. They also had actual knowledge of the
misleading nature of the statements they made or acted in reckless
disregard of the true information known to them at the time. In so
doing, the Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud and committed
acts, practices, and participated in a course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit on sellers of option contracts to put
Carnival's shares and on purchasers of call option contracts to
call shares of Carnival during the Class Period.
At the end of trading on April 2, 2020, the market price of
Carnival Corporation common stock (CCL:NYSE) closed at $7.97 per
share, down 9% from the previous trading day. On April 1, 2020, the
price of Carnival stock closed at $8.80 per share, down 34% from
the March 31, 2020 closing price of $13.31 per share. From the
beginning of the Class Period on January 27, 2020, the market price
of Carnival stock was down 82%.
Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
EGGNATZ PASCUCCI
7450 Griffin Rd, Ste. 230
Davie, FL 33314
Telephone: (954) 889-3359
Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
- and -
Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
THEGRANTLAWFIRM, PLLC
521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (212) 292-4441
Facsimile: (212) 292-4442
E-mail: LGgrant@grantfirm.com
- and -
Howard T. Longman, Esq.
Patrick Slyne, Esq.
STULL STULL & BRODY
6 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 687-7230
Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
E-mail: HLongman@ssbny.com
pkslyne@ssbny.com
CARSON CITY, MI: Bragg Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rewerts, et al. The
case is styled as Curtis Bragg, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Petitioner v. Randee Rewerts, Warden; Heidi
Washington, Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections;
Respondents, Case No. 1:20-cv-00764-JTN-SJB (W.D. Mich., Aug. 13,
2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus.
Randee Rewerts is the warden of Carson City Correctional Facility.
The Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated at the Carson City
Correctional Facility, in Carson City, Michigan, appears pro
se.[BN]
CARSON CITY, MI: Howell Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rewerts, et al. The
case is styled as Dwayne E. Howell, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Petitioner v. Randee Rewerts, Warden;
Heidi Washington, Director of the Michigan Department of
Corrections, Respondents, Case No. 1:20-cv-00763-RJJ-SJB (W.D.
Mich., Aug. 13, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus.
Randee Rewerts is the warden of Carson City Correctional Facility.
The Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated at the Carson City
Correctional Facility, in Carson City, Michigan, appears pro
se.[BN]
CARSON CITY, MI: James Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rewerts, et al. The
case is styled as Jerald James, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Petitioner v. Randee Rewerts, Warden; Heidi
Washington, Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections,
Respondents, Case No. 1:20-cv-00762-JTN-PJG (W.D. Mich., Aug. 13,
2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus.
Randee Rewerts is the warden of Carson City Correctional Facility.
The Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated at the Carson City
Correctional Facility, in Carson City, Michigan, appears pro
se.[BN]
CARSON CITY, MI: Philpot Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rewerts, et al. The
case is styled as Isaac Philpot, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Petitioner v. Randee Rewerts, Warden;
Heidi Washington, Director of the Michigan Department of
Corrections, Respondents, Case No. 1:20-cv-00765-JTN-SJB (W.D.
Mich., Aug. 13, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus.
Randee Rewerts is the warden of Carson City Correctional Facility.
The Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated at the Carson City
Correctional Facility, in Carson City, Michigan, appears pro
se.[BN]
CARSON CITY, MI: Plair Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rewerts, et al. The
case is styled as Oliver Plair, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Petitioner v. Randee Rewerts, Warden; Heidi
Washington, Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections,
Respondents, Case No. 1:20-cv-00761-JTN-SJB (W.D. Mich., Aug. 13,
2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus.
Randee Rewerts is the warden of Carson City Correctional Facility.
The Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated at the Carson City
Correctional Facility, in Carson City, Michigan, appears pro
se.[BN]
CASPER SLEEP: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds Investors of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Casper Sleep, Inc. ("Enphase" or the
"Company") (NYSE: CSPR) securities who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded Casper securities in or traceable to the
Company's public offering conducted on or around February 7, 2020
(the "IPO"). Investors had until August 18, 2020 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.
The lawsuit alleges that the Company misled investors regarding the
strength of Casper's global operations. Casper went public in
February 2020, selling over 8 million shares at $12 a share. Just a
few weeks later, in April 2020, the Company announced that Casper
would decrease its global operations, including a dramatic 21%
reduction to its global operations and sales team, and close its
European operations. Casper also disclosed that Gregory Macfarlane
had resigned from his positions as Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Operating Officer.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner
has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
Tel No: 310-692-8883
E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com [GN]
CCS INDUSTRIES: Faces Cruz Suit in New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CCS Industries, Inc.
The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. CCS Industries, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-06428 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
CSS Industries, Inc., manufactures and sells consumer products to
mass market retailers of seasonal and social expression
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
CHIC HOME: Monegro Files Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chic Home Desgin LLC.
The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Chic Home Desgin LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-06404 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Chic Home Design LLC wholesales and distributes home furnishings
and housewares. The Company provides comforter and duvet cover
sets, quilts, blankets, sheet, and decorative throw pillows.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Kahn Swick Announces Securities Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
TO: All those who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. ("CB&I") on the New
York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") during a Class Period from October 30,
2013, through and including June 23, 2015 (the "Class").
Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, officers and directors
of CB&I, members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in
which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.
Please read this notice carefully and in its entirety.
Your rights may be affected by proceedings in this action.
This Notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), entered March
23, 2020, certifying the above-captioned action as a Class Action.
This Action has not been settled and continues to be litigated.
Accordingly, no claim form need be filed at this time.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights are affected by this
Action, and you may have the right to participate in any recovery.
You also have the right to exclude yourself from the Class in
accordance with the directions set forth in a more detailed Notice
of Pendency of Class Action, which was mailed separately to persons
and entities identified from the records of Defendant Chicago
Bridge & Iron Company N.V. as members of the Class. That Notice of
Pendency of Class Action describes in more detail this Class Action
and your rights with respect thereto. [GN]
COBB COUNTY, GA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Simister Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Simister, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. COBB COUNTY, GA, Case No. 1:20-cv-03350-LMM (N.D. Ga., Aug. 13,
2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the
Defendant's unlawful deprivation of the Plaintiff's rights to
overtime compensation.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been assigned to work
shifts by the Defendants following the repeating pattern of 24
hours on-duty, then 48 hours off-duty. This cycle repeats every
three days, and as a result, the Plaintiff routinely works more
than 40 hours in a workweek, and in fact at least 168 hours every
21 days. Yet, despite causing the Plaintiff to suffer and
permitting the Plaintiff to work in excess of the statutory maximum
of 40 hours in a workweek and 159 hours in each 21-day cycle, the
Defendant has failed to pay the Plaintiff at the required rate of
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for those hours.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in the positions of "Fire
Captain" at the Cobb County Fire Department.
Cobb County, Georgia, which is a County existing under the laws of
the State of Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lance J. LoRusso, Esq.
LORUSSO LAW FIRM, P.C.
1827 Powers Ferry Road, SE
Building 8, Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30339
Phone: (770) 644-2378
Fax: (770) 644-2379
Email: lance@lorussolawfirm.com
CORAVIN INC: Faces Monegro Suit in New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coravin, Inc. The
case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Coravin, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-06405
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Coravin, Inc., is a company based in Burlington, Massachusetts,
that manufactures products for the wine industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
CORECIVIC INC: $3.7MM Deal on Privileged Calls Suit Gets Prelim. OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Margolies at Kansas News Service reports that another
settlement has been reached over the illicit recordings of
attorney-client meetings and phone calls at the pretrial prison in
Leavenworth, Kansas.
The settlement calls for the private operator of the prison,
CoreCivic Inc., and the operator of its phone system, Securus
Technologies Inc., to pay $3.7 million to resolve a class action
lawsuit brought four years ago by attorneys whose conversations
with their clients were recorded.
U.S. District Judge Steven Bough gave preliminary approval to the
deal, which covers the claims of roughly 750 attorneys.
The resolution follows a similar settlement reached a year ago
between the same two companies and inmates whose calls and meetings
with their attorneys were recorded. That deal called for CoreCivic,
formerly known as Corrections Corporation of America, and Securus
to pay $1.45 million into a settlement fund for the inmates.
Both class action lawsuits were sparked by disclosures that
privileged attorney-client phone calls and meetings were audio- and
videotaped at the Leavenworth Detention Center, a sprawling complex
that holds men and women charged with federal crimes who can't make
bail.
Lawyers regularly meet with their clients there to review their
cases. The lawsuits alleged the recordings of their meetings and
phone calls, which are supposed to be private, violated federal and
state wiretap laws.
Ryan Gustin, a spokesman for CoreCivic, said in an email that the
company was "deeply committed to being a valued part of the
Leavenworth community."
"We've worked hard with all parties to resolve this issue in a
professional and courteous manner and maintain there was no
wrongdoing on the part of our company or our professionals," he
said.
Jade Trombetta, a spokeswoman for Securus said there was no
evidence the company engaged in any wrongdoing, "intentional or
otherwise."
"Our call platform allows attorneys to work with correctional
agencies to classify their phone numbers as private and prevent
calls to their numbers from being recorded," Trombetta said in an
email. "If phone numbers are not entered into the system as
private, both parties are notified prior to call acceptance via
prompt that the call will be recorded. At Leavenworth Detention
Center, it appears that the attorneys' phone numbers were not put
into the system, the notification was not heeded, and the calls
were recorded as designed."
The recordings first came to light four years ago in a criminal
case alleging that guards, inmates and outside parties had smuggled
drugs and contraband into the facility.
In August 2019, U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson held the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Kansas in contempt for disobeying her orders
to preserve documents and recordings as part of an investigation
she launched after the Federal Public Defender's office in Kansas
brought the recordings to light.
In a scathing opinion, Robinson wrote there was evidence that the
U.S. Attorney's Office had a "systematic practice of purposeful
collection, retention and exploitation of calls" made between
detainees and their attorneys.
The Justice Department has appealed her ruling. Meanwhile, scores
of Leavenworth inmates who were convicted of crimes are seeking to
have their cases thrown out based on their claims of prosecutorial
misconduct and violations of attorney-client privilege.
The class action lawsuit on behalf of the attorneys was brought by
two local lawyers, Adam Crane and David Johnson. The settlement
covers attorneys who represented clients detained at Leavenworth
and whose calls or meetings were recorded starting in August 2013
and extending in some cases to mid-2017.
Michael Hodgson, one of the attorneys who brought the suit, said
the settlement was the product of four years of "pretty contested
litigation."
"And I think more important than the money, there are some serious
changes being implemented in the way attorneys and clients are able
to interact while they're incarcerated at Leavenworth," he said.
Lance Sandage, another attorney involved in filing the suit, said
the attorneys involved in the litigation "believe very strongly
that we have to preserve the attorney-client privilege."
Sandage said any unclaimed settlement funds will be distributed to
Legal Aid of Western Missouri and Kansas Legal Services, "which are
two organizations that are generally involved in preserving client
rights."
Dan Margolies is senior reporter and editor at KCUR. He can be
reached by email at dan@kcur.org or on Twitter @DanMargolies. The
Kansas News Service is a collaboration of KCUR, Kansas Public
Radio, KMUW and High Plains Public Radio focused on health, the
social determinants of health and their connection to public
policy. [GN]
DELTA DENTAL: Zvi et al. Sue over Non-Compete Deal
--------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN BEN ZVI; ALINA LUKASHEVSKY; and ADAM MERRIAM, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DELTA
DENTAL OF NEW YORK INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05628
(S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2020) alleges violation of the Sherman Act and
the Donnelly Act.
The Plaintiffs challenge the agreements entered into by Delta
Dental Plan Association ("DDPA") and its affiliated national
entities, including the Defendant. The market allocation agreements
at issue are reached and implemented through the "Delta Dental Plan
Association Membership Standards and Guidelines" and appendices
thereto, which are applicable to all member Plans and their
affiliates, and which set forth limitations on their ability to
compete. "Each Delta Dental plan's operations are restricted to the
state of domicile." No Plan competes on a "Delta Dental"-branded
basis with any other Plan in another state.
The Defendant agreed with other independent companies to allocate
markets into geographic areas in which they agree not to compete.
This contract, combination, or conspiracy is a per se violation of
both the Sherman Act and the Donnelly Act, the lawsuit contends,
saying its harm is reflected in suppression of compensation below
levels that would prevail in a competitive marketplace to dentists
who are members of the Delta Dental provider network, as well as in
the value and choices of dental care available to patients who are
subscribers to the dental insurance provided by the Defendant.
Delta Dental of New York Inc. operates as a non-profit
organization. The Organization offers dental benefits coverage for
individuals, groups, and families. Delta Dental of New York serves
customers in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory A. Frank, Esq.
Marvin L. Frank, Esq.
Asher Hawkins, Esq.
FRANK LLP
370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1706
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 682-1853
Facsimile: (212) 682-1892
E-mail: info@frankllp.com
DEUTSCHE BANK: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft
(NYSE: DB) between November 7, 2017 and July 6, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the important September 14, 2020 lead
plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Deutsche Bank investors under the
federal securities laws.
To join the Deutsche Bank class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1898.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) Deutsche Bank had failed to remediate deficiencies
related to its anti-money laundering compliance, its disclosure
controls, procedures, and internal control over financial
reporting, as well as its U.S. operations' troubled condition; (2)
as a result, Deutsche Bank failed to properly monitor customers
that Deutsche Bank itself deemed to be high risk, including, among
others, the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and two
correspondent banks, Danske Estonia and FBME Bank, which were both
the subjects of prior scandals involving financial misconduct; (3)
the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a
material negative impact on Deutsche Bank's financial results and
reputation; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
14, 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-1898.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
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com [GN]
DICK'S SPORTING: Court Denies Bid to Amend Battle Born Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BATTLE BORN MUNITIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. DICK'S
SPORTING GOODS, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-1418 (W.D.
Pa.), Judge Nora Barry Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania (i) denied Battle Born's Motion to
Amend Second Amended Complaint; (ii) dismissed Battle Born's Second
Amended Complaint; and (iii) denied as moot Dick's motion to
strike.
The commercial dispute between Battle Born and Dick's returns to
the Court on competing motions involving Battle Born's Second
Amended Complaint filed on Sept. 1, 2019, which seeks to convert
the lawsuit to a class action brought on behalf of hundreds of
unidentified vendors asserting breach of contract claims against
Dick's.
On May 3, 2019, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion granting a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss filed by Dick's, and denying its
corresponding Rule 12(f) motion to strike, as moot. Specifically,
it dismissed Battle Born's fraudulent inducement, negligent
misrepresentation and Bilt-Rite claims and also partially dismissed
its breach of contract claims to the extent that it sought
consequential damages or lost profits, as such relief is barred by
the parties' contract. The Court held that its dismissal was with
prejudice and denied Battle Born leave to amend its claims and
damages a second time. The Court subsequently denied Battle Born's
motion requesting leave to certify the Court's Order and to permit
an interlocutory appeal.
The Court held a case management conference on June 12, 2019 at
which time a case management order was entered establishing a
deadline for fact discovery of Oct. 10, 2019 and a deadline for the
filing of motions to amend pleadings and/or to add parties by Sept.
1, 2019. The case was also referred to mediation as part of the
mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution Program.
During the case management conference, the parties briefly
discussed the potential class action claim given a reference to
same in their Rule 26(f) Report, and the Court provided them with a
citation to its prior decision in Graham v. Progressive Direct Ins.
Co., denying leave to amend for the purpose of adding a class
action claim. The case was not resolved at the June 26, 2019 ADR
session and the parties proceeded to fact discovery. In a joint
status report filed on Aug. 15, 2019, the parties reported that
some documents and written discovery needed to be exchanged but
that they believed discovery will be completed by the Oct. 10, 2019
cut-off date.
On Sept. 1, 2019, Battle Born filed its Second Amended Complaint,
without consent of Dick's or leave of court. In its proposed class
action, Battle Born seeks to bring breach of contract claims
against Dick's on behalf of three separate classes of similarly
situated vendors: (i) vendors who involuntarily warehoused Dick's
branded inventory due to Dick's failure to take delivery, as
promised, within a commercially reasonable period; (ii) vendors
against whom Dick's took improper payment discounts; and (iii)
vendors against whom Dick's deducted chargebacks without
justification.
Dick's responded by moving to strike the pleading on Sept. 6, 2019.
Four days later, Battle Born filed a class action complaint
against Dick's in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada, asserting fraud and statutory claims under Nevada law, Born
Munitions, Inc. v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., Civ. A. No.
3:19-561, Docket No. 1 (D. Nev. Sept. 10, 2019). Without
mentioning the Nevada lawsuit, Battle Born requested a seven-day
extension of time to file its response to Dick's motion to strike,
which the Court granted.
On Sept. 27, 2019, Battle Born filed a motion for leave to file its
Second Amended Complaint, brief in support and a brief in
opposition to the motion to strike. Dick's submitted its brief in
opposition on Oct. 7, 2019. No further briefing has been
requested.
The parties dispute whether Battle Born has met its burden to
demonstrate that it should be granted leave to file its Second
Amended Complaint at this time. Battle Born maintains that it has
shown good cause for the proposed amendments and that Dick's will
not be prejudiced by same because it was made aware of the
potential class action at the outset of the litigation. Dick's
counters that it has been prejudiced by Battle Born's delays given
that fact discovery was scheduled to end on Oct. 10, 2019 and
further asserts that the case should proceed as to the remaining
breach of contract claim between these two entities only.
Having considered the parties' positions, Judge Fischer holds that
Battle Born has failed to demonstrate that its Second Amended
Complaint should be permitted under the prevailing standards
governing motions under both Rule 15 and Rule 16. With respect to
Rule 16, the Judge finds that Battle Born has not established good
cause for failing to adhere to the Sept. 1, 2019 deadline to file
motions to amend pleadings or add new parties and has not otherwise
acted with diligence in pursuing its class action claims.
Although she may deny Battle Born's motion on these grounds alone,
the Judge would also alternatively hold that it has failed to meet
its burden to permit the proposed amendment under Rule 15. For the
reasons already stated, she finds that Battle Born has unduly
delayed by waiting to seek leave to add its class action claims
until two weeks prior to the conclusion of the period for fact
discovery. The Judge believes that Dick's will be significantly
prejudiced if the class action claims are permitted because the
straightforward case between a retail sporting goods chain and one
of its vendors alleging a breach of a single agreement would be
transformed into a class action involving possibly hundreds of
vendors and alleged breaches of numerous different agreements
Dick's entered into with those entities.
All told, the Judge finds that Battle Born has failed to meet its
burden to demonstrate good cause to permit the untimely pleading
and that its delays in bringing the motion at this late stage of
the proceedings will prejudice Dick's which has defended, mediated
and discovered the case as a straightforward matter involving
alleging breaches of a single vendor agreement between it and one
of its vendors.
As in the Graham v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co. matter, the Judge
declines to exercise discretion to permit Battle Born to wholly
transform the litigation into a complex class action. It is also
her opinion that permitting the class action and reopening
discovery is not appropriate and would run counter to the dictates
of Rule 1 to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination
of every action and proceeding. Given her rulings and in the
interests of judicial economy, the Judge declines to specifically
analyze all of Dick's well-taken arguments challenging the
sufficiency of the class action allegations under Rule 23. Hence,
Dick's motion to strike will be denied as moot.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Fischer (i) denied Battle Born's
motion to amend, (ii) dismissed its Second Amended Complaint, and
(iii) denied as moot Dick's motion to strike.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://is.gd/oPgJzL from Leagle.com.
BATTLE BORN MUNITIONS INC., and a CLASS of similarly-situated
persons, Plaintiff, represented by John M. Shoreman, McFadden &
Shoreman & Mario Williams -- mwilliams@ndh-law.com -- NDH LLC.
DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., Defendant, represented by John C.
Hansberry -- jhansberry@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP,
Nathan Marketich -- nmarketich@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild
LLP & Patrick L. Abramowich -- pabramowich@foxrothschild.com -- Fox
Rothschild.
DPL ASSOCIATES: Faces Neretta FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DPL Associates, LTD.
The case is captioned as Manuella Neretta, on behalf of himself or
herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. DPL
Associates, LTD., Case No. 2:20-cv-03449-RPK-ARL (E.D.N.Y., July
30, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Rachel P. Kovner.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act. The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit. The suit
demands $1,000 in damages.
The Defendant is a collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Silver, Esq.
JACOB SILVER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
237 Club Dr.
Woodmere, NY 11598
Telephone: (718) 855-3834
Facsimile: (718) 534-0057
E-mail: silverbankruptcy@gmail.com
E GROUP LLC: Hinman Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD HINMAN, JR., Individually and for Others Similarly Situated
v. THE E GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00109-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., July
29, 2020), alleges that E Group did not pay overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Instead, E Group paid the Plaintiff, and other workers like him, at
the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in
excess of 40 in a workweek, according to the complaint.
Mr. Hinman was an hourly employee of E Group. He worked for E Group
in Waynesboro, Georgia, at the Vogtle Nuclear Station Power Plant.
E Group is an engagement marketing agency based in downtown
Minneapolis.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Troy A. Lanier, Esq.
TROY A. LANIER, PC
430 Ellis Street
Augusta, GA 30901
Telephone: 706-823-6800
E-mail: tlanier@tlanierlaw.com
EASTMAN KODAK: Bragar Eagel Reminds of October 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of investors that purchased Eastman Kodak Company
(NYSE: KODK) common stock between July 27, 2020 and August 7, 2020
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until October 13, 2020 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
The securities class action concerns several matters, including the
suspicious timing of insider trading activity in connection with
Kodak's July 28, 2020 announcement that it had reached an agreement
with the U.S. government to receive a $765 million loan to produce
pharmaceutical ingredients.
As news of the deal broke, Kodak, which had been trading under $2
per share, skyrocketed, and within two days, the stock was trading
around $60 per share, with 284 million shares changing hands. Just
prior to the announcement of the loan, insiders purchased or were
granted over 2 million shares of Kodak stock.
More specifically, the day before the deal was announced, the
company granted CEO James Continenza options for 1.75 million
shares, just under 29% of which vested immediately. As a result of
the suspicious timing of the announcement, lawmakers have asked
federal regulators to investigate securities transactions made by
the company and its executives around the time Kodak learned it
could receive the government loan, and the SEC has announced an
investigation. On August 7, 2020, the U.S. International
Development Finance Corporation said it was holding up the payout
of the loan as regulators look into insider trading activity.
On this news, the Company's stock price declined $4.15, or 28%,
from $14.88 per share on August 7, 2020, to $10.73 per share on
August 10, 2020.
The complaint, filed on August 13, 2020, alleges that during the
Class Period defendants engaged in a scheme to deceive the market
and a course of conduct that artificially inflated the prices of
Kodak's securities and operated as a fraud or deceit on Class
Period purchasers of Kodak's securities by failing to disclose to
investors that the company's financial results were materially
misleading and misrepresented material information. When
defendants' misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct were
disclosed and became apparent to the market, the prices of Kodak's
securities fell precipitously as the prior inflation came out of
the Company's stock price.
If you purchased Kodak common stock during the Class Period and
suffered a loss in excess of $150,000, are a long-term stockholder,
have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Melissa
Fortunato or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do
not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
EASTMAN KODAK: Faces Tang Suit Over Artificially Inflated Stocks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiandong Tang, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, JAMES V. CONTINENZA, AND DAVID
BULLWINKLE, Case No. 3:20-cv-10462 (D.N.J., Aug. 13, 2020), alleges
that the Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially
inflate the Company's stock price in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Kodak common stock from July 27,
2020, through August 7, 2020, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Exchange Act.
On July 27, 2020, Kodak issued a statement to media outlets based
in Rochester, New York, where it is headquartered, on the imminent
public announcement of a "new manufacturing initiative" involving
the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation ("DFC") and
the response to COVID-19. Following media publication of Kodak's
initial statement about the deal, the Company claimed this
information was released inadvertently. On the same day, to further
a scheme to profit from the use of material non-public information
about the deal before its official disclosure, Kodak granted its
CEO and Executive Chairman, Defendant Jim Continenza, 1.75 million
stock options at a conversion price of between $3.03 and $12 per
share.
On July 28, 2020, the price of Kodak's shares jumped 200%, from
$2.62 per share on July 27, 2020, to $7.94 per share, following
news that the Company had won a $765 million government loan from
the DFC under the Defense Production Act ("DPA") to produce
pharmaceutical materials, including ingredients for COVID-19 drugs.
Shares continued to surge by over 300% the next day to close at
$33.20 per share on July 29, 2020. This massive stock price
increase allowed Defendant Continenza and other Kodak insiders to
enrich themselves spectacularly from the compensation scheme, as
their stock options were now very much "in the money," the
Plaintiff contends.
In the days following the deal announcement, details began to
emerge revealing the Company's further deception surrounding the
compensation scheme. On August 1, 2020, a Reuters article reported
new details of the "unusual" 1.75 million option grant to Defendant
Continenza. The article emphasized that the options award "occurred
because of an understanding" between Continenza and Kodak's Board
of Directors "that had previously neither been listed in his
employment contract nor made public." On this news, Kodak's shares
fell $6.91 per share the next trading day, or 32%, from $21.85 per
share on July 31, 2020, to $14.94 per share on August 3, 2020.
Additionally, on August 4, 2020, Kodak Board member George
Karfunkel and his wife Renee Karfunkel disclosed to the Securities
and Exchange Commission a July 29, 2020 donation of 3 million of
their 6.3 million Kodak shares to a religious institution in
Brooklyn, New York, that he actually founded and controlled, a gift
valued at $116.3 million. As a result of the revelations on August
4, 2020, the Company's stock price dropped another $0.54, or 4%,
from $14.94 per share on August 3, 2020, to $14.40 per share on
August 4, 2020.
Finally, in response to increasing public awareness and
Congressional and regulatory scrutiny of Kodak's fraudulent scheme,
the DFC paused the deal. On August 7, 2020, after the market
closed, the DFC announced, "On July 28, we signed a Letter of
Interest with Eastman Kodak. Recent allegations of wrongdoing raise
serious concerns. We will not proceed any further unless these
allegations are cleared." On this news, the Company's stock price
declined $4.15, or 28%, from $14.88 per share on August 7, 2020, to
$10.73 per share on August 10, 2020.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
stock, the Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Kodak common stock during the Class
Period.
Kodak is a technology company that provides hardware, software,
consumables, and services to customers in commercial print,
packaging, publishing, manufacturing, and entertainment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 994-1700
Fax: 973/994-1744
Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Maya Saxena, Esq.
Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 3334
Phone: (561) 394-3399
Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
Email: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
jwhite@saxenawhite.com
lhooker@saxenawhite.com
- and -
Steven B. Singer, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
10 Bank Street, 8th Floor
White Plains, NY 10606
Phone: (914) 437-8551
Facsimile: (888) 631-3611
Email: ssinger@saxenawhite.com
EASTMAN KODAK: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey on behalf of those who acquired the Eastman Kodak
Company ("Kodak" or the "Company") (NYSE:KODK) securities during
the period from July 27, 2020 through August 7, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until October 12, 2020 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
According to the complaint, defendants throughout the Class Period
made materially false and/or misleading statements as they
misrepresented and failed to disclose material information
pertaining to the Company's business and operations, which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, the defendants failed to disclose that the Company
had granted several insiders millions of dollars' worth of stock
options immediately prior to the Company publicly disclosing that
it had received a $765 million loan from the U.S. International
Development Finance Corporation to produce drugs to treat COVID-19,
which defendants knew would cause Kodak's stock to immediately
increase in value once the deal was announced. In addition, while
in possession of this material non-public information, Company
insiders purchased tens of thousands of the Company's shares
immediately prior to the announcement, again at prices that they
knew would increase once news of the loan became public. As a
result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about Kodak's
business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis when made. When the true details
entered the market, the complaint claims that investors suffered
damages.
If you acquired Kodak securities during the Class Period, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. [GN]
EASTMAN KODAK: Rigrodsky & Long Announces Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock
of Eastman Kodak Company ("Kodak" or the "Company") (NYSE: KODK)
between July 27, 2020 and August 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the
"Complaint").
If you purchased shares of Kodak during the Class Period, or
purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Kodak,
and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Seth D.
Rigrodsky or Timothy J. MacFall at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300
Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at
(888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/cases-eastman-kodak-company.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted
materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations
and prospects. As a result of defendants' alleged false and
misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.
According to the Complaint, on July 27, 2020, Kodak issued a
statement to media outlets based in Rochester, New York, where it
is headquartered, on the imminent public announcement of a "new
manufacturing initiative" involving the U.S. International
Development Finance Corporation ("DFC") and the response to
COVID-19. Following media publication of Kodak's initial statement
about the deal, the Company claimed this information was released
inadvertently.
On the same day, to further a scheme to profit from the use of
material non-public information about the deal before its official
disclosure, Kodak granted its CEO and Executive Chairman, Defendant
Jim Continenza, 1.75 million stock options at a conversion price of
between $3.03 and $12 per share. Additionally, the Company awarded
45,000 stock options each to its CFO, Defendant David Bullwinkle,
Vice President Randy Vandagriff, and General Counsel Roger Byrd.
On the day these options were awarded, Kodak's stock price closed
at $2.62 per share, well below the lowest conversion price, meaning
these options were "out of the money" when they were awarded. That
would immediately change to an astronomical degree the very next
day.
On July 28, 2020, the price of Kodak's shares jumped 200%, from
$2.62 per share on July 27, 2020 to $7.94 per share, following news
that the Company had won a $765 million government loan from the
U.S. International Development Finance Corporation ("DFC") under
the Defense Production Act ("DPA") to produce pharmaceutical
materials, including ingredients for COVID-19 drugs. Shares
continued to surge by over 300% the next day to close at $33.20 per
share on July 29, 2020. This massive stock price increase allowed
Defendant Continenza and other Kodak insiders to enrich themselves
spectacularly from the compensation scheme, as their stock options
were now very much "in the money." Continenza alone saw the value
of his options go from zero to $50 million in just 48 hours.
On August 5, 2020, several Congressional committees sent a joint
letter to Defendant Continenza seeking documents about the loan,
insider trading, and stock options for their review of "DFC's
decision to award this loan to Kodak despite your company's lack of
pharmaceutical experience and the windfall gained by you and other
company executives as a result of this loan" which raised
"questions that must be thoroughly examined." The committees also
sent a document request to the DFC's Chief Executive Officer on the
same day, inquiring about the Kodak loan, which the letter noted
was "an organization that was on the brink of failure in 2012 and
was unsuccessful in its previous foray into pharmaceutical
manufacturing."
Finally, in response to increasing public awareness and
Congressional and regulatory scrutiny of Kodak's fraudulent scheme,
the DFC paused the deal. On August 7, 2020, after the market
closed, the DFC announced, "On July 28, we signed a Letter of
Interest with Eastman Kodak. Recent allegations of wrongdoing
raise serious concerns. We will not proceed any further unless
these allegations are cleared."
On this news, shares of Kodak fell almost 28%, closing at $10.73
per share on August 10, 2020, on heavy trading volume.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 13, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware and New York, has
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors
and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous
cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions,
shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative actions. [GN]
EASTMAN KODAK: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against Eastman Kodak Company ("Kodak" or the "Company") (NYSE:
KODK), and certain of its executive officers, (collectively,
"Defendants") on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Kodak common stock between July 27, 2020 and
August 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you purchased Kodak common stock during the Class Period and
wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be
filed with the Court by no later than October 13, 2020. You may
contact Lester Hooker (lhooker@saxenawhite.com), a Director of
Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the appointment
of lead plaintiff or your interest in the class action. You may
also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at
this time to be a class member.
Kodak is a technology company that traditionally provides
packaging, functional printing, graphic communications and
professional services for businesses. On May 14, 2020, President
Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order delegating authority to
the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation ("DFC") to
make loans under the Defense Production Act to increase supply
chains in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. Following the order,
Kodak negotiated with the DFC to receive a loan under this program.
In June 2020, Company insiders purchased tens of thousands of the
Company's shares. Then on July 27, 2020, the Company awarded its
Executive Chairman James Continenza ("Continenza") 1.75 million
stock options, and three other executives a total 135,000 stock
options. The following day, Kodak and the DFC announced that Kodak
would receive a $765 million loan to produce drugs to treat
COVID-19, the first loan made under the new government program.
In response to this announcement, Kodak's stock price shot up over
1,000%, an increase of $30.58 per share, from $2.62 per share on
July 27, 2020, to $33.20 per share at the close of trading on July
29, 2020. Due to this massive increase, the pre-announcement stock
purchases and stock options grants of insiders also skyrocketed in
value. Continenza alone saw the value of his July 27 options
grants increase to $50 million in just 48 hours.
The Complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Kodak and
certain of its executive officers. The action alleges that during
the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose
material information pertaining to the Company's business and
operations, which were known to Defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose
that the Company had granted Continenza and several other Company
insiders millions of dollars' worth of stock options, immediately
prior to the Company publicly disclosing that it had received the
$765 million loan, which Defendants knew would cause Kodak's stock
to immediately increase in value once the deal was announced. In
addition, while in possession of this material non-public
information, Continenza and other Company insiders purchased tens
of thousands of the Company's shares immediately prior to the
announcement, again at prices that they knew would increase
exponentially once news of the loan became public.
On August 1, 2020, a Reuters article reported new details of the
"unusual" 1.75 million option grant to Continenza, which "occurred
because of an understanding" between Continenza and Kodak's Board
of Directors "that had previously neither been listed in his
employment contract nor made public."
In reaction to the news, Kodak's stock price plummeted $6.91 per
share, to close at $14.94 on August 3, 2020-a decline of over 34%
per share.
Then on August 4, 2020, before the market opened, CQ Roll Call
reported that U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren submitted a letter to
the SEC requesting an investigation of the deal and Kodak for
apparent violations of securities laws and SEC regulations.
Senator Warren's letter stated that each Kodak insider stock
purchase "made while the company was involved in secret
negotiations with the government over a lucrative contract raises
questions about whether these executives potentially made
investment decisions based on material, non-public information
derived from their positions." On the same day, the Wall Street
Journal reported that the SEC commenced an investigation into "how
Kodak controlled disclosure of the loan, word of which began to
emerge on July 27, 2020." Additionally, the article stated that
"[t]he SEC is also expected to examine the stock options granted to
executives on July 27," which "instantly became profitable" when
Kodak's government loan was announced.
On this news, the Company's stock price dropped another $0.54, or
4%, from $14.94 per share on August 3, 2020, to $14.40 per share on
August 4, 2020.
The next day, it was reported that several Congressional committees
sent a joint letter to Continenza seeking documents about the loan,
insider trading, and stock options for their review of "DFC's
decision to award this loan to Kodak despite your company's lack of
pharmaceutical experience and the windfall gained by you and other
company executives as a result of this loan" which raised
"questions that must be thoroughly examined."
Finally, in response to increasing public awareness and
Congressional and regulatory scrutiny of Kodak's fraudulent scheme,
the DFC paused the deal. On August 7, 2020, after the market
closed, the DFC announced, "On July 28, we signed a Letter of
Interest with Eastman Kodak. Recent allegations of wrongdoing
raise serious concerns. We will not proceed any further unless
these allegations are cleared."
On this news, the Company's stock price declined $4.15, or 28%,
from $14.88 per share on August 7, 2020, to $10.73 per share on
August 10, 2020.
You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively
joining the class action at www.saxenawhite.com.
Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, and
California, concentrates its practice on prosecuting securities
fraud and complex class actions on behalf of institutions and
individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous
securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered
hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and
is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts
throughout the United States.
Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
Saxena White P.A.
7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
Tel: (561) 206-6708
Fax: (561) 394-3382
E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com [GN]
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Ramirez Sues Over Anti-Gambling Laws Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Ramirez, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-05672
(N.D. Cal., Aug. 13, 2020), is brought against the Defendant with
regard to its Loot Boxes that are allegedly a form of gambling and
violate California's anti-gambling laws.
Through its wildly popular video games it markets to consumers, EA
engages in predatory practices enticing consumers, including
children and adults, to engage in gambling and similar addictive
conduct in violation of this policy and other laws designed to
protect consumers and to prohibit such practices, the Plaintiff
alleges.
According to the complaint, not unlike Big Tobacco's "Joe Camel"
advertising campaign, EA relies on creating addictive behaviors in
consumers to generate huge revenues. EA is most well-known for its
sports franchise games, including its FIFA soccer, Madden NFL, NHL,
and NBA Live series of games. Over the last several years, EA's
sports franchise games have brought in billions of dollars in
significant part from in-game purchases by gamers. A large
percentage of EA's sports franchise game revenues come from the
in-game purchases known in the gaming industry as "loot boxes" or
"loot crates." The specific Loot Boxes in EA's sports franchise
games are called "Ultimate Team Packs."
EA's Ultimate Team Packs are Loot Boxes. Buying the Packs is
nothing more than a gambling bet, the Plaintiff contends. Purchased
using real money, the Ultimate Team Packs are simply wagers on
completely randomized chances within the game to win valuable
professional players and other items for the EA gamer's virtual
sports team. Higher rated players perform better in the virtual
games, so any gamer with higher-rated players has a competitive
advantage when competing. In fact, the only realistic way a gamer
can be competitive is to have highly rated players on the gamer's
virtual team. And the only way a gamer can obtain the most highly
rated players is to purchase the Ultimate Team Packs (i.e., a Loot
Box) and hope to overcome the odds to win a highly rated player
upon "opening" the Pack. Unsurprisingly, the highest rated players
in the game are also the most difficult to obtain, and least likely
to be received via Ultimate Team Packs.
The Plaintiff insists that EA is fully aware it violates gambling
laws, but it has conducted the cost-benefit analysis and has chosen
to go forward with its current "business model" because violating
the gambling laws is so profitable. EA acknowledges "governmental
organizations have applied existing gambling laws and regulations
to certain mechanics commonly within our games, including the
Ultimate Team mode associated with our sports franchise." EA is
aware of the consistent research findings on the predatory nature
of its Loot Boxes and EA could protect unsuspecting adults and
children by removing Loot Boxes from its games, the Plaintiff
avers. Instead, EA chooses massive short-term profits and merely
seeks to limit its liability with regard to investors and
securities litigation with disclosures buried in its public filings
that "Certain of our business models are subjects to new laws or
regulations…related to gambling," says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased and plays EA's FIFA and Madden NFL video
games on a Microsoft Xbox console.
Electronic Arts, Inc., is a video game company with its principal
place of business in Redwood City, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
Thomas J. O'reardon II, Esq.
Craig W. Straub, Esq.
BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619/338-1100
Fax: 619/338-1101
Email: tblood@bholaw.com
toreardon@bholaw.com
cstraub@bholaw.com
- and -
Andrew J. Brown, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW J. BROWN
501 W. Broadway, Ste. 1490
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 501-6550
Email: andrewb@thebrownlawfirm.com
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Schall Law Reminds of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Endo
International plc (NASDAQ: ENDP) ("Endo" or "the Company") for
violations of Sec.10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 8,
2017 and June 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), were
encouraged to contact the firm before August 18, 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. Endo and its subsidiaries played a far
larger role in the opioid crisis than it represented to the market.
The Company published false information directed towards healthcare
providers about the risks and benefits of its opioid drugs. The
facts opened the Company to significant regulatory scrutiny,
particularly by the state of New York. 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 Endo, 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]
ENERGY RECOVERY: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in Energy Recovery, Inc.
Shareholders who purchased shares in the company during the date
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
Energy Recovery, Inc. (NASDAQ:ERII)
Investors Affected : August 2, 2017 - June 29, 2020
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Energy Recovery, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company had different strategic perspectives
regarding commercialization of the Company's VorTeq technology than
Schlumberger Technology Corp., which had exclusive rights to the
use of VorTeq (ii) these differences created substantial risk of
early termination of the Company's exclusive licensing agreement
with Schlumberger; (iii) accordingly, the revenue guidance and
expectations of future license revenue was false and lacked
reasonable basis; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/energy-recovery-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=8586&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
ENERGY RECOVERY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 21 Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP issued the following statement:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Energy Recovery, Inc. ("Energy Recovery") (NASDAQ:
ERII) between August 2, 2017 and June 29, 2020. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York. To get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/energy-recovery-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8392&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) the Company had different strategic
perspectives regarding commercialization of the Company's VorTeq
technology than Schlumberger Technology Corp., which had exclusive
rights to the use of VorTeq (ii) these differences created
substantial risk of early termination of the Company's exclusive
licensing agreement with Schlumberger; (iii) accordingly, the
revenue guidance and expectations of future license revenue was
false and lacked reasonable basis; and (iv) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted
material facts.
If you suffered a loss in Energy Recovery you have until September
21, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]
ENERGY RECOVERY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 21 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Energy Recovery, Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
ERII Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/energy-recovery-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8583&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Energy Recovery, Inc. (NASDAQ:ERII)
ERII Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 2, 2017 -
June 29, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : September 21, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/energy-recovery-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8583&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Energy
Recovery, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had different
strategic perspectives regarding commercialization of the Company's
VorTeq technology than Schlumberger Technology Corp., which had
exclusive rights to the use of VorTeq (ii) these differences
created substantial risk of early termination of the Company's
exclusive licensing agreement with Schlumberger; (iii) accordingly,
the revenue guidance and expectations of future license revenue was
false and lacked reasonable basis; and (iv) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted
material facts.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
ENPHASE ENERGY: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminded investors of the August
17, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class
action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Enphase Energy,
Inc. ("Enphase" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ENPH) investors who
purchased securities between February 26, 2019 and June 17, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
On June 17, 2020, Prescience Point Capital Management issued a
report alleging, among other things, that "at least 39%, or $205.3
million, of [Enphase's] reported U.S. revenue is fabricated." The
report also claimed, citing former employees, that "a large portion
of [the Company's] astronomical growth over the past two years is
attributable to accounting gimmicks that artificially inflate
revenue and profits."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $13.72, or nearly 26%,
to close at $39.04 per share on June 17, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that its revenues, both U.S. and international, were inflated;
(2) that the Company engaged in improper deferred revenue
accounting practices; (3) that the Company's reported base points
expansion in gross margins were overstated; and that (4) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Enphase securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 17,
2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz,
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067
at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our
website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.
Frank R. Cruz
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz
Los Angeles
Tel No: 310-914-5007
E-mail: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
ERIE INSURANCE: Amy M. Cobb Seeks Pay for COVID-19 Loss
-------------------------------------------------------
AMY M. COBB D/B/A COBB'S SECOND TIME AROUND THRIFT SHOP,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ERIE INSURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY D/B/A
ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-09159-MAS-DEA
(D.N.J., July 20, 2020) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay
insurance for losses due to Covid-19.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that in response to the
business interruption claims filed by the Plaintiff and thousands
of other class members resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the
Defendant has systematically denied and continues to deny and
refuses to provide payment for insurance claims for coverage for
similar losses and expenses by insureds holding policies that are,
in all material respects, identical.
Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company operates as an
insurance firm. The Company provides auto, home, business, and life
insurance services. Erie Insurance Property and Casualty serves
clients in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence E. Bathgate, II, Esq.
John J. Reilly, Esq.
Ryan M. Farrell, Esq.
BATHGATE, WEGENER & WOLF, P.C.
One Airport Road, P.O. Box 2043
Lakewood, NJ 08701
Telephone: (732) 363-0666
E-mail: lbathgate@bathweg.com
jreilly@bathweg.com
rfarrell@bathweg.com
- and -
Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 740-1423
E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
adams@moskowitz-law.com
howard@moskowitz-law.com
- and -
William F. "Chip" Merlin, Jr., Esq.
Michael Howard Moore, Esq.
MERLIN LAW GROUP
777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 950
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 229-1000
Facsimile: (813) 229-3692
E-mail: cmerlin@MerlinLawGroup.com
mmoore@merlinlawgroup.com
- and -
Rene M. Sigman, Esq.
MERLIN LAW GROUP
515 Post Oak Blvd, Suite 510
Houston, TX 77027
Telephone: (713) 626-8880
Facsimile: (713) 626-8881
E-mail: rsigman@MerlinLawGroup.com
- and -
Christina Phillips, Esq.
MERLIN LAW GROUP
181 West Madison, Suite 3475
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 260-0806
Facsimile: (312) 260-0808
E-mail: cphillips@merlinlawgroup.com
ERIE INSURANCE: Dimitrios Sues Over Denial of Insurance Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dimitrios Zavogiannis d/b/a Gondola Restaurant, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE,
ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY, ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, AND
ERIE INSURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY, COLLECTIVELY D/B/A ERIE
INSURANCE GROUP, Case No. 4:20-cv-00039-PLR-SKL (E.D. Tenn., Aug.
12, 2020), seeks declaratory relief, damages and insurance coverage
owed under Erie Insurance's comprehensive business owners'
policies.
Since March 22, 2020, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee has issued a
series of Executive Orders ("Closure Orders") instructing all 6.8
million Tennessee residents to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19
by limiting social gatherings and remaining at home, with certain
exceptions. This prohibition is not merely causing severe financial
distress for restaurateurs and their employees, such closures
threaten the viability of Tennessee's restaurant industry, the
Plaintiff contends.
Gondola and many Tennessee restaurants, none of which bear fault
for statewide closures, were responsible business stewards, who
paid for business interruption insurance to protect against
situation like this. But insurance companies operating in
Tennessee--despite collecting premiums for such risks--are
categorically denying claims from restaurants arising from the
presence of the virus or Tennessee's mandated interruption of
business services, the Plaintiff alleges. Those denials are often
made with little or no investigation and without due regard for the
interests of insureds, the Plaintiff contends.
According to the complaint, Gondola has dutifully followed
Tennessee's mandates, issued to stem the spread of coronavirus in
the community. Facing serious financial harm, it has filed a claim
with Erie Insurance for business interruption coverage. Erie
Insurance swiftly denied the claim. Though its reasons are cursory,
the denial appears to be based on an unreasonable reading of its
policy, which tracks form policies issued throughout Tennessee on a
take-it-or-leave-it basis. That leaves Gondola in financial
straits--precisely the situation it sought to avoid when it
obtained coverage for business interruptions. Gondola and other
restaurants bought full-spectrum, comprehensive insurance for their
businesses--not just for tangible damage to their premises and
equipment.
Business interruptions are a particular concern of the restaurant
industry. Insurance coverage is important, if not vital, because
profit margins in the restaurant industry are slim and reserve
funds tend to be low. Gondola and other Tennessee restaurants
reasonably believed they had comprehensive coverage that would
apply to business interruptions under circumstances like these,
where they have done everything right to protect their businesses
and the public. But insurance companies like Erie Insurance are
cutting those lifelines--despite having pocketed significant
premiums for their policies, says the complaint.
Gondola is a sole proprietorship owned by Dimitrios Zavogiannis.
Erie Insurance Exchange is a company organized under the laws of
Pennsylvania with its headquarters in Erie, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Anthony Orlandi, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa Parks Ave., Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com
aorlandi@bsjfirm.com
- and –
Samuel Strauss, Esq.
Austin Doan, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
austind@turkestrauss.com
- and -
Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
Lisa LaFornara, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Email: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
llafornara@cohenandmalad.com
FABLETICS LLC: Faces Calcano Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fabletics, LLC. The
case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Fabletics, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-06446 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Fabletics is an American online subscription retailer that sells
women's sportswear, footwear and accessories, commonly referred to
as "athleisure."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
FE INVESTORS: Lieff Cabraser Alerts of Class Action Filing
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased the common stock of FirstEnergy Corp. ("FirstEnergy"
or the "Company") (NYSE: FE) between February 21, 2017 and July 21,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you purchased the common stock of FirstEnergy during the Class
Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by
no later than September 28, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.
FirstEnergy investors who wish to learn more about the litigation
and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or
contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at
1-800-541-7358.
Background on the FirstEnergy Securities Class Litigation
FirstEnergy, headquartered in Akron, Ohio, is an electric utility
company. The action alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding FirstEnergy's internal controls, business practices and
prospects. In particular, defendants boasted of FirstEnergy's
legislative "solutions" to difficulties with its nuclear
facilities, but failed to disclose that those "solutions" revolved
around an illicit campaign to influence state lawmakers to support
legislation favoring the Company. For nearly three years,
FirstEnergy and its affiliates channeled more than $60 million to
state politicians and lobbyists, including Ohio Speaker Larry
Householder, to ensure the passage of Ohio House Bill 6 ("HB 6"),
which provided a $1.3 billion ratepayer-funded bailout of
FirstEnergy's failing nuclear facilities. Defendants also falsely
stated that they were in compliance with state and federal laws and
regulations throughout the Class Period, when in reality they were
exposing the Company and its investors to undisclosed risks of
legal, financial, and reputational damage.
On July 21, 2020, federal agents announced the arrest of Speaker
Householder and four other persons, including a lobbyist for
FirstEnergy, in connection with a $60 million racketeering and
bribery scheme. The criminal complaint and affidavit described an
alleged pay-to-play scheme in which FirstEnergy influenced the
legislative process in order to guarantee the passage of HB 6,
including by defending the bill against a citizens ballot
initiative to overturn the bill. Prosecutors described the case as
the "largest bribery, money-laundering scheme" in Ohio history. On
this news, the price of FirstEnergy stock fell $7.01 per share, or
almost 17%, from its closing price of $41.26 on July 20, 2020, to
close at $34.25 on July 21, 2020, on heavy trading volume.
On July 22, 2020, Cleveland.com published an article providing
additional details regarding the Company's illicit actions in
connection with the scheme. On this news, the price of FirstEnergy
stock dropped an additional $7.16, or 20.9% from its closing price
of $34.25 per share on July 21, 2020, to close at $27.09 on July
22, 2020, on extremely heavy trading volume.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.
The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."
[GN]
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 28 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of FirstEnergy Corp.
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.
FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE)
Class Period: February 21, 2017 to July 21, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020
On July 21, 2020, federal agents announced the arrest of Ohio
Speaker Larry Householder and four other persons, including a
prominent FirstEnergy lobbyist, in connection with a $60 million
racketeering and bribery scheme.
On this news, the Company's share price fell by $7.01, or 17%, to
close at $34.25 per share on July 21, 2020.
On July 22, 2020, Cleveland.com published an article entitled
"FirstEnergy was relentless in quest to have Ohio legislature bail
out the utility's nuclear plants," which provided further details
regarding FirstEnergy's illicit activities.
On this news, the Company's share price fell by $7.16, or 21%, to
close at $27.09 per share on July 22, 2020.
The complaint, filed on July 28, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
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) that 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 ("HB6"), a $1.3 billion
ratepayer bailout for FirstEnergy's unprofitable nuclear
facilities; (3) that 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) that 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) that, as a result
of the foregoing, defendants' Class Period statements regarding
FirstEnergy's regulatory and legislative efforts were materially
false and misleading; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing,
FirstEnergy was subject to an extreme, undisclosed risk of
reputational, legal and financial harm.
For more information on the FirstEnergy class action go to:
https://bespc.com/FE
About Bragar Eagel
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results
do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
FIRSTENERGY CORP: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of the pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:
FirstEnergy Corp. (FE)
Class Period: 2/21/2017 - 7/21/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 28, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-firstenergy-corp-securities-litigation
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of September 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds
investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead
plaintiff in the class action litigation on behalf of investors who
purchased the common stock of FirstEnergy Corp. ("FirstEnergy" or
the "Company") (NYSE:FE) between February 21, 2017 and July 21,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you purchased the common stock of FirstEnergy during the Class
Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by
no later than September 28, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.
FirstEnergy investors who wish to learn more about the litigation
and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or
contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at
1-800-541-7358.
Background on the FirstEnergy Securities Class Litigation
FirstEnergy, headquartered in Akron, Ohio, is an electric utility
company. The action alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding FirstEnergy's internal controls, business practices, and
prospects. In particular, defendants boasted of FirstEnergy's
legislative "solutions" to difficulties with its nuclear facilities
but failed to disclose that those "solutions" revolved around an
illicit campaign to influence state lawmakers to support
legislation favoring the Company. For nearly three years,
FirstEnergy and its affiliates channeled more than $60 million to
state politicians and lobbyists, including Ohio Speaker Larry
Householder, to ensure the passage of Ohio House Bill 6 ("HB 6"),
which provided a $1.3 billion ratepayer-funded bailout of
FirstEnergy's failing nuclear facilities. Defendants also falsely
stated that they were in compliance with state and federal laws and
regulations throughout the Class Period when in reality, they were
exposing the Company and its investors to undisclosed risks of
legal, financial, and reputational damage.
On July 21, 2020, federal agents announced the arrest of Speaker
Householder and four other persons, including a lobbyist for
FirstEnergy, in connection with a $60 million racketeering and
bribery scheme. The criminal complaint and affidavit described an
alleged pay-to-play scheme in which FirstEnergy influenced the
legislative process in order to guarantee the passage of HB 6,
including by defending the bill against a citizens ballot
initiative to overturn the bill. Prosecutors described the case as
the "largest bribery, money-laundering scheme" in Ohio history. On
this news, the price of FirstEnergy stock fell $7.01 per share, or
almost 17%, from its closing price of $41.26 on July 20, 2020, to
close at $34.25 on July 21, 2020, on heavy trading volume.
On July 22, 2020, Cleveland.com published an article providing
additional details regarding the Company's illicit actions in
connection with the scheme. On this news, the price of FirstEnergy
stock dropped an additional $7.16, or 20.9%, from its closing price
of $34.25 per share on July 21, 2020, to close at $27.09 on July
22, 2020, on extremely heavy trading volume.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.
The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."
[GN]
GENERALI US: Refuses to Reimburse Cancelled Trips, Paterson Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tami Paterson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GENERALI U.S. BRANCH; GENERALI GLOBAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
D/B/A CSA TRAVEL PROTECTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AND INSURANCE
SERVICES; and CUSTOMIZED SERVICES ADMINISTRATORS, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-00266 (E.D. Tex., Aug. 13, 2020), accuses the Defendants of
breaching their contractual duty by refusing to issue reimbursement
for trip cancellations, under the terms of travel insurance
policies the Defendants issued to the Plaintiff.
According to the complaint, the Defendants contracted to indemnify
the Plaintiff for pecuniary and other losses and damages incurred
as a result of covered events that prevented insureds from taking
their planned trip. The Plaintiff's claims, as well as the claims
of each proposed class member, are supported by the written
provisions of the Master Policy for travel protection insurance
underwritten and administered to them by the Defendants, Master
Policy No. TMP10010 (the "Policy"). The Policy, and all CSA Travel
Protection Policies at issue for all other class members
nationwide, is identified as "Policy Form series T001."
The Defendants have caused substantial harm to the Plaintiff and
the proposed class by improperly refusing to issue reimbursement
for trip cancellations explicitly covered by the Policy, according
to the complaint. The Plaintiff has been completely denied
reimbursement for her Trip Cancellation Claim. The Defendants have
effectively adopted an approach to categorically issue denials to
every Claim arising during the natural disaster that was brought on
by COVID-19.
The Defendants refused to pay COVID-19 related trip cancellations
by others insured under the Policy, whether said claimants
submitted claims requesting indemnity for: (a) the Maximum Limit(s)
Per Person or Plan for Trip Cancellation as listed on their
respective Schedules of Benefits; (b) actual damages incurred due
to trip cancellations; or (c) the price of the premiums initially
paid by the insureds for Policies, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States residing in the
City of Copper Canyon in Denton County, Texas.
Generali U.S. is engaged in the business of issuing insurance
policies that are underwritten by Generali Group.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Riley L. Burnett, Jr., Esq.
Karen H. Beyea-Schroeder, Esq.
BURNETT LAW FIRM
3737 Buffalo Speedway, 18th Floor
Houston, TX 77089
Phone: (832) 413-4410
Email: Karen.schroeder@rburnettlaw.com
GLOBAL EQUIPMENT: Faces Monegro ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Equipment
Company Inc. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Global Equipment
Company Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-06409-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Global Equipment Company Inc. provides industrial equipment. The
Company offers wholesale distribution of miscellaneous industrial
supplies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Guidewire Software, Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the
cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
Guidewire Software, Inc. (NYSE:GWRE)
GWRE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 6, 2019 -
March 4, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 23, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/guidewire-software-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8412&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Guidewire Software, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company's
transition to the cloud was not going well; (2) that Guidewire's
cloud-based products needed to be improved to meet customer needs
and catch up with rival systems; (3) that the Company's failed
transition to the cloud was also hurting Guidewire's traditional
on-premise business; and (4) as a result, Guidewire's revenue
guidance, including guidance principally based on significantly
increasing demand for the Company's cloud-based products, was
baseless and unattainable.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 363-7500
E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Guidewire Software, Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
GWRE Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/guidewire-software-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8583&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Guidewire Software, Inc. (NYSE:GWRE)
GWRE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 6, 2019 -
March 4, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : September 23, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/guidewire-software-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8583&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Guidewire Software, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company's
transition to the cloud was not going well; (2) that Guidewire's
cloud-based products needed to be improved to meet customer needs
and catch up with rival systems; (3) that the Company's failed
transition to the cloud was also hurting Guidewire's traditional
on-premise business; and (4) as a result, Guidewire's revenue
guidance, including guidance principally based on significantly
increasing demand for the Company's cloud-based products, was
baseless and unattainable.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Portnoy Law Reminds of Sept. 23 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Guidewire Software, Inc. (NYSE: GWRE)
investors that acquired shares between March 3, 2016 and March 6,
2020. Investors have until September 23, 2020 to seek an active
role in this litigation.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company's transition to the cloud was not going well;
(2) Guidewire's cloud-based products needed to be improved to meet
customer needs and catch-up with rival systems; (3) the Company's
failed transition to the cloud was also hurting Guidewire's
traditional on-premise business; and (4) as a result, Guidewire's
revenue guidance, including guidance principally based on
significantly increasing demand for the Company's cloud-based
products, was baseless and unattainable. 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
23, 2020.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
Tel No: 310-692-8883
E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com [GN]
HARGREAVES LANSDOWN: Faces Class Action on YouTube Fundie Fallout
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Mcarthur at Financial Standards reports that UK
investment giant Hargreaves Lansdown is facing a potential class
action over its alleged promotion of Neil Woodford's funds.
The Woodford Equity Income Fund was spectacularly wound up after
its namesake star fundie Neil Woodford offered an emotional YouTube
apology for the fund's liquidity problems.
However, the proposed class action brought by UK firm RGL
Management is not targeting the now defunct Woodford Investment
Management but Hargreaves Lansdown.
The firm alleges that Hargreaves Lansdown continued to promote the
Woodford Equity Income Fund by including it in the recommended
funds making up its Wealth 50 list.
RGL Management wants to know whether Hargreaves Lansdown had more
knowledge of the potential issues facing the Woodford Equity Income
Fund that the average consumer would have.
The firm is asking for investors in the fund to register for the
litigation.
"Working with the assembled legal team, RGL is building on the
group of investors who have already approached us for help. With
sufficient numbers and litigation funding and ATE insurance in
place, RGL will commence legal proceedings on behalf of a
significant number of Woodford investors," RGL Management said.
"There will be claims for losses sustained directly as a result of
the collapse of the Woodford funds, as well as for 'loss of
opportunity' losses, suffered through missing out on alternative
investments that, in stark contrast to Woodford, would have
generated returns."
The potential action will be in partnership with commercial
litigation solicitors Wallace LLP. [GN]
HOME LOAN: Sued by Slater Over Discrimination Against Women on ML
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cecilia Slater, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. HOME LOAN INVESTMENT BANK, a Federal Savings Bank, Case
No. 4:20-cv-00405-CVE-FHM (N.D. Okla., Aug. 13, 2020), is brought
to seek damages and injunctive relief based on the Defendant's
discriminatory and unlawful policies, which treat women on
maternity leave different than other applicants, in violation of
the Fair Housing Act.
On May 22, 2020, Mrs. Slater and her husband sought a loan in the
amount of $41,548.00 (the "Loan") from the Bank to make
improvements to the home located at 400313 W. 600 Road, in Copan,
Oklahoma (the "Home"). Initially, Mrs. Slater's husband was the
only applicant as the couple originally thought his individual
income would be sufficient. However, due to a car loan Mr. Slater
obtained in his name during the financing process with the Bank,
the lender, Eric Schwartz informed Mr. Slater that he no longer met
the requirements for Loan due to the change in debt-to-income
ratio. As a result, Mrs. Slater was added as an applicant for the
Loan so that her income could be considered.
Mrs. Slater submitted her pay information for 2018 and 2019 as well
as current pay stubs. Upon review of Mrs. Slater's income
information, the Bank issued a non-binding verbal approval of the
Loan. However, after issuing the non-binding verbal approval, the
Bank's underwriter noticed that Mrs. Slater was on maternity leave.
At this point, the Bank notified the Slaters that "They won't let
me use your wife's income if she's not currently working. When does
Ms. Slater go back to work?" In response Mrs. Slater and her
husband provided the Bank with documentation that Mrs. Slater had
agreed to return to work following her maternity leave.
In accordance with Federal Law and company policy, Mrs. Slater
avers that her employer held her position for her while she was on
maternity leave and paid vacation time. Mrs. Slater submitted
documentation to the Bank demonstrating the same. In response, the
Bank stated "The letter won't help. I'm sorry." Mrs. Slater
continued to receive 100% of her usual pay from her employer while
on maternity leave and offered to provide documentation supporting
the same but the Bank still asserted that such documentation was
insufficient.
As a result of the Bank's discriminatory policy, Mrs. Slater
contends she has suffered financial injury, including (1) delay in
obtaining financing resulting in lost opportunity and loss of use
of the proposed home improvements which the Loan was intended to
support, and (2) unnecessary out of pocket expenses. Additionally,
Mrs. Slater suffered substantial emotional distress and
interference with her post-delivery recovery and time with her
newborn child, says the complaint.
Mrs. Slater resides in Copan, Oklahoma, and is the mother of one
minor child.
The Bank conducts business in Oklahoma, including accepting
applications from and issuing credit to Oklahoma residents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lysbeth George, Esq.
Maggie Dowdy, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LIZ GEORGE, PLLC
PO Box 1375
Blanchard, OK 73010
Phone: (405) 689-5502
Email: liz@georgelawok.com
maggie@georgelawok.com
HYPER WEAR: Calcano Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyper Wear, Inc. The
case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Hyper Wear, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-06447 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hyperwear is a producer of fitness equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Pelayo Sues Over Defect in Gamma 1.6L GDI Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Pelayo, Miles and Olivia McGregor, Sandra Morgan, Christina
and Seth Martin and Dorothy Rice, individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individual v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,
INC., HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. and KIA
MOTORS CORPORATION, Case No. 8:20-cv-01503 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 13,
2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to disclose
certain safety concerns to consumers with regard to their vehicles
that contain design, manufacturing, material and workmanship
defects.
The Plaintiff bring this lawsuit on behalf of all persons in the
United States, and in the alternative, on behalf of all persons in
the states of Florida, Missouri, and Virginia, who purchased or
leased Hyundai or Kia brand vehicles with a "Gamma" 1.6L GDI engine
("Class Vehicles").
The Defendants manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold the
Class Vehicles without disclosing that the Class Vehicles'
possessed a defect, which materially affects the ability of the
vehicles to provide safe, reliable transportation, the Plaintiffs
allege. They assert that the Class Vehicles contain design,
manufacturing, material, and/or workmanship defects, which cause
sudden stalling, excessive oil consumption, and premature engine
failure, as well as catastrophic and fast-moving fires while the
vehicles are being driven which destroy the vehicles, their
contents and can harm the passengers therein (the "Defect").
The Defect is the result of sub-standard, inconsistent and improper
procedures in manufacturing the Gamma engines, and/or poor quality
control procedures to ensure such engines do not reach consumers,
the Plaintiffs assert. They add that the Defect causes unsafe
driving conditions because the Class Vehicles have a significantly
greater chance of stalling, engine failure, or spontaneously
bursting into flame while being driven.
Despite knowledge of the Defect and its dangerous associated safety
risk, the Defendants failed to issue a comprehensive and effective
recall, fix the vehicles, and continued to sell vehicles with the
Defect, according to the complaint. The Defect presents a safety
risk for the Plaintiffs, other owners and lessees of Class
Vehicles, and the general public because, when the vehicles
suddenly decelerate or stop in the middle of the road, they subject
themselves and other vehicles to a high risk of collision and
personal injury, and when they burst into flames while being
driven, they cause a direct threat to the lives of the passengers
and surrounding vehicles and their passengers.
The Plaintiffs purchased Hyundai Accent vehicles.
The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold,
warranted, and/or serviced the Class Vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
Matthew J. Erausquin, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 703-273-7770
Fax: 888-892-3512
Email: craig@clalegal.com
matt@clalegal.com
- and -
Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
Newport News, VA 23601
Phone: 757-930-3660
Fax: 757-257-3450
Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com
- and -
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
Abigail J. Gertner, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 875-3000
Fax: (215) 875-4604
Email: rpaul@bm.net
agertner@bm.net
J2 GLOBAL: Kaskela Law Announces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against J2 Global, Inc. ("J2 Global") (NASDAQ: JCOM)
on behalf of investors who purchased shares of J2 Global's common
stock between October 5, 2015 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
J2 Global investors who suffered an investment loss in excess of
$100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus
Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258-1585, or online at
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/j2-global-inc/,for additional
information about this action and their legal rights and options.
As detailed in the complaint, on June 30, 2020, Hindenburg Research
published a report alleging that J2 Global had, among other things:
(i) failed to disclose questionable transactions with related
parties; (ii); utilized misleading accounting to hide
underperformance and impending impairments; and (iii) failed to
disclose a lack of board independence. Following the release of
the Hindenburg Research report, shares of the company's stock fell
$6.29 per share, or over 9% in value, to close on June 30, 2020 at
$63.21 per share.
IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased J2 Global's common
stock during the Class Period may, no later than September 8, 2020,
seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the
action.
Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities
fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation.
For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit
www.kaskelalaw.com.
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
Tel: (484) 258 - 1585
(888) 715 - 1740
E-mail: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]
J2 GLOBAL: Kirby McInerney Alerts of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of those who acquired J2 Global,
Inc. ("J2 Global" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: JCOM) securities
during the period from October 5, 2015 through June 29, 2020 (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until September 8, 2020 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) J2 Global engaged in undisclosed related party
transactions; (2) J2 Global used misleading accounting to hide
requisite impairments and underperformance in acquisitions; (3)
several so-called independent members of the Company's board of
directors and audit committee were not disinterested; and (4) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
If you acquired J2 Global securities during the Class Period, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. [GN]
J2 GLOBAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of J2 Global, Inc. ("J2 Global") (NASDAQ: JCOM) between
October 5, 2015 and June 29, 2020. You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. To get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/j2-global-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8571&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) J2 Global engaged in undisclosed related
party transactions; (2) J2 Global used misleading accounting to
hide requisite impairments and underperformance in acquisitions;
(3) several so-called independent members of the Company' board of
directors and audit committee were not disinterested; and (4) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.
If you suffered a loss in J2 Global you have until September 8,
2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Potts Suit Moved From Calif. to New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jaimie Potts, Kim Mileszko, Christina Luka,
Rebeca Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Johnson and Johnson Consumer Inc., formerly known as:
DOE 1 formerly known as: NEUTROGENA CORPORATION Successor in
Interest to Neutrogena Corporation; DOES 2-50, Inclusive; Case No.
2:20-cv-06323, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on Aug. 13, 2020.
The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-10406
to the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc. engages in the research
and development of products. The Company provides products for
newborns, babies, toddlers, and mothers, including cleansers, skin
care, moisturizers, hair care, diaper care, sun protection, and
nursing products.[BN]
KELLER WILLIAMS: Samataro Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Samataro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC.; and M 77, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-12185-MAG-RSW (E.D. Mich., Aug. 13, 2020), is brought to
stop the Defendants from directing real estate agents to violate
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Michigan consumer
protection laws by making unsolicited, prerecorded and other
telemarketing calls to consumers, including consumers, who have
registered their phone numbers with the National Do Not Call
Registry.
On June 27, 2017, the Plaintiff received an autodialed call to his
cell phone from a Keller Williams Somerset & Keller Williams Paint
Creek agent, Nick Zeoli. Zeoli was calling to offer the Defendants'
real estate brokerage services to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff
contends that he never consented to receiving solicitation calls
from any of the Defendants or their agents. The Plaintiff was not
looking to sell his home and was not otherwise seeking real estate
brokerage services.
The unauthorized telephone calls made on behalf of the Defendants
have harmed the Plaintiff in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and
invasion of privacy, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of his
phone in addition to the wear and tear on the phone's hardware
(including the phone's battery) and the consumption of memory on
the phone, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Macomb, Michigan resident.
Keller Williams is a Texas incorporated and headquartered
corporation that conducts business throughout Michigan and the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George Blackmore, Esq.
BLACKMORE LAW PLC
21411 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200
Southfield, MI 48076
Phone: (248) 845-8594
Facsimile: (855) 744-4419
Email:george@blackmorelawplc.com
- and -
Stefan Coleman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (877) 333-9427
Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
Email: Law@StefanColeman.com
- and -
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
KIRKLAND LAKE: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in Kirkland Lake Gold
Ltd. Shareholders who purchased shares in the company during the
date listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible
Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. (NYSE:KL)
Investors Affected : January 8, 2018 - November 25, 2019
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Kirkland lacked adequate internal controls over
financial reporting, especially as it relates to its projections of
risks, reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs; (ii) 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.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/kirkland-lake-gold-ltd-loss-submission-form/?id=8586&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
L.C. INDUSTRIES: Monegro Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against L.C. Industries, Inc.
The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. L.C. Industries, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-06410 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
LC Industries Inc. operates as a non-profit organization. The
Organization offers employment to people, who are blind and
severely disabled, as well as serves through job training and
upward mobility.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
LAKE CITY CREDIT: Huaracha Sues in W.D. Tex. Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lake City Credit,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Diana Huaracha, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lake City Credit,
LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 4:20-cv-00059 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 13,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Lake City Credit helps find a creative and affordable solution
involving debt collection.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
MDL 2782: Curry v. PHC-Cleveland Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ETHICON PHYSIOMESH FLEXIBLE COMPOSITE HERNIA
MESH PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2782, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
entered an order transferring the action styled, CURRY v.
PHC-CLEVELAND, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:20-00058, from the Northern
District of Mississippi to the Northern District of Georgia and,
with the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable
Richard W. Story for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiff in the action (Curry) moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to
vacate the Panel's order that conditionally transferred her action
to MDL No. 2782. Defendants Ethicon, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson
(together, Ethicon) oppose the motion to vacate.
After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds
this action involves common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2782, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. No party disputes that Curry shares questions of fact
with MDL No. 2782. Like many of the already-centralized actions,
it involves factual questions arising out of allegations that
defects in defendants' Physiomesh hernia mesh can lead to
complications when implanted inpatients.
In support of the motion to vacate, plaintiff argues that removal
of her action was improper, and the transferor court should decide
her motion for remand to state court. Jurisdictional issues do not
present an impediment to transfer of factually related cases, as
plaintiff can present these arguments to the transferee judge.
A full-text copy of the Court's August 7, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/Q2m35x
MDL 2843: Wilson v. Facebook Moved to Northern Dist. of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FACEBOOK, INC., CONSUMERPRIVACY USER PROFILE
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2843, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order
transferring the action styled, WILSON v. FACEBOOK, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:20-00189, from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to
the Northern District of California and, with the consent of that
court, assigned it to the Honorable Vince Chhabria for inclusion in
the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Wilson, proceeding pro se, moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the
Panel's order that conditionally transferred his action to MDL No.
2843. Facebook opposes the motion to vacate.
After considering the parties' arguments, Judge Caldwell finds this
action involves common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2843, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. The actions in MDL No. 2843 arise out of allegations
that Cambridge Analytica and other defendants exploited Facebook's
platform to obtain user data, and that Facebook should have imposed
more robust controls on the use of data by third party applications
to prevent this conduct. Plaintiff alleges that, in March 2018,
Facebook disclosed a "data breach that occurred when data company
'Cambridge Analytica' harvested private user data without consent."
He alleges that he mailed Facebook a "bill" for $100 million on
three separate occasions to collect for the alleged abuse of his
private data, and that, in failing to respond, Facebook accepted
that it owes him a debt.
In support of his motion to vacate, plaintiff argues that his
action is unlike those in MDL No. 2843 because (1) he is merely
collecting a "debt," (2) he is not seeking to represent a class,
and (3) his bill mentions "abuse." We do not find these arguments
persuasive. The debt plaintiff claims he is owed is based on the
alleged harvesting of his Facebook user data by Cambridge
Analytica. Plaintiff's allegations therefore fall squarely within
the ambit of the MDL. Plaintiff's argument that it would be more
efficient for the transferor court to enter default in what he
characterizes as a debt collection action wrongly assumes that
liability is undisputed. Moreover, the MDL No. 2843 plaintiffs do,
in fact, allege that their Facebook user data was misused.
Furthermore, Section 1407 "does not require a complete identity or
even majority of common factual issues as a prerequisite to
transfer." And "the presence of additional facts or differing legal
theories is not significant where, as here, the actions still arise
from a common factual core." That Wilson does not allege class
claims does not preclude transfer.
Plaintiff also argues that transfer will cause him inconvenience.
As the Panel has held, while it might inconvenience some parties,
transfer of a particular action often is necessary to further the
expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole. The
transferee judge is in the best position to structure proceedings
so as to minimize inconvenience to any individual party.
A full-text copy of the Court's August 7, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/V7v2Ln
MDL 2885: Evans v. 3M Co. Moved to Northern District of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUGPRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2885, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order
transferring the action styled, EVANS v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A.
No. 6:20-03085 from the Western District of Missouri to the
Northern District of Florida and, with the consent of that court,
assigned it to the Honorable M. Casey Rodgers for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiff in the Evans action (Evans) moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to
vacate the Panel's order that conditionally transferred the action
to the Northern District of Florida for inclusion in MDL No. 2885.
Defendants 3M Company and Aearo Technologies, LLC, oppose the
motion to vacate.
After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds
that this action involves common questions of fact with the actions
transferred to MDL No. 2885, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. The actions in MDL No. 2885 arise out of allegations
that defendants' Combat Arms earplugs were defective, causing
plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Plaintiffs in
the MDL No. 2885 actions also allege that defendant Aero falsified
test results for the earplugs and used modified fitting
instructions that provided more protection to users, but that those
instructions were not disclosed to plaintiffs. Like plaintiffs in
the MDL No. 2885 actions, the Evans plaintiff alleges that (1) the
flanges on Combat Arms earplugs fold back when used as instructed,
loosening the seal in the ear canal of the user; (2) the testing of
the earplugs revealed a proper method of insertion that was not
communicated to users; (3) defendants falsely reported the
performance rating of the earplugs; and (4) consequently, plaintiff
suffers from hearing loss and tinnitus. The action thus squarely
falls within the ambit of MDL No. 2885.
Plaintiff argues that his action is unique because he brings solely
Missouri state law claims and includes claims against John Doe
independent contractor defendants. But the Panel repeatedly has
held that "Section 1407 does not require a complete identity of
common factual issues as a prerequisite to transfer, and the
presence of additional facts or differing legal theories is not
significant when, as here, the actions still arise from a common
factual core." Plaintiff's claims against 3M and Aero overlap
considerably with the MDL No. 2885 claims, as will discovery in
Evans and the MDL.
Plaintiff also argues that transfer will cause him inconvenience
and delay. While it might inconvenience some parties, transfer of
a particular action often is necessary to further the expeditious
resolution of the litigation taken as a whole.
Finally, plaintiff argues that removal of his action was improper,
and the transferor court should be permitted to rule on his motion
to stay and conduct jurisdictional discovery to establish that the
transferor court is without subject matter jurisdiction. But the
Panel consistently has held that jurisdictional issues generally do
not present an impediment to transfer. Plaintiff can present his
remand arguments to the transferee judge.
A full-text copy of the Court's August 7, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/tr8M0u
MDL 2945: 10 Ahern Rentals Trade Secret Suits Moved to W.D. Mo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: AHERN RENTALS, INC., TRADE SECRET LITIGATION,
MDL No. 2945, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring 10
actions to the Western District of Missouri and, with the consent
of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Beth Phillips for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Common defendant EquipmentShare.com Inc. moves under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407 to centralize this litigation in the District of
Nevada. This litigation currently consists of ten actions pending
in eight districts. The Panel also has been notified of two
potentially-related actions in the Northern District of Texas and
the Western District of Missouri. Responding defendants -- 13
individuals named in nine actions -- join the motion. Common
plaintiff in all actions, Ahern Rentals, Inc., opposes
centralization and, if the Panel orders centralization over
plaintiff's objections, supports selection of the District of
Nevada as the transferee district.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, Judge
Caldwell finds that the actions involve common questions of fact,
and that centralization in the Western District of Missouri will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share
factual questions arising from allegations of a nationwide scheme
by EquipmentShare to capture market share in the equipment rental
business from Ahern by (1) luring away its employees and customers,
and (2) using Ahern's confidential and proprietary information and
trade secrets. Centralization will eliminate duplicative
discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
In opposing centralization, plaintiff argues that the allegations
and discovery in these actions are focused on the individual
defendants and their alleged misconduct, which plaintiff claims is
"highly localized." Plaintiff alleges that the individual
defendants, all of whom are former Ahern employees now employed by
EquipmentShare, assisted EquipmentShare in its scheme by taking
actions such as soliciting Ahern employees and customers and taking
Ahern confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets
while still employed by Ahern. While plaintiff alleges misconduct
unique to each individual defendant, EquipmentShare is alleged to
have engaged in a "nationwide conspiracy" to encourage and abet
such conduct by Ahern employees. According to Ahern,
EquipmentShare intends to ruin Ahern's business nationwide and
steal its market share. These allegations are most fully set forth
in the complaint in one District of Nevada action (the RICO
action), which names only EquipmentShare and asserts a nationwide
conspiracy in violation of federal racketeering and antitrust
statutes, among other claims. The RICO complaint includes as
evidence of this conspiracy many of the allegations made against
the individual defendants in more than half of the actions also
before the Panel. Overlapping discovery between at least these
actions and the RICO action therefore is likely. And indeed,
defendants assert that Ahern has served overlapping discovery
requests and deposition notices already.
Ahern also argues that informal coordination is a practicable and
preferable alternative to centralization, particularly as
EquipmentShare is represented by common counsel in all actions.
The Panel has held that Section 1407 centralization "should be the
last solution after a considered review of all other options." But
discovery in these actions, including when to begin taking it and
its scope, already has been contentious. EquipmentShare cites an
increasing number of discovery disputes in the underlying actions
as evidence that informal coordination is not feasible.
On balance, Judge Caldwell finds that centralization is preferable
to informal coordination here. While the Judge strongly encourages
informal coordination, proceedings to date indicate that a single
court can more effectively manage the discovery disputes that have
arisen and appear likely to arise, including those relating to
discovery from third party witnesses, depositions of apex
witnesses, and the scope of relevant discovery, generally.
Moreover, there are twelve actions pending in ten districts, and
Ahern is represented by different counsel in half of the pending
actions. Consequently, voluntary coordination across these
dispersed districts appears problematic.
Judge Caldwell will centralize these actions in the Western
District of Missouri, where the parties revealed at oral argument
that a related action recently was filed by EquipmentShare against
Ahern. EquipmentShare is headquartered in Columbia, Missouri, and
therefore, relevant documents and witnesses likely will be found
there. The Judge will assign these actions to the Honorable Beth
Phillips, an experienced jurist with the ability and willingness to
manage this litigation efficiently. The Panel is confident she
will steer this matter on a prudent course.
A full-text copy of the Court's August 7, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/XFcWp3
MDL 2949: 40 Hip Implant Suits vs. Wright Medical Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: PROFEMUR HIP IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2949, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order
transferring 40 actions to the Eastern District of Arkansas and,
with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable
Kristine G. Baker for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
On the other hand, the Court has denied centralization of the
action styled, BURKHART v. WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC., ET
AL.,C.A. No. 2:17-08561.
Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Arkansas Simpson action and
the Western District of Wisconsin Chadderdon action move under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in the
Eastern District of Arkansas. These cases concern alleged defects
in the Wright Medical and Microport Profemur line of modular hip
implants, which were offered in titanium and cobalt chromium
alloys.
Plaintiffs' motion includes the 41 actions listed on Schedule A,
which are pending in 25 districts. An action pending in the
District of Arizona (Mulvania) and on the motion to centralize was
dismissed during the pendency of the motion.
Since plaintiffs filed this motion, the parties have notified the
Panel of 21 additional potentially related actions. Wright Medical
defendants and MicroPort Orthopedics Inc. oppose centralization.
If an MDL is created, they suggest centralization in the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
Plaintiffs in 17 actions support centralization. They disagree as
to selection of transferee district, but suggest the following: the
Eastern District of Arkansas (primary choice of plaintiffs in 15
cases, alternative choice of plaintiffs in two cases), the District
of Minnesota (primary choice of plaintiffs in two cases,
alternative choice of plaintiffs in five cases), the District of
Arizona (alternative choice of plaintiffs in the District of
Arizona Casey action), the Central District of California
(alternative choice of plaintiffs in the Central District of
California Bodily action), the District of Massachusetts (the
alternative choice of plaintiffs in two cases). Plaintiff in the
Central District of California Burkhart action does not oppose
centralization but requests that her action be excluded from any
MDL due to its advanced procedural posture.
After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of Arkansas
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All actions
involve common factual questions about the design, marketing and
performance of the Profemur line of modular hip implants, including
both titanium femoral necks and those made of cobalt chromium
(CoCr). Plaintiffs contend that the modular devices are prone to
micromovements that lead to fluid ingress into the bore, which
leads to fretting and corrosion in the stem-neck junction, which in
turn leads to metallosis and increased blood metal levels and, at
times, fracture of the devices. Centralization will avoid
duplicative discovery, including costly expert discovery, on such
complex issues as the design, testing, manufacturing, and marketing
of the Profemur modular hip implant system and related motion
practice. Further, the Judge notes that centralization is
consistent with the Panel's past decisions in other similar hip
implant dockets that it has centralized in the recent past.
Wright and Microport oppose centralization for several reasons.
They argue that there are insufficient common fact questions among
the actions, that informal cooperation is workable, and that
centralization will prove inefficient given the varying procedural
postures of the actions. The Judge is not persuaded by these
arguments. The actions share numerous questions of fact, which is
not surprising in light of the similarities of the titanium and
CoCr devices. As plaintiffs note, the taper of the neck, the bore
of the stem, and the tolerances between the neck and stem at their
junction are identical across the entire Profemur family,
regardless of the alloy used for the neck component. Moreover, as
plaintiffs assert, the 2009 addition of the CoCr modular neck to
the Profemur line was a product extension, and defendants'
marketing of the Profemur line was the same, regardless of the
alloy of the modular neck. The surgical techniques that are
published by defendants for promotion to surgeons reportedly do not
account for any difference between the alloys. Further, plaintiffs
assert that all Profemur devices are distributed with the same
labeling and Information For Use in product packaging, and the
Profemur component parts were manufactured at Wright's facility in
Arlington, Tennessee, which was later purchased by Microport.
The number of actions and involved districts, and the substantial
similarity of the claims asserted by the various plaintiffs,
suggest to the Panel that centralization will result in significant
efficiency and convenience benefits for the parties and the courts.
There already are several dozen pending cases: 41 cases and 21
potential tag-along actions, with a significant number of
plaintiffs' and defense counsel involved. Including the potential
tag-along actions, 49 pending Profemur cases were filed since 2019.
Placing the actions before a single judge (as opposed to several
dozen) will result in a significant savings of judicial and party
resources. The sheer number of counsel, cases and judges involved
in this litigation make informal coordination impractical. As an
added benefit, centralization will allow for uniform resolution of
discovery issues and facilitate coordination with the three
Tennessee dockets (titanium neck claims, CoCr neck claims against
Wright, and CoCr claims against Microport) that are being
coordinated in Shelby County, Tennessee.
Incorporating the more advanced actions may prove challenging, but
doing so appears preferable at this stage to excluding all
longer-pending actions. The Panel is aware that prior rulings
concerning motions to dismiss and discovery also have the potential
to complicate pretrial proceedings in a Profemur MDL. The advanced
procedural status of some cases may weigh in favor of expedited
remand for trial once the transferee judge has had the time to
address any common discovery, summary judgment and Daubert issues.
But the Panel need not decide the exact course of pretrial
proceedings in the handful of advanced Profemur actions, as that is
a matter dedicated to the discretion of the transferee judge.
Without a doubt, there will be some individualized factual issues
in each action, but these issues do not negate the efficiencies to
be gained by centralization. The Panel has previously stated that
"[a]lmost all personal injury litigation involves questions of
causation that are plaintiff-specific. Those differences are not
an impediment to centralization where common questions of fact
predominate." In addition to the specific causes of the failure of
each plaintiff's device, the cases now before the Panel implicate
numerous common issues concerning the development, manufacture,
testing, regulatory history, promotion, and labeling of the
Profemur devices. The Panel notes that the transferee judge might
find it useful, for example, to establish different tracks for the
different alloys and the different modes of failure -- e.g.,
fretting and corrosion and fracture of the modular neck component.
Plaintiff in the Central District of the California Burkhart action
requests exclusion from the MDL. The parties recently informed the
Central District of California that they had reached a settlement
of Burkhart and needed a short time to finalize the paperwork. The
Panel will grant the Burkhart plaintiff's request to exclude her
action, as pretrial proceedings likely have concluded in Burkhart.
If the parties fail to finalize the settlement, then they should
notify the Panel of the pendency of Burkhart as a potential
tag-along action.
Judge Caldwell is persuaded that the Eastern District of Arkansas
is the appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Most
plaintiffs and defendants support Eastern District of Arkansas.
Two Profemur cases are pending in this district before Judge
Kristine G. Baker, who has not yet had an opportunity to preside
over an MDL docket. Little Rock offers an accessible transferee
forum for this litigation. Moreover, the Eastern District of
Arkansas is located near the Wright and Microport defendants'
Memphis headquarters, where relevant documents and witnesses may be
found.
A full-text copy of the Court's August 7, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/b5Y4WJ
MDL 2951: Court Centralizes 4 Suits vs. StubHub
-----------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: SECONDARY TICKET MARKET REFUND LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2951, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring four
actions against StubHub, Inc. to the Northern District of
California and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to
the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pending there.
These four actions are:
Northern District of California
ALCARAZ v. STUBHUB, INC., C.A. No. 4:20-02595
KOPFMANN v. STUBHUB, INC., C.A. No. 4:20-03025
Southern District of New York
REYNOLDS v. STUBHUB, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-03508
Western District of Wisconsin
MCMILLAN v. STUBHUB, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20-00319
On the other hand, Judge Caldwell has denied the centralization of
two actions pending against defendants other than StubHub:
Northern District of Illinois
NELLIS, ET AL. v. VIVID SEATS LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-02486
Southern District of New York
TRADER v. SEATGEEK, INC., C.A. No. 1:20-03248
In addition, the Judge renamed the caption of this litigation to
"In re: StubHub Refund Litigation."
Plaintiffs in three actions move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to
centralize this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois or,
alternatively, the Western District of Wisconsin. This litigation
consists of six actions pending against three competing players in
the secondary ticket market that are pending in four districts as
well as two potential tag-along actions in the Northern District of
California.
The parties' positions on centralization vary. Defendant Vivid
Seats LLC opposes creation of an industry-wide MDL; if one is
created over its objections, it suggests a Northern District of
Illinois transferee forum. Defendant SeatGeek, Inc., opposes
centralization. Defendants StubHub, Inc., and Last Minute
Transactions Inc. (StubHub) oppose industry-wide centralization but
support creation of a StubHub-only MDL in the Western District of
Wisconsin or the Northern District of Illinois. Moving plaintiffs
alternatively support creation of an MDL comprised solely of
actions against defendant StubHub in the Northern District of
Illinois or, alternatively, the Western District of Wisconsin.
Responding plaintiffs in two Northern District of California
actions against StubHub oppose centralization. Plaintiff in the
Northern District of California Kopfmann action also suggests
creating a StubHub-only MDL in the Northern District of
California.
After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds few
efficiencies to be gained by creating an industry-wide MDL that
combines claims against Vivid Seats and SeatGeek with claims
against StubHub. Any general factual commonality across the
actions appears to be superficial at best. The Panel is typically
skeptical of requests to centralize claims filed against multiple
defendants who are competitors in a single MDL because it often
will not promote judicial efficiency or serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses. Plaintiffs have not persuaded the Panel
that an industry-wide MDL is necessary, or even desirable, here.
Plaintiffs point to the common need in all cases to determine which
events were cancelled or rescheduled on a nationwide basis. But
the Panel sees no reason – particularly with counsel for movants
representing plaintiffs in three actions brought against,
respectively, StubHub, Vivid Seats and SeatGeek – that this
seemingly straightforward task could not be informally coordinated.
All defendants are separate businesses that employed different
terms of use, different arbitration agreements, different marketing
and different choice of law provisions. There are no allegations
of a conspiracy and no defendant is named in an action alongside
another vendor competitor. Creating an industry-wide MDL for all
three defendants would seem to complicate pretrial proceedings more
than it would streamline them, so the Panel denies deny this
request.
As for the parties' request for the creation of a StubHub-only MDL,
Judge Caldwell finds that the actions against StubHub involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization of actions
against StubHub in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions involve
common factual issues arising from similar putative nationwide
class actions alleging that StubHub wrongfully changed its policies
for refunds for cancelled or rescheduled events as a result of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs allege that StubHub, which
reportedly touts itself as the "world's largest ticket marketplace,
"for years prior to COVID-19 had assured customers, via its
"FanProtect Guarantee, " that ticket purchasers would receive full
refunds for cancelled events. On or about March 12, 2020, StubHub
announced that it would issue a 120% credit instead of a refund
when an event was cancelled, regardless of the purchase date.
StubHub later offered the choice of a refund only to customers in
fourteen states with consumer protection laws that require refunds.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; avoid
inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly on class certification;
and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the
judiciary.
Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California actions assert
that voluntary cooperation among the parties would be superior to
formal centralization of an industry-wide or StubHub-only MDL.
Although the Panel encourages the parties to cooperate to the
extent possible, Judge Caldwell concludes that creation of a
StubHub-only MDL is warranted in these circumstances. Including
potential tag-along actions, there are six putative nationwide
class actions pending in four districts, and it was apparent from
oral argument that the parties have yet to agree on transfer to a
single district.
The Judge is persuaded that the Northern District of California,
where four cases against StubHub are pending and where StubHub is
based, is an appropriate transferee district. All actions against
StubHub were filed within a few weeks of each other, and no action
has advanced significantly further than any other action.
Centralization before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., allows the
Panel to assign this litigation to an able jurist who has
experience presiding over complex, multidistrict litigation. Judge
Caldwell is confident that Judge Gilliam will steer these cases on
a prudent course.
A full-text copy of the Court's August 6, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/ycNfVd
MEI PHARMA: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of MEI Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: MEIP) between August 2,
2017 and July 1, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for MEI Pharma investors under the federal
securities laws.
To join the MEI Pharma class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1919.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) MEI Pharma overstated Pracinostat's potential efficacy as
an acute myeloid leukemia ("AML"), treatment for the target
population; (2) consequently, the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial was
unlikely to meet its primary endpoint of overall survival; (3) all
the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a
material negative impact on the Company's financial condition and
prospects for Pracinostat; and (4) 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 9,
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-1919.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN]
MERCURY LUGGAGE: Faces Monegro ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercury Luggage
Manufacturing Company. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mercury
Luggage Manufacturing Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-06412 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mercury Luggage Manufacturing Company manufactures trunks and
luggage. The Company offers footlockers and trunks, luggage, sport
bags, cases to corporations, pro and college sports teams, and
retail shops.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
MODERN MARKETING: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Modern Marketing
Concepts, Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Modern Marketing
Concepts, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-06421 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Modern Marketing Concepts, Inc., provides professional services.
The Company offers sales optimization, training, and leadership
development program.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
MOUNT NITTANY: Faces Mahoney ADA Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MOUNT NITTANY
VINEYARD & WINERY, INC. The case is styled as John Mahoney, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MOUNT
NITTANY VINEYARD & WINERY, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-03958 (E.D. Pa.,
Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mt. Nittany Vineyard & Winery is a family farm winery in the heart
of central Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Phone: (215) 981-5400
Email: dglanzberg@aol.com
NATIONAL GENERAL: Post Securities Suit Balks at Sale to Allstate
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Post, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. NATIONAL GENERAL HOLDINGS CORP., BARRY KARFUNKEL,
ROBERT KARFUNKEL, BARRY ZYSKIND, DONALD DECARLO, PATRICK FALLON,
BARBARA PARIS, JOHN MARSHALECK, and JOHN D. NICHOLS, JR., Case No.
1:20-cv-01069-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 13, 2020), stems from a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which the Company will be acquired by The
Allstate Corporation and Bluebird Acquisition Corp.
The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 for the omission of material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction.
On July 7, 2020, National General's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Allstate. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, National
General's stockholders will receive $32.00 in cash plus a special
dividend equal to $2.50 in cash for each share of National General
common stock they own.
On August 6, 2020, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy
Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated the Exchange Act in connection with the Proxy Statement.
Among other things, the Proxy Statement omits material information
regarding the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor
in connection with the Proposed Transaction, J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC.
The omissions and false and misleading statements in the Proxy
Statement are material in that a reasonable stockholder will
consider them important in deciding how to vote on the Proposed
Transaction, according to the complaint. In addition, a reasonable
investor will view a full and accurate disclosure as significantly
altering the total mix of information made available in the Proxy
Statement and in other information reasonably available to
stockholders. The Proxy Statement is an essential link in causing
plaintiff and the Company's stockholders to approve the Proposed
Transaction. Because of the false and misleading statements in the
Proxy Statement, the Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with
irreparable harm.
The Plaintiff owns National General common stock.
National General is a specialty personal lines insurance holding
company serving a wide range of customer segments through a network
of approximately 42,300 independent agents for property-casualty
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: sdr@rl-legal.com
bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
Email: rm@maniskas.com
NETGEAR INC: Bid for Preliminary Settlement Approval Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
NETGEAR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2020, that the motion for
preliminary approval of settlement in John Pham v. Arlo
Technologies, Inc., NETGEAR Inc., et al., and other related
actions, is pending.
On January 9, 2019 and January 10, 2019, February 1, 2019 and
February 8, 2019, the Company was sued in four separate securities
class action suits in Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, along with Arlo Technologies, individuals, and underwriters
involved in the spin-off of Arlo. Two more similar state actions
have been filed against Arlo Technologies Inc. et al.
In total, six putative class action complaints have now been filed
in California state court in Santa Clara County. The Company is
named as a defendant in five of the six lawsuits.
The complaints generally allege that Arlo's initial public offering
(IPO) materials contained false and misleading statements, hiding
problems with Arlo's Ultra product.
These claims are styled as violations of Sections 11, 12(a), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933.
There is also a putative class action pending in federal court in
the Northern District of California, on behalf of the same class of
plaintiffs, making very similar claims.
The Company is not presently named in the federal action.
Defendants filed motions to stay the state court actions in
deference to the federal court action. The court held a hearing on
April 26, 2019 to consider whether to consolidate the six lawsuits
and appoint a "lead plaintiff" and another hearing on May 31, 2019
to consider defendants' motions to stay the state court cases.
On June 21, 2019, the California state court judge granted the
Company's motion to stay the state court case pending the outcome
of the federal case. The case will now proceed only in federal
court.
On August 6, 2019, all the defendants, including NETGEAR, filed a
motion to dismiss the federal court action. Plaintiffs filed their
opposition brief on September 6, 2019 and defendants filed a reply
on October 4, 2019. The motion is set for hearing on December 5,
2019. The state court action remains stayed pending the outcome of
the federal action.
On November 18, 2019, the parties participated in mediation, but
did not settle the case. On December 5, 2019, the court held a
hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss, and on December 19,
2019, granted that motion as to all counts, with leave to amend.
The Parties discussed a potential settlement.
On February 14, 2020, the Court granted the Parties' stipulation to
stay proceedings to permit filing of a motion for preliminary
approval for classwide settlement.
On June 11, 2020, the Parties signed the Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement. On June 12, 2020, lead attorney for plaintiffs filed a
motion with the Court for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action
Settlement.
NETGEAR said, "If the motion is granted, the Parties will proceed
with the required procedures before the Settlement Hearing to be
set by the Court. It is too early to reasonably estimate any
financial impact to the Company resulting from these matters."
NETGEAR, Inc. designs, develops and markets networking products for
home users and small businesses worldwide. The Company, based in
Santa Clara, Calif., was founded in 1996.
NIXY INC: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nixy, Inc. The case
is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Nixy, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-06425 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
NIXY designs inflatable Stand Up Paddle Boards.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
PENN CREDIT: Faces Bailey FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penn Credit
Corporation, et al. The case is captioned as DANIEL BAILEY, ON
BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. PENN CREDIT
CORPORATION and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-09696-MAS-DEA
(D.N.J., July 30, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael A. Shipp.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
Penn Credit is a nationwide accounts receivables management
firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
CHULSKY KAPLAN LLC
280 Prospect Ave. 6G
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 803-6611
Facsimile: (877) 827-3394
E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com
PETER THOMAS: Monegro Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peter Thomas Roth
Labs LLC. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Peter Thomas Roth Labs
LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06413 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Peter Thomas Roth Labs LLC provides personal care products. The
Company offers perfumes, cosmetics, skin care, and other
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
POLYNT COMPOSITES: Skroh Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Skroh, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. POLYNT COMPOSITES USA INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02151-E (N.D. Tex.,
Aug. 13, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff for all compensable work
activities falling within the continuous workday-–the time
occurring after the first principal activity and before the last
principal activity of the day, the Plaintiff alleges. He adds that
he did not receive their wages or overtime pay for all hours they
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek as a result of the
Defendant's failure to account and pay for time for time spent
performing compensable pre-shift and post-shift activities that
were integral and indispensable to their principal activities or
were themselves principal activities. Rather, the Defendant paid
the Plaintiff according to their clock-in/clock-out time which does
not account for all compensable activities performed by Defendant's
hourly maintenance and production employees, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed at the Defendant's manufacturing plant
as an hourly maintenance worker.
The Defendant operates a manufacturing plant located in Ennis,
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
HOMMEL LAW FIRM
5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
Tyler, TX 75703
Phone: 903-596-7100
Facsimile: 469-533-1618
PROASSURANCE CORP: Schall Law Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against ProAssurance
Corporation (NYSE: PRA) ("ProAssurance" or "the Company") for
violations of Sec.10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between April 26,
2019 and May 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), were
encouraged to contact the firm before August 17, 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. ProAssurance failed to maintain
appropriate controls on underwriting and risk management,
particularly in setting lose reserves. The Company was incapable of
properly assessing a major healthcare account whose losses far
exceeded assumptions that were made in underwriting. 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 ProAssurance, 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]
PROASSURANCE CORPORATION: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in ProAssurance
Corporation. Shareholders who purchased shares in the company
during the date listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.
ProAssurance Corporation (NYSE:PRA)
Investors Affected : April 26, 2019 - May 7, 2020
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
ProAssurance Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) ProAssurance lacked adequate
underwriting process and risk management controls necessary to set
appropriate loss reserves in its Specialty P&C segment; (ii)
ProAssurance failed to properly assess a large national healthcare
account that experienced losses far exceeding the assumptions made
when the account was underwritten; and (iii) as a result,
ProAssurance was subject to materially heightened risk of financial
loss and reserve charges.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/proassurance-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=8586&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
PROSHARES ULTRA: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 28 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Proshares Ultra Bloomberg
Crude Oi. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have
until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details
about the case can be found at the links provided. There is no cost
or obligation to you.
UCO Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/proshares-ultra-bloomberg-crude-oil-loss-submission-form?prid=8583&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
UCO Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 6, 2020 -
April 27, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : September 28, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/proshares-ultra-bloomberg-crude-oil-loss-submission-form?prid=8583&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Proshares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose 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.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
PROSHARES ULTRA: Robbins Geller Alerts of Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil
(ARCX:UCO) securities between March 6, 2020 and April 27, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Di Scala v.
ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil, No. 20-cv-05865, and is
assigned to Judge Naomi R. Buchwald. The UCO class action lawsuit
charges UCO, its sponsor, and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased UCO securities during the Class Period to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the UCO class action lawsuit.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the UCO class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the UCO class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the UCO class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff
of the UCO class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your
rights regarding the UCO class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here or contact counsel, J.C. Sanchez of Robbins
Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the UCO class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than September
28, 2020.
UCO is an exchange traded fund ("ETF") purportedly designed to
reflect the performance of crude oil as measured by the price of
West Texas Intermediate ("WTI") sweet, light crude oil futures
contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The main
delivery and price settlement point for WTI is Cushing, Oklahoma.
The UCO class action lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants stated that UCO would achieve its investment objective
by seeking daily investment results, before fees and expenses, that
correspond to two times the performance of its benchmark for a
single day, and not for any other period. However, unbeknownst to
investors, extraordinary market conditions in early 2020 made UCO's
purported investment objective and strategy unfeasible. Oil demand
fell precipitously as governments imposed lockdowns and businesses
halted operations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover,
in early March 2020, Saudi Arabia and Russia launched an oil price
war, increasing production and slashing export prices in a bid to
increase the global market share of their domestic petrochemical
enterprises. As excess oil supply increased and oil prices waned,
the facilities available for storage in Cushing, Oklahoma
approached capacity, ultimately causing a rare market dynamic known
as "super contango," in which the futures prices for oil
substantially exceed the spot price. At the same time, retail
investors began pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into UCO in
an attempt to "buy the dip," believing (correctly) that the price
of oil would rebound as economies exited lockdown periods and the
Russia/Saudi oil price war ended. Because of the nature of UCO's
investment strategy, these converging factors caused UCO to suffer
exceptional losses and undermined UCO's ability to meet its
ostensible investment objective.
Moreover, according to the UCO class action lawsuit, defendants
possessed unique insider knowledge about the negative consequences
to UCO as a result of these converging adverse events. However,
rather than disclose the known impacts and risks to UCO as a result
of these exceptional threats, defendants decided to conduct a
massive offering of UCO shares to public investors. Even though the
risk profile for UCO had profoundly changed, solicitation materials
for the offering substantially mirrored the UCO's prior
disclosures. Indeed, unbeknownst to investors, the offering itself
materially increased the risks to UCO because it heightened
liquidity constraints in the WTI futures market and pushed UCO
towards position limits as UCO's sponsor piled hundreds of millions
of dollars from offering proceeds into UCO's purported investment
strategy.
The UCO class action lawsuit further alleges that UCO quickly
deteriorated as a result of the nature and extent of defendants'
fraud being revealed to investors and the market. Ultimately, UCO
suffered billions of dollars in losses and was forced to abandon
its investment strategy. Through a series of investment overhauls,
UCO was forced to transform from the passive ETF to an actively
managed fund struggling to avoid a total implosion. In April and
May 2020, defendants belatedly acknowledged the threats and adverse
impacts that UCO had been experiencing at the time of the March
2020 offering, but which they had failed to disclose to investors
in a timely manner.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For
seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has
ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top
law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders
and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller
attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered
tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond
securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins
Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by
courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading
lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor
more information. [GN]
PURDUE PHARMA: City Intends to Join Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------
discoververmilion.org reports that at the Vermilion City Council
meeting on August 3, 2020, Mayor Forthofer asked Vermilion City
Council to pass a motion in support of the City Administration's
intent to file as part of a class action lawsuit. The
Administration is asking for damages against Purdue Pharma.
"I believe that the residents in City of Vermilion have suffered a
heartbreaking cost, both directly and indirectly, resulting from
opioids manufactured and marketed improperly by Purdue Pharma,"
stated the mayor. "Supporting documents have been sent to
Council."
Attorney Susan Anderson said she welcomed questions regarding the
class action lawsuit for damages against Purdue Pharma.
Steve Herron, Council President, asked if the city could stand to
receive proceeds from this settlement, and if so, when.
Attorney Anderson said at this point it is filed as a bankruptcy
case. So, they filed on behalf of the city a Proof of Claim for
damages.
"The way it has been set up through the court is that the City of
Vermilion's damages have already been estimated in terms of past
and future damages, and this estimate is around six million
dollars," stated Attorney Anderson. "This takes into an account
monetary amounts that already have been expended, dealing with
folks that have had these opioid addictions, education and
training, and additional services you may expend in the future.
There is a lot of people with money in this pot - trying to get the
money, so I am telling my clients that if the estimate is six
million dollars this is a big number, but really at the end of the
day you're probably only looking at maybe pennies on the dollar in
payments that will be structured over a number of years."
Anderson said the deadline to file a Proof of Claim was July 30,
and now that this has passed they should have a better sense going
into the next few months as to how many claims have been filed and
what the process will be, and what the city may actually see. Her
estimation is that it was certainly worth filing the city's claim
to reserve their right to get some of the money if they can do so.
Council Member Barb Brady asked why Purdue, since there are many
pharmaceutical companies?
Attorney Anderson said this is the one that has been focused on in
lawsuits. They may see it with other companies in the future, but
this is the one that is at this point in terms of filing bankruptcy
and trying to collect all the claims and getting it resolved.
Council voted unanimously to support the City Administration's
intent to file as part of a class action lawsuit for damages
against Purdue Pharma. [GN]
QUADRE INVESTMENTS: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP) announces that on July 17, 2020, it filed a
securities class action lawsuit, captioned Quadre Investments L.P.
v. Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd., No. 1:20-cv-05551 (S.D.N.Y.) (the
"Action"), on behalf of its client Quadre Investments L.P.
("Quadre") against Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd. ("Sky") (NASDAQ: SKYS)
and certain of its potential acquirers. The Action asserts claims
under Sections 13(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 13e-3 promulgated thereunder, on
behalf of a class (the "Class") of all holders of publicly traded
Sky ADS as of the time the Action was filed (the "Class Period").
Sky is a Cayman Islands corporation involved in the solar energy
industry. The Action relates to the proposed acquisition of Sky by
a group (the "Offeror Group") that includes affiliates of SKY (the
"Merger"). The acquisition would involve a first step tender offer
and a short-form merger.
The Action alleges that the documents issued in support of the
Merger on July 6, 2020, were inadequate in two primary ways. First,
it alleges that the documents failed to meet the disclosure
obligations under Rule 13e-3 regarding certain information about
the fairness of the transaction and valuations performed by the
Offeror Group. Second, it alleges that the documents failed to meet
the disclosure obligations under Rule 13e-3 regarding certain
information about the availability of appraisal rights or other
shareholder rights. Specifically, the disclosures stated that there
would be no appraisal rights because a short-form merger under
Cayman law does not require a shareholder vote. The Action alleges
that shareholders have appraisal rights and have means of
exercising those rights.
Anyone interested in pursuing appraisal should consult with their
own counsel regarding the issue.
On July 24, 2020, additional documents in support of the Merger
were filed by the Offer Group. Those documents (1) attached a copy
of the complaint filed in the Action, (2) provided additional
disclosures, which clarified issues regarding the valuation
performed by or for the Offeror Group, and (3) summarized Quadre's
position regarding the existence of appraisal rights. The
additional documents also correctly stated that Quadre believes
that the Action has "been rendered moot" by the additional
documents.
If you are a member of the Class you may be able to seek
appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York no later than October 5, 2020. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class.
If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Jake Bissell-Linsk,
Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at 212-907-0731, or via email at
jbissell-linsk@labaton.com.
Quadre is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents many of
the largest pension funds in the United States and internationally
with combined assets under management of more than $2 trillion.
Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the
courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading industry
publications. Offices are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE,
and Washington, D.C. [GN]
SAFEWAY STORES: Court Dismisses Aguilar Suit With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOE M. AGUILAR, Plaintiff, v. SAFEWAY STORES
INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-1786-MC (D. Or.), Judge
Michael J. McShane of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
Aguilar alleges that the Defendant misrepresented discounts and
rewards and unjustly enriched itself through its Safeway Club
program. Safeway Stores moves to dismiss the claim pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6), alleging lack of subject matter
jurisdiction or, in the alternative, failure to state a claim. The
Plaintiff has failed to timely respond.
Judge McShane holds that the Court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claim. The Plaintiff asserts
diversity jurisdiction but has failed to identify an amount in
controversy exceeding $75,000 as required by 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(a). The Plaintiff alleges less than $20 in actual damages or
$200 in statutory damages pursuant to ORS 646.638.
The Plaintiff also seeks an order allowing the case to proceed as a
class action. In order to establish diversity of citizenship in a
class action lawsuit, however, the putative class size must exceed
100 persons and the aggregate amount in controversy must exceed $5
million. The Plaintiff fails to establish either. Moreover, a pro
se litigant may not litigate a class action.
Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the
Plaintiff's claims, the Judge does not reach the Defendant's
arguments under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Based on the foregoing, Judge McShane granted the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss. The dismissal is with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at
https://is.gd/N6kQZy from Leagle.com.
Joe M. Aguilar, Plaintiff, pro se.
Safeway Stores Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Jonathan
Mark Radmacher -- jonathanr@mcewengisvold.com -- McEwen Gisvold LLP
& Katie Jo Johnson -- katiejoj@mcewengisvold.com -- McEwen Gisvold
LLP.
SCOR SE: Actors Playhouse Seeks Pay for COVID-19 Losses
-------------------------------------------------------
ACTORS PLAYHOUSE PRODUCTIONS, INC., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCOR SE; and GENERAL
SECURITY INDEMNITY COMPANY OF ARIZONA, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-22981-MGC (S.D. Fla., July 20, 2020) alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay insurance for losses due to Covid-19.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff operates a performing
arts theatre, the Miracle Theatre, located at 280 Miracle Mile in
Coral Gables, Florida. To protect the theatre and the income from
operation of theatre, the Plaintiff purchased a property insurance
policy with policy number 20568-02904-1902.
Beginning in March 2020, the Plaintiff was forced to suspend
operations at the theatre as a result of COVID-19. Related actions
of civil authorities also prohibited access to and occupancy of the
theatre. This suspension, which is ongoing, has caused the
Plaintiff to suffer significant losses and incur significant
expenses.
Under the Policy, the Defendants promised to cover these losses and
expenses, and are obligated to pay for them, subject to the
applicable limit of insurance. But in blatant breach of their
contractual obligations, the Defendants have failed to pay for
these losses and expenses.
SCOR SE offers life, accident, property/casualty, health, and
special needs reinsurance. The Company offers services through
subsidiaries in Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Africa. SCOR also
holds real estate investments. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven C. Marks, Esq.
Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq.
Lea P. Bucciero, Esq.
Matthew P. Weinshall, Esq.
Kristina M. Infante, Esq.
Pablo Rojas, Esq.
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
One Southeast 3rd Ave, Suite 2300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 358-2800
Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
E-mail: smarks@podhurst.com
apodhurst@podhurst.com
lbucciero@podhurst.com
mweinshall@podhurst.com
kinfante@podhurst.com
projas@podhurst.com
- and -
Stephen N. Zack, Esq.
Bruce Weil, Esq.
James Lee, Esq.
Marshall Dore Louis, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
100 Southeast 2nd Street, Suite 2800
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 539-8400
Facsimile: (305) 539-1307
E-mail: szack@bsfllp.com
bweil@bsfllp.com
jlee@bsfllp.com
mlouis@bsfllp.com
- and -
David Boies, Esq.
Nick Gravante, Esq.
Alex Boies, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
55 Hudson Yards, 20 th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 446-2320
E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com
ngravante@bsfllp.com
aboies@bsfllp.com
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Illegally Tapes Inmates' Calls, Pratt Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Pratt, Robert J. Ruffner, and John Tebbetts, on their own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Securus
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00295-JDL (D. Me., Aug. 13,
2020), is brought for damages and injunctive relief against the
Defendant for its illegal interception and recording of phone calls
between inmates and their attorneys.
The Plaintiffs assert that the Supreme Court ruled in Upjohn Co. v.
United States (1981) that "the attorney-client privilege is the
oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to
the common law. Its purpose is to encourage full and frank
communication between attorneys and their clients, and thereby
promote broader public interests in the observance of law and
administration of justice. The privilege recognizes that sound
legal advice or advocacy serves public ends and that such advice or
advocacy depends upon the lawyer's being fully informed by the
client."
The Defendant, under contract with county jails in Maine,
intercepted and recorded phone calls between inmates and their
attorneys, violating the sanctity of the Attorney-Client privilege,
the Plaintiffs allege. These recorded calls between an inmate and
attorney have often been turned over to the office of the Maine
Attorney General and local District Attorneys responsible for
criminal proceedings involving the inmate. The illegal interception
and recording violates Maine and Federal recording and wiretapping
laws, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Attorney Jeremy Pratt represents an inmate in an ongoing
criminal proceeding. Plaintiff Attorney John Tebbetts and Plaintiff
Attorney Robert Ruffner represent inmate John Doe in an ongoing
criminal matter.
Securus entered into contracts with Maine jails to provide
telecommunication services for inmates.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert P. Cummins, Esq.
THE CUMMINS LAW FIRM, P.C.
Two Canal Plaza
P.O. Box 4600
Phone: 207 553-4712
Facsimile: 312 622-6321
Portland, ME 04112-4600
- and -
Benjamin N. Donahue, Esq.
HALLETT, WHIPPLE & WEYRENS, P.A.
Six City Center
P.O. Box 7508
Portland, ME 04112-7508
Phone: 207.775.4255
Fax: 207.775.4229
Email: bdonahue@hww.law
- and -
Andrew Schmidt, Esq.
Peter Mancuso, Esq
ANDREW SCHMIDT LAW, PLLC
97 India St.
Portland, ME 04101
Phone: (207) 619-0884
Email: Andy@maineworkerjustice.com
Peter@maineworkerjustice.com
SEVILLE CLASSICS: Faces Monegro ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seville Classics Inc.
The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Seville Classics Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-06414 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Seville Classics, Inc., provides houseware and hardware products.
The Company offers wall cabinet, stainless steel stool, bin rack,
storage bins, laundry sorter, and tower fans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
SHADE MOUNTAIN: Mahoney Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SHADE MOUNTAIN
WINERY, INC. The case is styled as John Mahoney, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. SHADE MOUNTAIN WINERY,
INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-03959 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Shade Mountain Winery offers a variety of local wines, including
white, red, sparkling, blush, fruit, and specialty wines.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Phone: (215) 981-5400
Email: dglanzberg@aol.com
SHISEIDO AMERICAS: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shiseido Americas
Corporation. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Shiseido Americas Corporation,
Case No. 1:20-cv-06444 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Shiseido Americas Corp., through its subsidiaries, manufactures
cosmetic and toiletry products. The Company offers an array of
makeup and skin-care products, toiletries, beauty salon products,
pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs, and fine chemicals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
SIGHT AND SOUND: Calcano Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sight and Sound
Productions, Incorporated. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano,
on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v.
Sight and Sound Productions, Incorporated, Case No. 1:20-cv-06438
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sight & Sound Productions provides event planning and audio-visual
production services in Jacksonville, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
SISTINA RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, Cuji Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS CUJI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SISTINA RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a SISTINA;
CARAVAGGIO, INC. d/b/a CARAVAGGIO; GUIESEPPE BRUNO, and GERARDO
BRUNO, Defendants, Case 1:20-cv-05594 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2020)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff Cuji was employed by the Defendant as staff.
Sistina Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Sistina is engaged in the restaurant
business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1180
SKINFIX US: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skinfix US LLC. The
case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Skinfix US LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06418
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Skinfix is a skincare brand to promote skin barrier health.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
SKY SOLAR: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP announces that on July 17, 2020, it filed a
securities class action lawsuit, captioned Quadre Investments L.P.
v. Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd., No. 1:20-cv-05551 (S.D.N.Y.) (the
"Action"), on behalf of its client Quadre Investments L.P.
("Quadre") against Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd. ("Sky") (NASDAQ: SKYS)
and certain of its potential acquirers. The Action asserts claims
under Sections 13(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 13e-3 promulgated thereunder, on
behalf of a class (the "Class") of all holders of publicly traded
Sky ADS as of the time the Action was filed (the "Class Period").
Sky is a Cayman Islands corporation involved in the solar energy
industry. The Action relates to the proposed acquisition of Sky by
a group (the "Offeror Group") that includes affiliates of SKY (the
"Merger"). The acquisition would involve a first step tender offer
and a short-form merger.
The Action alleges that the documents issued in support of the
Merger on July 6, 2020, were inadequate in two primary ways. First,
it alleges that the documents failed to meet the disclosure
obligations under Rule 13e-3 regarding certain information about
the fairness of the transaction and valuations performed by the
Offeror Group. Second, it alleges that the documents failed to meet
the disclosure obligations under Rule 13e-3 regarding certain
information about the availability of appraisal rights or other
shareholder rights. Specifically, the disclosures stated that there
would be no appraisal rights because a short-form merger under
Cayman law does not require a shareholder vote. The Action alleges
that shareholders have appraisal rights and have means of
exercising those rights.
Anyone interested in pursuing appraisal should consult with their
own counsel regarding the issue.
On July 24, 2020, additional documents in support of the Merger
were filed by the Offer Group. Those documents (1) attached a copy
of the complaint filed in the Action, (2) provided additional
disclosures, which clarified issues regarding the valuation
performed by or for the Offeror Group, and (3) summarized Quadre's
position regarding the existence of appraisal rights. The
additional documents also correctly stated that Quadre believes
that the Action has "been rendered moot" by the additional
documents.
If you are a member of the Class you may be able to seek
appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York no later than October 5, 2020. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class.
If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Jake Bissell-Linsk,
Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at 212-907-0731, or via email at
jbissell-linsk@labaton.com.
Quadre is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents many of
the largest pension funds in the United States and internationally
with combined assets under management of more than $2 trillion.
Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the
courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading industry
publications. Offices are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE,
and Washington, D.C. More information about Labaton Sucharow is
available at www.labaton.com. [GN]
SNOWIE LLC: Monegro Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snowie LLC. The case
is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Snowie LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06415 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Snowie offers shaved ice machines and flavors, along with stands,
accessories, and more to help shaved ice businesses.BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
SPORT OBERMEYER: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sport Obermeyer LTD.
The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Sport Obermeyer LTD., Case No.
1:20-cv-06430 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sports Obermeyer was founded in 1947 by Klaus Obermeyer and is a
Fashion skiwear manufacturer that offers wide variety of ski
apparels, such as parka, vest, ski suits, sweaters etc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
SPORTS LICENSING: Monegro Sues in New York Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sports Licensing
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Sports Licensing
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06407 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sports Licensing Solutions, LLC, is a wholesale sporting goods
store in the US.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
SUNRISE CREDIT: Neal Sues in Nevada Alleging Violation of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunrise Credit
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Nicole G. Neal, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sunrise Credit
Services, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00464-MMD-CLB (D. Nev., Aug. 13,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Sunrise Credit Services, Inc. provides credit and accounts
receivables management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas M Wajda, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS M. WAJDA
871 Coronado Center Dr., Ste. 200
Henderson, NV 89052
Phone: (702) 900-6339
Fax: (866) 286-8433
Email: nick@recoverylawgroup.com
SUPERME LLC: Calcano Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Superme, LLC. The
case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Superme, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-06440 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
SuperME was developed by designer Daphne Kaufer, which is a line of
functional superhero inspired products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
SUPERME LLC: Tenzer-Fuchs Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. SUPERME, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-03669
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site,
http://www.serenawilliams.com/,and the resulting denial of equal
access to the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of
the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, according to the complaint. Because the Web site is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the
Defendant violates the ADA. The Defendant's Web site contains
various and multiple access barriers that make it extremely
difficult--if not impossible--for blind and visually-impaired
consumers to attempt to complete a transaction.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
suffers from what constitutes a "qualified disability" under the
ADA and, thus, requires screen-reading software to read Web site
content using her computer. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to initiate a change in the Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web
site will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant wholly owns and operates the Web site, a site that
exclusively offers products from the fashion lines of tennis star
Serena Williams.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
SHALOM LAW, PLLC
105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (718) 971-9474
Email: Jshalom@JonathanShalomLaw.com
TERRAPIN RIDGE: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Terrapin Ridge Farms
LLC. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Terrapin Ridge Farms LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-06432 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Terrapin Ridge Farms, LLC is a creator, marketer, and seller of
gourmet food products headquartered in Clearwater, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
TOCCA INC: Monegro Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tocca, Inc. The case
is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Tocca, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-06416
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tocca is an USA sport fashion and cosmetics brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
TOM PEACOCK: Bradford Sues in S.D. Texas Alleging TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tom Peacock
Nissan/Cadillac, Inc. The case is styled as Radley Bradford,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tom
Peacock Nissan/Cadillac, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-02821 (S.D. Tex.,
Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Tom Peacock Nissan Cadillac Inc. operates as an automobile dealer.
The Company offers inventories, body center, and finance
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
TOYOTA FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Cambridge Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA CAMBRIDGE, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOYOTA FINANCIAL SERVICES,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01345-APG-EJY (D. Nev., July 20, 2020)
seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited
calls.
Toyota Financial Services Corporation is a financing company. The
Company finances car loans for customers of the Toyota Corporation.
Toyota Financial Services operates worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Krieger, Esq.
Shawn Miller, Esq.
KRIEGER LAW GROUP, LLC
2850 W. Horizon Ridge Parkway, Suite 200
Henderson, NV 89052
Telephone: (702) 848-3855
E-mail: dkrieger@kriegerlawgroup.com
smiller@kriegerlawgroup.com
- and -
Matthew I. Knepper, Esq.
Miles N. Clark, Esq.
KNEPPER & CLARK LLC
5510 S. Fort Apache Rd, Suite 30
Las Vegas, NV 89148-7700
Telephone: (702) 856-7430
Facsimile: (702) 447-8048
E-mail: matthew.knepper@knepperclark.com
miles.clark@knepperclark.com
UNIEK INC: Faces Paguada Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. UNIEK, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-06374 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12,
2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site,
http://www.kateandlaurel.com/,and therefore denial of its goods
and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the
complaint. Because the Web site is not equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, the Defendant violates the ADA.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person. The
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers
The Defendant is a decor and furniture products company that owns
and operates the Web site.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (929) 324-0717
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
UNITED SPECIALTY: Mueller Files Class Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Specialty
Insurance Company. The case is captioned as Luke Mueller, on behalf
of himself, and all others similarly situated v. United Specialty
Insurance Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-03407-SJF-ST (E.D.N.Y., July
29, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein.
The nature of suit is stated as 190 Contract: Other.
United Specialty operates as an insurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Luke, Jr. Esq.
SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
488 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 481-7400
E-mail: jluke@sssfirm.com
UNITED STATES: Faces Joelson ATCA Class Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States of
America. The case is styled as Maxwell Joelson, Juan Valdez, And On
Behalf of All others Similarly situated v. United States of America
(government entities, Department of Justice, Federal Judiciary
(U.S. Courts), Case No. 3:20-cv-01568-JLS-KSC (S.D. Cal., Aug. 13,
2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Alien Tort Claims
Act.
The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
US Attorney CV
US ATTORNEYS OFFICE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
880 Front Street, Suite 6253
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 557-5662
Fax: (619) 557-7122
Email: Efile.dkt.civ@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES: Thomas Sues in Fed. Cl. Over Tucker Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States of
America. The case is styled as Andre Thomas, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. USA, Case No.
1:20-cv-01009-LAS (Fed. Cl., Aug. 13, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civilian Pay for Tucker Act.
The U.S.A. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John G. Jacobs, Esq.
JACOBS KOLTON, CHTD.
150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 427-4000
Fax: (312) 268-2425
Email: jgjacobs@jacobskolton.com
VEERU DHILLON: Rosa Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Othiel Rosa, Jonah Silva, and Jesus Sandoz, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated v. Veeru Dhillon; Amrik Dhillon
Singh; J.K. Petroleum Inc.; Tri-State Petroleum Logistics Inc.;
Bilt Petroleum Inc.; Jamaica Fuel Inc.; John Doe Defendant No. 1;
and John Doe Defendant No. 2, Case No. 1:20-cv-03672 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 13, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law to recover from the Defendants unpaid
minimum wage and overtime compensation.
The lawsuit also seeks to recover unpaid spread of hours premium
for each day they worked in excess of 10 hours; damages for failure
to give required notices and wage statements; liquidated damages on
those amounts; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiffs allege that they routinely worked in excess of 40
hours per week. They say they were paid the $10 hourly rate (or
whatever it was raised to, either $1 or $2) for all hours, with no
other compensation, and with no overtime premium for hours worked
in excess of forty hours per workweek. At no point did the
Defendants inform the Plaintiffs of the minimum wage or overtime
provisions of the FLSA or the NYLL, they add.
The Plaintiffs were gas station attendants.
The Defendants owned and operated a gas station located in Bronx,
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810
New York, NY
Phone: (718) 669-0714
Email: mgangat@gangatllc.com
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 28 Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Velocity Financial, Inc.
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.
Velocity Financial, Inc. (NYSE: VEL)
Class Period: Common stock purchased pursuant and/or traceable to
the Registration Statement and Prospectus, as amended, issued in
connection with Velocity's January 2020 IPO.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020
Velocity is a real estate finance company that originates and
manages loans issued to borrowers nationwide to finance the
purchase of small residential rental and commercial real estate
investment properties.
On April 8, 2020, Velocity announced its financial and operational
results for the 2019 fourth quarter and full year. The Company
stated it had suspended all loan origination operations due to
market volatility and that it was experiencing enhanced
delinquencies in its loan portfolio and had implemented various
strategies to attempt to "address this challenge." On May 13, 2020,
Velocity announced its financial and operational results for the
first quarter of 2020 - the same quarter in which the IPO was
conducted. The Company stated that its net income had decreased 50%
sequentially during the quarter to just $2.6 million.
By May 15, 2020, Velocity stock was trading at just $2.53 per share
- more than 80% below the $13.00 price investors paid for the stock
in the IPO just four months previously.
The complaint, filed on July 29, 2020, alleges that defendants
failed to disclose that, at the time of the IPO, the Company's
non-performing loans had dramatically increased in size from the
figures provided in the offering materials, as measured by both the
amount of unpaid principal balance and as a percentage of the
Company's overall loan portfolio. In addition, defendants failed to
provide any information to investors regarding the potential impact
of the novel coronavirus on Velocity's business and operations,
despite the fact that the international spread of the virus had
already been confirmed at the time of the IPO. The failure to
disclose the substantial and growing proportion of the Company's
loans that were non-performing and/or on non-accrual status as of
the IPO rendered the statements contained in the Offering Materials
regarding the quality of the Company's loan portfolio and
underwriting practices materially misleading.
For more information on the Velocity class action go to:
https://bespc.com/VEL
About Bragar Eagel & Squire
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results
do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
VIKING CLIENT: Faces Latypov FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Viking Client
Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Marat Latypov,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Viking Client Services, LLC, LVNV Funding LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-03691 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Viking Client Services is a national provider of electronic payment
solutions, customer care, billing and collection and recovery
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (718) 705-8706
Fax: (718) 705-8705
Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces May Suit in D.N.J. Over AEB System Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW MAY and LINDA CHRISTIAN, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., a
New Jersey corporation, and VOLKSWAGEN AG, a German corporation,
Case No. 2:20-cv-09708-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., July 30, 2020), is brought
on behalf of those who purchased or leased any 2017-2020 Volkswagen
equipped with an autonomous emergency braking system, which is
allegedly defective.
The Plaintiffs contend that VW failed to inform them and members of
the proposed Class before or during the time of sale that the AEB
systems in Class Vehicles have workmanship defects, including poor
calibration of the software from multiple control modules such that
they are prone to activating the brakes when there are no objects
in front of the vehicle and failing to activate when there are
persons or objects in motion in front of the vehicle due to
miscommunications between all the systems involved in automatic
braking, including the sensors, the brakes and the transmission
(AEB System Defect). The AEB System Defect prevents the Class
Vehicles from behaving as designed and advertised in real-world
driving conditions.
As a result of the AEB System Defect, Class Vehicles are
predisposed to suddenly slowing or stopping without driver input
when there are no obstacles in front of the vehicle, potentially
and paradoxically increasing the chances of a collision, the
lawsuit says.
AEB systems are one of the most highly touted advancements in
automobile safety. As described by Consumer Reports, with AEB
systems installed, "the vehicle stops independently when it senses
a crash is imminent to avoid a crash, or to reduce the severity of
a crash that can't be avoided." There are both forward systems,
which activate when the car is driving forward, and rear systems,
which activate when the car is in reverse. When working properly,
these systems can reduce the incidence of collisions and the
resultant injuries.
In October 1, 2018, Plaintiff Christian leased a 2018 Volkswagen
Tiguan equipped with an AEB System from Kelly Volkswagen, an
authorized Volkswagen dealership located in Danvers, Massachusetts.
In March 2018, Plaintiff May leased a 2018 Volkswagen Tiguan
equipped with an AEB System from Niello Volkswagen, an authorized
Volkswagen dealership located in Sacramento, California.
Volkswagen Group is the North American operational headquarters,
and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of automobile companies of
Germany.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
Amey J. Park, Esq.
Abigail J. Gertner, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: rpaul@bm.net
apark@bm.net
agertner@bm.net
- and -
Steven Weinmann, Esq.
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Trisha Monesi, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556 4811
Facsimile: (310 943 0396
E-mail: steven.weinmann@capstonelawyers.com
tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
cody.padgett@capstonelaywers.com
trisha.monesi@capstonelawyers.com
- and -
Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
THE KEHOE LAW FIRM
2 Penn Center Plaza, Suite 1020
1500 JFK Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: 215-792-6676
E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Swinburne Sues Over Faulty Start/Stop Systems
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Swinburne, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., d/b/a AUDI
OF AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey Corporation, and AUDI AG, a German
corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00917 (E.D. Va., Aug. 12, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' failure, despite their longstanding
knowledge, to disclose to the Plaintiff and other consumers that
certain Audi vehicles have defective Start/Stop Systems that fail
to function in a safe and reliable manner, as reasonably expected.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of all persons in the
United States, who purchased or leased any 2017-2020 model year
Audi vehicle equipped with Audi's "Start/Stop Efficiency System"
("Class Vehicles" or "Vehicles") designed, manufactured, marketed,
distributed, sold, warranted, and/or serviced by Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., d/b/a Audi of America, Inc. and Audi AG
(collectively, "Audi" or "Defendants").
According to Audi, the Start/Stop Efficiency System is designed to
operate such that "when the driver presses the brake pedal at
stoplights or in other prolonged idle situations, the engine shuts
off. When the driver releases the brake pedal, the engine
instantaneously starts up again." Further, Audi states that, "in
Start/Stop mode, the engine shuts off automatically when stopped,
for example at a traffic light. The engine will restart
automatically when needed. The Start/Stop system is automatically
activated once the ignition is switched on."
However, Audi failed to inform the Plaintiff and Members of the
Class before or during the time of sale that the Start/Stop Systems
in Class Vehicles suffer from one or more defects that causes the
vehicles' engines to lag, hesitate, or otherwise fail to
immediately engage or restart when drivers attempt to accelerate
from a full or rolling stop, according to the complaint. When this
happens, drivers are unable to maneuver the vehicle, often
stranding them in the middle of intersections or in similarly
dangerous situations, such as when attempting to accelerate from a
stop light or stop sign on roads and while merging onto highways or
in heavy traffic.
This Defect, which manifests itself within the limited warranty
period, poses a serious safety risk to drivers, whose vehicle
becomes unexpectedly inoperative and exposes them to increased risk
of collision with other vehicles, road hazards, and/or pedestrians,
the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff adds that although Audi has
known about the Defect for several years, instead of fixing it, the
Defendants continued to manufacture and sell new Audi vehicles with
the Defect to consumers without disclosing it.
If the Plaintiff and Class Members had known about the Start/Stop
System Defect at the time of sale or lease, they would not have
purchased or leased the Class Vehicles or would have paid less for
them, says the complaint. As a result of their reliance on the
Defendants' omissions, the owners and lessees of the Class Vehicles
suffered an ascertainable loss of money, property, and/or value of
their Class Vehicles.
The Plaintiff purchased a new 2018 Audi Q5 from Audi Clearwater, an
authorized Audi dealer in Clearwater, Florida.
The Defendants design, manufacture, market, distribute, and warrant
automobiles in the United States sold under various brand names,
including the Volkswagen and Audi brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1-A
Newport News, VA 23601
Phone (757) 930-3660
Facsimile (757) 930-3662
Email: craig@clalegal.com
- and -
Matthew J. Erausquin, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C
1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone 703-273-7770
Fax: 888-892-3512
Email: matt@clalegal.com
- and -
Steven R. Weinmann, Esq.
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
- and -
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
Amey J. Park, Esq.
Abigail J. Gertner, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE P.C.
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
- and -
Greg F. Coleman, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
First Tennessee Plaza
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
VOLKSWAGEN: Class Action Alleges Defects of Front Assist Feature
----------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a VW Front Assist class action
lawsuit alleges defects cause the automatic emergency braking
feature to suddenly activate without reason or actions by the
driver.
According to the Volkswagen class action, all 2015-2019 models
equipped with Front Assist features are too dangerous to drive
because drivers never know when the systems will suddenly apply the
brakes.
VW describes the Front Assist systems:
"Forward Collision Warning and Autonomous Emergency Braking
(included in Front Assist) has a sensor in the front to help
monitor traffic and can alert you to a potential collision. If the
driver brakes too lightly in response to an audible and visual
warning, Autonomous Emergency Braking (included in Front Assist)
can increase braking pressure to help avoid or mitigate the impact
of an impending collision. If the driver does not brake at all, the
car can apply the brakes automatically."
According to the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit, what are
advertised as safety features are nothing more than systems that
create dangerous conditions for all vehicle occupants on the
roads.
The plaintiffs claim the Front Assist feature has software coding
problems that cause the unexpected braking, and drivers allegedly
have no warning when the brakes will suddenly activate.
The Front Assist feature was an available option beginning with
2015 premium Touareg SUV models and was expanded to the 2016 VW
Jetta, Beetle, CC, e-Golf, Golf, Golf GTI, Golf R and Golf
SportWagen, depending on the model and trim line.
According to the class action lawsuit, Volkswagen has actively
concealed problems with the Front Assist feature and the automatic
emergency braking system.
All vehicles equipped with Front Assist allegedly lose their values
because of the systems, and the plaintiffs claim the automaker
won't take any actions to recall or repair the vehicles.
Additionally, VW allegedly refuses to cover repairs under warranty
because the Front Assist system is allegedly operating as
intended.
The plaintiffs further complain the automaker refuses to reimburse
customers for out-of-pocket expenses related to the Front Assist
systems.
The class action lawsuit alleges VW should have known or possibly
did know the Front Assist feature was defective, but the plaintiffs
say that even today a customer who complains is advised to disable
the feature.
In addition, Volkswagen allegedly tells drivers they may also leave
the Front Assist features activated and to document any
malfunctions with the systems.
The VW Front Assist class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri: Dack, et al.,
v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
The plaintiffs are represented by Dollar Burns & Becker, L.C.,
Walsh PLLC, Sauder Schelkopf LLC, and the Law Office of Adam R.
Gonnelli, L.L.C. [GN]
WALDAMEER PARK: Mahoney Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WALDAMEER PARK, INC.
The case is styled as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. WALDAMEER PARK, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-03960 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Waldameer Park Inc. was founded in 1965. The company's line of
business includes the operating of amusement parks and kiddie
parks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Phone: (215) 981-5400
Email: dglanzberg@aol.com
WALMART INC: Faces Waters Sues Over Breach of Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Waters, Samantha Fernandez, Destiney Lopez, and April
Swoboda, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WALMART INC., a Delaware corporation; Case No.
5:20-cv-05664-NC (N.D. Cal., Aug. 13, 2020), seeks damages arising
from Walmart's breach of written contract, a class settlement, and
for fraudulent concealment and false representation.
On June 11, 2009, Plaintiff Nisha Brown filed a class action and
enforcement action under the California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General Act against Walmart, alleging that the Company
failed to provide front-end cashiers with suitable seating. On
October 10, 2018, the parties in the Brown Action entered into a
proposed settlement agreement resolving the litigation in its
entirety on a class-wide basis. Walmart would pay $65 million to
resolve the lawsuit and would also implement a pilot seating
program for its front-end cashiers. On October 24, 2018, the court
heard the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of this
agreement. At the hearing, Judge Davila expressed concern regarding
the vagueness of Walmart's promise to start providing seats to
cashiers.
On November 28, 2018, the parties entered into a new settlement
Agreement. The new Settlement Agreement set forth new and quite
different terms relating to providing seats. Whereas the earlier
version required a cashier to ask for a seat ("providing seats to
California front-end cashiers who express a desire to use such
while working at California Walmart front-end ceheckstands"), the
second Settlement Agreement required seats to be provided so as to
be available to cashiers to use ("Walmart provides seats to those
California front-end cashiers who choose to use them"). The
November 28, 2018 Settlement Agreement was incorporated into the
Judgment of March 28, 2019.
A recent survey of a randomized sample of Walmart's California
stores showed that a mere fraction of front-end cashiers have
actually been provided with seats, with the majority of front-end
cashiers still being required to stand during their shifts. In
early July 2020, a total of 45 Walmart stores were visited by
licensed investigators, who were to note the presence of seats at
front-end checkstands. Those stores were also checked for the
number of front-end cashiers making use of a seat at their
checkstand.
Walmart has violated the Settlement Agreement by failing to provide
seats, the Plaintiffs assert. Moreover, investigation shows that
California store managers continue to require that cashiers provide
a note from a doctor in order to receive a seat and use that seat.
This is not only violation of the Settlement Agreement, but of the
California Labor Code, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs have been employed by the Defendants as hourly,
non-exempt Front-End Cashiers and a Customer Service Desk
Associate.
WALMART INC. is a Delaware corporation doing business in California
with its principal place of business in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin McInerney, Esq.
1050 N. Hills Blvd., # 61388
Reno, NV 89506
Phone: (775) 849-3811
Fax: (775) 624-3589
Email: kevin@mcinerneylaw.net
- and -
Melissa Grant, Esq.
Jamie Greene, Esq.
Bevin Allen Pike, Esq.
Orlando Villalba, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 556-4811
Fax: (310) 943-0396
Email: melissa.grant@capstonelawyers.com
jamie.greene@capstonelawyers.com
bevin.pike@capstonelawyers.com
orlando.villalba@capstonelawyers.com
WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS: Lett Suit Removed to District of New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as TYHESHA LETT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WAUSAU
UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO., Case No. MIDL00399120, was removed from
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on July 29,
2020.
The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-09630-JMV-JBC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge John Michael Vazquez.
The lawsuit arises from insurance-related disputes.
Wausau Underwriters operates as an insurance company. The Company
provides property, casualty, fire, and marine insurance
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelly Magnus Purcaro, Esq
A.Y. STRAUSS
101 Esenhower Parkway, Suite 412
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 287-5008
Facsimile: (973) 226-4104
E-mail: kpurcaro@aystrauss.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Richard D. Gable , Jr., Esq.
BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG LLP
1818 Market Street, Suite 2740
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 405-9191
Facsimile: (215) 405-9190
E-mail: rgable@butler.legal
WB STUDIO: Blumenthal Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action complaint alleging that
WB Studio Enterprises Inc., failed to provide their California
employees with meal and rest periods as required by California law.
The WB Studio Enterprises Inc. class action lawsuit, Case No.
20STCV24867, is currently pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court
of the State of California.
According to the lawsuit filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court,
WB Studio Enterprises Inc. allegedly intentionally and knowingly
failed to reimburse and indemnify PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA
CLASS Members for required business expenses incurred as a direct
consequence of discharging their duties on behalf of DEFENDANT.
PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were also, from time
to time, unable to take off-duty meal breaks or rest periods, which
has allegedly resulted in DEFENDANT's failure to pay full wages.
Additionally, the complaint further alleges WB Studio Enterprises
Inc., committed acts of unfair competition in violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec.
17200, et seq. (the "UCL"), by engaging in a company-wide policy
and procedure which failed to accurately calculate and record all
missed meal and rest periods by PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA
CLASS Members. As a result of DEFENDANT's intentional disregard of
the obligation to meet this burden, DEFENDANT allegedly failed to
properly calculate and/or pay all required compensation for work
performed by the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS and violated the
California Labor Code.
If you would like to know more about the WB Studio Enterprises Inc.
lawsuit, please contact Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw by calling
(800) 568-8020.
Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is an employment law
firm with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento,
Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. If you need help in
collecting unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, being
wrongfully terminated from work, and other employment law claims,
contact one of their attorneys. [GN]
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS: SphinxIIIHouston Sues Over Coverage Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
SphinxIIIHouston, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, a Georgia
Corporation, CHUBB NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1 through
10, Inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-02834 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 13, 2020),
seeks redress for breach of contract arising out of the denial of
Sphinx's claim of insurance coverage, under an insurance policy
sold by Westchester to Sphinx.
To protect its business and cash flow in the event of property loss
and business interruption, Sphinx and thousands of other
restaurants purchased a commercial property insurance policy from
Westchester (Policy No. FSF15018872001). The Policy is a bilateral
contract: Sphinx agreed to pay monthly premiums to the Defendants
in exchange for their promises of coverage for certain losses.
Sphinx duly complied with its obligations under the Policy and paid
the requisite premiums.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's and class members'
policies became effective years after Westchester had knowledge
that SARS-type viruses existed and could cause direct physical loss
of or damage to property. Despite its knowledge, Westchester sold
this insurance policy to Sphinx and other similarly situated
businesses without any virus or pandemic exclusion or limitation
whatsoever in exchange for a substantial premium, even though such
exclusions are in use throughout the insurance industry. Yet, only
months later, the novel virus, SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent for
COVID-19, caused Sphinx and thousands of other restaurants and
hospitality businesses to close their doors because of the physical
loss of or damage to property caused by COVID-19 and as a
consequence of myriad civil authority orders issued to protect the
public against the dangerous conditions associated with that
damage.
When Sphinx made a claim under the Policy, Westchester turned its
back on Sphinx, refused to honor its contractual promises under the
insurance policy, and denied coverage for Sphinx's substantial
financial losses, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff does business as the Barcelona Restaurant and Lounge
and is located in Houston, Texas.
Westchester is a "surplus lines" insurer that issues insurance
policies in the state of Texas and other states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian H. Mahany, Esq.
MAHANY LAW
8112 W. Bluemound Road
P.O. Box 511328
Milwaukee, WI 53203
Telephone: (414) 258-2375
Email: brian@mahanylaw.com
- and -
Steve Hochfelsen, Esq.
HOCHFELSEN & KANI
895 Dove Street #300
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (714) 907-0697
Email: steve@hockani.com
WORLD WRESTLING: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Saudi Arabia Biz Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company is
awaiting court approval of a motion to dismiss the consolidated
class action suit headed by the Firefighters' Pension System of the
City of Kansas City, Missouri.
On March 6, 2020, the Company along with its Chairman and CEO,
Vince McMahon, and former-WWE officers and directors, Michelle
Wilson and George Barrios (collectively, the "Individual
Defendants"), were sued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York in a case captioned City of Warren Police and
Fire Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent
K. McMahon, George A. Barrios, and Michelle D. Wilson, No.
1:20-cv-02031-JSR.
The complaint alleges that the Company and the Individual
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding WWE's
strategic relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that various public statements
made by the Company and the Individual Defendants were false and
misleading because they failed to disclose certain adverse facts
regarding WWE's strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia that
supposedly was known by them and, as a result, the plaintiff class
allegedly purchased WWE stock at artificially inflated prices.
On March 12, 2020 a nearly-identical lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Paul
Szaniawski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K.
McMahon, George A. Barrios, and Michelle D. Wilson, No.
1:20-cv-02223-JSR.
This lawsuit was filed as related to the City of Warren case and
has been assigned to the same judge handling the City of Warren
case. By Order dated May 12, 2020, the City of Warren and
Szaniawski lawsuits were consolidated for all purposes.
After multiple parties filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff
for the putative class in the consolidated action, on May 22, 2020,
the Court issued a memorandum order selecting the Firefighters'
Pension System of the City of Kansas City, Missouri to be lead
plaintiff and their attorneys, Labaton Sucharow LLP, to be lead
counsel for the putative class.
On May 26, 2020, the Company served Rule 11 motion for sanctions on
the attorneys for the City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement
System, the attorneys for Paul Szaniawski, and Labaton Sucharow
LLP. The Rule 11 motion identified false allegations in the
originally filed complaints and was supported by six declarations
from Company executives and third-parties with direct first-hand
knowledge of the matters at issue.
Following service of the Rule 11 motion, the attorneys for the City
of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System and the attorneys for
Paul Szaniawski voluntarily dismissed their complaints before the
expiration of the Rule 11 safe-harbor period.
On June 8, 2020, the Firefighters' Pension System of the City of
Kansas City, Missouri filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint.
On June 26, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint in its entirety. The Court has scheduled oral
argument on the Company's motion to dismiss for July 30, 2020.
* * *
Law360 reports that WWE has changed its counsel from K&L Gates to
Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP in its fight against the
investor class action.
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., an integrated media and
entertainment company, engages in the sports entertainment business
in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia
Pacific, and Latin America. It operates in three segments: Media,
Live Events, and Consumer Products. The company was founded in 1980
and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.
WORLD WRESTLING: Continues to Defend Wrestlers' Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend several class action suits initiated by its
wrestlers.
On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William Albert Haynes
III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.
This complaint was amended on January 30, 2015 and alleged that the
Company ignored, downplayed, and/or failed to disclose the risks
associated with traumatic brain injuries suffered by WWE's
performers and seeks class action status.
On March 31, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended class action complaint in its entirety or, if not
dismissed, to transfer the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut. Without addressing the merits of the
Company's motion to dismiss, the Court transferred the case to
Connecticut on June 25, 2015. The plaintiffs filed an objection to
such transfer, which was denied on July 27, 2015.
On January 16, 2015, a second lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entitled
Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
alleging many of the same allegations as Haynes.
On February 27, 2015, the Company moved to transfer venue to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut due to
forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the
plaintiffs and that motion was granted on March 23, 2015. The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2015 and,
following a scheduling conference in which the court ordered the
plaintiffs to cure various pleading deficiencies, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on June 15, 2015.
On June 29, 2015, WWE moved to dismiss the second amended complaint
in its entirety. On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the
U. S. District Court for the Central District of California,
entitled Russ McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan Sakoda,
and Matthew R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling
Entertainment, Inc., asserting similar allegations to Haynes.
The Company again moved to transfer the lawsuit to Connecticut due
to forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the
plaintiffs, which the California court granted on July 10, 2015.
On September 21, 2015, the plaintiffs amended this complaint, and,
on November 16, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.
Each of these suits sought unspecified actual, compensatory and
punitive damages and injunctive relief, including ordering medical
monitoring.
The Haynes and McCullough cases purport to be class actions. On
February 18, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Tennessee state court and
subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, entitled Cassandra Frazier, individually and
as next of kin to her deceased husband, Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr.,
and as personal representative of the Estate of Nelson Lee Frazier,
Jr. Deceased, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.
A similar suit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas entitled Michelle James, as mother and
next friend of Matthew Osborne, minor child, and Teagan Osborne, a
minor child v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.
These lawsuits contain many of the same allegations as the other
lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further allege that
the injuries contributed to these former talents' deaths.
WWE moved to transfer the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut based on
forum-selection clauses in the decedents' contracts with WWE, which
motions were granted by the respective courts. On November 23,
2015, amended complaints were filed in Frazier and Osborne, which
the Company moved to dismiss on December 16, 2015 and December 21,
2015, respectively.
On November 10, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motions to
dismiss the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits in their entirety. On June
29, 2015, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.
S. District Court for the District of Connecticut entitled World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Robert Windham, Thomas Billington,
James Ware, Oreal Perras and various John and Jane Does seeking a
declaration against these former performers that their threatened
claims related to alleged traumatic brain injuries and/or other
tort claims are time-barred.
On September 21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
this complaint, which the Company opposed. The Court previously
ordered a stay of discovery in all cases pending decisions on the
motions to dismiss.
On January 15, 2016, the Court partially lifted the stay and
permitted discovery only on three issues in the case involving
Singleton and LoGrasso.
Such discovery was completed by June 1, 2016. On March 21, 2016,
the Court issued a memorandum of decision granting in part and
denying in part the Company's motions to dismiss the Haynes,
Singleton/LoGrasso, and McCullough lawsuits.
The Court granted the Company's motions to dismiss the Haynes and
McCullough lawsuits in their entirety and granted the Company's
motion to dismiss all claims in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit
except for the claim of fraud by omission.
On March 22, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing the Windham
lawsuit based on the Court's memorandum of decision on the motions
to dismiss. On April 4, 2016, the Company filed a motion for
reconsideration with respect to the Court's decision not to dismiss
the fraud by omission claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and,
on April 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration
with respect to the Court dismissal of the Windham lawsuit.
On July 21, 2016, the Court denied the Company's motion in the
Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and granted in part the Company's motion
in the Windham lawsuit. On April 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed
notices of appeal of the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits.
On April 27, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the appeals for
lack of appellate jurisdiction, which motions were granted, and the
appeals were dismissed with leave to appeal upon the resolution of
all of the consolidated cases.
The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the sole
remaining claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit, which was
granted on March 28, 2018. The Company also filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings against the Windham defendants.
Lastly, on July 18, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, entitled Joseph M.
Laurinaitis, et al. vs. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and
Vincent K. McMahon, individually and as the trustee of certain
trusts.
This lawsuit contains many of the same allegations as the other
lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further alleges,
among other things, that the plaintiffs were misclassified as
independent contractors rather than employees denying them, among
other things, rights and benefits under the Occupational Safety and
Health Act (OSHA), the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), federal tax law, and various
state Worker's Compensation laws.
This lawsuit also alleges that the booking contracts and other
agreements between the plaintiffs and the Company are
unconscionable and should be declared void, entitling the
plaintiffs to certain damages relating to the Company's use of
their intellectual property.
The lawsuit alleges claims for violation of The Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), unjust enrichment,
and an accounting against Mr. McMahon. The Company and Mr. McMahon
moved to dismiss this complaint on October 19, 2016.
On November 9, 2016, the Laurinaitis plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint. On December 23, 2016, the Company and Mr. McMahon moved
to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 29, 2017, the Court
issued an order on the motion to dismiss pending in the Laurinaitis
case and on the motion for judgment on the pleadings pending in the
Windham case.
The Court reserved judgment on the pending motions and ordered that
within thirty-five (35) days of the date of the order the
Laurinaitis plaintiffs and the Windham defendants file amended
pleadings that comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court further ordered that each of the Laurinaitis plaintiffs
and the Windham defendants submit to the Court for in camera review
affidavits signed and sworn under penalty of perjury setting forth
facts within each plaintiff's or declaratory judgment-defendant's
personal knowledge that form the factual basis of their claim or
defense. On November 3, 2017, the Laurinaitis plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint.
The Company and Mr. McMahon believe that the second amended
complaint failed to comply with the Court's September 29, 2017
order and otherwise remained legally defective for all of the
reasons set forth in their motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Also on November 3, 2017, the Windham defendants filed a second
answer. On November 17, 2017, the Company and Mr. McMahon filed a
response that, among other things, urged the Court to grant the
motion for judgment on the pleadings against the Windham defendants
and dismiss the Laurinaitis plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice
and award sanctions against the Laurinaitis plaintiffs' counsel
because the amended pleadings failed to comply with the Court's
September 29, 2017 order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On September 17, 2018, the Court granted the motion to dismiss
filed by the Company and Mr. McMahon in the Laurinaitis case in its
entirety, awarded sanctions against the Laurinaitis plaintiffs'
counsel, and granted the Company's motion for judgment on the
pleadings against the Windham defendants. The plaintiffs have
attempted to appeal these decisions.
On November 16, 2018, the Company moved to dismiss all of the
appeals, except for the appeal of the dismissal of the Laurinaitis
case, for being filed untimely. On April 4, 2019, the Second
Circuit issued an order referring the Company's motions to dismiss
to the panel that will determine the merits of the appeals.
The plaintiffs-appellants' opening brief was filed on July 8, 2019.
The Company and Mr. McMahon filed their appellees’ brief on
October 7, 2019. The plaintiffs-appellants filed a reply brief on
October 28, 2019. The Second Circuit held oral argument on June 5,
2020.
The Company believes all claims and threatened claims against the
Company in these various lawsuits were prompted by the same
plaintiffs' lawyer and that all are without merit.
The Company intends to continue to defend itself against the
attempt to appeal these decisions vigorously.
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., an integrated media and
entertainment company, engages in the sports entertainment business
in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia
Pacific, and Latin America. It operates in three segments: Media,
Live Events, and Consumer Products. The company was founded in 1980
and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.
WORLDWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces Enomoto Employment Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Worldwide
Environmental Products, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Alan
Enomoto, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
employees v. Worldwide Environmental Products, Inc.; James Delaney;
Michael Delaney; William Delaney; and Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2020-00282573-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., July 30,
2020).
The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.
Worldwide Environmental provides automotive inspection programs
management systems. The Company also offers parks management,
public safety and opinion, and data administration solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Rodriguez, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW PARTNERS, A PROF. CORP.
106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St., No. 412
Los Angeles, CA 90012-3805
Telephone: (213) 280-8908
WYNDRIDGE FARMS: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WYNDRIDGE FARMS LTD.
The case is styled as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. WYNDRIDGE FARMS LTD., Case No.
2:20-cv-03961 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 13, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wyndridge Farm is York County's first and largest hard cidery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Phone: (215) 981-5400
Email: dglanzberg@aol.com
ZYNGA INC: Rosiak Sues Over Data Breach and Compromised PII
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Rosiak, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ZYNGA INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-05674-JCS (N.D.
Cal., Aug. 13, 2020), is brought on behalf of all persons residing
in the United States whose personally-identifying information was
compromised due to a data breach at Zynga.
Zynga promises that it has in place "reasonable and appropriate
security measures to help protect the security of your information
both online and offline and to ensure that your data is treated
securely," according to the complaint. In fact, hundreds of
millions of people, including the Plaintiff, trusted and believed
Zynga's promise to protect their personally-identifying
information, including name, email address, Zynga ID and password,
Facebook ID and password and, in some instances, financial
information given to Zynga for purchases for games and other
in-game items (collectively, "PII"). Yet despite its promise, Zynga
failed to protect its customers' PII by, among other things, using
password encryption methods that were banned for use by federal
governmental agencies as early as 2010.
In September of 2019, Zynga's customer data base was breached by a
serial hacker, who had previously stolen and sold PII on the dark
web. By current estimates, over 170 million Zynga accounts were
accessed. Although Zynga had notice of the breach and identified
which of its customer accounts were accessed, Zynga never directly
notified those customers, the Plaintiff avers. Since the Zynga Data
Breach, Zynga's customers have been exposed to credit and identity
theft, "credit stuffing," phishing scams, and any other fraudulent
conduct that a criminal mind can concoct.
The Plaintiff says he has and will incur costs to mitigate the risk
for the data breach, such as paying for credit monitoring services,
and will have to spend countless hours monitoring his credit
reports and credit card statements. Regardless of whether they have
yet to incur out-of-pocket losses, the Plaintiff and all Zynga
customers whose PII was stolen remain subject to a pervasive,
substantial, and imminent risk of identity theft and fraud now and
for years to come, says the complaint.
Mr. Rosiak provided his PII to Zynga in order to create an account
to access and play the Zynga game Hanging with Friends.
Zynga Inc. proclaims it is "a leading developer of the world's most
popular social games that are played by millions of people around
the world each day."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 986-1400
Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
Email: jennie@andrusanderson.com
- and -
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 741-1019
Fax: (312) 264-0100
Email: beth@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Lynn A. Ellenberger, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
500 Grant St., Suite 2900
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 346-4104
Fax: (412) 785-2400
Email: lynn@feganscott.com
- and -
Greg T. Kinskey, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
100 Congress Avenue, Suite 2000
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (512) 229-0655
Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
Email: greg@feganscott.com
- and -
J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C.
5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Phone: (515) 223-4567
Fax: (515) 223-8887
Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.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 ***