/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200828.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, August 28, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 173
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Hardwick Suit Seeks to Certify Nationwide Class
ADVANCED MICRO: 9th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Claims in Hauck Suit
AF GROUP: Russell Seeks to Recover Unpaid Work Time for Auditors
ALIERA COMPANIES: Appeals Ruling in Jackson Suit to Ninth Circuit
ALKERMES PLC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated EDNY Suit Still Pending
ALTA DEVICES: Faces Gunderson Labor Suit Over Cal. Plant Closure
AMERICAN CAREER: Glaspie Seeks Tuition Refund Over COVID Closure
AMERICOLLECT INC: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Oleson Suit
AMGEN INC: Judge Recommends Amendment of Sensipar(R) Class Suit
AMP: Financial Planning Arm Faces Class Action
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Canaday Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 6th Cir.
ARSTRAT LLC: Woods Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
AVIVA CANADA: Hotels File Business Interruption Insurance Lawsuit
AVIVA INSURANCE: Hampton Inn Part of COVID-19 Class Action
BAY CLUB: EEOC Files Amended Class Action Complaint
BLOOMBERG LP: Sued by Syeed Over Racial Discriminatory Practices
BLUE APRON: Discovery Ongoing in IPO Suit in New York
BLUE APRON: Settlement in Calif. Class Suit Granted Preliminary OK
BRETT SCHULTZ: Bid for Compassionate Release Amid COVID-19 Denied
CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Haven Says
CAREMORE HEALTH: Franco Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and Penalties
CENTRAL VALLEY: Workers File Covid-19-related Class Action
CHEETAH MOBILE: Judge Dismisses Marcu Securities Class Action
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Agreement Reached in Thimmegowda Suit
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Awaits Approval of Kater Settlement
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Soileau Plaintiffs Seek to Appeal Dismissal
CJS SOLUTIONS: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Borup, Vallone Denied
CLARA MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Heuklom Claims
CLOUD WITH ME: Balestra Suit Wins Class Action Status
COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: Haye Files FDCPA Suit in D. Wyoming
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces Smith FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Von Asten Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
CURA CA LLC: Stahr Sues in California Over Business Tort Claims
DHM RESEARCH: McKay Sues Over Telemarketing Text Messages
DIGITAL MEDIA: Brizzi Sues Over Unpaid OT for Non-Exempt Employees
E*TRADE SECURITIES: Whitesides Claims Contract Breach Over Outage
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Myers Amends Class Action Complaint
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Travers Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit to 3rd Cir.
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Discovery Ongoing in Hearing Loss Litigation
FITNESS FACTORY: N.J. Supreme Court Flips Sanchez Suit Dismissal
FOR LIFE PRODUCTS: Faces Jaquez ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
GENERAL MOTORS: Defective Airbag Inflators Class Suits Ongoing
GENIUS BRANDS: Verdin Sues Over Artificially Inflated Stock Price
GESA CREDIT: Laythe Sues Over Unfair Collection of Overdraft Fees
GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Cheslow Suit
GRAF INDUSTRIAL: Carlos Sues Over Unfair Merger With Velodyne
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Dental Firms Seek Claims for COVID-19 Losses
HOMELAND PATROL: Chacon Sues in S.D. Florida Over FLSA Violation
HONDA: Parking Brakes Class Action Might Proceed in Federal Court
I. C. SYSTEM: Amer Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
ILLINOIS: DOC Loses Bid to Dismiss Tyree Sex Offender Parolees Suit
INDIVIOR: Must Face Class Action Over Alleged Suboxone Monopoly
JPMORGAN CHASE: Bradford Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages
KONICA MINOLTA: Cal. App. Flips Summary Adjudication in Oliver Suit
LAS MARAVILLAS: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Appeals Order in Shron TILA Suit to 2nd Circuit
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Faces Jones FCRA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
LITTLE CAPTAIN: Riera Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
LOGMEIN INC: Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Suit Ongoing
LOGMEIN INC: Suits Challenge Francisco Partners-Elliott Buyout
LOGMEIN INC: Wasson Class Action Still Ongoing
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Fitzsimmons Suit Moved to W.D. North Carolina
M STREET: Bid for Collective Action Status Denied as Moot
MADRID TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Corona Claims
MASSACHUSETTS: Court Denies Prelim. Injunction Bid in Foster Suit
MDL 2960: Transfer of 33 COVID-19 Gap Suits to N.D. Cal. Sought
MEDICAL SOLUTIONS: Settlement in Buford Suit Has Final Approval
MERCEDES BENZ: Set to Face Biggest Ever Class Action in Scotland
METRO INT'L: Court Denies Class Cert. in Aluminum Price Fixing Case
MIAMI UNIVERSITY: Weiman Sues Over Campus Closure Due to COVID-19
MIDLAND CREDIT: Makurat Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Faces Samaha Civil Rights Suit in D. Minnesota
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Kiler Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
MORGAN STANLEY: Nelson Sues in S.D. New York Over Property Issues
NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS: Mailot Sues Over Reduced Wages, Benefits
NOBLE ENERGY: Walton Securities Suit Challenges Chevron Merger
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Court Certifies FDCPA Class in La Caria Suit
NUU MD INC: Faces Rivera TCPA Suit Over Telemarketing Messages
OLAM SPICES: Denial of $4.5MM Deal in Beltran FLSA Suit Recommended
ONESOURCE MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Hernandez Says
OXFORD 2005: Katt Sues in Colo. Over Disabilities Act Violation
PACIFIC LIFE: Li Sues Over Deceptive Scheme to Sell PDX Policies
PAPA CANTELLA'S: Vargas Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
PEARSON PLC: Court Dismisses Kylie S.'s Data Breach Class Action
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Faces Tunskai Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
PHILIP MORRIS: ADESF Class Suit vs. Unit Underway in Brazil
PHILIP MORRIS: Amended Complaint in Rebolledo Suit Not Yet Served
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Adams Class Suit in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Bourassa Class Action
PHILIP MORRIS: Dorion Class Complaint Has Not Yet Been Served
PHILIP MORRIS: Jacklin Class Suit Ongoing in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Semple Class Action Ongoing
PHILIP MORRIS: Still Defends McDermid Class Action
PLURALSIGHT INC: Continues to Defend Utah Class Action
PORTLAND WINDOW: Calcano Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
QUICK DRAW: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Dierking Says
REFORM SOLUTIONS: Nathan Sues Over Unwelcome Telemarketing Calls
ROYAL SEA: Court Strikes Witness Declarations in McCurley Suit
SAN ANTONIO, TX: 5th Cir. Appeal Filed in Payne Civil Rights Suit
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Jones Appeals E.D. Arkansas Order to 8th Cir.
SECURE ONE CAPITAL: Fabricant et al Sue Over Unsolicited Phone Ads
SFC GLOBAL: Chobanian Fraud Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
SLEEPING WELL: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
SPROUTS FARMERS: Individual Claims in Phishing Scam Suit Settled
STATE COLLECTION: Ureda Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
STATE FARM: Class Settlement in Stuart Lawsuit Gets Final Approval
SUMMIT RETAIL: Modeski Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 1st Circuit
SUNBURST SHUTTERS: Calcano Sues in New York Over Violation of ADA
TAWKIFY INC: Faces Stanfield Suit in California Superior Court
TEXTRON INC: IWA Forest Appeals Securities Suit Order to 2nd Cir.
TITLE CHECK: Garcia Sues in W.D. Michigan Over RICO Act Violation
TOASTIES ONE: Leon et al. Seek Overtime Pay for Food Preparers
TRINITY HEALTHSHARE: Appeals Ruling in Jackson Suit to 9th Cir.
UNITED COLLECTION: Hahn Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
UNITED STATES: Appeals Ruling in Afhan & Iraqi Suit to D.C. Cir.
UNITED STATES: Faces Scholl Suit Over Refusal to Issue EIP
VIRGINIA: Court Awards $1-Mil. in Fees & Costs to Scott's Counsel
VIVINT SOLAR: Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling in Dekker Suit to 9th Cir.
VOLT MANAGEMENT: Gragoosian Suit Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
VON HOUSEN'S: Faces Tracy Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Court
WALGREEN CO: Fails to Pay Hourly & Overtime Wages, President Says
WESTROCK SERVICES: Faces Valverde Employment Suit in California
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Suits Related to Stryker Tender Offer Ongoing
[*] 182 New Securities Class Actions Filed in First Half 2020
[*] Broadridge Releases New Global Class Action Report
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Had $39.7MM A&E Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bausch Health Bid to Nix Suit Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Accrues $7MM Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Defends Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Still Defends Claims at June 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $65.8MM Accrued Liability at July 3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConEd Accrues $3MM for Manhattan Incident
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Defends Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FCX Unit Still Defends Talc Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Defends Lawsuits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Still Defends PI Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Still Defends PL Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Still Faces Lawsuits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Subsidiary Had 1,121 New Claims in 1H 2020
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Units Still Defend Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Still Defends Various Lawsuits at June 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Faces at Most 500 US Cases, 50 in Europe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Solutions Has 165 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ViacomCBS Had 31,190 Pending Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warner-Lambert Still Defends Claims v. Former Unit
*********
3M COMPANY: Hardwick Suit Seeks to Certify Nationwide Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN D. HARDWICK, v. 3M
COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01185-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying a nationwide class of:
"any individual residing within the United States at the
time of class certification for one year or more since
1977 with 0.05 parts per trillion (ppt) or more of PFOA
and at least 0.05 ppt or more of any other PFAS in their
blood serum"; and
2. appointing his counsel as class counsel.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants learned that per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) would not only remain and persist
over long periods, but that it would continue to accumulate and
build up in the blood and bodies of the exposed individuals with
each additional exposure, no matter how small. Despite this
knowledge, the Defendants, through their manufacture, use, and
dissemination of the chemicals, released PFAS into the environment
through numerous sources, including the air, surface waters, ground
waters, soils, and landfills. The Defendants also released PFAS
into the environment through their involvement in the creation and
development of consumer and commercial products and materials --
and their development of training and instructional materials
related to PFAS.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US health care,
and consumer goods.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Butler, Esq.
Robert A. Bilott, Esq.
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
65 East State Street, Suite 1000
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 221-2838
Facsimile: (614) 221-2007
E-mail: dbutler@taftlaw.com
bilott@taftlaw.com
- and -
Gary J. Douglas, Esq.
DOUGLAS & LONDON, PC
59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 566-7500
Facsimile: (212) 566 7501
E-mail: gdouglas@douglasandlondon.com
- and -
Ned McWilliams, Esq.
LEVIN PAPANTONIO P.A.
316 South Baylen Street
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 435-7138
E-mail: nmcwilliams@levinlaw.com
ADVANCED MICRO: 9th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Claims in Hauck Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 27, 2020, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit has affirmed the district court order granting AMD's
motion to dismiss the claims in Diana Hauck et al. v. AMD, Inc.,
Case No. 5:18-cv-0047.
Since January 19, 2018, three putative class action complaints have
been filed against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California: (1) Diana Hauck et al. v.
AMD, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-0047, filed on January 19, 2018; (2)
Brian Speck et al. v. AMD, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-0744, filed on
February 4, 2018; and (3) Nathan Barnes and Jonathan Caskey-Medina,
et al. v. AMD, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-00883, filed on February 9,
2018.
On April 9, 2018, the court consolidated these cases and ordered
that Diana Hauck et al. v. AMD, Inc. serve as the lead case.
On June 13, 2018, six plaintiffs (from California, Louisiana,
Florida and Massachusetts) filed a consolidated amended complaint
alleging that the Company failed to disclose its processors'
alleged vulnerability to Spectre.
Plaintiffs further allege that the Company's processors cannot
perform at their advertised processing speeds without exposing
consumers to Spectre, and that any "patches" to remedy this
security vulnerability will result in degradation of processor
performance.
The plaintiffs seek damages under several causes of action on
behalf of a nationwide class and four state subclasses (California,
Florida, Massachusetts and Louisiana) of consumers who purchased
the Company's processors and/or devices containing AMD processors.
The plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees, equitable relief and
restitution.
Pursuant to the court's order directing the parties to litigate
only eight of the causes of action in the consolidated amended
complaint initially, the Company filed a motion to dismiss on July
13, 2018.
On October 29, 2018, after the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed one
of their claims, the court granted the Company's motion and
dismissed six causes of action with leave to amend. The plaintiffs
filed their amended consolidated complaint on December 6, 2018.
On January 3, 2019, the Company again moved to dismiss the subset
of claims currently at issue. On April 4, 2019, the court granted
the Company's motion and dismissed all claims currently at issue
with prejudice.
On May 6, 2019, the court granted the parties' stipulation and
request under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) to enter a partial final
judgment and certify for appeal the court's April 4, 2019 dismissal
order, and on that same date, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice their remaining claims pursuant to an agreement
whereby, subject to certain terms and conditions, the Company
agreed to toll the statute of limitations and/or statute of repose.
On May 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On May 15, 2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
ruling dismissing the subset of claims currently at issue against
the Company.
Advanced Micro said, "Based upon information presently known to
management, the Company believes that the potential liability, if
any, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, cash flows or results of operations."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. operates as a semiconductor company
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Computing and
Graphics; and Enterprise, Embedded and Semi-Custom. Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in Santa
Clara, California.
AF GROUP: Russell Seeks to Recover Unpaid Work Time for Auditors
----------------------------------------------------------------
NATHANIEL RUSSELL v. AF GROUP AND EMERGENT HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-03243-CAP (N.D. Ga., Aug. 4, 2020), is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated Premium Auditors
seeking to recover unpaid work time, unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages and attorney's fees and costs for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a single workweek, which lack payments, and
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has been employed by Emergent Holdings from July 2019
to March 2020, at his home office at 1485 Independence Trail, in
Cumming, Georgia, and worked throughout the State of Georgia as his
territory. He contends that he was not paid overtime in his
position as a Premium Auditor.
AF Group and its subsidiaries are premier providers of innovative
insurance solutions. Emergent Holdings is a trademark of Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Michigan Mutual Insurance Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Donald W. Benson, Esq.
KENNETH S. NUGENT, P.C.
Building 11, Suite 300
4227 Pleasant Hill Rd.
Duluth, GA 30096
Telephone: (770) 820-0817
Facsimile: (770) 820-0717
E-mail: dbenson@attorneykennugent.com
ALIERA COMPANIES: Appeals Ruling in Jackson Suit to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant The Aliera Companies, Inc., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Gerald Jackson, et al. v.
The Aliera Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01281-BJR, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 13,
2020, Judge Barbara J. Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, denied the Defendants'
motions to dismiss the case in its entirety.
The Plaintiffs brought the putative class action suit against
Defendants Aliera Cos., including its now-defunct subsidiary Aliera
Healthcare, and Trinity Healthshare on Aug. 14, 2019. The
Plaintiffs, who are enrolled in Trinity's healthcare cost sharing
plan, allege that the Defendants: (1) sold them unauthorized health
insurance plans in violation of Washington law; and (2) engaged in
unfair and deceptive practices in violation of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants
sold them health insurance plans in violation of both federal and
state health insurance laws.
Aliera is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
On June 27, 2018, Aliera founded Trinity, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt
organization that facilitates the sharing of medical costs amongst
its members. Trinity and Aliera then entered into a contract, which
authorized Aliera to use Trinity's non-profit status to sell,
market, and administer Trinity's healthcare plans, purported as
Health Care Sharing Ministry ("HCSM") plan, under the federal
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, giving Aliera complete
control over its proceeds and its administration of AlieraCare.
Aliera marketed, sold, and administered Trinity's AlieraCare plans,
which provided members benefits for medical coverage in exchange
for their monthly premiums.
The Plaintiffs, representatives of the putative class action,
enrolled in AlieraCare in 2018 and 2019. They each paid Trinity a
monthly premium to maintain their healthcare coverage. By enrolling
in AlieraCare, they expected that, in exchange for their premiums,
Trinity would pay certain claims for their coverage as detailed by
the Member Guide. However, the Plaintiffs were each denied
healthcare coverage under AlieraCare after submitting their
individual claims to Trinity.
The Plaintiffs filed the suit, on behalf of themselves and the
putative class, alleging that Defendants Aliera and Trinity sold
them unauthorized health insurance plans in violation of Washington
law. They are seeking to rescind their insurance contracts, or,
alternatively, to reform their illegal contracts to meet the
mandatory minimum benefits required under Washington law; and to
recover the insurance premiums they paid. They also seek to
recover damages under Washington's Consumer Protection Act,
alleging that Defendants unfairly and deceptively marketed, sold,
and administered unauthorized insurance plans to Washington
residents without having obtained the required approval for
insurance plan(s) from the Washington State Insurance
Commissioner.
The appellate case is captioned as Gerald Jackson, et al. v. The
Aliera Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-35725, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript shall be ordered by September 16, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on October 16, 2020;
-- Appellant The Aliera Companies, Inc.'s opening brief is due
on November 25, 2020;
-- Appellees Gerald Jackson, Roslyn Jackson, Dean Mellom, Jon
Perrin and Julie Perrin's answering brief is due on
December 28, 2020; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees GERALD JACKSON, ROSLYN JACKSON, DEAN MELLOM,
JON PERRIN, and JULIE PERRIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, are represented by:
Jay Angoff, Esq.
Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 822-5100
E-mail: jay.angoff@findjustice.com
cmehri@findjustice.com
- and -
Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 223-0303
Facsimile: (206) 223-0246
E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com
rspoonemore@sylaw.com
- and -
Michael David Myers, Esq.
MYERS & COMPANY, P.L.L.C.
1530 Eastlake Avenue E.
Seattle, WA 98102
Telephone: (206) 398-1188
Facsimile: (206) 400-1115
E-mail: mmyers@myers-company.com
Defendant-Appellant THE ALIERA COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, FKA Aliera Healthcare, Inc., is represented by:
Edgar G. Sargent, Esq.
Genevieve Vose Wallace, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 516-3880
E-mail: esargent@susmangodfrey.com
gwallace@susmangodrey.com
ALKERMES PLC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated EDNY Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alkermes plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that the defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated class
action suit remains pending before the U.S. Eastern District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.
In December 2018 and January 2019, purported stockholders of the
Company filed putative class actions against the Company and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York captioned Karimian v. Alkermes plc, et al.,
No. 1:18-cv-07410 and McDermott v. Alkermes plc, et al., No.
1:19-cv-00624, respectively. In March 2019, the EDNY District Court
consolidated the two cases and appointed a lead plaintiff.
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 9, 2019 naming one
additional officer of the Company and one former officer of the
Company as defendants. The amended complaint was filed on behalf of
a putative class of purchasers of Alkermes securities during the
period of July 31, 2014 through November 1, 2018 and alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on
allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions regarding
the Company's clinical methodologies and regulatory submission for
ALKS 5461 and the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) review and
consideration of that submission.
The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified money damages,
prejudgment and postjudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees and other costs.
In August 2019, the defendants filed a pre-motion letter (in
respect of a requested motion to dismiss filing) with the EDNY
District Court and plaintiff filed a response. On November 27,
2019, the defendants served the plaintiff with a motion to dismiss,
and on December 27, 2019, the plaintiff served the defendants with
its opposition to such motion.
On January 17, 2020, the defendants filed the fully-briefed motion,
including a reply to the plaintiff's opposition, with the EDNY
District Court.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Alkermes plc, a biopharmaceutical company, researches, develops,
and commercializes pharmaceutical products to address unmet medical
needs of patients in various therapeutic areas in the United
States, Ireland, and internationally. Alkermes plc was founded in
1987 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
ALTA DEVICES: Faces Gunderson Labor Suit Over Cal. Plant Closure
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT GUNDERSON, DANIEL PATTERSON, BEN LENAIL, BRENDAN KAYES, JAMES
BUSTAMANTE, OCTAVI SEMONIN, ANNETT SUESS and GLENN GARCIA, on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated v. ALTA DEVICES, INC., JIAN DING and CHARLES MARINO, Case
No. 20CV369204 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Aug. 7, 2020), is
brought on behalf of those who suffered damages as a result of the
wrongful conduct and unlawful labor practices committed by the
Defendants and for violations of California Labor Code.
In September-October 2019, the Defendants ordered a mass layoff
and/or plant closure at their Sunnyvale, California factory,
leaving almost 300 employees without a job--and without final
paychecks--just before the holiday season. The Defendants abandoned
employees without any pay and left them in the lurch--providing no
official notice of termination, and repeatedly promising that the
plant would be back up and running any day, says the complaint.
The Defendants failed to pay employees' wages and vacation time,
already earned, in violation of the California Labor Code,
according to the complaint. Defendant Alta also breached agreements
with the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees by
failing to provide severance pay as clearly outlined in certain
employees' agreements.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent all former or current employees of
Defendant Alta, who were not paid for weeks of work prior to the
shutdown; who did not receive earned but unpaid wages for up to 30
extra days for failing to pay such wages under California law; who
did not receive earned but unpaid vacation time, bonuses and
benefits; and/or did not receive promised severance payments.
Alta Devices is a defunct US-based specialty gallium arsenide PV
manufacturer, which claims to have achieved a solar cell conversion
efficiency record of 29.1%, as certified by Germany's Fraunhofer
ISE CalLab.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Miller, Esq.
LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 581-5005
Facsimile: (212) 581-2122
- and -
Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
THE GARDNER FIRM,
182 St., Francis Street, Suite 103
Mobile, AL 36602
Telephone: (251) 433-8100
Facsimile: (251) 433-8181
- and -
Justin T. Berger, Esq.
Sarvenaz "Nazy" J. Fahimi, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
San Francisco Airport Office Center
840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: jberger@cpmlegal.com
sfahimi@cpmlegal.com
AMERICAN CAREER: Glaspie Seeks Tuition Refund Over COVID Closure
----------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL JOHNSON GLASPIE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. AMERICAN CAREER COLLEGE, INC., Case No.
30-2020-01153323-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Aug. 6,
2020), seeks refund of tuition and fees arising out of the COVID-19
global pandemic, which has resulted in the suspension of in-person
classes in many universities and schools across the country.
Specifically, the Plaintiff brings this complaint for damages
arising out of the Defendant's conduct of improperly and unfairly
refusing to refund students' tuition for in-person education
following the Defendant's decision to suspend all in-person classes
in violation of the California's Unfair Competition Law, and the
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention has classified
COVID-19 as a serious threat to the health and safety of the
public, and the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19
outbreak to be a pandemic.
American Career is a private, for profit vocational college that
specializes in health care training programs. American Career was
founded by David Pyle in 1978. American Career College offers both
Diploma and associate degree programs through three campuses in the
Los Angeles metro area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Pamela E. Prescott, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
pamela@kazlg.com
AMERICOLLECT INC: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Oleson Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DIANA OLESON and LISA
KOMOROSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. AMERICOLLECT, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01182-JPS (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class
certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a
tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent
a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by
attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the
plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
themselves as the class representative, and appoint their attorneys
as class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
AMGEN INC: Judge Recommends Amendment of Sensipar(R) Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of Delaware
handling Sensipar(R) Antitrust Class Actions issued a
recommendation on July 22, 2020, to the Delaware District Court
that the claims against Amgen be dismissed but recommended that
leave be given to plaintiffs to amend their complaints.
Amgen Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers human
therapeutics worldwide. It offers products for the treatment of
oncology/hematology, cardiovascular, inflammation, bone health, and
neuroscience. Amgen Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered
in Thousand Oaks, California
AMP: Financial Planning Arm Faces Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Charlotte Grieve, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that AMP's financial planning arm has been hit with a class action
filed by its former aligned advisers who claim they have been
financially ruined by a change in policy that devalued their
businesses.
The lawsuit was filed in the Federal Court in Melbourne on July 28
by commercial law firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth. AMP said it would
defend the claim.
The wealth giant changed the terms and conditions of long-standing
arrangements with its financial planners in August last year that
devalued adviser businesses by more than one-third and left many in
debt. Under the previous policy, known as the buyer of last resort
(BOLR), AMP agreed to purchase client books of retiring advisers
for four times the annual revenue but this was reduced to 2.5 times
in an effort to cut costs.
The Finance Sector Union national assistant secretary Nathan Rees
said about 1000 former advisers had been impacted by the
"extraordinary" policy change and the class action was the only
option after AMP executives had failed to negotiate.
"AMP has refused to budge -- from the chairman and chief executive
down," Mr Rees said. "If they're serious about restoring their
corporate reptation in Australia, treating their own business
partners like this makes you wonder how they treat customers.
"I've seen some pretty ordinary behaviour by corporations over the
years but this is a pearler."
AMP told the ASX it was confident in the actions it took last year
and said it would defend the proceedings. A spokesman said 30
mediation sessions had been held with advisers to share information
about the changes.
Former AMP adviser David Haseldine has signed up to the class
action after he said an 11-year relationship with AMP ended with
his $400,000 business being worthless.
"You go from thinking your situation is fairly well mapped out in
retirement to having the rug completely pulled out underneath you
and wondering if you can put food on the table," Mr Haseldine said.
"It does have an emotional impact."
Mr Haseldine considers himself one of the "lucky ones" as he
refused to sign a contract with AMP that meant he could not trade
for three years and has now started another business.
"If someone had said to me last June that AMP would act with such
brutality, I would not have believed it for a second," he said.
"It's a company without any moral or ethical fibre."
AMP has been called to appear before the standing committee on
economics in September for questioning on superannuation but
Liberal MP Tim Wilson said he would probe the wealth giant over its
BOLR changes.
Labor Senator Deborah O'Neill has called for a full parliamentary
inquiry so advisers can put their experiences on the record.
"I note with some concern that if Parliament only hears from AMP,
such a hearing will only exacerbate the existing power imbalance
between the two parties," she wrote to Senator James Paterson, who
chairs parliamentary joint committee on corprations and financial
services, on July 28.
"AMP planners affected by unprecedented BOLR changes need to have
their issues heard. It is a matter of public interest and has
implications for the financial services sector for which we have a
particular responsibility."
AMP chief executive Francesco De Ferrari criticised Australia's
class action industry at a Senate economics committee in June,
praising the Treasurer's decision to tighten regulation of
litigation funders.
"He's just got an eye to the bottom line," Mr Rees said. "If they
act unconscionably, and they are unreasonable in negotiations and
mediations, what options do people have?"
"If he wants this sorted, he could do it with a stroke of a pen.
Restore the old BOLR, buy people out, done." [GN]
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Canaday Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 6th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Laura Canaday filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in her lawsuit entitled Laura Canaday v. The Anthem Companies,
Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01084, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee at Jackson.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
an employment-related class action complaint, which has been filed
against The Anthem Companies, Inc., for alleged violation of the
overtime provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Laura Canaday, who was hired as a utilization management
review nurse since approximately June 2017 to the present,
routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek without overtime
compensation, according to the complaint. In addition, Anthem has
allegedly failed to make, keep, and preserve records with respect
to each of its employees sufficient to determine their wages,
hours, and other conditions and practice of employment.
The appellate case is captioned as Laura Canaday v. The Anthem
Companies, Inc., Case No. 20-5947, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant LAURA CANADAY, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:
Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
APOLLO LAW
333 Washington Avenue, N., Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 927-2969
E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com
- and -
William Benjamin Ryan, Esq.
1545 Union Avenue
Memphis, TN 38104
Telephone: (901) 278-1004
- and -
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER
80 S. Eighth Street, Suite 4600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
E-mail: srey@nka.com
Defendant-Appellee THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC. is represented by:
Brett Christopher Bartlett, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW
1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 885-1500
E-mail: bbartlett@seyfarth.com
ARSTRAT LLC: Woods Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as LETICIA WOODS, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ARSTRAT, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01174-SCD (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a
"placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent
against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants
sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a
decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named
plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not
classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
himself as the class representative, and appoint his attorneys as
class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
AVIVA CANADA: Hotels File Business Interruption Insurance Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lyle Adriano, writing for Insurance Business Mag, reports that
Aviva Canada is facing yet another lawsuit over denied business
interruption claims, this time filed by hotels looking to claim on
losses sustained due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In a statement by Lerners LLP, it is alleged Aviva Canada was in
breach of contract when the insurer denied the hotels' loss of
business income coverage. The hotels had filed for claims after
suffering losses following the declaration of states of emergency
and closure orders by both the federal and provincial governments.
Lerners stated that the hotel chains denied by Aviva Canada include
Best Western, Home 2 by Hilton and Hampton Inn; the law firm filed
the lawsuit on behalf of Roshan Holdings, which owns and operates
Home 2 by Hilton and Hampton Inn. Lerners has also invited other
hotel owners denied coverage by Aviva Canada to join the class
action.
According to the complaint, Aviva is interpreting the coverage as
only applying to outbreaks that happened "at or within the
applicable area of the insured premises." The lawsuit further
alleges that Aviva said that "there is no coverage under the policy
for business income losses resulting from the closure orders made
in response to the current worldwide COVID-19 pandemic."
The lawsuit is seeking $150 million, which includes loss of
business income and accountants' fees, The Canadian Press reported.
The complaint also noted that each hotel has up to $500,000 of
coverage through Aviva's Hotel Program. [GN]
AVIVA INSURANCE: Hampton Inn Part of COVID-19 Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Ross Marowits, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that the
company that owns Peterborough's newest hotel is part of a
class-action lawsuit over denied insurance coverage for business
income lost because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The six-storey, 100-room Hampton Inn and Suites by Hilton opened
next to the Shorelines Casino Peterborough on Crawford Drive in
October.
The casino had to temporarily close its doors in March due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. While gaming halls and casinos can now reopen in
most parts of Ontario, they are limited to 50 people inside at a
time, so the casino has yet to reopen.
In a statement of claim, Lerners LLP alleged that Aviva Insurance
Company of Canada was in breach of contract when it denied the
hotels' loss of business income coverage after the federal and
provincial governments declared states of emergency, restricting
their business due to the outbreak of novel coronavirus.
It is seeking $150 million including loss of business income and
the accountants' fees. Each hotel in the class action lawsuit has
up to $500,000 of coverage.
"We are still quantifying the specific loss for the representative
plaintiff and putative class members, but the losses are expected
to be significant," said a Lerners spokesperson.
The claim said hotels paid premiums for loss of business income
insurance with the expectation that Aviva would act in good faith.
However, the insurance company notified hotel customers that the
coverage applies only to outbreaks that occurred "at or within the
applicable area of the insured premises."
"We know these are challenging times for everyone. And like many,
the hospitality industry has been severely impacted by the COVID-19
pandemic," Aviva said in a statement.
"Unfortunately in this instance there is no coverage for provincial
wide shutdown orders as a result of a worldwide pandemic. As this
matter is in litigation, it wouldn't be appropriate for us to
comment further."
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Roshan Holdings Inc., which owns
and operates two hotels, the Hampton Inn in Peterborough and a Home
2 by Hilton located in Milton.
The Ontario government declared a provincial state of emergency on
March 17 to help contain the spread of the pandemic. Other
provinces ordered the mandatory closure of all places of
non-essential business.
"Although the hotels were not completely closed, their operations
were significantly restricted," said the claim. "The hotels could
not offer food and beverage service, and all of the amenities
including the pool and gym were mandated to close under the closure
orders due to COVID-19." [GN]
BAY CLUB: EEOC Files Amended Class Action Complaint
---------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the case captioned UNITED STATES
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. BAY CLUB
FAIRBANKS RANCH, LLC, et. al., Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-1853 W
(AGS) (S.D. Cal.) on Aug. 5, 2020.
Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") was
granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") in a July
28, 2020 Order by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California available at https://tinyurl.com/y2xt4xa3 from
Leagle.com.
The lawsuit was filed by Plaintiff EEOC in August 2018 to correct
unlawful employment practices based on sex and to provide relief to
Charging Party Sidney Scott and a class of individuals who were
adversely affected by such practices. There are several similarly
named locations and companies relevant to the motion.
Fairbanks Ranch Country Club ("FRCC") is the facility where the
Plaintiff alleges unlawful employment practices occurred. FRCC is
an originally named defendant and dissolved entity which operated
Fairbanks Ranch Country Club until July 2016. FRCC and the EEOC
resolved the case with each other on Dec. 2, 2019. Defendant Bay
Club Fairbanks Ranch, LLC and The Bay Club Co., LLC ("TBCC") are
claimed to have acquired Fairbanks Ranch Country Club from FRCC in
July 2016, and have collectively operated as a direct single
employer and/or as joint employers since at least July 2016. BCFR
is named as a defendant in the Complaint; TBCC is not.
On Nov. 6, 2018, BCFR filed a motion to dismiss ("MTD") arguing,
among other things, that the Complaint failed to allege facts that
BCFR was in any way responsible for the alleged harassment, and
that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over any
individual other than the original Charging Party Sidney Scott.
The Court denied the MTD, finding the Defendant's arguments lacked
merit.
The EEOC sought leave to amend the Complaint to (1) add The Bay
Clubs Co., LLC as a named Defendant; (2) conform to proof and
provide additional facts to the current claims; and (3) remove
former Defendant FRCC from the Complaint. Defendant BCFR opposed
on the grounds of futility and prejudice.
The Court found that the appropriate test of a party's diligence
focuses on when that party obtained new information leading to the
motion to amend. Based on the Plaintiff remaining active in
attempting to obtain new information to support the proposed FAC,
as well as consistently attempting to resolve the issue by meeting
and conferring with the Defendant, the Plaintiff has demonstrated
diligence and good cause to amend.
The Court further held that neither BCFR nor TBCC will be
prejudiced nor does it appear that discovery will have to
"practically restart" as the Defendant claims. The Court agrees
with the EEOC that justice and the public interest are best served
by allowing the EEOC to amend the Complaint. The Court finds that
any violations that the EEOC ascertains in the course of a
reasonable investigation of the charging party's complaint are
actionable, and the EEOC exists to advance the public interest in
preventing and remedying employment discrimination.
The Court also held that the Defendant has not shown that any of
the EEOC's proposed amendments are futile. The proposed FAC
alleges further connections and examples of control by TBCC, but,
in short, it is reasonable to infer that TBCC employed and/or
controlled the Charging Party and other members of the claimed
class at the time of the alleged discrimination. Therefore, the
EEOC's single or joint employer theory is not futile. Thus, the
Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend.
BLOOMBERG LP: Sued by Syeed Over Racial Discriminatory Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
NAFEESA SYEED, and similarly situated employees v. BLOOMBERG L.P.,
MATHEW WINLKER JOHN MICKLETHWAIT, MARTY SCHENKER, RETO GREGORI and
"JOHN DOES" 1-10, Case No. 156215/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty.,
Aug. 7, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, declaratory judgment and
money damages to remedy alleged discrimination on the basis of sex
and race in the terms, conditions and privileges of employment;
harassment; hostile work environment; and failure to promote under
the New York Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff contends that the terms, conditions and privileges of
her employment and those female employees similarly situated with
the Defendant were adversely affected because of their sex and
race. She adds that Bloomberg created a blatantly hostile work
environment toward minority women, willfully refused to remedy
discrimination, failed to promote them by denying them equal terms
and conditions of employment and ultimately caused her constructive
discharge in violation of State and City anti-discrimination
remedial statutes.
The Plaintiff, a South Asian-American female Bloomberg L.P. News
reporter, resigned from her employment because of its top-down
systemic sex and racially biased discriminatory practices for
promotion and compensation against minority women.
Bloomberg delivers business and market news, data, analysis and
video to the world, featuring stories from Business Week and
Bloomberg News.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Donna H. Clancy, Esq.
40 Wall Street, 61st Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 747-1744
Facsimile: (646) 693-7229
BLUE APRON: Discovery Ongoing in IPO Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the consolidated
putative class action related to the company's initial public
offering (IPO), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.
The Company is subject to a consolidated putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York alleging federal securities law violations in connection with
the initial public offering (IPO).
The amended complaint alleges that the Company and certain current
and former officers and directors made material misstatements or
omissions in the Company's registration statement and prospectus
that caused the stock price to drop. Pursuant to a stipulated
schedule entered by the parties, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint on May 21, 2018.
Plaintiffs filed a response on July 12, 2018 and defendants filed a
reply on August 13, 2018.
On April 22, 2020, the Court entered an order (i) denying the
motion to dismiss insofar as Plaintiffs' allegations pertained to
certain of the disclosures in the registration statement and
prospectus claimed by plaintiff, and (ii) narrowing the factual
issues in the case.
The case is currently in the discovery phase.
The Company is also subject to two putative class action lawsuits
filed in New York Supreme Court alleging federal securities law
violations in connection with the IPO, which are substantially
similar to the above-referenced federal court action. Those cases
were stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss filed in
the federal court action.
Blue Apron said, "The Company is unable to provide any assurances
as to the ultimate outcome of any of these lawsuits or that an
adverse resolution of any of these lawsuits would not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position or results of operations.
Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates direct-to-consumer platform that
delivers original recipes, and fresh and seasonal ingredients. It
also operates Blue Apron Market, an e-commerce marketplace that
provides cooking tools, utensils, and pantry items. Blue Apron
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.
BLUE APRON: Settlement in Calif. Class Suit Granted Preliminary OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that a California Superior Court has granted
preliminary approval of the final settlement agreement in a class
action suit.
The Company is subject to a lawsuit filed in California Superior
Court under the Private Attorneys General Act on behalf of certain
non-exempt employees in the Company's Richmond, California
fulfillment center.
The complaint was filed on October 16, 2017, and alleges that the
Company failed to pay wages and overtime, provide required meal and
rest breaks, provide suitable resting facilities and provide
accurate wage statements, to non-exempt employees in violation of
California law.
Plaintiffs' counsel filed a separate class action lawsuit alleging
largely the same claims, but covering a longer period, which is now
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.
A mediation was held on November 20, 2019, at which time the cases
were not resolved. On December 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification in federal court. On December 18, 2019, the
parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding which, if
finalized and approved by the court, will resolve both actions in
their entirety.
The parties finalized a settlement agreement on March 2, 2020 and
the court has vacated all other deadlines in the class-action case,
including the due date for the Company’s opposition to the motion
for class certification.
In light of a reduced court schedule as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic, the court cancelled the hearing on the motion for
preliminary approval of the final settlement agreement which had
been scheduled for April 16, 2020, and notified the parties that it
will issue a determination on the motion without a hearing. On July
6, 2020, the court granted preliminary approval of the final
settlement agreement.
Blue Apron said, "If the court does not issue final approval of the
settlement agreement, the cases will continue. As of June 30, 2020,
the Company has an accrual of $2.1 million for an estimated legal
settlement for which the Company concluded the loss is probable and
reasonably estimable."
Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates direct-to-consumer platform that
delivers original recipes, and fresh and seasonal ingredients. It
also operates Blue Apron Market, an e-commerce marketplace that
provides cooking tools, utensils, and pantry items. Blue Apron
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.
BRETT SCHULTZ: Bid for Compassionate Release Amid COVID-19 Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York issued
a Decision and Order denying Defendant Brett Schultz's motion for
sentence reduction under the federal compassionate-release statute
in the case captioned UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BRETT SCHULTZ,
Case No. 17-CR-193S (W.D.N.Y.).
On November 8, 2017, Mr. Schultz waived indictment and pleaded
guilty to a single-count information charging him with attempted
receipt of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section
2252A(a)(2)(A). This charge stemmed from Mr. Schultz's sexually
explicit on-line chats with an undercover law enforcement officer
whom he believed to be a minor female. He sent this "girl" naked
photographs of himself, requested that she reciprocate with
explicit photographs and videos of her own, and coached her on how
to perform sex acts. He then arranged to meet this "girl" for sex
and arrived at the meeting point with a condom in his pocket.
On March 7, 2018, the Court sentenced Mr. Schultz to 87 months
imprisonment pursuant to the terms of the parties' Rule 11(c)(1)(C)
plea agreement, 10 years supervised release, a $100 special
assessment, and no fine or restitution. He is presently serving his
sentence at FCI Elkton, with a release date of May 17, 2023.
On April 7, 2020, Mr. Schultz moved for release to home
incarceration or for a sentence reduction to time served under 18
U.S.C. Section 3582(c)(1)(A) on the ground that he is at heighted
risk to develop COVID-19 given his asthma condition and the recent
outbreak of the coronavirus at FCI Elkton. Mr. Schultz has served
38 months of his 87-month sentence. He is 42 years old and has
suffered from asthma since childhood, which he claims makes him
highly susceptible to COVID-19. While no medical records have been
submitted, FCI Elkton has identified Mr. Schultz as medically
vulnerable to COVID-19 due to his asthma. The Government opposed
his motion.
On April 15, 2020, the Court denied Mr. Schultz's motion without
prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative rights as
required under Section 3582(c)(1)(A), citing United States v.
Schultz, 17-CR-193S, 2020 WL 1872352 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2020). The
Court, thereafter, also denied Mr. Schultz's motion for
reconsideration. Upon exhaustion, Mr. Schultz filed the instant
motion to reduce sentence on May 13, 2020. The Government again
opposes the Motion.
Conclusion
The Court denied Mr. Schultz's Motion for Sentence Reduction. The
Court finds that a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. Section
3582(c)(1)(A) is not warranted.
Despite having found extraordinary and compelling reasons for a
sentence reduction, the Court finds that those reasons are
outweighed by consideration of the Section 3553(a) factors and that
a sentence reduction would undermine Mr. Schultz's original
sentence.
District Judge William M. Skretny states that Mr. Schultz's offense
conduct is abhorrent. He preyed on a "girl" whom he solicited
online and thought was a 15-year-old high school student. He sent
this "girl" numerous sexually explicit messages.
For this disturbing and egregious conduct, Mr. Schultz agreed to
the imposition of an 87-month term of imprisonment. Judge Skretny
says that is a fair, just, and reasonable sentence which, in this
Court's view, would be severely undermined by a reduction to time
served after only 38 months. Such a reduced sentence would not
reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the
law, provide just punishment, afford adequate deterrence, or
protect the public from future crimes by the Defendant, Judge
Skretny adds.
Given the manipulative and predatory nature of Mr. Schultz's
criminal conduct and his history of sexual misconduct, the Court
finds that he presents a danger to the community if released. A
sentence reduction is, therefore, precluded on this basis as well,
citing United States v. Lebrecht, 1:16-CR-166 EAW, 2020 WL 2519721,
at *3 (W.D.N.Y. May 18, 2020) (denying compassionate release to a
child pornography defendant housed at FCI Elkton due, in part, to
the danger the defendant poses to the community as demonstrated by
his on-line chats and other underlying offense conduct).
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 28, 2020 Decision and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7phm7oq from
Leagle.com.
CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Haven Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS HAVEN, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No.
20CV01514 (Cal. Super., Butte Cty., Aug. 3, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay minimum and overtime wages, and to provide
required meal and rest periods in violation of the California Labor
Code.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in California as a
non-exempt employee from August 2016 to November of 2019.
The Defendant provides residential and vocational support to
developmentally disabled adults.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
5850 Oberlin Drive, Suite 230A
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (619) 255-9047
Facsimile: (858) 404-9203
- and -
Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
JCL LAW FIRM, APC
3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 599-8292
Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
CAREMORE HEALTH: Franco Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and Penalties
-------------------------------------------------------------
SONIA FRANCO, on behalf of all other aggrieved employees v.
CAREMORE HEALTH PLAN, INC., AND DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE, Case No.
20STCV30072 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 7, 2020), seeks to
recover penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004,
California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants implemented policies and
practices, which led to unpaid wages resulting from the
Defendants': (a) failure to accurately pay overtime wages; (b)
failure to pay minimum wages; (c) failure to provide meal periods
and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing
a meal period; (d) failure to authorize and permit rest breaks for
every four hours or major fraction thereof worked and failure to
pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a rest period;
(e) failure to pay all wages earned for the pay period
corresponding to the payday; and (f) failing to pay all wages
earned and owed upon separation from the Defendants' employ.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants for five years as a
Non-Exempt Employee working as a medical assistant until her
separation from the Defendants' employ in January 2020.
CareMore, a subsidiary of Anthem Inc., is an integrated health plan
and care delivery system for Medicare and Medicaid patients. The
Company was founded in 1993 by Sheldon Zinberg as a small Southern
California regional medical group.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
Cameron A. Stewart, Esq.
MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES, APLC
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
Telephone: (310) 312-0299
Facsimile: (310) 312-0296
CENTRAL VALLEY: Workers File Covid-19-related Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Edward Smith, writing for The Business Journal, reports that a
class-action lawsuit has been brought against Central Valley Meat
Co. for company policies that court documents allege encouraged
even Covid-infected employees to keep coming to work.
The lawsuit is on behalf of workers at the slaughterhouse and meat
packer in Hanford, where attorneys say clients were forced to work
even when sick.
A complaint also states employees were not informed of Covid-19
infections.
The San Diego-based law firm representing the plaintiffs,
Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, filed the lawsuit in the United States
Eastern District of California.
Attorneys are suing for claims of public nuisance, wanton and
reckless misconduct and unfair and unlawful business practices,
citing violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well
as CDC and OSHA guidelines.
The main plaintiff, Maria Ornelas, contracted Covid-19 in April
from working at Central Valley Meat, according to court documents.
After she tried to take several days off of work after testing
positive, Ornelas lost incentive pay and bonuses for which she
should have been entitled, according to the complaint.
The complaint cites three different company policies that pressured
employees to report to work. The first was a bonus appreciation
policy that gave workers an additional $100 a week for perfect
attendance. Under another program, the attendance incentive policy,
employees lost $2.50 per hour for every scheduled hour they didn't
work. Attorneys also claim that Ornelas received disciplinary
points for taking time off work.
The lawsuit alleges this violates the Family and Medical Leave
Act.
A request for comment from Central Valley Meat Co. was not
immediately returned.
According to court documents, Central Valley Meat Co. is the
seventh-largest beef packer and processing company in the United
States, processing 1,500 head of cattle a day. it has a facility in
Vernon, California with 900 total employees. Its Hanford facility
employs 750 people.
By April, the company had reported 161 positive Covid cases, which
the lawsuit says was directly attributable to decisions made by
leadership.
Control barriers such as plexiglass were not installed, nor were
adequate masks, gloves or facial shields provided, the complaint
states. Because of the fast pace of work, people were unable to
take adequate breaks to wash hands.
It also states that workers were not told of positive cases. Some
workers who commented or posted on Facebook about positive cases
were told they could be fired. Attorneys said in the complaint this
violates labor codes protecting employees who disclose information
about working conditions.
It is also believed that multiple employees were allowed to return
to work after testing positive. One worker was told to return two
days after testing positive, according to the complaint. The class
action extends four years prior to the pandemic to include workers
affected by bonus and attendance policies. [GN]
CHEETAH MOBILE: Judge Dismisses Marcu Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
July 16, 2020, Judge Jesse Furman of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative
class action against a Chinese computer application developer and
certain of its executives asserting claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Marcu v. Cheetah Mobile Inc., No. 18-CV-11184
(JMF), 2020 WL 4016645 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2020). Plaintiffs
asserted an "omissions case"; i.e., they alleged that the company
made statements regarding its revenue, the popularity of its
applications, and the importance of the Google Play store to its
business model that were rendered misleading because the company
did not disclose an alleged scheme through which the company earned
improper referral bonuses on application downloads. The Court held
that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that the challenged
statements were false or misleading or made with scienter. Because
plaintiffs had previously been granted leave to amend their
complaint, and the Court found nothing to suggest that the
deficiencies identified could be cured, the Court denied leave to
amend.
The Court held that plaintiffs had failed to plead falsity because
they had not pleaded with sufficient specificity how "the alleged
omissions are sufficiently connected to defendants' existing
disclosures to make those public statements misleading." Id. at *3.
For example, the Court noted that many of challenged statements
described a user's experience with the company's applications,
which were unaffected by plaintiffs' assertion that those same
applications were also used to manipulate the referral bonuses. Id.
at *4.
In addition, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that
statements regarding the company's revenue or profit were
misleading. The Court emphasized that many of the challenged
statements "did nothing more than accurately characterize --
statistical facts," and were not rendered misleading by the
omission of the alleged misconduct because they "did not put the
source of [the company's] success at issue." Id. at *5. While the
Court noted that certain statements came closer to being
actionable, such as statements that the company "generated online
marketing revenues primarily by referring user traffic and selling
advertisements on our mobile and PC platforms" and listing the
"most significant factors affecting revenues from online
marketing," the Court held that those statements did not rule out
the possibility that other factors contributed to revenue and
plaintiffs alleged no facts regarding the significance of the
alleged scheme to the company's overall revenues. Id.
Moreover, the Court held that challenged statements regarding the
company's risk disclosures -- including statements that the
company's business could be adversely affected by evolving data
protection regulations or if Google Play terminated its
relationship with the company -- were not actionable because
plaintiffs' allegations failed to establish that the statements
were false when made or that the risks had already materialized.
Id. at *6. Because plaintiffs had not established that any existing
statements were rendered misleading by the alleged omissions, and
in light of the fact that there was no affirmative duty to disclose
that information, the Court held that plaintiffs had not alleged an
actionable falsity.
The Court also held that plaintiffs failed to allege facts
adequately supporting scienter. Plaintiffs relied on several
allegations to support a strong inference of scienter: (1) that
individual defendants were senior executives or a controlling
shareholder when the statements were made; (2) that the individuals
had knowledge of the applications implicated in the alleged scheme
as well as of the company's revenues generally; (3) that the
company owned a separate "software development kit" that was used
to facilitate the scheme; (4) that confidential witnesses stated
that the company "valued clicks and revenue above all else,
including integrity"; (5) that the applications in question were
core offerings; and (6) that the company had been accused of
advertising fraud previously. Id. at *7.
The Court rejected each of these arguments. The Court noted that a
defendant's position alone cannot establish that he or she was
aware of information contradicting an alleged misrepresentation,
and that plaintiffs failed to identify any specific basis to
support an inference that defendants had information contradicting
the statements at issue. Id. The Court further held that plaintiffs
failed to explain why the company's ownership of the "software
development kit" would suggest that particular individuals were
aware that the software caused false referrals, and the Court held
that the confidential witnesses did not state that the individuals
in question possessed the requisite knowledge that the statements
were false. Id.
The Court further observed that plaintiffs' allegation that the
company's applications were "core offerings" appeared to be an
effort to invoke the core operations doctrine, which permits an
inference that a company's senior executives have knowledge of
information regarding the business's core operations. The Court
concluded, however, that even if the core operations doctrine was
valid in the Second Circuit following the adoption for the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act, which is not clear, it could only
be used to supplement other allegations of scienter and not to
establish scienter independently. Id. at *8. Finally, with respect
to previous allegations of fraud levied against the company, the
Court explained that the mere fact that the company had been sued
previously regarding other allegedly fraudulent advertising
practices did not establish that defendants knew that the alleged
misstatements were false when made. Id. [GN]
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Agreement Reached in Thimmegowda Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that an agreement in principle has been
reached in Manasa Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Games, Purchaser,
Aristocrat Leisure Limited.
On February 11, 2019, the Thimmegowda litigation was filed in the
Washington District Court alleging, among other claims, that "Big
Fish Casino," which is operated by Big Fish Games, violated
Washington law, including the Washington Consumer Protection Act,
and seeking, among other things, return of monies lost, reasonable
attorney's fees, injunctive relief, and treble and punitive
damages. Prior disclosures in our filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission have identified the extensive procedural
history associated with this case.
On May 22, 2020, the parties entered into an agreement in principle
to settle the Kater and Thimmegowda litigations.
Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and
online entertainment company in the United States. It operates
through Racing, Casinos, Online Wagering, and Other Investments and
Corporate segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in
1928 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Awaits Approval of Kater Settlement
----------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the plaintiffs in Cheryl Kater v.
Churchill Downs Incorporated have filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement, which is pending.
On April 17, 2015, the Kater litigation (Cheryl Kater v. Churchill
Downs Incorporated) was filed in the Washington District Court
alleging, among other claims, that the Company's "Big Fish Casino"
operated by the Company's then-wholly owned mobile gaming
subsidiary Big Fish Games, violated Washington law, including the
Washington Consumer Protection Act, by facilitating unlawful
gambling through its virtual casino games (namely the slots,
blackjack, poker, and roulette games offered through Big Fish
Casino), and seeking, among other things, return of monies lost,
reasonable attorney's fees, treble damages, and injunctive relief.
As previously disclosed, on January 9, 2018, the Company sold Big
Fish Games to Aristocrat, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
Aristocrat Leisure Limited, an Australian corporation, pursuant to
the Stock Purchase Agreement.
Pursuant to the terms of the Stock Purchase Agreement, the Company
agreed to indemnify Aristocrat for the losses and expenses
associated with the Kater litigation for Big Fish Games, which is
referred to in the Stock Purchase Agreement as the "Primary
Specified Litigation."
After the Washington District Court dismissed the case with
prejudice on November 19, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the Washington District
Court’s dismissal of the complaint on March 28, 2018.
The complaint was amended on March 20, 2019, to add Big Fish Games
as a party and to assert claims on behalf of an additional
plaintiff, Suzie Kelly. Prior disclosures in our filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission have identified the extensive
procedural history associated with this case.
As previously disclosed, on May 22, 2020, the parties entered into
an agreement in principle to settle the Kater litigation and the
Thimmegowda litigation. The agreement in principle remains
contingent on final court approval by the Washington District
Court.
Under the terms of the settlement, which will take effect only
after final court approval of the proposed class settlement: (i) a
total of $155.0 million will be paid into a settlement fund.
CDI will pay $124.0 million of the settlement from its available
cash; Aristocrat will pay $31.0 million of the settlement; (ii) all
members of the nationwide settlement class who do not exclude
themselves will release all claims relating to the subject matter
of the lawsuits; and (iii) Aristocrat has agreed to specifically
release CDI of any and all indemnification obligations under the
Stock Purchase Agreement arising from or related to the Kater and
Thimmegowda litigations, including any claims of diminution of
value of Big Fish Games and any claims by any person who opts out
of the proposed class settlement.
On July 24, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement.
Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and
online entertainment company in the United States. It operates
through Racing, Casinos, Online Wagering, and Other Investments and
Corporate segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in
1928 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Soileau Plaintiffs Seek to Appeal Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the objecting plaintiffs in the
case, John L. Soileau, et. al. versus Churchill Downs Louisiana
Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company,
LLC (Suit No. 14-3873), have filed a notice of their intention to
seek a writ with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit related to the dismissal of the amended petition.
On April 21, 2014, John L. Soileau and other individuals filed a
Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunction, and
Damages-Class Action styled John L. Soileau, et. al. versus
Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs
Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) in the Parish
of Orleans Civil District Court, State of Louisiana (the "District
Court").
The petition defined the "alleged plaintiff class" as quarter horse
owners, trainers and jockeys that have won purses at the "Fair
Grounds Race Course & Slots" facility in New Orleans, Louisiana
since the first effective date of La. R.S. 27:438 and specifically
since 2008. The petition alleged that Churchill Downs Louisiana
Horseracing, LLC and Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company,
LLC ("Fair Grounds Defendants") have collected certain monies
through video draw poker devices that constitute monies earned for
purse supplements and all of those supplemental purse monies have
been paid to thoroughbred horsemen during Fair Grounds' live
thoroughbred horse meets.
La. R.S. 27:438 requires a portion of those supplemental purse
monies to be paid to quarter-horse horsemen during Fair Grounds'
live quarter-horse meets.
The petition requested that the District Court declare that Fair
Grounds Defendants violated La. R.S. 27:438, issue a permanent and
mandatory injunction ordering Fair Grounds Defendants to pay all
future supplements due to the plaintiff class pursuant to La. R.S.
27:438, and to pay the plaintiff class such sums as it finds to
reasonably represent the value of the sums due to the plaintiff
class.
On August 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their
petition naming the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective
Association 1993, Inc. ("HBPA") as an additional defendant and
alleging that HBPA is also liable to plaintiffs for the disputed
purse funds. On October 9, 2014, HBPA and Fair Grounds Defendants
filed exceptions to the suit, including an exception of primary
jurisdiction seeking referral to the Louisiana Racing Commission.
By Judgment dated November 21, 2014, the District Court granted the
exception of primary jurisdiction and referred the matter to the
Louisiana Racing Commission. On January 26, 2015, the Louisiana
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' request for
supervisory review of the Judgment.
On August 24, 2015, the Louisiana Racing Commission ruled that the
plaintiffs did not have standing or a right of action to pursue the
case. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the District Court,
which affirmed the Louisiana Racing Commission's ruling.
The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District Court's decision
with the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed
the Louisiana Racing Commission's ruling and remanded the matter to
the Louisiana Racing Commission for further proceedings on June 13,
2018.
The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Fair
Grounds Defendants' Motion for Rehearing on July 12, 2018 and the
Louisiana Supreme Court denied the Fair Grounds Defendants' Writ of
Certiorari seeking review of that decision on November 14, 2018.
The parties had previously attempted to mediate the matter in
October 2018, but were unsuccessful. Thereafter, the parties
resumed informal settlement discussions, and, as a result, the
Company established an accrual for an immaterial amount in the
third quarter of 2019.
The parties submitted a settlement agreement to the District Court
on February 14, 2020, following the Louisiana Racing Commission's
approval to transfer the matter to the District Court for approval
and administration of the settlement agreement on February 12,
2020.
At a hearing on February 18, 2020, the District Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and set certain
deadlines relating to actions to be taken by class members.
A fairness hearing with the District Court relating to the terms of
the settlement agreement was set for April 27, 2020, but has been
postponed to October 7-9, 2020, as a result of court closures due
to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The settlement agreement requires, among other items, the Fair
Grounds Defendants to (i) pay a certain out-of-pocket amount that
is within the amount for which we established an accrual in the
third quarter of 2019, and (ii) support legislation that allocates
a specified amount of video poker purse funds to quarter horse
purses for races at Fair Grounds with maximum annual payout caps
that are not deemed material.
On June 13, 2020, the legislation addressed in the settlement
agreement was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the
Governor of Louisiana. The settlement includes a release of claims
against the Fair Grounds Defendants in connection with the
proceeding, although individual plaintiffs may opt-out. If there
are opt-out claims in excess of $50,000, the settlement will be
voided, unless the parties agree to stipulate otherwise. The
settlement agreement is subject to certain conditions, including
court approval.
After the parties entered into the settlement, legal counsel for
six objecting, named plaintiffs filed an amended petition with the
District Court.
After a hearing on July 20, 2020, the District Court dismissed the
amended petition.
The objecting plaintiffs have filed a notice of their intention to
seek a writ with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit related to the dismissal of the amended petition.
Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and
online entertainment company in the United States. It operates
through Racing, Casinos, Online Wagering, and Other Investments and
Corporate segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in
1928 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.
CJS SOLUTIONS: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Borup, Vallone Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases captioned Timothy C. Borup, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. The CJS Solutions Group, LLC
d/b/a The HCI Group, Defendant, and Joyce Vallone and Erasmus
Igokor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. The CJS Solutions Group, LLC d/b/a The HCI Group, Case Nos.
18-1647 (PAM/DTS), 19-1532 (PAM/DTS) (D. Minn.), the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota issued a Memorandum and Order
ruling that the Defendant's:
* Motions to Compel Arbitration in both cases are denied;
* Amended Motion to Dismiss in 18cv1647 is denied; and
* Motion for Summary Judgment in 19cv1532 is granted in part
and denied in part.
The Plaintiffs contend that Defendant The CJS Solutions Group d/b/a
The HCI Group ("HCI") failed to sufficiently pay them for their
time when they worked at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester. The
Plaintiffs are what is known as "at the elbow" workers, who
assisted physicians, nurses, and others at the Mayo Clinic with the
transition to a new computerized patient-management system.
Although the cases are related, the Plaintiffs in these two actions
raise slightly different claims. In Vallone, the Plaintiffs contend
that the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") requires HCI to pay them
for the time they spent traveling from their homes or other remote
locations to the Mayo Clinic and back to the remote location at the
end of their assignments. The Vallone Plaintiffs also contend that
they traveled to Rochester on April 29, 2018, at HCI's direction,
only to have training that had been scheduled for April 30, 2018,
cancelled abruptly late in the evening of April 29. The Court
conditionally certified a FLSA collective in January 2020, but
notice to the collective has yet to issue.
The Plaintiffs in Borup are individuals with specialized medical
training--usually physicians, medical residents, or medical
students--who were "at the elbow" workers at the Mayo Clinic.
Although since May 2017 HCI has characterized most at-the-elbow
workers as employees for FLSA purposes, it has not done so for
these medically trained individuals. Thus, although the Borup
Plaintiffs contend that travel time should be included in the hours
they worked for HCI, at bottom their claim is for misclassification
under the FLSA. The Plaintiffs in Borup have not moved to certify
either a FLSA collective or a Rule 23 class action, although
several individuals have filed consents to participate in the case
as Plaintiffs.
District Judge Paul A. Magnuson notes that "Prejudice from a
failure to assert an arbitration right occurs when, for example,
'parties use discovery not available in arbitration, when they
litigate substantial issues on the merits, or when compelling
arbitration would require a duplication of efforts,'" citing
Messina, 821 F.3d at 1051 (quoting Kelly v. Golden, 352 F.3d 344,
349 (8th Cir. 2003)).
Judge Magnuson opines that there can be no doubt that the
Plaintiffs in Borup have been prejudiced. They have conducted
extensive discovery, litigated multiple motions before the
Magistrate Judge, and even fully briefed a dispositive motion
before the Court. While some of this discovery might be of use in
an arbitration, the Plaintiffs can never recoup the substantial
funds they have expended engaging in litigation in the Court, which
has been extremely hard-fought. And HCI's delay means that Borup
and any opt-in Plaintiffs will be required to wait even longer for
a decision on the substantive issues in the case, decisions that
have already waited for nearly two years. This deprives both
parties of the main purpose of arbitration: "efficient and low-cost
resolution of disputes," Judge Magnuson writes, citing Lewallen,
487 F.3d at 1094.
The prejudice in Vallone is less than that in Borup, because
Vallone had notice that HCI would seek to enforce its arbitration
rights just over six months after the suit was filed. But even so,
given that this case has been extremely contentiously litigated
from the beginning, and given that HCI has taken such inconsistent
positions with regard to arbitration in these cases as opposed to
the numerous other cases it has litigated around the country, the
Vallone Plaintiffs have also sufficiently established prejudice,
Judge Magnuson opines.
Hence, the Motions to Compel Arbitration are, therefore, denied.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 28, 2020 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yclopfp6 from
Leagle.com
CLARA MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Heuklom Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON HEUKLOM and MICHAEL BURRIS, individuals, on behalf of
themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
CLARA MEDICAL GROUP, P.C., a California Professional Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-585948 (Cal.
Super., San Francisco Cty., July 31, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay minimum and overtime wages under the
California Labor Code.
The case is brought on behalf of Nurse Practitioners, who worked
for the Defendants in California and were classified as independent
contractors, in order to collect the wages due them as employees of
the Defendants, the cost of the employer's share of payments to the
federal and state governments for income taxes, social security
taxes, medicare insurance, unemployment insurance and payments for
workers' compensation insurance, plus penalties and interest.
The Plaintiffs are/were employed by Clara Medical as Nurse
Practitioners. Mr. Heuklom was employed from October 2017 to
January 2020. Mr. Burris has been employed since March 2020.
Clara Medical operates an online platform that connects individuals
looking for medical assistance with medical professionals on
demand.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG
BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
CLOUD WITH ME: Balestra Suit Wins Class Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND BALESTRA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLOUD WITH ME
LTD., GILAD SOMJEN, and ASAF ZAMIR, Case No. 2:18-cv-00804-MRH-LPL
(W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mark R. Hornak entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class of:
"all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Cloud Tokens ("CLD Tokens") during the period
from July 23, 2017 through June 19, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), and were injured thereby."
Excluded from the Class are: (i) the defendant Cloud; (ii)
the Defendants Somjen and Zamir; (iii) any person who was
an officer, director or employee of Cloud; (iv) any
immediate family member of any excluded person; (v) any
firm, trust, corporation or other entity in which any
excluded person or entity has or had a controlling
interest; and (vi) the legal representatives, affiliates,
heirs, successors in-interest, or assigns of any such
excluded person or entity.;
2. appointing Lead Plaintiff John Oum and Raymond Balestra as
representative Plaintiffs for this Class;
3. appoiting the law firm of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as counsel
for the Class; and
4. adopting as the Opinion of the Court the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lenihan, dated April 9,
2020.
Following repeated attempts to serve the Defendants, all of which
are located outside of the United States, service was effected on
October 18, 2018. ECF No. 10. No response was filed to the
Complaint by any of the Defendants and Motions for Default were
filed on April 30, 2019 ,says the complaint.
The complaint in this securities class action against the
Defendants was filed on June 19, 2018, and alleges that from July
25, 2017, through June 19, 2018, the Defendants offered and sold
Plaintiffs and the Class unregistered securities--in the form of
Cloud Tokens--in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.[CC]
COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: Haye Files FDCPA Suit in D. Wyoming
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collection
Professionals Inc. The case is styled as Douglas Haye, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Collection Professionals
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00153-NDF (D. Wyo., Aug. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Collection Professionals Inc. is a debt collection agency located
in Sheridan, Wyoming.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth Shumaker, Esq.
Bank of the West Plaza
2 North Main Street, Suite 103
Sheridan, WY 82801
Phone: (307) 675-1233
Fax: (307) 675-1235
Email: sheridanwyolaw@gmail.com
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces Smith FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is captioned as Calvin Smith, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04553 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 3,
2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act. The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.
Convergent is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mario Kris Kasalo, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD.
20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 726-6160
E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Von Asten Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TERRY VON ASTEN, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CREDIT
MANAGEMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 2:20-cv-01175-WED (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class
certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a
tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent
a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by
attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the
plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
himself as the class representative, and appoint his attorneys as
class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
CURA CA LLC: Stahr Sues in California Over Business Tort Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cura CA LLC. The case
is captioned as William Stahr, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Cura CA LLC, Case No.
34-2020-00282769-CU-BT-GDS (Calif. Super., Sacramento County, Aug.
4, 2020).
The case type is stated as Business Tort.
The Defendant is doing business in the cannabis industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frederick J. Klorczyk, III, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER PA
1990 N California Blvd., Ste. 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3745
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com
DHM RESEARCH: McKay Sues Over Telemarketing Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
MELANIE MCKAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DHM RESEARCH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:20-cv-01249-MC (D. Ore., July 30, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff received a telemarketing text
messages in her cellular telephone ending in 9750 from Defendant on
or about October 30, 2019. Allegedly, Defendant engages in
unsolicited marketing using an automatic telephone dialing system
to promote its services despite harming thousands of consumers in
the process.
Plaintiff asserts that he never provide Defendant with her express
written consent to be contacted using an ATDS.
DHM Research, Inc. is a research and consultation firm. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2633 E. Indian School Road, Suite 460
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Tel: (602) 265-3332
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: david@kazlg.com
DIGITAL MEDIA: Brizzi Sues Over Unpaid OT for Non-Exempt Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------
JACLYN BRIZZI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC and DOES 1
through 50, Defendants, Case No. 37-2020-00027447-CU-OE-CTL (Cal.
Super., San Diego Cty., August 5, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for California Labor Code violations including
failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated non-exempt employees overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failing to provide them with
itemized wage statements, and failing to timely pay them for all
wages due at the time of separation from employment.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee in San Diego, California from December 2019 to July 2020.
Digital Media Solutions, LLC is a company that provides a digital
marketing and advertising to its global business clients, with its
principal place of business located in Clearwater, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. Hawkes, Esq.
BLANCHARD, KRASNER & FRENCH
800 Silverado St., 2nd Floor
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 551-2440
Facsimile: (858) 614-7008
E-mail: dhawkes@bkflaw.com
- and –
David A. Huch, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. HUCH
12223 Highland Ave., Ste. 106-574
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
Telephone: (909) 463-6363
Facsimile: (909) 614-7008
E-mail: david.a.huch@gmail.com
- and –
Stephen Matcha, Esq.
MATCHA LAW
13223 Black Mountain Rd, Ste. 233
San Diego, CA 92129-2699
Telephone: (619) 565-3865
E-mail: steve@matchalaw.com
E*TRADE SECURITIES: Whitesides Claims Contract Breach Over Outage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Whitesides, Aziz Si Hadj Mohand, and Matthew Cheung
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
E*TRADE SECURITIES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and
E*TRADE FUTURES, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-05803-JSC (N.D.
Cal., Aug. 18, 2020), is brought to assert claims for breach of
contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, negligence, gross negligence, and violation of California
consumer protection laws in connection with an outage of the
Company's trading platform on April 20, 2020.
While, for decades, ordinary retail investors did not trade
commodities, electronic trading at discount brokerage firms and new
investment products marketed by these firms prompted amateur
investors to start buying and selling oil. Brokerage firms like
E*TRADE spent years making oil products easy to trade and giving
individual investors access to futures contracts like those
purchased by the Plaintiffs. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
idea that oil futures could move into negative pricing territory
was a known possibility. On April 20, 2020, however, that
possibility turned into a reality. The benchmark West Texas
Intermediate ("WTI") crude oil futures settled at negative ($37.63)
by the close of the market on April 20 for the May contracts that
were set to expire the following day.
Simultaneous with the oil market's precipitous decline into
negative territory, E*TRADE's system was unprepared for the
negative pricing, failed to display accurate prices, and locked out
users attempting to enter orders with negative values, resulting in
an outage of its trading platform through the end of the session on
April 20, 2020 (the "Outage"), the Plaintiffs assert. As a result
of the Outage, E*TRADE's customers were unable to exercise futures
contracts on WTI through E*TRADE's website, app, or call center.
Customers were also unable during this time to obtain accurate
information or meaningful support from E*TRADE's customer service
specific to their individual investment needs.
In offering trading services, E*TRADE assumed a duty to ensure that
its systems were sufficiently equipped to reliably deliver such
services under foreseeable customer demands and market conditions,
such as those that occurred on April 20, 2020, according to the
complaint. The Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class
understood and reasonably believed that E*TRADE had or would take
such steps, but it did not. E*TRADE failed to adequately or
properly equip itself technologically and systemically to maintain
the Plaintiffs and class members' access to trading services. Due
solely to its own negligence and failure to maintain an adequate
infrastructure, E*TRADE breached obligations owed to the Plaintiffs
and class members and caused them substantial losses. Its failures
are all the more serious due to the magnitude of the Outage, the
absence of alternative means for customers to protect their
investments, and the lack of communication and customer support.
Despite possessing knowledge of the possibility of oil futures
trading negatively for weeks, E*TRADE failed to test its online
trading platform for this possibility, failed to ready its systems
and correct known deficiencies, failed to disclose this possibility
to its customers, and openly ignored multiple red flags from the
relevant exchanges, says the complaint.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other
E*TRADE customers within the United States, who held futures
contracts expiring during the Outage, and who thereby suffered
losses in their E*TRADE accounts.
The Plaintiffs are customers of E*TRADE.
E*TRADE is an online brokerage firm.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
Christopher B. Noyes, Esq.
Joana Fang, Esq.
KABATECK LLP
633 W. Fifth Street, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 217-5000
Facsimile: (213)217-5010
Email: bsk@kbklawyers.com
cn@kbklawyers.com
jf@kbklawyers.com
- and -
Robert J. Girard II, Esq.
Omar H. Bengali, Esq.
Steven M. Buha, Esq.
GIRARD BENGALI, APC
355 South Grand Ave., Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (323) 302-8300
Facsimile: (323) 302-8310
Email: rgirard@girardbengali.com
obengali@girardbengali.com
sbuha@girardbengali.com
- and -
Michael Gatto, Esq.
ACTIUM LLP
5419 Hollywood Blvd., Ste. C-356
Los Angeles, CA 90027
Phone: (323) 819-0300
Email: mike@actiumllp.com
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Myers Amends Class Action Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the case captioned JOHN D. MYERS,
JR., Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, EXPERIAN
INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., TRANS UNION, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00392-JMS-DLP (S.D. Ind.) on July 30, 2020.
Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint in a July
28, 2020 Order by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana available at https://tinyurl.com/y6ekzy3z from
Leagle.com.
Plaintiff Myers initiated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA")
lawsuit on Jan. 13, 2020 in Rush County Superior Court against
credit reporting agency ("CRA") Defendants Equifax, Experian, and
Trans Union. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are falsely
reporting a reaffirmed loan account as discharged in bankruptcy.
The inaccurate reporting, the Plaintiff contends, is a violation of
Section 1681e(b) of the FCRA and warrants actual, statutory, and
punitive damages for his injuries.
Trans Union removed the case to the Indiana District Court on Feb.
4, 2020. The Plaintiff filed the present Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint in May 2020. His proposed amended complaint
includes a more detailed factual background regarding the
reaffirmation of the Plaintiff's loan account and notification to
the Defendants, and adds class action lawsuit allegations.
Defendant Trans Union filed a response in opposition, arguing that
the Court should deny the Plaintiff's proposed amendment because it
is futile and does not cure the deficiencies in the original
Complaint. Defendants Equifax and Experian did not file
responses.
In the proposed amended complaint, the Plaintiff asserts that in
March 2019, he received a bankruptcy discharge in the Southern
District of Indiana. The bankruptcy discharge, however, did not
include an Ally Financial automobile loan account because the
account was reaffirmed in bankruptcy. The Plaintiff asserts that
Ally Financial reported to the CRA Defendants that the account was
current and paid as agreed and was never late, and that the
Defendants were on notice that he had reaffirmed the Ally Financial
automobile loan. Moreover, the proposed amended complaint adds
class action lawsuit allegations against all the three Defendants.
The Court is not certain that the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, on
its face, is futile. Although Trans Union might be correct
regarding its assertion that the Plaintiff failed to properly
notify Trans Union, without the benefit of engaging in discovery,
the Court is unable to conclude that the Plaintiff will be unable
to sufficiently develop his claims. Discovery is not scheduled to
close until Dec. 4, 2020. Accordingly, applying the liberal
standard for amending pleadings early in a lawsuit, the Court finds
that the Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint is sufficient to
survive Defendant Trans Union's futility argument.
As to the addition of class action allegations, the Plaintiff
requests to bring the action on behalf of himself, a class, and a
sub-class. Trans Union does not challenge the class allegations
except to contend that the class claims fail for the same reason as
mentioned -- the claims are futile. That, however, is the extent
of Trans Union's argument. Without support for the argument, the
Court finds that Trans Union's conclusory statement is perfunctory
and undeveloped. The Court finds the argument waived. Accordingly,
the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint.
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Travers Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit to 3rd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Gerard Travers filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in his lawsuit entitled Gerard Travers v. Federal Express Corp.,
Case No. 2-19-cv-06106, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 3,
2020, the case is an action against the Defendant for failure to
pay the Plaintiff with paid leave during periods of short-term
military leave.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a courier.
FedEx Corp. delivers packages and freight to multiple countries and
territories through an integrated global network. The Company
provides worldwide express delivery, ground small-parcel delivery,
less-than-truckload freight delivery, supply chain management
services, customs brokerage services, and trade facilitation and
electronic commerce solutions.
The appellate case is captioned as Gerard Travers v. Federal
Express Corp., Case No. 20-2703, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant GERARD TRAVERS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Robert J. Barton, Esq.
Colin M. Downes, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON
1735 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 734-7046
E-mail: joe@blockleviton.com
- and -
Matthew Z. Crotty, Esq.
CROTTY & SON LAW FIRM, PLLC
905 West Riverside Avenue
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (509) 850-7011
E-mail: matt@crottyandson.com
- and -
Adam H. Garner, Esq.
THE GARNER FIRM, LTD.
1515 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 645-5955
E-mail: adam@garnerltd.com
- and -
Thomas G. Jarrard, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS G. JARRARD LLC
1020 N. Washington St.
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (425) 239-7290
Facsimile: (509) 326-2932
E-mail: Tjarrard@att.net
- and -
Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq.
GUPTA WESSLER
1900 L Street, N.W., Suite 312
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 888-1741
E-mail: peter@guptawessler.com
- and -
Michael J. Scimone, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
E-mail: mscimone@outtengolden.com
Defendant-Appellee FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. is represented by:
Ryan T. Becker, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD
2000 Market Street, 20th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 299-2000
E-mail: rbecker@foxrothschild.com
- and -
Melissa M. Gormly, Esq.
FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.
1000 FedEx Drive
Moon Township, PA 15108
Telephone: (412) 904-7702
- and -
Colleen Hitch Wilson, Esq.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
3620 Hacks Cross Road, Building B, Third Floor
Memphis, TN 38125
Telephone: (901) 343-8338
- and -
Anton Metlitsky, Esq.
Mark W. Robertson, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS
7 Times Square, Time Square Tower, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 326-2000
E-mail: ametlitsky@omm.com
- and -
M. Tristan Morales, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS
400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (202) 383-5112
E-mail: tmorales@omm.com
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Discovery Ongoing in Hearing Loss Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in a class action
suit initiated by firefighters who claim that exposure to the
Company's sirens has impaired their hearing and that the sirens are
therefore defective.
The Company has been sued for monetary damages by firefighters who
claim that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their
hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33
cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a
total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois. These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter
plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago.
In 2009, six additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving
299 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. During 2013, another case
was filed in Cook County involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter
plaintiffs.
The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in
2008, whereby a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of the Company.
An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for
trial in 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the number
of plaintiffs from 40 to nine.
The trial for these nine plaintiffs concluded with a verdict
against the Company and for the plaintiffs in varying amounts
totaling $0.4 million.
The Company appealed this verdict. On September 13, 2012, the
Illinois Appellate Court rejected this appeal. The Company
thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with the Illinois
Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7, 2013. The Company
sought further review by filing a petition for leave to appeal with
the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the
Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary order declining to accept
review of this case. On July 1, 2013, the Company satisfied the
judgments entered for these plaintiffs, which resulted in final
dismissal of these cases.
A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a
unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of this
trial.
Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an
order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department
firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the
Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous.
The Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for
interlocutory appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois
Appellate Court accepted the Company's petition. On June 8, 2012,
plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company
that the trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial
in this matter.
Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion, the Illinois Appellate Court
reversed the trial court’s certification order.
Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial
involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December
2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the
three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012,
the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company.
Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify a
class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the sole
issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and
unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company's objection, the trial
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March
11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10,
2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois
Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class
certification order.
On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First
District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the
class certification order of the trial court. Specifically, the
Appellate Court determined that the trial court's ruling failed to
satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of the
firefighters' claims predominate over the individual issues and
that there is an adequate representative for the class.
During a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented
to the Court that they would again seek to certify a class of
firefighters on the issue of whether the Company's sirens were
defective and unreasonably dangerous. On January 12, 2015,
plaintiffs filed motions to amend their complaints to add class
action allegations with respect to Chicago firefighter plaintiffs,
as well as the approximately 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from
locations outside of Chicago.
On March 11, 2015, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motions to
amend their complaints. On April 24, 2015, the cases were
transferred to Cook County chancery court, which will decide all
class certification issues.
On March 23, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify as a class
all firefighters from the Chicago Fire Department who have filed
lawsuits in this matter. The parties have requested discovery from
each other related to this motion.
The Company intends to continue its objections to any attempt at
certification.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Federal Signal Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and supplies a suite of products and
integrated solutions for municipal, governmental, industrial, and
commercial customers in the United States, Canada, Europe, and
internationally. It operates through two segments, Environmental
Solutions Group and Safety and Security Systems Group. Federal
Signal Corporation was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Oak
Brook, Illinois.
FITNESS FACTORY: N.J. Supreme Court Flips Sanchez Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of New Jersey issued an Opinion reversing the
Appellate Court's Judgment in the case captioned Henry Sanchez, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. Fitness Factory Edgewater, LLC, Fitness
Factory Rockaway, LLC, The Fitness Factory Group, LLC, and Dennis
Cieri, Defendants-Respondents, Case Nos. A-93 September Term 2018,
082834 (N.J.).
The Appellate Division's Judgment affirmed the Trial Court's
Opinion granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case.
The case requires the Court to consider the application of the
Retail Installment Sales Act, N.J.S.A. 17:16C-1 to-61 (RISA).
Plaintiff Henry Sanchez brings this class action seeking relief
based on RISA. He contends that the "initiation fee" charged in
Defendant Fitness Factory's gym membership contract, among other
provisions, violates RISA.
The Trial Court dismissed Mr. Sanchez's complaint, finding that
RISA did not apply to the contract because it was a contract for
services. The Appellate Division affirmed. While acknowledging that
RISA applies to some services contracts, the Appellate Division
found that RISA applies only to contracts that contain a financing
arrangement.
The Supreme Court disagrees. The Supreme Court explains that by its
terms, RISA applies to services contracts. Further, while the
Department of Banking and Insurance (DOBI) urges courts to find
that there is a requirement that a contract include a financing
arrangement to be covered by RISA, no such requirement is contained
in the statute as written. The Supreme Court, therefore, reverses
the Judgment of the Appellate Division, and remands the case for
further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA delivered the Opinion of the Supreme Court.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, PATTERSON,
SOLOMON, and TIMPONE join in JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA'S Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Superior Court's May 28, 2020 Decision and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd5cmlh6 from
Leagle.com.
Andrew R. Wolf -- awolf@wolflawfirm.net -- argued the cause for the
Appellant (The Wolf Law Firm, attorneys; Andrew R. Wolf, David J.
DiSabato -- ddisabato@disabatolaw.com -- and Lisa R. Bouckenooghe,
at 4 Hilltop Road, in Mendham, New Jersey, on the briefs).
Ronald L. Israel -- risrael@csglaw.com -- argued the cause for
respondents (Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, attorneys; Ronald L.
Israel, Daniel D. Barnes -- dbarnes@csglaw.com -- and Brigitte M.
Gladis -- bgladis@csglaw.com -- on the briefs).
Garen Gazaryan, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for
amicus curiae New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance
(Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel, and Garen Gazaryan, on the
brief).
Esther E. Berezofsky, at 210 Lake Dr. East, Suite 101, in Cherry
Hill, New Jersey, submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae
Consumers League of New Jersey and National Association of Consumer
Advocates (Motley Rice New Jersey, attorneys; Esther E. Berezofsky,
of counsel and on the brief).
FOR LIFE PRODUCTS: Faces Jaquez ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against For Life Products,
LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. For Life Products, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-06532 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
For Life Products, LLC, manufactures home improvement products. The
Company provides furniture, flooring, floor cleaner, and stain
remover products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
1500 Allaire Ave., Suite 101
Ocean, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Defective Airbag Inflators Class Suits Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend several
putative class actions, arising out of allegations that airbag
inflators manufactured by Takata Corporation are defective.
There are several putative class actions that have been filed
against GM, including in the federal courts in the U.S., in the
Provincial Courts in Canada, and in Mexico and Israel, arising out
of allegations that airbag inflators manufactured by Takata
Corporation are defective.
General Motors said, "At this early stage of these proceedings, we
are unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood that a loss
will be incurred or an estimate of the amounts or range of possible
loss."
General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide. The company operates
through GM North America, GM International, GM Cruise, and GM
Financial. General Motors Company was founded in 1908 and is
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.
GENIUS BRANDS: Verdin Sues Over Artificially Inflated Stock Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Verdin, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. GENIUS BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC. and ANDY HEYWARD,
Case No. 2:20-cv-07457 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 18, 2020), is brought to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf
of those who were damaged as a result of the Company's artificially
inflated stock prices.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons and entities, other
than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired securities
of Genius sold under the ticker symbol "GNUS" on the NASDAQ Market
in the United States from March 17, 2020, through July 5, 2020,
inclusive.
According to the complaint, Genius stock was heavily marketed to
retail investors through the use of several misleading tactics to
entice investment. For example, Genius repeatedly compared itself
to Netflix, calling itself the "Netflix for Kids, but free." Genius
also touted its purported association with celebrities like Arnold
Schwarzenegger and Stan Lee in order to create hype.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements regarding: (i) Nickelodeon's purported
broadcast expansion of Genius' Rainbow Rangers cartoon; (ii)
subscription fees for the Kartoon Channel!; and (iii) the Company's
growth potential and overall prospects as a company. While the
share price of Genius stock was artificially inflated due to these
misstatements, Genius registered for sale tens of millions of
shares, allowing certain longtime investors to cash out at the
expense of Plaintiff and the Class.
As the price of Genius shares was still artificially inflated,
Genius once again filed securities registration documentation with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On June 11, 2020, just
prior to the official launch of the Kartoon Channel!, Genius
registered 60 million shares for sale by a group of "selling
shareholders." These selling shareholders were the same
long-standing investors that purchased shares in the direct
offerings, who were now able to "cash out" their investment in
Genius at inflated prices. The share price listed in the prospectus
was $4.51 per share.
Unfortunately for investors, the Plaintiff contends, Genius'
multimedia properties and the Kartoon Channel! in general were more
hype than substance. When Genius announced the slate of content,
investors began to realize that the Kartoon Channel! was not going
to be the new Netflix for Kids, and was just another app in a
crowded space. Indeed, on June 16, 2020, Genius stock declined by
approximately 14% as the Company announced the programming lineup
for the app.
On June 19, 2020, while the price of Genius stock was artificially
inflated, Defendant Andy Heyward sold 460,574 shares at an average
price of $2.94 per share for a total sale of $1,354,088. The July
6th announcement, however, was another exaggerated press release
whereby Genius announced the creation of a joint venture with POW!
Entertainment regarding the intellectual property that Stan Lee
created after his time at Marvel Entertainment, the Plaintiff
avers.
With these exaggerated statements, investors realized that the gig
was up and that there was little substance behind the hype.
Following the July 6, 2020 press release, the price of Genius stock
dropped significantly from a close of $3.55 on the previous trading
day to a closing price of $2.66 on July 6. Indeed, as investors
have learned the truth, the Company has lost nearly 80% of its
value, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Salvador Verdin purchased Genius shares at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.
Genius is a multimedia company that licenses entertainment content
for children.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
Joseph A. Pettigrew, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 233-4565
Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
jpettigrew@scott-scott.com
GESA CREDIT: Laythe Sues Over Unfair Collection of Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATILDA ANN LAYTHE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GESA CREDIT UNION, Case No. 20-2-12295-5 SEA (Wash.
Super., King Cty., Aug. 6, 2020), seeks monetary damages,
restitution, and declaratory relief from the Defendant arising from
the unfair and unlawful assessment and collection of overdraft
fees, which GESA charges when it pays certain items.
Ms. Laythe and other GESA customers have been injured by GESA's
practices. On behalf of herself and the putative class, Ms. Laythe
seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief for GESA's breach
of contract and violation of Washington's consumer protection law.
Gesa is the largest financial cooperative in Southeastern
Washington, located in the Tri-Cities, Walla Walla and Wenatchee of
Washington State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roger S. Davidheiser, Esq.
FRIEDMAN RUBIN
1109 First Avenue, Suite 501
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: 206 501 4446
E-mail: rdavidheiser@friedmanrubin.com
GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Cheslow Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Linda Cheslow, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling issued in her lawsuit entitled Linda Cheslow, et al. v.
Ghirardelli Chocolate Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-07467-PJH, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Oakland.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 28,
2020, the Plaintiffs asserted they purchased Ghirardelli's "Premium
Baking Chips Classic White Chips" under the impression that they
contained "real" white chocolate, and that the product label,
advertising, and marketing (including use of the term "premium";
references to "white" chips; and inclusion (until at least June
2019) of the term "chocolate" on product packaging and Web site)
would mislead and deceive a reasonable consumer to believe the
product contained "real" white chocolate. The Plaintiffs alleged
that due to the absence of cocoa butter/cacao fat, however, and the
use of purportedly inferior ingredients, such as hydrogenated and
palm oils, the product contains "fake" white chocolate instead.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton (Northern District of California) granted
Ghirardelli's motion to dismiss, noting, among other things: the
words "chocolate" and "cocoa" did not appear anywhere on the
product label, at the time of the order (other than as part of
Ghirardelli's logo, which did not apply); the word "white" in
"White Chips" defined the color of the food and not the quality of
the product ("white wine may define the characteristic of the
wine's color but does not inform the consumer whether the wine is a
zinfandel or gewurztraminer"); and the use of "premium" constituted
mere puffery.
While the motion was dismissed without prejudice and the Plaintiffs
were granted leave to amend their complaint, Judge Hamilton noted
that "[b]ecause defendant's product packaging would not change in
an amended complaint, the court is skeptical that the complaint can
be amended to state a claim."
The appellate case is captioned as Linda Cheslow, et al. v.
Ghirardelli Chocolate Company, Case No. 20-16576, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript shall be ordered on September 14, 2020;
-- Transcript shall be filed by October 13, 2020;
-- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be
served and filed on November 23, 2020;
-- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record shall be
served and filed on December 22, 2020; and
-- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
served within 21 days of service of the appellee's
brief.[BN]
GRAF INDUSTRIAL: Carlos Sues Over Unfair Merger With Velodyne
-------------------------------------------------------------
CLAY CARLOS, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated
v. GRAF INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, KEITH WAYNE ABELL, MICHAEL E. DEE,
JULIE J. LEVENSON, SABRINA McKEE, and KEVIN J. STARKE, Case No.
653589/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Aug. 4, 2020), is brought on
behalf of the public stockholders of Graf against it and its Board
of Directors for breaches of fiduciary duty arising from the
Defendants' efforts to merge the Company as a result of an unfair
process for an unfair price to Velodyne LiDAR, Inc. and VL Merger
Sub Inc.
The terms of the transaction were memorialized in a July 2, 2020
filing with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on
Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger.
Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Graf will merge into
Velodyne and cease to exist through a reverse merger, forming one
publicly traded entity combined with the investors in Velodyne, and
significantly diluting Graf investor's share of Graf common stock
they own. More specifically, pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Graf will acquire Velodyne through a reverse merger in
which Velodyne is ascribed an enterprise value of approximately
$1.6 billion and equity value of approximately $1.8 billion.
On July 17, 2020, Graf filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A with the SEC in support of the Proposed Transaction.
The Plaintiff contends that the Proposed Transaction is unfair and
undervalued. Significantly, the Preliminary Proxy describes an
insufficient sales process in which the Board entered into the
first available deal it could find, regardless of value, in order
to avoid refunding Graf public stockholders their investments.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Individual Defendants, separately
and together, in connection with the Proposed Transaction,
violated, and are violating, the fiduciary duties they owe to Graf,
the Plaintiff and the other public stockholders of Graf, including
their duties of loyalty, good faith, and due care. As a result of
the Individual Defendants' divided loyalties, Plaintiff and Class
members will not receive adequate, fair or maximum value for their
Graf common stock in the Proposed Transaction.
Velodyne is the pioneer developer of lidar technology and continues
to be a market leader, making the technology widely available and
affordable for corporate and consumer markets.
Graf Industrial is a blank check company incorporated as a Delaware
corporation and formed for the purpose of effecting a merger,
capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase,
reorganization or similar business combination with one or more
businesses. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of
the Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan J. Smith, Esq.
BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
240 Mineola Boulevard
Mineola, NY 11501
Telephone: (516) 741-4977
Facsimile: (561) 741-0626
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Dental Firms Seek Claims for COVID-19 Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JAMES R. WRIGHT, D.M.D., P.S.C., and WRIGHT DENTAL
CENTER, PLLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.; HARTFORD
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; and TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-23253-BB (S.D. Fla., August 5, 2020),
contends that the Defendants has denied the business interruption
claims filed by the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
business entities, for Business Income coverage and Extra Expense
coverage following the closure of their dental offices as part of
the government's measures to combat COVID-19.
The Defendants' refusal to pay claims for the losses incurred by
the Plaintiffs due to the government's closure orders constitutes a
breach of contractual obligation, the lawsuit contends. The policy
that the Plaintiffs purchased from the Defendants is an all-risk
insurance policy and all risks of loss are covered unless they are
specifically excluded. The Plaintiffs' policy does not contain any
exclusion that would apply to allow the Defendants to deny coverage
for losses caused by the interruption of Plaintiffs' business and
the actions of civil authorities nor does it contain any exclusion
to allow Defendants to completely deny coverage for losses caused
by COVID-19 and related actions of civil authorities taken in
response to COVID-19.
James R. Wright, D.M.D., P.S.C. is a professional services
corporation that provides dental care services with its principal
place of business in Union, Kentucky.
Wright Dental Center, PLLC is a company that provides dental care
services with its principal place of business in Cold Spring,
Kentucky.
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. is an insurance company
with its principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut.
Hartford Casualty Insurance Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
the Hartford Financial Services Group, with its principal place of
business in Hartford, Connecticut.
Twin City Fire Insurance Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
the Hartford Financial Services Group, with its principal place of
business in Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
Joseph M. Kaye, 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
joseph@moskowitz-law.com
- and –
William F. "Chip" Merlin, Jr., Esq.
Shane Smith, 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
ssmith@MerlinLawGroup.com
HOMELAND PATROL: Chacon Sues in S.D. Florida Over FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Homeland Patrol
Corporation, et al. The case is captioned as ESMERIDO OLIVA CHACON
and other similarly situated individuals v. Homeland Patrol
Corporation and MIRTHA E. CORDERO, Case No. 1:20-cv-23264-KMW (S.D.
Fla., Aug. 5, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kathleen M. Williams.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Homeland Patrol provides security service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aron Smukler, Esq.
Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
Tanesha LaShay Marie Walls, Esq.
SAENZ ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
E-mail: ASmukler@SaenzAnderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
tblye@saenzanderson.com
HONDA: Parking Brakes Class Action Might Proceed in Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Barker, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that a proposed
class lawsuit alleging that defective transmissions in certain
Honda Civics models made it difficult for drivers to tell when
parking brakes were properly engaged might proceed in federal court
after all.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed on July 28
a district court ruling dismissing class claims brought under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, but it concluded that the lower court
erred in dismissing the drivers' state-law claims. [GN]
I. C. SYSTEM: Amer Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MOHAMMAD AMER, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. I. C. SYSTEM,
INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01176-SCD (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed
a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent
against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants
sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a
decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named
plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not
classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
himself as the class representative, and appoint his attorneys as
class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
ILLINOIS: DOC Loses Bid to Dismiss Tyree Sex Offender Parolees Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNIFER TYREE, CELINA MONTOYA, ZACHARY BLAYE, and
RONALD MOLINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ROB JEFFREYS, in his official capacity as
Acting Director of Illinois Department of Corrections, Defendant,
Case No. 18 C 1991 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Gary Feinerman of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, denied IDOC' motion under Civil Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss
the amended complaint.
Four persons serving mandatory supervised release ("MSR") terms
following their state court sex offense convictions bring the
putative class action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against Rob
Jeffreys in his official capacity as Acting Director of the IDOC,
alleging that an IDOC policy prohibiting them from having contact
with their minor children without prior approval violates their
Fourteenth Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights.
The Plaintiffs seek only declaratory relief and an injunction
against IDOC's enforcement of its policy, not damages.
The Plaintiffs are the parents of minor children. They are all
serving terms of MSR, a non-discretionary form of parole, after
having been convicted in Illinois state court of crimes for which
they must register as sex offenders. The Illinois MSR statute
provides that registered sex offenders must, during their MSR
terms, refrain from all contact, directly or indirectly,
personally, by telephone, letter, or through a third party, with
minor children without prior identification and approval of an
agent of IDOC.
In nearly identical terms, the Illinois Prisoner Review Board, the
body responsible for setting MSR conditions, imposes on the
Plaintiffs what the parties call "the Contact Condition": "You will
refrain from all contact, directly or indirectly, personally, by
telephone, letter, or through a third party, with minor children
without prior identification and approval of an agent of IDOC."
Earlier in the litigation, the Court denied IDOC's motion to
dismiss the initial complaint's substantive due process claim.
After the Court enjoined IDOC's prior parent-child contact policy,
which implemented the Contact Condition by imposing an automatic
six-month ban on released prisoners' contacts with their children,
IDOC adopted its current policy. The current policy gives parolees
the opportunity to meet with a therapist within 14 days of release.
If a parolee requests contact with her children, the parolee's
therapist and parole agent must determine within 21 days of her
initial appointment with the therapist whether there is reasonable
cause to believe that the parolee's children would be endangered by
parent-child contact.
In making that determination, the parole agent will give
considerable weight to the therapist's recommendation. If
parent-child contact is restricted or prohibited, the parole agent
and therapist must give written reasons for the decision and review
it every 28 days. The parolee may seek review of an adverse
decision from the Deputy Chief of Parole, who must respond within
21 days.
IDOC's current policy interferes with parolees' relationships with
their minor children. Specifically, among others, the policy: (1)
imposes "a blanket ban on any and all parent-child contact" at the
time of a parent's release from custody regardless of individual
circumstances; (2) requires that decisions restricting parent-child
contact be rendered by individuals involved in supervising the
parolee rather than by a neutral and detached party; (3) bars the
ability of a parolee to appeal to the Deputy Chief of Parole until
she receives written documentation setting forth reasons for the
denial, which can take several months; (4) requires a parent to
prove that she poses no risk before she may reside with her minor
child; and (5) imposes further restrictions even when approving
contact.
The Plaintiffs do not challenge the Illinois MSR statute or the
Contact Condition themselves, as such a claim would be barred by
the Heck doctrine. Rather, they allege that IDOC's implementation
of the Contact Condition through its current policy violates their
substantive and procedural due process rights -- claims that Heck
v. Humphrey, does not bar.
Montoya and Blaye have been granted the ability to see their
children. Because they seek only injunctive relief and not
damages, their claims may be moot. Judge Feinerman accordingly
asks the parties for supplemental briefs on the question of
mootness; if Montoya's and Blaye's claims are not moot, he will
resolve the merits of the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion as to
them.
Tyree and Molina's substantive due process claim alleges that the
IDOC's current policy violates their fundamental rights to contact
and live with their children while on MSR. Tyree has been
prevented from living with her son. Molina has been prohibited
from having any contact with his son due to his inability to pay
for a polygraph examination. IDOC argues that the Plaintiffs
cannot sustain a substantive due process claim based on an alleged
lack of written guidelines for IDOC's decision.
The Judge holds that IDOC's argument fails. First, the Plaintiffs
allege not that the new policy is unwritten -- it is, after all,
written -- but rather that the criteria for imposing restrictions
on parent-child contact are unwritten and unduly open-ended.
Second, the Plaintiffs' substantive due process claim rests on far
more than that one allegation. Thus, even if the policy's criteria
were written in lucid detail, the Plaintiffs' substantive due
process claim still would survive dismissal.
Next, Tyree and Molina allege that the IDOC's current policy
violates their procedural due process rights by providing
inadequate process for considering and deciding parolees' requests
for contact with their minor children. The Plaintiffs allege
numerous ways in which the IDOC's policy unnecessarily burdens
parental contact, such as imposing a de facto ban that does not
account for individual circumstances.
The Judge finds that the allegations suffice -- at least at the
pleading stage, and with no evidence establishing IDOC's
justifications -- to state a claim that the policy deprives the
Plaintiffs of their parental right without an opportunity for them
to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Feinerman denied IDOC's motion to
dismiss as to Tyree and Molina, and denied without prejudice as to
Montoya and Blaye.
The parties are to file simultaneous briefs on Aug. 18, 2020, and
simultaneous response briefs, addressing whether Montoya's and
Blaye's claims are moot.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 4, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyulken3 from
Leagle.com.
INDIVIOR: Must Face Class Action Over Alleged Suboxone Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Reckitt
Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, now Indivior, can't avoid a lawsuit
brought by a class of purchasers alleging the manufacturer stifled
generic competition in order to monopolize the market for the
opioid addiction therapy Suboxone.
The district court wasn't wrong in concluding that purchasers had
produced common evidence showing class injury and damages resulting
from artificially inflated prices, Judge Patty Shwartz said for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Class representatives Burlington Drug Co., Meijer Inc., and
Rochester Drug Cooperative claim that Reckitt engaged in "product
hopping". [GN]
JPMORGAN CHASE: Bradford Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
RADLEY BRADFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case
No. 4:20-cv-02669 (S.D. Tex., July 30, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Defendant sent Plaintiff an automated
payment reminder via SMS message in or about March 2020 in an
attempt to collect Plaintiff's unpaid visa card and credit card
accounts due to financial hardship. Although Plaintiff notified
Defendant's representative that he is filing for bankruptcy and
requested for all phone calls/texts to cease, Plaintiff still
received various text messages on June 30, 2020, July 11, 2020, and
July 13, 2020.
Plaintiff affirms that he did not provide express consent to
receive calls/texts after Plaintiff's June 22, 2200 revocation of
consent.
Additionally, Plaintiff's privacy has been invaded by Defendant's
unwanted text messages and have caused Plaintiff actual harm.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a banking association organized and
existing under the laws of the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 South Highland Ave., Ste. 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: +1 630-575-8181
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
KONICA MINOLTA: Cal. App. Flips Summary Adjudication in Oliver Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL OLIVER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC., Defendant and
Respondent, Case No. H045069 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of
California for the Sixth District reversed a trial court's order
granting the Defendant's motion for summary adjudication.
In the wage and hour class action, Plaintiffs Oliver and Norris
Cagonot represented a class of service technicians who were
employed by Defendant Konica Minolta. The Defendant provided
business printing, copying, and scanning products and services to
customers. The products serviced by the service technicians
included different brands and types of machines.
The service technicians were required to drive their personal
vehicles, which contained the Defendant's tools and parts, to
customer sites to make repairs to copiers and other machines. They
did not report to an office for work. Instead, tge service
technicians usually drove from home to the first customer location
of the day and, at the end of the day, from the last customer
location to home.
In 2014, Plaintiff Oliver filed a putative class action complaint
alleging three causes of action against the Defendant: (1) failure
to pay overtime wages pursuant to section 1194 and failure to
provide accurate wage statements as required by section 226, (2)
failure to reimburse for work related expenses in violation of
section 2802, and (3) violation of the unfair competition law.
The causes of action were based on defendant's (a) failure to pay
service technicians for time spent driving personal vehicles to the
first job of the day, and from the last job of the day, while
transporting tools and equipment necessary to do their jobs, (b)
failure to reimburse service technicians for the miles driven
during those trips, and (c) failure to provide wage statements
listing that time as hours worked.
In early October 2015, on motion of Plaintiff Oliver, the trial
court certified a class of approximately 380 technicians with
Oliver and Cagonot as the class representatives.
In late October 2015, a first amended complaint was filed, adding
Cagonot as a named Plaintiff and adding a fourth cause of action
for civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004. The PAGA claim was based on the Labor Code violations
alleged in the other causes of action.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary adjudication on the two
issues. The trial court determined that the Plaintiffs' commute
time was not compensable as "hours worked" under Industrial Welfare
Commission wage order No. 4-2001. Wage Order No. 4 defines hours
worked as the time during which an employee is subject to the
control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is
suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.
The court further determined that the Plaintiffs were not entitled
to reimbursement for commute mileage under Labor Code section 2802,
which requires an employer to indemnify an employee for all
necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct
consequence of the discharge of his or her duties.
On appeal, the Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in
granting the Defendant's summary adjudication motion on the issues
of whether they were entitled to wages for time spent commuting and
reimbursement for commute mileage.
In analyzing whether the trial court properly granted summary
adjudication in the Defendant's favor, Judge Bamattre-Manoukian
first sets forth the standard of review. She then considers
whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to wages for their commute
time and whether they were entitled to reimbursement for commute
mileage. In determining whether the trial court properly found in
favor of the Defendant on the issue of compensability of commute
time, the Judge is guided as an intermediate court by the legal
principles set forth by the California Supreme Court in Morillion
v. Royal Packing Co.
In Morillion, employees were required to travel to the worksite in
employer-paid buses. The California Supreme Court indicated that
commute time to and from work is generally not compensable.
Further, if the employer provides optional free transportation to
employees, the employer is not obligated to compensate employees
for commute time. On the other hand, compulsory travel time is
compensable.
The court explained that the level of the employer's control over
its employees is determinative. While commuting, employees must be
able to use 'the time effectively for their own purposes.' Because
the employees in Morillion were foreclosed from numerous activities
in which they might otherwise engage if they were permitted to
travel to the worksite by their own transportation, the court
determined that they were "subject to the control" of the employer
and entitled to wages for the time travelling on the buses to the
worksite.
In the case, the Judge determines that if carrying tools and parts
in a service technician's personal vehicle during the commute was
optional, then the service technician was not "subject to the
control of the Defendant" for purposes of determining whether that
time constituted "hours worked." Further, even if a service
technician was required -- "strictly speaking" or "as a practical
matter" -- to carry tools and parts during the commute, the service
technician would not be "subject to the control of the Defendant"
during the commute if the service technician was able to use the
time effectively for the service technician's own purposes. On the
other hand, if a service technician was required during the commute
to carry a volume of tools and parts that did not allow the service
technician to use the time effectively for the service technician's
own purposes, then the technician would be subject to the control
of the Defendant for purposes of determining "hours worked" and
entitlement to wages.
Based on the record in the case, the Judge determines that there
are triable issues of material fact regarding (1) whether service
technicians were subject to the Defendant's control during their
commute such that their commute time constituted "hours worked" for
which wages must be paid; and (2) whether service technicians were
entitled to reimbursement for commute mileage.
The Appellate Court therefore reversed the judgment that was
entered in the Defendant's favor. On remand, the trial court will
vacate its order granting summary adjudication in favor of the
Defendant on the issues set forth in the parties' stipulation, and
enter a new order denying the Defendant's summary adjudication
motion in its entirety.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/ILh9jj from Leagle.com.
LAS MARAVILLAS: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
HERIBERTO HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAS MARAVILLAS DE MEXICO
RESTAURANT CORP. (D/B/A LAS MARAVILLAS DE MEXICO), PIEDAD MARTINEZ,
and HECTOR MARTINEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06129 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 6, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated restaurant employees appropriate wages, overtime pay, and
spread of hours pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek; failing to maintain accurate recordkeeping of all hours
worked; and failing to provide the required breaks and/or meal
periods.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook at the
restaurant located at 11 Bedford Park Blvd. E, Bronx, New York from
November 2018 until July 26, 2020.
Las Maravillas de Mexico Restaurant Corp., d/b/a Las Maravillas de
Mexico, is a Mexican restaurant business located at 11 Bedford Park
Blvd. E, Bronx, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Appeals Order in Shron TILA Suit to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant LendingClub Corporation filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated July 13, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled
Shron v. LendingClub Corporation, Case No. 19-cv-6718, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
addresses breaches of contract and misrepresentations and omissions
committed by LendingClub in connection with Defendant's business
operation in violation of the New York General Business Law, and
the Truth in Lending Act.
According to the complaint, LendingClub knows beyond a shadow of a
doubt that consumers are not aware of hidden up-front fees that the
Defendant charges in connection with its loan agreements.
LendingClub falsely misled the Plaintiff and similarly situated
others into believing that they were borrowing a specific amount of
funds with "no additional fees." However, the amount of loan funds
received by the Plaintiff and similarly situated others was
significantly lower than the amount promised by the Defendant due
to hidden up-front fees that LendingClub deducts from consumers'
loan proceeds.
The Defendant also charges consumers like the Plaintiff interest on
the full amount of the loan despite the fact that the consumers
receive less than such amount. This resulted of paying a higher
rate of interest on the loan than the rate agreed to at the time
the loan agreement was formed.
The appellate case is captioned as Shron v. LendingClub
Corporation, Case No. 20-2594, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee Marina Shron, on behalf of herself and similarly
situated others, is represented by:
Gregory Allen, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY ALLEN
60 Joyce Court
Milford, CT 06461
Telephone: (203) 535-4636
E-mail: greg@gjallenlaw.com
Defendant-Appellant LendingClub Corporation is represented by:
Raymond A. Garcia, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 806-5400
E-mail: rgarcia@stroock.com
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Faces Jones FCRA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LexisNexis Risk
Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as YOLANDA JONES,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC. and KROLL FACTUAL DATA, INC., Case
No. 2:20-cv-01180-DSC (W.D. Pa., Aug. 7, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David S. Cercone.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The
nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.
LexisNexis is a global data and analytics company that provides
data and technology services, analytics, predictive insights and
fraud prevention for a wide range of industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365
Telephone: (215) 875-3053
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net
LITTLE CAPTAIN: Riera Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ODIN RIERA and others similarly-situated v. MY LITTLE CAPTAIN
GOURMET, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and JOSE LUIS
MERCADO, an individual, Case No. 1:20-cv-23249-KMM (S.D. Fla., Aug.
5, 2020), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a cook from May 2018
through June 2020. The Plaintiff was initially paid $1,350 a week,
however, his compensation then changed to $1,500.00 a week. If the
Plaintiff missed a day, the Defendants would deduct $300.00 a day,
the complaint says.
The Plaintiff contends that he routinely worked in excess of 40
hours per week. Specifically, he routinely work in excess of 65
hours per week, but he was not paid overtime for the hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week, as required by the FLSA. The
failure to pay these overtime hours resulted in an overtime
violation.
The Defendants operate catering services business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher F. Zacarias, Esq.
Rosendo A. Forns, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER F. ZACARIAS, P.A.
8660 W. Flagler St., Suite 100
Miami, FL 33144
Telephone: (305) 403-2000
Facsimile: (305) 459-3964
E-mail: czacarias@zacariaslaw.com
pleadings@zacariaslaw.com
rosendo@zacariaslaw.com
LOGMEIN INC: Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
LogMeIn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action
suit entitled, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension
Trust Fund v. Citrix Systems, Inc., LogMeIn, Inc. et al. (Case No.
502019CA009587XXXXMB Div AK, 9:19-cv-81155).
On July 25, 2019, a securities class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Securities Act of 1933, referred to herein as the
'33 Act Claim, was initiated in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida against the Company,
Citrix Systems, Inc. and certain officers and directors of both
LogMeIn and Citrix, entitled Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union
719 Pension Trust Fund v. Citrix Systems, Inc., LogMeIn, Inc. et
al. (Case No. 502019CA009587XXXXMB Div AK, 9:19-cv-81155).
The lawsuit, which arises from substantially the same set of facts
as the Securities Class Action and the Derivative Action, was
purportedly filed on behalf of current and former Citrix
stockholders who acquired LogMeIn common stock in connection with
the Company's January 2017 acquisition of the GoTo Business from
Citrix and asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on alleged misstatements
or omissions made in the Company's Registration Statement on Form
S-4 and the related prospectus as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in December 2016.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, fees and costs.
The Company believes the lawsuit lacks merit and intends to defend
it vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
LogMeIn, Inc. provides a portfolio of cloud-based communication and
collaboration, identity and access, and customer engagement and
support solutions. LogMeIn, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with additional locations in
North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.
LOGMEIN INC: Suits Challenge Francisco Partners-Elliott Buyout
--------------------------------------------------------------
LogMeIn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company is facing several class action
lawsuits related to a definitive agreement in which LogMeIn will be
acquired in a transaction led by Francisco Partners, a
technology-focused global private equity firm, and Evergreen Coast
Capital Corporation, the private equity affiliate of Elliott
Management Corporation.
In December 2019, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, or the Merger Agreement, with Logan Parent, LLC, or Parent,
and Logan Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent, or
Merger Sub. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger
Sub would merge with and into LogMeIn, with LogMeIn continuing as
the surviving corporation of the Merger and as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, at the effective
time of the Merger, each share of LogMeIn common stock that is
issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of
the Merger (other than shares to be cancelled pursuant to the
Merger Agreement or shares of common stock held by holders who have
made a valid demand for appraisal in accordance with Section 262 of
the Delaware General Corporation Law), shall be automatically
converted into the right to receive $86.05 in cash, without
interest.
On March 12, 2020, LogMeIn said its stockholders voted to adopt the
definitive agreement at a special stockholders' meeting held
earlier that day. LogMeIn stockholders adopted the merger agreement
with more than 74% of the outstanding shares voting in vfavor of
the deal.
Since the announcement of the Merger, six putative class action
complaints have been filed by and purportedly on behalf of alleged
Company stockholders, three in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware, captioned Stein v. LogMeIn, Inc., et al.,
(Case No. 1:20-cv-00098), filed January 22, 2020; Carter v.
LogMeIn, Inc., et al., (Case No. 1:20-cv-00124), filed January 24,
2020; and Thompson v. LogMeIn, Inc., et. al., (Case No.
1:20-cv-00129), filed January 27, 2020, and two in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Ford v. LogMeIn, Inc., et al., (Case No. 1:20-cv-00582),
filed January 22, 2020; and Rosenfeld v. LogMeIn, Inc. et. al.,
(Case No. 1:20-cv-00981), filed February 5, 2020; and one in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
captioned Abrams v. LogMeIn, Inc., et al., (Case No.
1:20-cv-10272), filed February 12, 2020 (together, the "Actions").
The Actions name as defendants, the Company, its President and
Chief Executive Officer and its Board of Directors. The Actions
allege, among other things, that all defendants violated provisions
of the Exchange Act insofar as the proxy statement preliminarily
filed by the Company on January 17, 2020 or the definitive proxy
statement on Schedule 14A filed by the Company on February 7, 2020
(together, the "Proxy Statement") allegedly omitted material
information with respect to the transactions contemplated therein,
thereby rendering the Proxy Statement false and misleading.
The Actions seek, among other things, injunctive relief, rescissory
damages, declaratory judgment and an award of plaintiffs' fees and
expenses.
On March 2, 2020, prior to the Company's Special Meeting of
Stockholders held on March 12, 2020, the Company filed a Current
Report on Form 8-K which supplemented the disclosure provided in
the Proxy Statement as had been requested by the plaintiffs.
On March 17, 2020, the complaint entitled Abrams v. LogMeIn, Inc.
was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.
The Company continues to believe the claims asserted in the
remaining complaints are without merit and intends to defend them
vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
LogMeIn, Inc. provides a portfolio of cloud-based communication and
collaboration, identity and access, and customer engagement and
support solutions. LogMeIn, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with additional locations in
North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.
LOGMEIN INC: Wasson Class Action Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
LogMeIn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a securities
class action suit entitled, Wasson v. LogMeIn, Inc. et al.
On August 20, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit, referred to
herein as the Securities Class Action, was initiated by purported
stockholders of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California against the Company and certain of
its officers, entitled Wasson v. LogMeIn, Inc. et al. (Case No.
2:18-cv-07285).
On November 6, 2018, the case was transferred to the District of
Massachusetts (Case No. 1:18-cv-12330).
The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged misstatements
or omissions concerning renewal rates for the Company's
subscription contracts.
The Company believes the lawsuit lacks merit and intends to defend
it vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
LogMeIn, Inc. provides a portfolio of cloud-based communication and
collaboration, identity and access, and customer engagement and
support solutions. LogMeIn, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with additional locations in
North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Fitzsimmons Suit Moved to W.D. North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KENT FITZSIMMONS and NICOLE
WEEKLEY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. and LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01109 (Filed March 18, 2020), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
(Statesville) on Aug. 5, 2020.
The Western District of North Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:20-cv-00104 to the proceeding.
The class action is brought by the Plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated persons employed by the
Defendants, arising from the Defendants' willful violations of the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act.
The Plaintiffs seek a declaration that their rights, and the rights
of the Class members, were violated, an award of unpaid wages and
liquidated damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attendant
penalties, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs to make them
whole for damages they suffered, and to ensure that they and future
workers will not be subjected by the Defendants to such illegal
conduct in the future.
Mr. Fitzsimmons is an Illinois resident, who worked for the
Defendants as an Electrical Manager at Moline Lowe's, at 3820 44th
Ave. Dr., in Moline, Illinois, from October 2015 until January
2018. The Defendants compensated him through the payment of an
hourly wage of approximately $18.81 per hour.
Ms. Weekley is an Illinois resident, who worked for the Defendants
as a Receiving Manager in 2016 and as a Back End Manager over
Delivery, Stocking, and Unload Crew from 2016 until 2018 at
Champaign Lowe's, at 1904 North Prospect Ave., in Champaign,
Illinois. The Defendants compensated her through the payment of an
hourly wage of approximately $21.15 per hour.
The Defendants are an American retail company specializing in home
improvement. Headquartered in Mooresville, North Carolina, the
Defendants operate a chain of retail stores in the United States,
Canada, and Mexico. As of 2019, the Defendants and their related
businesses operate more than 2,000 home improvement and hardware
stores and employ over 245,000 people in North America.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark Richard Miller, Esq.
Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
WEXLER WALLACE LLP
55 W Monroe Street, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Derek G. Barella, Esq.
SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
233 S Wacker Drive, Suite 7100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone (312) 258-5582
Facsimile: (312) 258-5600
M STREET: Bid for Collective Action Status Denied as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW FENWICK, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. M STREET
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; KAYNE PRIME, LLC; MOTO, LLC; 1120, LLC d/b/a
SAINT ANEJO; LIME, LLC d/b/a/ TAVERN MIDTOWN; VIRAGO, LLC, and WK,
LLC d/b/a WHISKEY KITCHEN, Case No. 3:20-cv-00403 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Hon. Judge Eli Richardson denied, as moot, the Parties’ joint
motion and stipulation for conditional collective action
certification and notice to putative class members and joint motion
requesting approval of modified notice.
On July 29, 2020, the Court granted the Parties’ Joint Motion to
Approve FLSA Notice Procedure, Including Revised Notice Form with
Court’s Revisions.
M Street was founded in 2011. The company's line of business
includes holding or owning securities of companies other than
banks. Kayne Prime owns and operates restaurants.[CC]
MADRID TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Corona Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
PORFIRIO GOMEZ CORONA v. MADRID TRANSPORTATION INC.; GRACE RUBIO;
CHRISTOPHER RIOS; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV30033
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 7, 2020), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all others similarly aggrieved employees
alleging that the Defendants failed to compensate for all hours
worked, to pay minimum wages, and to pay overtime in violation of
the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff contends that he was supposed to be considered an
hourly, non-exempt employee, however, he was misclassified as an
independent contractor and received checks without any deductions.
He and other similarly situated aggrieved employees have been
willfully misclassified as "independent contractors" pursuant to
California Labor Code section 226.8. He and others were in fact
Madrid's employees, however, they had not been treated as such
throughout their employment tenure with Madrid. It is his position
that Madrid has violated numerous Labor Code Sections against
them.
The Plaintiff started working for Madrid as a driver on January 23,
2019. He was classified as an independent contractor and was paid a
daily rate.
Madrid Transportation is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from Pomona,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
MASSACHUSETTS: Court Denies Prelim. Injunction Bid in Foster Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Frank Gaziano of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,
Suffolk, denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction
in the case, STEPHEN FOSTER & others vs. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
& others (No. 1), Case No. SJC-12935 (Mass.).
Despite a massive, concerted global containment effort, COVID-19
has continued to spread, both around the world and in
Massachusetts. Few inhabited places worldwide have been spared
from infections; the Massachusetts correctional system is not among
them.
The Plaintiffs, incarcerated inmates serving sentences or
individuals who are civilly committed under G. L. c. 123, Section
35, commenced the class action in the county court, alleging that
their conditions of confinement expose them to unreasonable risks
from the COVID-19 pandemic. They claim, among other things, that
the Defendants' failure to take readily available steps to reduce
the incarcerated population to safe levels so as to permit adequate
physical distancing within prison walls constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the
United States Constitution and art. 26 of the Massachusetts
Declaration of Rights, and violates substantive due process
requirements guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution and arts. 1, 10, and 12 of the
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
The Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction enjoining the
Department of Correction ("DOC") from (1) housing any prisoner in a
facility where the population exceeds its design-rated capacity;
and (2) housing any prisoner in a cell, room, dorm, or other living
area where they must sleep, eat, or recreate within six feet of
another person. To accomplish it, they asked that the DOC be
ordered to reduce the number of incarcerated individuals such that
the proper physical distancing can be maintained in all facilities.
They also requested that the parole board be ordered to expedite
the release of certain groups of inmates, consider the risks of
COVID-19 in all parole decisions, and adopt a presumption of
release on parole for all inmates who are eligible for parole. In
addition, the Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the DOC from continuing
to confine individuals who are civilly committed pursuant to G. L.
c. 123, Section 35.
The single justice reserved and reported the case to the full
court. The justice also remanded the matter to the Superior Court
for fact-finding that will enable the full court to decide the case
in the first instance. A Superior Court judge, by special
assignment, conducted a series of evidentiary hearings, took
limited testimony from all parties over three days, collected
affidavits, and submitted his findings to the Court. The latter
also ordered the Defendants to provide answers to additional
questions pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 16(l), as appearing in 481
Mass. 1628 (2019).
The initial question before the Court at this stage is whether a
preliminary injunction should issue. That in turn requires a
determination whether the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the
merits of their claims.
To prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim, an individual must
establish that the punishment is inconsistent with the evolving
standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.
Prison officials have a duty under the Eighth Amendment to protect
inmates in their custody from the spread of serious, communicable
diseases, including where the complaining inmate does not show
symptoms of the disease, or where "the possible infection might not
affect all of those exposed. Thus, to be entitled to a preliminary
injunction in their claims for unconstitutional conditions of
confinement because of the risk of spread of a disease, the
incarcerated plaintiffs must show that they are likely to establish
that the defendants have been deliberately indifferent to a
substantial risk of serious harm to their health or safety.
It is undisputed, as the Court recognized in Committee for Pub.
Counsel Servs. v. Chief Justice of the Trial Court, 484 Mass. 431,
445 (2020) (CPCS v. Trial Court), that, due to the COVID-19
pandemic, the situation inside the Commonwealth's jails and prisons
is urgent and unprecedented, and that a reduction in the number of
people who are held in custody is necessary. Nonetheless, on the
record in the instant case, Judge Gaziano concludes that the
incarcerated Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of
their claim for violations of the Eighth Amendment, and thus their
motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied.
As to the Plaintiffs' argument that commitment to a secure facility
for substance abuse treatment during the pandemic violates the
substantive due process rights of the committed individual, on the
record, the Plaintiffs do not seem to have a representative class
member at this point, and thus are unlikely to succeed on their
petition for a class-based preliminary injunction. Nonetheless,
some immediate relief is necessary with respect to those who have
been civilly committed pursuant to G. L. c. 123, Section 35.
Under the Court's supervisory authority pursuant to G. L. c. 211,
Section 3, the Judge concludes that these individuals are entitled
to a new hearing to enable a motion judge to take into account
treatment limitations in the current circumstances, and to weigh
the balance of potential benefits from treatment and the potential
harms as a result of being held in wings of prisons and jails or
other conditions of confinement during the pandemic.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Gaziano denied the motion for a
preliminary injunction. The Judge transferred the matter to the
Superior Court, where litigation on the complaint will proceed as
an emergency matter, with due speed in consideration of the
circumstances, before the same Superior Court judge who was
designated to make findings of fact with respect to the motion for
a preliminary injunction. In addition to rulings on the merits,
the judge will resolve all questions of class certification,
including any amendment of the complaint or substitution of
parties.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ROlNft from Leagle.com.
James R. Pingeon for the plaintiffs.
Stephen G. Dietrick for Commissioner of Correction & another.
Ryan P. McManus, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the
Governor.
Michael R. Byrne for the parole board.
The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Tatum A. Pritchard
-- mail@dlc-ma.org -- for Disability Law Center, Inc. Rachael
Rollins, District Attorney for the Suffolk District, & Hon. Jon
Santiago, pro se.
Matthew R. Segal for American Civil Liberties Union of
Massachusetts & another.
MDL 2960: Transfer of 33 COVID-19 Gap Suits to N.D. Cal. Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In lawsuit IN RE: COVID-19 GAP LEASE PAYMENT LITIGATION, MDL No.
2960, Defendants The GAP, Inc., Old Navy, LLC, Banana Republic,
LLC, and Athleta, LLC, move the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation for an order transferring 33 actions to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California for
coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The Gap, Inc., commonly known as Gap, is an American worldwide
clothing and accessories retailer. Gap was founded in 1969 by
Donald Fisher and Doris F. Fisher and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California. Gap is a named defendant in nine different
breach-of-lease agreement actions, as well as the plaintiff in one
breach-of-lease agreement action, currently pending in federal
district courts across the United States, including the District of
Connecticut, District of Vermont, Eastern District of New York,
Southern District of New York, Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
Northern District of Ohio, and Southern District of Florida (the
"Gap Actions").
Old Navy is an American clothing and accessories retailing company
owned by American multinational corporation Gap Inc. Old Navy has
corporate operations in the Mission Bay neighborhood of San
Francisco, California. Banana Republic is an American clothing and
accessories retailer owned by the American multinational
corporation Gap Inc. Athleta was founded in 1998 to meet the unique
needs of athletic women.
Each of the Actions filed against Gap and its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, as well as the one action filed by Gap (Movants),
arises out of the economic disruption caused by the COVID-19
pandemic. In response to the public health and safety threats posed
by the pandemic, state and local governments across the United
States issued orders in or about late March 2020 that effectively
closed non-essential businesses, including clothing and accessory
retailers like Movants, and/or required the general public to
remain at home.
Based on these closures and other disruptions caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic, Gap made a determination on behalf of itself and
its wholly-owned subsidiaries in late March that they were legally
excused from further payment of their monthly rent obligations. The
Plaintiffs' complaints in the Actions contain substantially similar
allegations that Movants failed to pay rent beginning as of April
1, 2020, in violation of their lease agreements with the
Plaintiffs. Thus, Plaintiffs each seek to recover monetary damages
consisting of unpaid rent and attorneys' fees arising out of Gap's
decision that further payment of rent by Movants was legally
excused.
In response, Gap has asserted, among other affirmative defenses,
that its failure to pay is legally excused under several doctrines
of hornbook contract law, including frustration of purpose,
impossibility, illegality, and commercial impracticability, by the
disruption arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic and
government-mandated closures. Relying on similar
theories, Gap also has counterclaimed for repayment of any rent
paid in advance for March 2020, a declaration that no further rent
is owed, and modification of the leases.
Gap, et al., contend that transfer of these Actions and any
subsequent "tag-along federal actions for pretrial proceedings will
eliminate the potential for inconsistent rulings on critical
pretrial motions, eliminate the burden of duplicative discovery on
common issues, further the convenience of parties and witnesses,
prevent unnecessary use of judicial resources, and reduce the
overall costs and burdens for all parties.
The Northern District of California is the logical, and most
convenient, transferee forum, the Movants say. They are
headquartered in that District, the bulk of their documents and
witnesses are located in that District, several judges in that
District have substantial multidistrict litigation experience, and
that District is in a major metropolitan area that is easily
accessible by the parties and their counsel.
The 33 Actions are:
-- FW CT - Corbins Corner Shopping Center, LLC v. Old Navy,
LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-01068 (D. Conn.);
-- Equity One (Northeast Portfolio), Inc. v. Gap, Inc., Case
No. 3:20-cv-01069 (D. Conn.);
-- R-K Black Rock I, LLC v. Gap, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-
01070 (D. Conn.);
-- R-K Black Rock I, LLC v. Gap, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-
01072 (D. Conn.);
-- Regency Centers LP v. Old Navy, LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-
01741 (M.D. Fla.);
-- Palm Springs Mile Associates, LTD. v. Old Navy, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-21929 (S.D. Fla.);
-- Equity One (Florida Portfolio) LLC v. Old Navy, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-23126 (S.D. Fla.)
-- 526-528 Duval Retail LLC v. The Gap, Inc., Case No. 4:20-
cv-10065 (S.D. Fla.);
-- Equity One (Southeast Portfolio) LLC v. Old Navy, LLC,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03080 (N.D. Ga.);
-- State/Randolph, L.L.C. v. Old Navy, LLC, Case No. 1:20-
cv-04382 (N.D. Ill.);
-- Mellody Farm, LLC v. Athleta LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-04522
(N.D. Ill.);
-- Equity Alliance of Canton Developer Parcel, LLC v. Old
Navy, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-11683 (E.D. Mich.);
-- Grand/Sakwa New Holland Shopping Center, L.L.C. v. Old
Navy, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-11686 (E.D. Mich.);
-- Baldwin Commons LLC v. old navy, llc, Case No. 4:20-cv-
11945 (E.D. Mich.);
-- DFG-Felch Street, LLC v. Old Navy, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-
00663 (W.D. Mich.);
-- Jade Pig Ventures - EGR, LLC v. Athleta LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00664 (W.D. Mich.);
-- Equity One (Northeast Portfolio), Inc. v. Old Navy, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-03335 (E.D.N.Y.);
-- Equity One (Northeast Portfolio), Inc. v. The Gap, Inc.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-03338 (E.D.N.Y.);
-- 48th Americas LLC v. The Gap, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-
03471 (S.D.N.Y.);
-- The Gap Inc v. Ponte Gadea New York LLC, Case No. 1:20-
cv-04541 (S.D.N.Y.);
-- CP Commercial Delaware LLC v. The Gap Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-01321 (N.D. Ohio),
-- CP Commercial Delaware LLC v. Athleta LLC, Case No. 1:20-
cv-01323 (N.D. Ohio);
-- CP Commercial Delaware LLC v. Banana Republic LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01327 (N.D. Ohio);
-- Steelyard Commons, LLC v. Old Navy, LLC, Case No. 1:20-
cv-01350 (N.D. Ohio);
-- First Interstate Avon, Ltd. v. Old Navy, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-01354 (N.D. Ohio);
-- Steelyard Commons, LLC v. Old Navy, LLC, Case No. 1:20-
cv-01372 (N.D. Ohio);
-- First Interstate Avon, Ltd. v. Old Navy, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-01373 (N.D. Ohio);
-- Strip Delaware LLC v. Old Navy, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-
01336 (N.D. Ohio);
-- West Market Plaza Limited Partnership v. Old Navy, LLC,
Case No. 5:20-cv-01337 (N.D. Ohio);
-- 1912 Chestnut Partners, LP v. THE GAP INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-02667 (E.D. Pa.);
-- 1911 Chestnut Partners LP v. Banana Republic LLC, Case
No. 2:20-cv-02680 (E.D. Pa.);
-- Kleban Battenkill, LLC v. The Gap, Inc., Case No. 5:20-
cv-00086 (D. Vt.); and
-- UTC, LP v. Old Navy, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00136 (N.D. W.
Va.).[BN]
Movants-Defendants The GAP, Inc., Old Navy, LLC, Banana Republic,
LLC, and Athleta, LLC, are represented by:
Michael A. Geibelson, Esq.
Daniel L. Allender, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208
Telephone: (310) 552-0130
Facsimile: (310) 229-5800
E-mail: MGeibelson@RobinsKaplan.com
DAllender@RobinsKaplan.com
MEDICAL SOLUTIONS: Settlement in Buford Suit Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAURA BUFORD, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., a
Nebraska limited liability corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive. Defendants, Case No. 4:18-CV-04864-YGR (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted both the Plaintiff's
Unopposed (i) Motion for Final Approval of Class and Representative
Action Settlement; and (ii) Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs.
The Plaintiff's Motions were unopposed. Upon consideration of the
Motions, the evidence filed in support thereof, the Court's entire
file therein, the arguments of the counsel at the hearing, and good
cause appearing, Judge Rogers finds that the Settlement is in all
respects fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests
of the Class. The Judge ordered the parties to carry out the
Settlement as provided for in the Joint Stipulation.
In addition, the Court granted the request for an enhancement
payment of $7,500 to the Plaintiff and Class Representative Laura
Buford. The Court further approved payment of $25,000 to the
Settlement Administrator, CPT, Inc., for services rendered and to
be rendered in administering the Settlement. The Judge further
approved payment of $157,500 to the California Labor & Workforce
Development Agency for its share of civil penalties under the
Private Attorneys General Act.
Concurrently with the motion for final approval of the Settlement,
the Plaintiff moved for attorney's fees equal to 25% of the total
settlement fund, or $287,500, plus litigation costs in the amount
of $11,881.82. The Court granted that Motion.
Two Class Members, Kayla Smith and Janon Ashcraft, timely and
validly opted out of the Settlement. These two individuals
therefore are excluded from the Class and are not bound by the
Joint Stipulation or the Order.
The Court adjudged that the Plaintiff, acting on behalf of herself
and the State of California, by operation of the Order forever and
completely released and discharged the Released Parties of any and
all claims for civil penalties under PAGA of both the Settlement
Class and Settlement Aggrieved Group that were alleged in the
Action or that could have been alleged in the Action based on the
factual allegations in the operative complaint.
Neither the releases in the Joint Stipulation nor the Order will
affect any and all claims alleged in the action titled Dittman v.
Medical Solutions, L.L.C., et al., Eastern District of California
Case No. 2:17-cv-01851-MCE-CKD.
A full-text copy of the District Court's July 28, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxc263pw from Leagle.com.
Michael R. Crosner -- mike@crosnerlegal.com -- Zachary M. Crosner
-- zach@crosnerlegal.com -- J. Kirk Donnelly --
kdonnelly@jkd-law.com -- CROSNER LEGAL, PC, Beverly Hills, CA,
Attorneys for Plaintiff Laura Buford.
MERCEDES BENZ: Set to Face Biggest Ever Class Action in Scotland
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsteen Paterson, writing for The National, reports that a "HUGE"
lawsuit against Mercedes Benz will be Scotland's biggest ever class
action court case, solicitors claim.
Thompsons Solicitors already represent more than 2000 Scottish
drivers in a landmark case against Volkswagen in connection with
the "dieselgate" scandal that saw car-makers install unlawful
"defeat devices" into their vehicles in order to "cheat" European
emissions standards.
The software allowed the cars to meet the pollution grade under
controlled tests but masked the fact that the vehicles were more
highly polluting under normal driving conditions--and could even
breach legal standards for nitrogen oxide, which is linked to
environmental damage and health problems like asthma.
In 2015, a "voluntary service action" saw more than one million VW
motors returned in the UK.
Around 2000 owners in Scotland joined a claim for compensation.
Now the firm is preparing a "huge" case against luxury car firm
Mercedes Benz over diesel vehicles.
Senior litigator Joel Shaw, who leads Thompsons' vehicle emissions
unit, says the firm is gathering evidence and believes the case
will become "the most high-value" in Scottish legal history, with
dozens of Mercedes owners prepared to act so far.
Shaw said: "Mercedes diesel cars and commercial vehicles such as
vans are a luxury purchase that hard-working owners have saved
tooth and nail to afford. For many who have bought or leased one of
these vehicles, to now be told their car's value has been slashed
due to fraud by the manufacturers is devastating.
"The team which I lead are experts in handling mass litigation
against car-makers who committed this type of double-dealing. The
expertise developed by our pursuit of VW is invaluable when dealing
with Mercedes."
Shaw continued: "Given the value of the vehicles involved, I have
little doubt that our class action against Mercedes will become
Scotland's most high-value class action law suit.
"The financial level of damages due is very substantial. Owners
deserve to be fully compensated for what amounts to a calculated
fraud by one of the world's most renowned luxury car-makers."
German's Federal Motor Transport Authority found that software
installed in Mercedes' diesel vehicles limited readings during
emissions testing and that the models in question breached EU
regulations under real-world conditions. Parent company Daimler has
been fined £776 million by German prosecutors and legal action
against Mercedes has begun in that country, Canada and the US.
The Scottish action covers diesel vehicles made between 2008-18.
Daimler told The National: "We believe these claims are without
merit, and will vigorously defend against any group action." [GN]
METRO INT'L: Court Denies Class Cert. in Aluminum Price Fixing Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Scott, writing for USGNN, reports that a judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York has denied the
motion put forth by a group of aluminum buyers to certify a class
action lawsuit. The plaintiffs, referred to as first level
purchasers (FLPs), contended that the defendants, which include
large financial institutions and aluminum warehouses, engaged in
anticompetitive conduct that increased regional premiums and
inflated prices in the primary aluminum market.
In his opinion, Judge Paul Engelmayer wrote that individual
analysis of each class member's transactions would be required to
determine whether the purchaser qualified for class membership.
"And once a purchaser was found to have engaged in a covered
transaction, further individual attention to other individual
transactions would be needed, to assure that defendants were not
'held liable for losses they did not cause.' The requirement that
class members have purchased primary, as opposed to secondary,
aluminum, would similarly appear to require individualized
inquiries," he wrote. ". . . For all these reasons, the court
holds, the FLPs have failed to demonstrate that, at a trial on
their claims, common issues would predominate over individualized
ones. The opposite is so. The court accordingly denies the FLPs'
motion to certify the proposed class."
The court also denied a motion to exclude the declaration of the
defendants' expert David Kaplan. The court will issue an order
shortly explaining the case's next steps.
Background
The FLPs brought claims against six sets of defendants, three of
which traded in primary aluminum and primary aluminum derivatives
on the London Metals Exchange (LME) during the relevant period (the
financial defendants), and three of which owned and operated
LME-certified warehouses for the storage of metal (the warehousing
defendants). The financial defendants are each affiliated with
either Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities plc, or
Glencore Ltd.
Each group of financial defendants directly or indirectly acquired
one of the warehousing defendants in 2010, during a glut in the
aluminum market following the 2008 financial crisis. The
warehousing defendants are Metro International Trade Services LLC,
Mitsi Holdings LLC, Henry Bath LLC and Pacorini Metals USA LLC.
"In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, a sharp drop in demand
for aluminum led to a massive global surplus, depressed price, and
a large supply of physical aluminum stored in warehouses.
Anticipating that the market for aluminum would improve over time,
traders and financial institutions purchased some of this
surplus--betting that it would be profitable to buy aluminum, pay
to store it in LME warehouses, and then sell it, via a futures
contract or other means," reads the opinion. "In this environment,
the financial defendants, 'seeing opportunities to purchase primary
aluminum at low prices in anticipation of future resale at higher
prices, acquired substantial aluminum holdings.' In 2010, when the
quantity of aluminum stored in LME warehouses—including aluminum
owned by financial defendants--was extremely high, each of the
financial defendants purchased one of the warehousing defendants.
During the period that followed, delays in the loading out of
aluminum from key LME warehouses operated by the warehousing
defendants increased considerably. The FLPs allege that defendants
conspired to lengthen these load-out 'queues,' which--by driving up
a regional premium often used as a price component in aluminum
supply contracts--increased the all-in price the FLPs paid when
purchasing primary aluminum from smelters."
A complaint was first filed with the court in April 2014 and is
ongoing. [GN]
MIAMI UNIVERSITY: Weiman Sues Over Campus Closure Due to COVID-19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Weiman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MIAMI UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00640-TSB (S.D.
Ohio, Aug. 18, 2020), is brought on behalf of all people, who paid
tuition and fees and who have been unable to receive the benefit of
the education for which they paid, and/or the services for which
their fees were paid, since the campus effectively shut down March
2020 and moved classes on-line as part of Miami University's
response to the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic, and have
lost the benefit of their bargain and/or suffered out-of-pocket
loss.
While the effects of the COVID-19 crisis are shared by all
individuals and institutions across the country, the Defendant has
failed to apportion the burden in an equitable manner or consistent
with its obligations as an educational institution, according to
the complaint. All or substantially all classes have been
exclusively held online since on March 11, 2020. However, the
Defendant has retained all tuition, fees, and related payments for
these classes and plans to do so for similar online classes in the
coming semesters. As the result of the Defendant's unilateral
actions, the Plaintiff's daughter, a student at Miami University,
has not received the educational services, access to facilities,
and/or related opportunities for which the Plaintiff contracted and
paid.
The Plaintiff and the putative class contracted and paid for the
full experience of academic life on the Defendant's campus and
remote online learning cannot provide the same value as in-person
education, says the complaint. As a result, the Defendant has
financially damaged the Plaintiff and the putative class members.
The Plaintiff brings this suit because the Plaintiff and the class
members did not receive the full value of the services for which
they paid.
The Plaintiff's daughter was enrolled as a full-time student for
the Spring 2020 academic semester at Miami University.
Miami University is a public research university founded in Oxford,
Ohio, in 1809.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchel Luxenburg, Esq.
THE LAW FIRM OF MITCH LUXENBURG
P.O. Box 22282
Beachwood, OH 44122
Phone: (216) 452-9301
Facsimile: (866) 551-7791
Email: mitch@mluxlaw.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Makurat Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KARI MAKURAT, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01184 (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in
order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
herself as the class representative, and appoint her attorneys as
class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Faces Samaha Civil Rights Suit in D. Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The City of
Minneapolis, et al. The case is captioned as Jamal Samaha, Lauren
Coleman, Jordan Meyer, Andy Delany, Mary Grace, Bonnie Brown, and
Jonathan Mason, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The City of Minneapolis; Jacob Frey, Minneapolis Mayor,
in his official and individual capacities; Medaria Arradondo,
Minneapolis Chief of Police, in his official and individual
capacity; and John Does 1-100, in their official and individual
capacities, Case No. 0:20-cv-01715-ECT-BRT (D. Minn., Aug. 6,
2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Eric C. Tostrud.
The nature of suit is stated as 440 Civil Rights: Other.
Minneapolis is a major city in Minnesota that forms "Twin Cities"
with the neighboring state capital of St. Paul. Bisected by the
Mississippi River, it is known for its parks and lakes.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brittany N. Resch, Esq.
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Joshua J Rissman, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
120 S. 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
E-mail: bresch@gustafsongluek.com
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
jrissman@gustafsongluek.com
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Kiler Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mondelez Global LLC.
The case is styled as Marion Kiler, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Mondelez
Global LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03732 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mondelez International, Inc., often stylized as Mondelez, is an
American multinational confectionery, food, holding and beverage
company based in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
MORGAN STANLEY: Nelson Sues in S.D. New York Over Property Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney, LLC. The case is styled as Midori T. Nelson, John C.
Nelson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06538
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC operates as a brokerage firm and
investment advisor. The Company buys and sells securities such as
stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other investment products, as well
as manages investment portfolios and financial planning services.
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]
NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS: Mailot Sues Over Reduced Wages, Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES MAILOT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-10068 (D.N.J., August 5, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of contract and
violation of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law by reducing the pay
and associated benefits of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated employees by 3.846% after the Defendant transitioned its
payroll from a semi-monthly basis to every two weeks in January
2017.
New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company is an insurance policy
provider with its home office located at Sullivan Way in West
Trenton, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark T. Sadaka, Esq.
Michael H. Bowman, Esq.
SADAKA ASSOCIATES, LLC
155 North Dean Street, Suite 4-D
Englewood, NJ 07631
Telephone: (201) 266-5670
Facsimile: (201) 266-5671
E-mail: mark@sadakafirm.com
NOBLE ENERGY: Walton Securities Suit Challenges Chevron Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Walton, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. NOBLE ENERGY, INC., DAVID L. STOVER, JEFFREY L.
BERENSON, JAMES E. CRADDOCK, BARBARA J. DUGANIER, THOMAS J.
EDELMAN, HOLLI C. LADHANI, SCOTT D. URBAN, WILLIAM T. VAN KLEEF and
MARTHA B. WYRSCH, Case No. 1:20-cv-06563 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2020),
is brought on behalf of public holders of the common stock of Noble
against the Company and the members of its board of directors for
their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in
connection with the proposed merger between Noble and Chevron
Corporation.
On July 20, 2020, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger ("Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which the Company's shareholders stand to receive 0.1191 shares of
Chevron for each share of Noble stock they own (the "Merger
Consideration"). Upon completion of the merger, Noble shareholders
will own approximately 3% and Chevron shareholders will own
approximately 97% of the combined company.
On August 11, 2020, in order to convince Noble shareholders to vote
in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of the Exchange
Act, the Plaintiff alleges.
While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the S-4, the Defendants have failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, thereby, violating SEC rules and regulations and
rendering certain statements in the S-4 materially incomplete and
misleading, according to the complaint. In particular, the S-4
contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning: (i) the financial projections for the Company that were
prepared by the Company and relied on by Defendants in recommending
that Noble shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction;
and (ii) the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by
Noble's financial advisor, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC in support of
its opinion that the Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders,
on which the Board relied.
The Plaintiff contends that it is imperative that the material
information that has been omitted from the S-4 is disclosed prior
to the forthcoming vote to allow the Company's shareholders to make
an informed decision regarding the Proposed Transaction. For these
reasons, the Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for
violations the Exchange Act. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
Defendants from holding the shareholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed
Transaction unless, and until, the material information is
disclosed to Noble shareholders sufficiently in advance of the vote
on the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed
Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the
Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.
The Plaintiff is a holder of Noble common stock.
Noble is an independent crude oil and natural gas exploration and
production company that owns a portfolio of assets that are
diversified through the U.S. and the World dealing with crude oil,
NGLs and natural gas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-983-9330
Facsimile: 212-983-9331
Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
jwilson@faruqilaw.com
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Court Certifies FDCPA Class in La Caria Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada issued an Order
granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case
captioned NICOLE DIANE LA CARIA v. NORTHSTAR LOCATION SERVICES,
LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00317-GMN-DJA (D. Nev.).
The Court also rules that the Defendant's Motion to Deny Class
Certification is DENIED.
The class is defined as:
(i) all Nevada residents to whom NLS sent a letter in the
form of Exhibit 11 attached to the Complaint (ii) which was
not returned as undeliverable (iii) in an attempt to collect
a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes
as shown by Defendants or the creditors' records (iv) who
[were] left a voicemail message from NLS on the same day
that Exhibit 1 was dated (v) and were not notified during
the call that the debt collector is attempting to collect a
debt and that any information obtained will be used for that
purpose (vi) during the one year prior to the filing of this
lawsuit.
The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against NLS on
February 21, 2018, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"). NLS is an organization established in 2001
that provides, among other things, first and third-party
collections, customer care programs, and location services to
clientele nationwide. The Plaintiff alleges that NLS's initial
communication with consumers, a scripted voicemail message, fails
to notify the consumer that NLS "is attempting to collect a debt
and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose,"
as required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(11).
In its Motion to Deny Certification, NLS argues, among other
things, that the Plaintiff cannot satisfy the predominance
requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure because the proposed class definition is improperly
"fail-safe."
The Court finds that the predominance element is satisfied. Here,
the legal issues arising from NLS's voice messages and the timing
of its initial form collection letter are essentially the same for
each class member. In other words, the issue common to the
class--namely, whether NLS's practice of leaving, as its initial
communication with the consumer, a telephone message, which did not
inform the recipient "that the debt collector is attempting to
collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for
that purpose,"--is predominant. "
Having found that all of the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule
23(b) are met, NLS's Motion to Deny Class Certification is denied
and the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is granted.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 28, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yclwbadt from Leagle.com.
NUU MD INC: Faces Rivera TCPA Suit Over Telemarketing Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
MISMA RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NUU MD INC. D/B/A LIV RENEW, Case No. CACE-20-012916
(Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Aug. 7, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's illegal actions in transmitting advertising and
telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff's and others' cellular
telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system and without
anyone's prior express written consent, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant engages in unsolicited
telemarketing directed towards prospective customers with no regard
for consumers' privacy rights.
The Defendant offers numerous advanced aesthetic treatments,
including Botox (Botox, Dysport and Xeomin), Medical Weight Loss
treatment focusing on optimizing metabolism and limiting food and
Testosterone Replacement Therapy.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954 400 4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954 533 4092
E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
OLAM SPICES: Denial of $4.5MM Deal in Beltran FLSA Suit Recommended
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS BELTRAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OLAM SPICES AND
VEGETABLES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01676-NONE-SAB (E.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California recommended that the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a class action and
collective action settlement be denied.
On July 7, 2015, Plaintiff Beltran commenced a class action lawsuit
against the Defendant, erroneously sued as Olam Spices and
Vegetables, Inc., in the Alameda County Superior Court, Case No.
RG15776976. On Sept. 9, 2015, upon a motion filed by the Defendant
being granted, the Beltran Action was transferred to the Fresno
County Superior Court, Case No. 15CECG02993. A first amended
complaint ("FAC") was filed on Nov. 10, 2015, adding Mario Martinez
as a Plaintiff. A second amended complaint was filed on April 25,
2016.
On March 16, 2017, the parties filed a notice that the matter had
settled. On June 1, 2017, Plaintiffs Beltran and Martinez filed a
motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The
motion for preliminary approval was denied on July 18, 2017. On
Oct. 6, 2017, the state judge granted the request to release the
names of the putative class members to the class action
administrator who did not opt out during the Belaire-West opt out
notice but no mass mailing to the putative class members could be
done without further order of the court.
On Sept. 15, 2015, Plaintiff Maria Claudia Obeso Cota filed a class
action lawsuit against the Defendant in the Sonoma County Superior
Court, Case No. SCV257741. Pursuant to a stipulation and order, on
Jan. 22, 2016, the Cota Action was transferred to the Fresno County
Superior Court, Case No. 16CECG00081. On Feb. 18, 2016, Plaintiff
Alexander Solorio filed a complaint for civil penalties pursuant to
PAGA against the Defendant in the Fresno County Superior Court,
Case No. 16CECG00513. On Oct. 6, 2016, Plaintiff Juan Rivera filed
a complaint for civil penalties under PAGA against Defendant in the
State of California for the County of Santa Clara, Case No.
16CV300758 on behalf of the State of California and other aggrieved
hourly paid or non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant since
Aug. 1, 2015.
On March 14, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation granting the
Plaintiffs' leave to file a third amended class action complaint
("TAC"). The stipulation was granted and the third amended
complaint was filed on April 11, 2018, adding Plaintiffs Maria
Claudia Obeso Cota, Juan Rivera, Mariana Ramirez, and Alexander
Solorio and claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for preliminary approval of
the class action settlement on June 26, 2018. On Oc. 25, 2018, a
hearing on the motion was held and the motion for preliminary
approval was continued to allow the parties to file supplemental
briefing. After the state court hearing on the motion for
preliminary approval, but prior to the state court deciding the
renewed motion for preliminary approval, on Dec. 10, 2018, the
Defendants removed the matter to the Eastern District of
California.
On Dec. 13, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a suggestion of death of
Plaintiff Mariana Ramirez. On April 8, 2020, an order issued
dismissing Plaintiff Mariana Ramirez pursuant to Rule 25 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The instant motion for
preliminary approval of the class action and collective action
settlement was filed on April 13, 2020. The Defendant filed a
statement of non-opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the class settlement.
Thomas Beltran, Mario Martinez, Juan Rivera, Maria Claudia Obeso
Cota, and Alexander Solorio were employed by the Defendant. The
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class defined as: All current and
former persons who were employed by the Defendant in a position
classified by Defendant as non-exempt and/or hourly non-exempt and
who worked in that capacity at Defendant's Fresno, Firebaugh,
Hanford, Lemoore, Gilroy, and/or Williams locations within the
State of California at any time during the period from July 7, 2011
to final judgment. The class is composed of approximately 6,000
individuals.
Plaintiffs Solorio, Rivera, and Ramirez provided written notice to
the Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") that the
Defendant had violated specific provisions of the California Labor
Code.
The Plaintiffs bring the following causes of action against
Defendant: (i) failure to pay overtime in violation of California
Labor Code sections 510 and 1198; (ii) failure to pay overtime in
violation of the FLSA; (iii) failure to provide meal breaks in
violation of California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512(a) and
the applicable industrial wage orders; (iv) failure to provide rest
periods in violation of California Labor Code section 226.7 and the
applicable industrial wage order; (v) failure to pay minimum wages
in violation of California Labor Code section 1194, 1197, and
1197.1; (vi) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the FLSA;
(vii) failure to timely pay wages upon termination of employment in
violation of California Labor Code sections 201 and 202; (viii)
failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of
California Labor Code section 226(a); (ix) failure to reimburse for
all necessary expenditures in violation of California Labor Code
sections 2800 and 2802; (x) unfair and unlawful business practices
in violation of California Business and Professions Code sections
17200, et seq.; and (xi) violation of California's Public Attorney
General Act.
The Defendant agrees to pay $4.5 million to settle the claims in
the action. The settlement agreement covers the period from July
7, 2011, to the date of preliminary approval. The settlement
administrator will be Simpluis, Inc. The settlement administration
costs will be paid from the total settlement fund. The
administration costs to be paid to the settlement administrator are
estimated to be $58,000.
The Defendant agrees not to oppose or impede any application or
motion for attorney fees of not more than $1,575,000, which is 35%
of the total settlement funds plus costs and expenses of not to
exceed $65,000. Any attorney fees not awarded will be added to the
net settlement fund.
The Defendant agrees not to oppose or impede any application or
motion for incentive awards to the named class representatives.
Plaintiffs Beltran, Martinez, Obeso Cota, and Solorio will receive
an incentive award of $7,500 and Plaintiff Rivera will seek an
award of $3,500.
A total of $150,000 will be paid to settle the PAGA claims. Of
this amount, $112,500 will be paid to the LWDA and $37,500 will be
part of the net settlement fund.
The net settlement fund is the gross settlement fund less the
settlement administration costs; attorney fees, costs, and
expenses; the Defendant's share of the payroll expenses; incentive
payments to the named representatives, and the payment to the LDWA.
Seventy-five percent of the net settlement fund is allocated to
the Rule 23 class action and 25% is allocated to the FLSA
collective action. Each members allocation will be determined by
multiplying the net settlement fund by the fraction that the
individual member has worked. Each member's payment is allocated
as 34%t wages and 66% as penalties and interest. Each member's wage
payment will be reduced by the employees required share of the
payroll taxes and withholdings. No portion of the payment will be
credited toward calculating employee benefits under any employee
benefit plan.
The settlement administrator will mail the notice packet in Spanish
and English to all Rule 23 class and FLSA collective action members
at the most current, known mailing address. For any packet that is
re-mailed, the individual will have an additional 15 calendar days
to respond.
The class notice will be mailed to all Rule 23 class members and
the FLSA notice will be mailed to all FLSA members. To opt out,
dispute the credited work weeks or object to the Rule 23 class
action settlement, the form must be postmarked or a fax received 60
days from the initial mailing of the notice packet. If a request
to opt out is defective, the class member will be provided with an
opportunity to cure the defect. The settlement administrator will
mail the class member a cure letter within three days. The class
member will have until the response deadline or 15 days from the
date of mailing to correct the form.
The funds for any uncashed funds will be transmitted to the United
Way for the local chapters in Fresno County, Kings County, Santa
Clara County, and Colusa County.
Judge Boone finds that viewing the settlement agreement in its
totality demonstrates that there are glaring deficiencies that
preclude a finding that the settlement is fair and reasonable.
Further, the Plaintiffs are advised that in filing a future motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement they must adequately
brief the issues that the Court must address in determining if the
settlement is fair and reasonable, providing sufficient information
for the court to evaluate the issues, and generic statements are
not sufficient.
Accordingly, Judge Boone recommended that the joint motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement be denied. The findings and
recommendations is submitted to the district judge assigned to the
action.
A full-text copy of Judge Boone's June 2, 2020 Decision is
available at https://is.gd/quuogd from Leagle.com.
ONESOURCE MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Hernandez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA HERNANDEZ v. ONESOURCE MEDICAL DIAGNOSTICS, LLC; EXPERT
MRI CONSULT, INC.; INSPERITY PAYROLL SERVICES, LLC; INSPERITY
EXPENSE MANAGEMENT, INC.; INSPERITY INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01153843-CU-OE-CXC-ROA (Cal.
Super., Orange Cty., Aug. 4, 2020), is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and other current and former employees of the Defendants
alleging failure to provide rest periods, and to pay all wages,
including minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.
The case involves the Defendants' scheme to misclassify the
Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees, thereby, denying them the
fundamental protection due to employees under California Law.
Further, this class action lawsuit arises out of an ongoing
wrongful scheme by the Defendants to deny their employees the
benefits due under California's wage and hour laws for work
performed in California.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from March 2017
through December 2019, in Orange County, California. She was
employed in non-exempt hourly position of a phlebotomist, and was
entitled to compensation for all hours worked including, but not
limited to overtime compensation, as well as penalties from the
Defendants.
Onesource provides physician and schedules patients' appointment.
Expert offers magnetic resonance imaging services. Insperity is a
professional employer organization headquartered in Kingwood, an
area of Houston, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Lo, Esq.
WORK LAWYER PC
22939 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 202
Torrance, CA 90505
Telephone: (866) 496-7552
Facsimile: (424) 355-8535
E-mail: Justin@WorkLawyers.com
OXFORD 2005: Katt Sues in Colo. Over Disabilities Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oxford 2005 Holdings,
LLC. The case is captioned as David Katt, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Oxford 2005 Holdings, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02351-NYW (D. Colo., Aug. 7, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Nina Y. Wang.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act. The nature of suit is stated as 446 Civil Rights.
The Defendant provides strategic resources for investors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com
PACIFIC LIFE: Li Sues Over Deceptive Scheme to Sell PDX Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
HONG LI, a California resident, individually and on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, by and through TAILONG LIU,
as attorney in fact v. PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California
corporation; TIFFANY XU, a California resident; SKY VISION
INSURANCE AGENCY, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 5,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01153426-CU-BT-CXC-ROA (Cal. Super.,
Orange Cty., Aug. 6, 2020), arises out of a deceptive scheme
implemented by PacLife to sell its "Pacific Discovery Xelerator
IUL" indexed universal life insurance policies to California
residents.
The Plaintiff contends that PacLife deceptively misrepresented that
the PDX Policies can produce outsized returns when, in reality,
PacLife knew the PDX Policies would not and could not perform as
represented given (a) the excessive embedded undisclosed base
charges, (b) the undisclosed risks to the illustrated performance,
and (c) PacLife's deceptive utilization of a mysterious
multiplier--the so-called "Performance Factor"-- through which
PacLife circumvented insurance regulations and fraudulently
inflated the illustrated performance of the PDX Policies.
PacLife intentionally misleads consumers into thinking that the
hyper-aggressive account values shown in the PDX Illustrations and
marketing materials are based on the conservative illustrated
crediting rate of around 6% mandated by AG, while concealing that
the PDX Policies are, in reality, the riskiest and most highly
leveraged IUL products in the entire insurance industry, says the
complaint.
This class action seeks redress on behalf of California purchasers
of PDX indexed universal life (IUL) insurance policies issued by
PacLife.
Pacific Life is an American insurance company providing life
insurance products, annuities, and mutual funds, and offers a
variety of investment products and services to individuals,
businesses, and pension plans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
Kimberly C. Page, Jr., Esq.
William F. King, Esq.
BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 798-4593
Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com
afriedman@bffb.com
fbalint@bffb.com
kpage@bffb.com
bking@bffb.com
PAPA CANTELLA'S: Vargas Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MARIO VARGAS, an individual, on behalf of the State of
California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAPA CANTELLA'S,
INCORPORATED, a California corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 20STCV28742 (Cal. Sup Ct., July 30, 2020)
arises from Defendants' alleged violation of the Private Attorneys
General Act.
Plaintiff worked for Defendants a non-exempt "Quality Assurance
Associate" in Defendants' facility in Vernon from approximately
October 28, 2010 until his termination on or around January 8,
2020.
The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to:
-- pay Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees at least the
minimum wage for all their hours worked and overtime hours worked
at the proper overtime rates;
-- provide Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees with all
of their statutorily mandated meal and rest periods;
-- furnish Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees with
complete, accurate, itemized wage statements; and
-- compensate Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees with
all earnings at their separation of employment.
Moreover, Defendant and the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency (LWDA) were notified by Plaintiff via certified
mail on or about May 14, 2020, but both did not reply after 65 days
have passed.
Papa Cantella's Incorporated operates a meat product processing and
packaging business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sanjay Bansal, Esq.
BANSAL LAW
725 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2250
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: (424) 501-5099
Email: sanjay@bansalesq.com
- and –
Sam Rezvani, Esq.
VENTURE LAW, PC
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (310) 893-3402
Email: srezvani@venturelawpc.com
PEARSON PLC: Court Dismisses Kylie S.'s Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John Z. Lee of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Pearson's motion to
dismiss the case, KYLIE S., ANTHONY P., ANNA S., and GENA W., on
behalf of themselves and as parents and guardians of their minor
children, K.S., J.P., K.P., D.C., M.C., J.C., Z.W., and C.W., and
on behalf of all similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
PEARSON PLC, NCS PEARSON, INC, and PEARSON EDUCATION, INC., d/b/a
PEARSON CLINICAL ASSESSMENT, Defendants, Case No. 19 C 5936 (N.D.
Ill.).
Pearson PLC publishes educational materials. Pearson Education,
one of Pearson PLC's subsidiaries, supplies testing services. NCS
Pearson, another subsidiary, develops educational software.
Working together, these entities oversee AIMSweb, a digital
education technology assessment platform licensed to schools and
school districts. As part of the curriculum, schools that license
the platform instruct their students to complete tests on AIMSweb.
To do so, students must share their first and last names, dates of
birth, email addresses, unique student identification numbers, home
addresses and telephone numbers. In a privacy policy that covers
AIMSweb, Pearson accepted full responsibility for the information
they hold and promised to protect student privacy at all times.
Sometime in late 2018, hackers penetrated AIMSweb's defenses and
gained access to the data stored on the platform. But it was not
until early 2019, when the FBI detected the incident, that Pearson
realized that AIMSweb had been compromised. In a preliminary
analysis, the FBI estimated that the intruders could have accessed
information related to roughly 900,000 students at about 13,000
schools. The disclosed data included first name, last name, and in
some instances date of birth and/or email address, along with
students' unique student identification numbers.
About four months after the FBI discovered the problem, Pearson
issued a public notice acknowledging that a data breach had
occurred. Pearson assured customers that it does not have any
evidence that the information has been misused. As a precaution,
however, it offered to compensate victims in the form of one year
of complimentary credit monitoring services.
Based on Pearson's failure to prevent the data breach, the
Plaintiffs assert a dozen different common law and statutory
claims. They accuse Pearson of common law negligence, negligence
per se, breach of an express contract, breach of an implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and intrusion upon seclusion. They
also allege that Pearson violated the Illinois Personal Information
and Protection Act; Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act; Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act;
Colorado Security Breach Notification Act; Colorado Consumer
Protection Act; and Colorado Student Data Transparency and Security
Act.
For its part, Pearson maintains that the complaint should be
dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, want of personal
jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim.
In arguing that they suffered an injury-in-fact, the Plaintiffs
articulate three distinct theories. First, they submit that the
data breach exacerbated their vulnerability to identity theft.
Second, they suggest that the breach reduced the market value of
their data. Finally, they contend that certain statutes dictate
that any disclosure of student records is a legally-cognizable
injury, even if no economic harm results.
Judge Lee's analysis begins and ends with the question of
subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Plaintiffs' primary argument is that the data breach made them
easier targets for identity thieves. The Judge holds that the
Plaintiffs' theory fails because the disclosed data is not
sensitive enough to materially increase the risk of identity theft.
That none of the affected students seems to have suffered adverse
consequences from the breach confirms the diagnosis, and Pearson's
provision of credit monitoring services is not a reliable enough
indicator of risk to undermine it. The result is that the
Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate Article III standing on this basis.
In the alternative, the Plaintiffs assert that the data breach
reduced the market value of their personal information. An
economic market existed for the Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
data, their theory goes, and the value of that data decreased as a
result of its availability on the black market. What is missing
from the complaint, however, are any allegations that the Pearson
hackers have attempted to trade the compromised data for anything
of value. Nor do the Plaintiffs plead that they have ever sold
their data or that they would even consider doing so. Those
deficiencies make this theory "too speculative" to confer standing.
Finally, the Plaintiffs insist that certain statutes establish that
any disclosure of student data counts as an injury, regardless of
whether it leads to economic loss. As a general rule, legislatures
have the power to enact statutes creating legal rights, the
invasion of which creates standing, even though no injury would
exist without the statute.
Ultimately, the Judge opines that the injury-in-fact element hinges
on whether the breach caused economic loss by magnifying the danger
of identity theft or diminishing the value of the Plaintiffs' data.
Because the Plaintiffs have failed to sustain either of those
theories, they cannot support Article III standing. As a result,
the complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. Given that the Plaintiffs have only
amended their complaint once, and that they may be able to
introduce facts that establish standing, the Judge allows them to
revise their allegations a second and final time.
For the reasons stated, Judge Lee granted the motion to dismiss.
The Judge denied as moot Pearson's motion to strike the class
claims and the Plaintiffs' motion to strike certain declarations
submitted by Pearson.
If the Plaintiffs chooses, they were permitted to submit a second
amended complaint by Aug. 21, 2020. If they do not do so, the
Court will assume that they no longer wish to pursue the litigation
and will terminate the case.
A full-text copy of the District Court's July 28, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4kpjuug from
Leagle.com.
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Faces Tunskai Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,
et al. The case is styled as Tunskai Properties, LLC, on behalf of
itself and all other Class Members similarly situated v. CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA, DEPARTMENT OF LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS, Case No.
2:20-cv-04004 (E.D. Penn., Aug. 17, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes:
Constitutional-State Statute for the Civil Rights Act.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania's largest city, is notable for its rich
history, on display at the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall (where
the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were signed) and
other American Revolutionary sites.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Upin, Esq.
ROYER COOPER COHEN BRAUNFELD LLC
Two Logan Square
100 N. 18th Street, Suite 710
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (267) 546-0114
Fax: (484) 362-2630
Email: jupin@rccblaw.com
PHILIP MORRIS: ADESF Class Suit vs. Unit Underway in Brazil
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company's
subsidiary, Philip Morris Marketing, S.A., continues to defend a
class action suit in Brazil entitled, The Smoker Health Defense
Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A.
In the class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health Defense
Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central Courts
of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July 25,
1995, the company's subsidiary and another member of the industry
are defendants.
The plaintiff, a consumer organization, is seeking damages for all
addicted smokers and former smokers, and injunctive relief. In
2004, the trial court found defendants liable without hearing
evidence and awarded "moral damages" of R$1,000 (approximately
$194) per smoker per full year of smoking plus interest at the rate
of 1% per month, as of the date of the ruling.
The court did not award actual damages, which were to be assessed
in the second phase of the case. The size of the class was not
estimated.
Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals, which
annulled the ruling in November 2008, finding that the trial court
had inappropriately ruled without hearing evidence and returned the
case to the trial court for further proceedings. In May 2011, the
trial court dismissed the claim.
In February 2015, the appellate court unanimously dismissed
plaintiff's appeal. In September 2015, plaintiff appealed to the
Superior Court of Justice. In February 2017, the Chief Justice of
the Superior Court of Justice denied plaintiff's appeal.
Plaintiff filed a further appeal.
In addition, the defendants filed a constitutional appeal to the
Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis that plaintiff did not have
standing to bring the lawsuit.
Both appeals are still pending.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHILIP MORRIS: Amended Complaint in Rebolledo Suit Not Yet Served
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the Company has yet
to be served with the amended complaint in the purported class
action suit Ana Ferrero Rebolledo v. Philip Morris Colombia S.A.,
et al.
In Colombia, an individual filed a purported class action, Ana
Ferrero Rebolledo v. Philip Morris Colombia S.A., et al., in April
2019 against the company's subsidiaries with the Civil Court of
Bogota related to the marketing of the company's Platform 1
product.
Plaintiff alleged that the company's subsidiaries advertise the
product in contravention of law and in a manner that misleads
consumers by portraying the product in a positive light, and
further asserts that the Platform 1 vapor contains many toxic
compounds, creates a high level of dependence, and has damaging
second-hand effects.
Plaintiff sought injunctive relief and damages on her behalf and on
a behalf of two classes (class 1 - all Platform 1 consumers in
Colombia who seek damages for the purchase price of the product and
personal injuries related to the alleged addiction, and class 2 -
all residents of the neighborhood where the advertising allegedly
took place who seek damages for exposure to the alleged illegal
advertising).
The company's subsidiaries answered the complaint in January 2020,
and in February 2020, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The
amended complaint modifies the relief sought on behalf of the named
plaintiff and on behalf of a single class (all consumers of
Platform 1 products in Colombia who seek damages for the product
purchase price and personal injuries related to the use of an
allegedly harmful product).
The amended complaint has not yet been served on our subsidiaries.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Adams Class Suit in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
class action suit entitled, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al.
In a class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan,
Canada, filed July 10, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc. ("RBH"), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria),
and other members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD")
resulting from the use of tobacco products.
She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum
of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from
COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution
of profits.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Bourassa Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
class action suit entitled, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada
Limited, et al.
In a class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco
Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada,
filed June 25, 2010, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.
("RBH"), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and
other members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the
decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from
emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products.
She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12,
2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly
caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members,
plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January
1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.
In December 2014, plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHILIP MORRIS: Dorion Class Complaint Has Not Yet Been Served
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the Company has yet to be served
with the complaint in the class action suit entitled, Dorion v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.
In a class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta, Canada,
filed June 15, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.
("RBH"), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and
other members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections
resulting from the use of tobacco products.
She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents
and family members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of
government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.
Philip Morris said, "To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our
indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHILIP MORRIS: Jacklin Class Suit Ongoing in Canada
---------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
class action suit entitled, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al.
In a class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, filed June 20, 2012, the company, Rothmans, Benson &
Hedges Inc. ("RBH"), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and
Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked
a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or
suffer, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), heart
disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHILIP MORRIS: Semple Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
class action suit entitled, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al.
In a class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court),
Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the company, Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc. ("RBH"), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA
and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD")
resulting from the use of tobacco products.
He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents
and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by
tobacco products.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHILIP MORRIS: Still Defends McDermid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
class action suit entitled, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada
Limited, et al.
In a class action pending in Canada, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco
Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada,
filed June 25, 2010,the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.
("RBH"), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and
other members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products.
He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12,
2007, and who suffered from heart disease allegedly caused by
smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus
disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1,
1954, to the date the claim was filed.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PLURALSIGHT INC: Continues to Defend Utah Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Pluralsight, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action
suit pending before the the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah.
In August 2019, a class action complaint was filed by a stockholder
of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the Company, and certain of the Company's
officers alleging violation of securities laws and seeking
unspecified damages.
In October 2019, the action was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah and in March 2020, a lead plaintiff
was appointed.
An amended complaint was filed in June 2020. The amended complaint
names the company as defendant, along with certain of the Company's
officers, members of the Board of Directors, and Morgan Stanley &
Co. LLC and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, the lead underwriters from
the Company's March 2019 common stock offering. A response from the
defendants to the amended complaint is due August 2020.
Pluralsight, Inc. operates as a software company. The Company
provides a platform which offers assessments, learning paths and
courses to businesses and individuals seeking to enhance their
programming and IT related skill sets. Pluralsights servces
customers around the world. The company is based in Farmington,
Utah.
PORTLAND WINDOW: Calcano Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portland Window
Coverings LLC. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Portland Window
Coverings LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06546 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Portland Window Coverings offers custom window treatments featuring
luxurious blinds and shades from Hunter Douglas, as well as
curtains made in Portland.[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
QUICK DRAW: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Dierking Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHAN DIERKING v. QUICK DRAW PLUMBING, INC.; WILLIAM CORNELIUS
DRIVER; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV29657 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles, Aug. 5, 2020), is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that the
Defendants failed to compensate for all hours worked, to pay
minimum wages, to pay overtime wages, to pay wages owed every pay
period, and to give rest breaks and meal breaks in violation of the
California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff says that he initially started working for Quick Draw
on mid-2019. He was employed as a field technician/plumber. He was
not paid an hourly wage for his work but was paid on a commission
basis. He contends that he would regularly work over 8 hours per
day and over 40 hours per week. His employment with Quick Draw
ended on late 2019.
Quick Draw is in the plumbing contractors business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
REFORM SOLUTIONS: Nathan Sues Over Unwelcome Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
REUBEN NATHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REFORM SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED, LENDING 3, INC.; and
TITAN MUTUAL LENDING INC, Case No. 8:20-cv-01453-DOC-KES (C.D.
Cal., Aug. 4, 2020), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
placing auto-dialed calls to cellphone owners, and obtain damages
for all persons similarly injured by the Defendants' conduct.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used an automatic
telephone dialing system (ATDS) to make unsolicited telemarketing
calls to cellphone numbers. Rather than adhere to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, the Defendants placed repeated calls to
consumers who never provided consent (either orally or in writing)
to receive such calls. By making alleged unauthorized telemarketing
calls, the Defendants have caused consumers actual harm. This
includes the aggravation, nuisance and invasions of privacy that
result from the placement and receipt of such calls, in addition to
the wear and tear on their telephones, consumption of battery life,
lost ability to place outgoing calls and other interruption in use,
cellular minutes, loss of value realized for the monies consumers
paid to their carriers for the receipt of such calls, and other
diminished use, enjoyment, value, and utility of their cellphones.
Reform Solutions is a Marketing Lead Generator and a Duly Licensed
Mortgage broker that generates leads via telemarketing (and
potentially through means). Lending 3 is an agent, representative
and or partner of Reform Solutions and is a Marketing Lead
Generator and a Duly Licensed Mortgage broker that generates leads
via telemarketing. Titan is a mortgage lender that provides
consumers with a variety of mortgage products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Glugoski, Esq.
RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
37 Graham Street, Suite 130
San Francisco, CA 94129
Telephone: (415) 983-0900
Facsimile: (415) 397-9005
ROYAL SEA: Court Strikes Witness Declarations in McCurley Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN McCURLEY, DAN DEFOREST, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ROYAL SEA
CRUISES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00986-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs First Amended Motion to Strike Witness Declarations, for
Restraining Order, for Monetary Sanctions, and for Disqualification
of Counsel.
The Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint on May 12,
2017. The Court consolidated the case with another pending class
action complaint, and the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint on Dec. 20, 2017.
On July 30, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a class certification
motion. On March 27, 2019, the Court ultimately granted in part
the motion for class certification. The Court certified a class of
individuals who had received telephone calls from non-party
Prospects DM, Inc. on behalf of Defendant Royal by use of an
automatic telephone dialing system between November 2016 and
December 2017, where such calls were placed for the purposes of
marketing to non-customers of Royal and whose cellular telephone
numbers had been obtained via two websites: www.diabeteshealth.info
or www.youautohealthlifeinsurance.com. The Court certified a
Subclass of the individuals who were actually transferred to Royal
after Prospects made the call.
After class certification was granted, the Court ordered that fact
discovery be completed by Oct. 18, 2019. At the request of the
parties, the order was modified to allow fact discovery to be
completed by Feb. 19, 2020.
For a variety of reasons, the class notice did not go out to
potential class members until one year later in March 2020. After
certification, the Defendant began contacting the class members.
It called all individuals who were transferred from
www.diabeteshealth.info, and to whom a sale was actually made.
Thus, all of these individuals had been transferred from Prospects
to Royal and were, therefore, members of the Subclass.
The Defendant placed approximately 560 calls to these class
members. It reached 23 individuals, 19 of whom it admits were
class members. Three of these class members signed affidavits
indicating that they had voluntarily entered their telephone number
in the www.diabetesthealth.info website and consented to be called.
The Defendant used a script, drafted by its attorneys, to contact
these class members.
On Jan. 17, 2020, one month before fact discovery was scheduled to
be closed, the Defendant served a Second Supplemental disclosure on
the Plaintiffs' counsel identifying the three class members as
witnesses and providing three signed declarations from these
witnesses dated Aug. 7, 2019, Sept. 23, 2019 and Oct. 2, 2019.
The Plaintiffs immediately filed a motion asking that these
declarations be excluded. The Defense counsel moved to conduct
discovery of class members on Feb. 10, 2020, asking, for the first
time, that they be allowed to depose the three witnesses they had
already contacted ex parte. The Plaintiffs then filed the instant
First Amended Motion on March 4, 2020.
Judge Bashant finds the Defendant's contact with the class members
and misleading coercive behavior in obtaining the affidavits to be
unethical and in bad faith. However, the Defendant claims, and the
Plaintiffs do not dispute, that once the Plaintiffs contacted the
defense counsel, they agreed to withdraw the three declarations in
the Second Supplemental Disclosure, and agreed that no additional
contact with class members would occur. Therefore, part of what is
sought in the Motion could have been obtained by agreement between
the parties. The sticking point, apparently, was whether the
Defendant would then be permitted to depose the three class members
with whom it had had ex parte communications.
Judge Bashant agrees with the Plaintiffs that the Defendant's ex
parte contact, which included misleading and suggestive questions,
tainted the future testimony of these three class members.
Therefore, the Defendant will not be permitted to use the testimony
of these three individuals, or, in fact, the testimony of any class
member contacted by Defendant using the script asking about contact
with the diabeteshealth.info website.
To the extent the Class Counsel were required to bring a motion to
accomplish this task, the Court finds it appropriate to order the
Defendant and the defense counsel to reimburse the Plaintiffs for
the cost of the Motion practice as a sanction for the initial
behavior. Therefore, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' request for
monetary sanctions to reimburse them for the costs of bringing the
Motion, as well as the costs of investigating the contact made by
the defense counsel.
However, the Court does not find that the ex parte contact with the
three class members is likely to have a continuing effect on the
proceedings. The Court has stricken both the affidavits and those
three individuals as witnesses, curing any long-term continuing
effect even if the defense counsel continues representation. The
Defense counsel have voluntarily agreed not to contact any other
class members. Therefore, the Court finds disqualification of the
Defense Counsel is unnecessary.
Accordingly, Judge Bashant granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's Motion.
The Judge granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Witness
Declarations. The Judge further ordered the Defendant and the
defense counsel not to have any contact with the class members on
an ex parte basis, about the subject of the case, without the
consent of the class members' attorney, the Class Counsel. Any
contact exploring the issue of consent should be done only with the
presence of the Class Counsel.
The Court further granted the Plaintiffs' Request for Monetary
Sanctions. The Plaintiffs' counsel is ordered to file a detailed
request for attorneys' and other fees, detailing the costs of
bringing the instant Motion.
Finally, Judge Bashant denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Disqualification of Defense Counsel.
A full-text copy of the District Court's July 31, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y37jsxbc from Leagle.com.
SAN ANTONIO, TX: 5th Cir. Appeal Filed in Payne Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Don Albert Payne and Gloria Jean Payne filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Don Payne, et
al. v. City of San Antonio, Texas, et al., Case No. 5:19-CV-407, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San
Antonio.
The nature of suit is stated as civil rights.
The appellate case is captioned as Don Payne, et al. v. City of San
Antonio, Texas, et al., Case No. 20-50672, in the US Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Don Albert Payne, Individually and on Behalf
of all Other Persons Similarly Situated, and Gloria Jean Payne,
Individually and on Behalf of all Other Persons Similarly Situated,
appear pro se.[BN]
Defendants-Appellees City of San Antonio, Texas, San Antonio Police
Department, William Kasberg, Shannon Purkiss, Gerardo Morales, Ron
Nirenberg, William McManus, Midcrown Pavilion Apartments, San
Antonio Housing Authority, and Amy Carrillo are represented by:
Nathan Mark Ralls, Esq.
HOBLIT DARLING RALLS HERNANDEZ & HUDLOW, L.L.P.
6243 IH-10, W.
San Antonio, TX 78201
Telephone: (210) 224-9991
- and -
Robert David Fritsche, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF R. DAVID FRITSCHE
921 Proton Road
San Antonio, TX 78258-4203
Telephone: (210) 227-2726
- and -
Benjamin V. Lugg, Esq.
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO
818 S. Flores
San Antonio, TX 78204
Telephone: (210) 477-6027
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Jones Appeals E.D. Arkansas Order to 8th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Amanda M. Jones filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in her lawsuit entitled Amanda Jones v. Santander Consumer
USA, Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-00811-BRW, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought for declaratory judgment under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act arising from the Defendant's violation of the
Arkansas Constitution's interest rate cap of 17%.
The Defendant acquired through written assignment a Simple Finance
Charge Agreement (hereinafter the "Financing Agreement") between
the Plaintiff and the Arkansas limited liability company, who at
the time was doing business as Landers Chrysler Jeep Dodge, in
Benton Arkansas and that hereafter, along with its predecessors and
successors in interest, and irrespective of the various registered
Arkansas fictitious named utilized by any of the foregoing,
constitutes the entity/ies referred to herein as "LANDERS."
On April 12, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased a 2013 Dodge Avenger
from LANDERS. As part of this transaction between the Plaintiff and
LANDERS, they also entered into the Financing Agreement. The annual
percentage rate of the Financing Agreement between the Plaintiff
and LANDERS, an Arkansas LLC indisputably subject to the Arkansas
Constitution, was 19.55% per annum, reflecting an interest rate
exceeding the mandatory constitutional interest threshold of 17%
per annum. LANDERS proceeded to sell and assign the Financing
Agreement between LANDERS and the Plaintiff to the Defendant
Santander, who remains the current owner of the Financing
Agreement.
The Defendant immediately began to, and to this day continues to,
demand and collect principal and interest payments from the
Plaintiff on a monthly basis under the terms of the Financing
Agreement in violation of the unambiguous usury prohibitions of the
Arkansas Constitution, the Plaintiff contends.
As a result of this violation of the Arkansas Constitution, the
Plaintiff and the Class seek an Order declaring the principal and
interest provisions of their Financing Agreements held by the
Defendant to be void and awarding them judgment against the
Defendant in an amount equal to the amount of such principal and
interest payments collected by the Defendant in violation of the
Constitution of the State of Arkansas.
The appellate case is captioned as Amanda Jones v. Santander
Consumer USA, Inc., Case No. 20-2728, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appendix is due on September 28, 2020;
-- Brief of Appellant Amanda M. Jones is due on September 28,
2020; and
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
appellant.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Amanda M. Jones, Individually and on Behalf of
all Arkansans Similarly Situated, is represented by:
Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
BRANSTETTER & STRANCH
Freedom Building, Suite 200
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: joeyl@bsjfirm.com
- and -
James Albert Streett, Esq.
STREETT LAW FIRM
107 W. Main Street, P.O. Box 650
Russellville, AR 72801-0000
Telephone: (479) 968-2030
E-mail: James@StreettLaw.com
Defendant-Appellee Santander Consumer USA, Inc., is represented
by:
Jason K. Fagelman, Esq.
NORTON & ROSE
2200 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75201-2784
E-mail: jason.fagelman@nortonrosefulbright.com
- and -
Luke G. Maher, Esq.
NORTON & ROSE
7676 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 2230
Saint Louis, MO 63105-3404
Telephone: (314) 505-8829
E-mail: luke.maher@nortonrosefulbright.com
SECURE ONE CAPITAL: Fabricant et al Sue Over Unsolicited Phone Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT and LUCINE ALSULIMAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SECURE ONE CAPITAL
CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-06857 (C.D. Cal., July 30, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
negligent and willful violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Defendant placed multiple calls to
Plaintiffs' cellular telephone numbers ending in -2347 and -8905 in
or around April 2018. Allegedly, Defendants used an automatic
telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice in
placing calls in an attempt to solicit Plaintiffs to purchase its
services even without their prior express consent.
Secure One Capital Corporation is a mortgage 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
Tel: 866-598-5042
Fax: 866-633-0228
Emails: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
SFC GLOBAL: Chobanian Fraud Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Hannah Chobanian,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated Missouri
citizens v. SFC Global Supply Chain, Inc., Case No. 2022-CC01177,
was removed from the Missouri Circuit Court, St. Louis County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St.
Louis) on Aug. 3, 2020.
The Eastern District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-01017-JAR to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John A. Ross. The nature of
suit is stated as 370 Other Fraud.
SFC provides frozen pizza for sale. The Company manufactures frozen
pizza dough and the toppings associated with pizza.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM LLC
8816 Manchester Road
St. Louis, MO 63144
Telephone: (314) 258-0212
E-mail: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Amira A. Elshareif, Esq.
Geoffrey H Kozen, Esq.
Stephen Safranski, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue
2800 LaSalle Plaza
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
Telephone: (612) 349-0984
Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
E-mail: aelshareif@robinskaplan.com
gkozen@robinskaplan.com
ssafranski@robinskaplan.com
- and -
Michael L. Jente, Esq.
Neal F. Perryman, Esq.
LEWIS RICE LLC
600 Washington, Suite 2500
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 444-7683
E-mail: jente@lewisrice.com
nperryman@lewisrice.com
SLEEPING WELL: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sleeping Well, LLC.
The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Sleeping Well, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-03734 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sleeping Well, LLC, is the developer of the "ZQuiet" anti-snoring
mouthpiece, and seeks to improve the lives of couples effected by a
snoring bed-partner.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
SHALOM LAW, PLLC
124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
Kew Gardens, NY 11374
Phone: (718) 971-9474
Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com
SPROUTS FARMERS: Individual Claims in Phishing Scam Suit Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 28, 2020, that three individual arbitrations
related to email "phishing" scam, were settled in late June and
early July 2020, with immaterial settlement amounts fully funded by
the Company's cyber insurance policy.
In April 2016, four complaints were filed, two in the federal
courts of California, one in the Superior Court of California and
one in the federal court in the District of Colorado, each on
behalf of a purported class of the Company's current and former
team members whose personally identifiable information ("PII") was
inadvertently disclosed to an unauthorized third party that
perpetrated an email "phishing" scam against one of the Company's
team members.
The complaints alleged the Company failed to properly safeguard the
PII in accordance with applicable law. The complaints sought
damages on behalf of the purported class in unspecified amounts,
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.
On March 1, 2019, a number of individual plaintiffs filed
arbitration demands. On May 15, 2019, certain other plaintiffs
filed a second amended class action complaint in the District of
Arizona, alleging that certain subclasses of team members are not
subject to the Company's arbitration agreement and attempted to
pursue those team members’ claims in federal court.
In late August 2019, the Company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the majority of these claims, which were funded in the
fourth quarter of 2019.
Primary funding for the settlement came from the Company's cyber
insurance policy, and the settlement did not have a material impact
on the consolidated financial statements.
Following the group settlement, three (3) individual claimants
planned to proceed with arbitration of their claims.
The three individual arbitrations were settled in late June and
early July 2020, with immaterial settlement amounts fully funded by
the Company's cyber insurance policy.
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a healthy grocery store, provides
fresh, natural, and organic food products in the United States. Its
stores offer fresh produce, meat and seafood, deli and baked goods,
packaged groceries, vitamins and supplements, bulk foods, dairy and
dairy alternatives, frozen foods, beer and wine, and natural body
care and household items. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. was founded
in 2002 and is based in Phoenix, Arizona.
STATE COLLECTION: Ureda Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MARK UREDA, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. STATE COLLECTION
SERVICE INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01171-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff
filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to
prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
himself as the class representative, and appoint his attorneys as
class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
STATE FARM: Class Settlement in Stuart Lawsuit Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan O. Hickey of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division, has granted final
approval of a class settlement in the case captioned JAMES STUART
and CAREDA L. HOOD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:14-cv-4001 (W.D. Ark.).
Stuart and Hood, the sole remaining named Plaintiffs, filed the
operative complaint, the Second Amended Class Action Complaint,
alleging that State Farm breached its contracts with insureds by
depreciating labor when calculating actual cash value payments for
structural damage claims. State Farm has denied, and still denies,
any liability, wrongdoing, and damages with respect to the matters
alleged in the Complaint.
The parties eventually reached a settlement for the resolution of
their issues in December 2019. The Court granted preliminary
approval of the class settlement in January 2020. As part of its
Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally certified for
settlement purposes a settlement class defined as follows: All
persons and entities that received actual cash value payments,
directly or indirectly, from State Farm for loss or damage to a
dwelling or other structure located in the State of Arkansas, such
payments arising from events that occurred between May 1, 2010 and
December 6, 2013, where the cost of labor was depreciated.
Upon final review, Judge Hickey concludes that the Settlement Class
meets all the requirements Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, due
process under the United States Constitution, and all other
applicable rules and law. The Judge finally certified as a
settlement class action the Settlement Class the Court previously
preliminarily certified in its Preliminary Approval Order.
The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class
Settlement, and all provisions and terms of the parties'
Stipulation are finally approved in all respects.
Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (g) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Plaintiffs James Stuart and Careda L. Hood are appointed
as the Representative Plaintiffs for the Settlement Class, and the
following counsel are appointed as the counsel for the settlement
Class:
D. Matt Keil
John C. Goodson
KEIL & GOODSON P.A.
406 Walnut Street
Texarkana, AR 71854
Matthew L. Mustokoff
Richard A. Russo, Jr.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER CHECK LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
A.F. "Tom" Thompson, III
Kenneth P. "Casey" Castleberry
MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER &
CASTLEBERRY
P.O. Box 2595
555 East Main Street
Suite 200
Batesville, AR 72503
Steven E. Vowell
TAYLOR LAW PARTNERS
303 E. Millsap Road
P.O. Box 8310
Fayetteville, AR 72703
James M. Pratt, Jr.
JAMES M. PRATT, JR., P.A.
144 Washington NW
P.O. Box 938
Camden, AR 71701
Richard E. Norman
R. Martin Weber, Jr.
CROWLEY NORMAN LLP
Three Riverway
Suite 1775
Houston, TX 77056
Proprietary Information of State Farm will be protected from
disclosure and handled in accordance with the terms of the
Stipulation, and the Class Counsel and any other attorneys for the
Plaintiffs in the Lawsuit will destroy or return to State Farm's
Counsel all Proprietary Information in their possession, custody,
or control as set forth in the Stipulation.
The Class Counsel's Application for Fees is granted. Pursuant to
Rule 23(h), the Judge awarded the Class Counsel $2,833,333.33 in
attorneys' fees; $400,000 in litigation expenses; and $24,620.73 in
costs incurred for the prior notice plan. In addition, the Judge
awarded each of the Representative Plaintiffs a service award of
$9,500.
State Farm will pay such fees and expenses to the Class Counsel and
the service awards to the Representative Plaintiffs pursuant to the
terms of the Stipulation. State Farm will not be responsible for
and will not be liable with respect to the allocation among the
class Counsel or any other person who may assert a claim thereto,
of attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court. Payments to
Class Members who timely file a completed Claim Form will be made
in the amounts, within the time period, subject to the terms and in
the manner described in the Stipulation.
The Court appointed Frank S. Hamlin of Hamlin Dispute Resolution,
LLC, as the Neutral Evaluator to carry out the duties and
responsibilities set forth in the Stipulation. The Representative
Plaintiffs, the Class Counsel, State Farm, and State Farm's Counsel
will not be liable for any act or omission of the Neutral
Evaluator.
The Lawsuit is dismissed in its entirety on the merits, with
prejudice and without leave to amend, without fees or costs to any
party except as otherwise provided.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 2, 2020 Final Order &
Judgment is available at https://is.gd/3ru4Fk from Leagle.com.
SUMMIT RETAIL: Modeski Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 1st Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Joseph Modeski, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in their lawsuit entitled Modeski, et al. v. Summit
Retail Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-12383-FD, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. F.
Dennis Saylor, IV, grants the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification in the lawsuit entitled JOSEPH MODESKI, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated employees v. SUMMIT
RETAIL SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-12383-FDS (D. Mass.).
Judge Saylor denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The
Defendant shall produce to counsel for the Plaintiffs the names and
last known addresses of the conditionally certified collective
action members within 21 days of this order.
The case concerns claims by "Brand Representatives" against their
employer, Defendant Summit Retail Solutions, for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and analogous laws of Maryland, New York,
and Pennsylvania. The Plaintiffs contend that Summit improperly
classified its Brand Representatives as overtime-exempt and, thus,
denied them overtime compensation to which they were entitled.
The appellate case is captioned as Modeski, et al. v. Summit Retail
Solutions, Inc., Case No. 20-1747, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSEPH MODESKI, Individually and on Behalf of
All Similarly Situated Employees; GIOVANNI ZAMMITO, Individually
and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Employees; NATHAN DAMBOISE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Employees; LEE
STEARNS; AUSTYN PRETTYMAN; SITI BAHAMAN; WILLIAM FINKELSTEIN; TYLER
WELSH; APIFFANY MAYO; SAMANTHA COURTNEY; VANCLEAVE; TIFFANY
HOFFMAN; MALINDA ALEXANDER; JAIME WEBB; RICHARD PACE; RICHARD
MACARUSO; CORY ALLEN; ARIELLE MONEY; MARILYN BUFFINGA; JEREMY
WILLIAMS; TERESA SCHILLERO; KEVIN GUERREIRI; STEPHANIE BREKKA;
CHRISTIAN KING; DANIEL DAVIS, III; MAUREEN ANSTIS; DOMINIC JONES;
LESLIE PITTMAN; DENISE SUTCH; SUAD ASMAR; JENNICE HAMILTON; JENEANE
DIAZ; SCOTT WODZAK; ROBERT MARTIN; STEVEN KATZ; LAUREN TURNBULL;
JASMINE BROWN; IIESHIA MEYERS; ALICIA MANNING-HOPE; CASSANDRA
QUINONES; LISA HUNT; ISAAC SPENCE; CASSANDRA WHITE; MICHAEL
MAKINEN; RUSSALINA NOLDEN; and RUTH MIRALLA, are represented by:
Benjamin Davis, III, Esq.
Scott E. Nevin, Esq.
George Edward Swegman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
36 S Charles St., Ste. 1700
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (410) 244-7005
Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
snevin@nicholllaw.com
gswegman@nicholllaw.com
Defendant-Appellee SUMMIT RETAIL SOLUTIONS, INC. is represented
by:
Hillary J. Massey, Esq.
Barry J. Miller, Esq.
Michael Eric Steinberg, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2 Seaport Ln., Ste. 300
Boston, MA 02210-1800
Telephone: (617) 946-4879
E-mail: hmassey@seyfarth.com
bmiller@seyfarth.com
msteinberg@seyfarth.com
SUNBURST SHUTTERS: Calcano Sues in New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunburst Shutters
Holdings, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on
behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v.
Sunburst Shutters Holdings, LLC, Sunburst Shutters Las Vegas, Inc.,
Sunburst Shutters Nevada, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-06553 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sunburst Shutters, Inc., manufactures custom window treatments and
coverings. The Company offers shutters, blinds, shades, panel
tracks, environment-friendly window treatments, and draperies and
curtains.[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
TAWKIFY INC: Faces Stanfield Suit in California Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TAWKIFY, INC., et al.
The case is styled as James Stanfield, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. TAWKIFY, INC., Does 1 to 25, Case No.
CGC20586011 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Aug. 17, 2020).
The case type is stated as "BUSINESS TORT."
Tawkify is an online matchmaking company. Clients are hand-matched
and phone calls are placed to connect potential partners once a
match is found.
The Plaintiff is represented by Christian Schreiber, Esq.[BN]
TEXTRON INC: IWA Forest Appeals Securities Suit Order to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff IWA Forest Industry Pension Plan filed an appeal from the
District Court's Opinion dated July 20, 2020, entered in the
lawsuit styled IN RE TEXTRON, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
19-cv-7881, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 26,
2020, Textron Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended April 4, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint in the class action suit entitled, In
re Textron Inc. Securities Litigation, is pending.
On August 22, 2019, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court in the Southern
District of New York against Textron, its Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer.
The lawsuit, filed by Building Trades Pension Fund of Western
Pennsylvania, alleges that the Defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and concealing material adverse facts related to the
Arctic Cat acquisition and integration.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages. On November
12, 2019, the Court appointed IWA Forest Industry Pension Fund
("IWA") as the sole lead plaintiff in the case.
On December 24, 2019, IWA filed an Amended Complaint in the now
entitled In re Textron Inc. Securities Litigation.
On February 14, 2020, IWA filed a Second Amended Complaint.
On March 6, 2020, Textron filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint.
Textron said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend this
lawsuit."
The appellate case is captioned as IN RE TEXTRON, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 20-2746, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant IWA Forest Industry Pension Plan is represented
by:
Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 3rd Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com
Defendants-Appellees Textron Inc., Scott C. Donnelly, and Frank T.
Connor are represented by:
Sandra C. Goldstein, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 446-4779
E-mail: sandra.goldstein@kirkland.com
TITLE CHECK: Garcia Sues in W.D. Michigan Over RICO Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Title Check, LLC. The
case is captioned as Ruben Garcia, Jr., and a class of property
buyers similarly situated v. Title Check, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00724-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich., Aug. 4, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul L. Maloney.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
Title Check is a specialized title services company. The Company
serves county treasurers throughout the state of Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Edwin Gronda, Esq.
MATTHEW E. GRONDA, ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O. Box 70
St. Charles, MI 48655
Telephone: (989) 249-0350
Facsimile: (866) 233-2630
E-mail matthewgronda@gmail.com
- and -
Philip Lee Ellison
OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC
PO Box 107
Hemlock, MI 48626
Telephone: (989) 642-0055
Facsimile: (888) 398-7003
E-mail: pellison@olcplc.com
TOASTIES ONE: Leon et al. Seek Overtime Pay for Food Preparers
--------------------------------------------------------------
FELICIANO DIAZ LEON, ELIAS HILARIO GUZMAN, and VICTORIO GUZMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. TOASTIES ONE CORP. and DAVID JUNG, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-06100 (S.D.N.Y., August 5, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to compensate the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated employees overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failing
to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements
in a conspicuous place at their workplace, and failing to keep
payroll records.
Mr. Diaz Leon was employed by the Defendants as a food preparer,
cook, and cleaner in New York from August 2007 until December
2019.
Mr. Hilario Guzman was employed by the Defendants as a food
preparer in New York from December 2017 until December 2019.
Mr. Guzman was employed by the Defendants as a food preparer in New
York from February 2018 until December 2019.
Toasties One Corp. is a food business with a principal place of
business located at 214 7th Avenue New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
TRINITY HEALTHSHARE: Appeals Ruling in Jackson Suit to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Trinity Healthshare, Inc., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Gerald Jackson, et al. v.
Trinity Healthshare, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01281-BJR, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 13,
2020, Judge Barbara J. Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, denied the Defendants'
motions to dismiss the case in its entirety.
The Plaintiffs brought the putative class action suit against
Defendants Aliera Cos., including its now-defunct subsidiary Aliera
Healthcare, and Trinity Healthshare on Aug. 14, 2019. The
Plaintiffs, who are enrolled in Trinity's healthcare cost sharing
plan, allege that the Defendants: (1) sold them unauthorized health
insurance plans in violation of Washington law; and (2) engaged in
unfair and deceptive practices in violation of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants
sold them health insurance plans in violation of both federal and
state health insurance laws.
Aliera is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
On June 27, 2018, Aliera founded Trinity, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt
organization that facilitates the sharing of medical costs amongst
its members. Trinity and Aliera then entered into a contract, which
authorized Aliera to use Trinity's non-profit status to sell,
market, and administer Trinity's healthcare plans, purported as
Health Care Sharing Ministry ("HCSM") plan, under the federal
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, giving Aliera complete
control over its proceeds and its administration of AlieraCare.
Aliera marketed, sold, and administered Trinity's AlieraCare plans,
which provided members benefits for medical coverage in exchange
for their monthly premiums.
The Plaintiffs, representatives of the putative class action,
enrolled in AlieraCare in 2018 and 2019. They each paid Trinity a
monthly premium to maintain their healthcare coverage. By enrolling
in AlieraCare, they expected that, in exchange for their premiums,
Trinity would pay certain claims for their coverage as detailed by
the Member Guide. However, the Plaintiffs were each denied
healthcare coverage under AlieraCare after submitting their
individual claims to Trinity.
The Plaintiffs filed the suit, on behalf of themselves and the
putative class, alleging that Defendants Aliera and Trinity sold
them unauthorized health insurance plans in violation of Washington
law. They are seeking to rescind their insurance contracts, or,
alternatively, to reform their illegal contracts to meet the
mandatory minimum benefits required under Washington law; and to
recover the insurance premiums they paid. They also seek to
recover damages under Washington's Consumer Protection Act,
alleging that Defendants unfairly and deceptively marketed, sold,
and administered unauthorized insurance plans to Washington
residents without having obtained the required approval for
insurance plan(s) from the Washington State Insurance
Commissioner.
The appellate case is captioned as Gerald Jackson, et al. v.
Trinity Healthshare, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-35726, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript shall be ordered by September 16, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on October 16, 2020;
-- Appellant Trinity Healthshare, Inc.'s opening brief is due
on November 25, 2020;
-- Appellees Gerald Jackson, Roslyn Jackson, Dean Mellom, Jon
Perrin and Julie Perrin's answering brief is due on
December 28, 2020; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees GERALD JACKSON, ROSLYN JACKSON, DEAN MELLOM,
JON PERRIN, and JULIE PERRIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated are represented by:
Jay Angoff, Esq.
Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 822-5100
E-mail: jay.angoff@findjustice.com
cmehri@findjustice.com
- and -
Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 223-0303
Facsimile: (206) 223-0246
E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com
rspoonemore@sylaw.com
- and -
Michael David Myers, Esq.
MYERS & COMPANY, P.L.L.C.
1530 Eastlake Avenue E.
Seattle, WA 98102
Telephone: (206) 398-1188
Facsmile: (206) 400-1115
E-mail: mmyers@myers-company.com
Defendant-Appellant TRINITY HEALTHSHARE, INC., a Delaware
corporation is represented by:
Curt Roy Hineline, Esq.
James Morrison, Esq.
BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
999 3rd Avenue, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 332-1101
E-mail: chineline@bakerlaw.com
jmorrison@bakerlaw.com
UNITED COLLECTION: Hahn Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JOHN HAHN, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. UNITED COLLECTION
BUREAU, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01183-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff
filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to
prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
himself as the class representative, and appoint his attorneys as
class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
UNITED STATES: Appeals Ruling in Afhan & Iraqi Suit to D.C. Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Michael R. Pompeo, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Afghan and Iraqi Allies v.
Michael Pompeo, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01388-TSC, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.
Michael R. Pompeo is sued in his official capacity as the U.S.
Secretary of State.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 6,
2020, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The Plaintiffs--five anonymous Afghan or Iraqi nationals represent
a class of individuals who, despite significant personal risk,
aided the United States in its time of need and now look to the
United States for refuge for themselves and their immediate family
members. They allege that they provided faithful and valuable
service to the US government or its allied forces in their
capacities as employees of or on behalf of the United States
government over the past several years, and that because of their
service, they face an ongoing serious threat to their lives in
their home countries.
In response to these threats, the Plaintiffs submitted Special
Immigrant Visa ("SIV") applications to the U.S. Department of
State, seeking lawful admission into the United States. Two
Plaintiffs submitted their applications in 2013, one in 2015, and
the other two in 2016. At the time they filed this action on June
12, 2018, none of their SIV applications had received a final
decision. They claim that the Defendants have failed to process and
adjudicate their SIV applications within a reasonable time.
There are five class representatives: John Doe-Alpha, Jane
Doe-Bravo, John Doe-Charlie, Jane Doe-Delta, and John Doe-Echo. All
are SIV applicants who resided in Iraq or Afghanistan and allege
that they lived "in fear of reprisal for their service to the US
government" while they awaited "final decisions from the Defendants
on their applications." For each of them, the Defendants took far
longer than the statutorily-allowed 9 months to complete all
government-controlled processing steps. Their application processes
are now complete, as the Defendants adjudicated each of their cases
after the Plaintiffs' filed their
Complaint.
The Plaintiffs have moved for class certification. After three
rounds of briefing, the Defendants have shown that implementing the
Court's remedy -- a plan for prompt adjudication -- does present
certain administrative challenges. However, the Court finds that
despite these challenges, the requirements for class certification
are satisfied. Moreover, the administrative challenges pale in
comparison to the inefficiency, cost, and waste of resources that
would result if each applicant (there are hundreds), were to bring
individual claims. The burden of such inefficient and needlessly
duplicative litigation would be borne by the Court, the Defendants,
and the Plaintiffs, whose lives, and whose families' lives, are at
risk every day their applications are pending.
Judge Chutkan concludes that while the SIV process is complex and
resource-intensive, the Defendants have a non-discretionary duty to
fully adjudicate applications without unreasonable delay. The
Plaintiffs filed the suit as a class to efficiently and effectively
bring the Defendants into compliance with that statutory duty.
Because the Plaintiffs' proposed class meets the requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the motion to certify the class
is granted.
The appellate case is captioned as Afghan and Iraqi Allies v.
Michael Pompeo, et al., Case No. 20-5251, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- APPELLANT docketing statement is due on September 18, 2020;
-- APPELLANT certificate as to parties is due on September 18,
2020;
-- APPELLANT statement of issues is due on September 18, 2020;
-- APPELLANT underlying decision is due on September 18, 2020;
-- APPELLANT deferred appendix statement is due on
September 18, 2020;
-- APPELLANT entry of appearance, transcript status report and
procedural motions are due on September 18, 2020;
-- APPELLANT dispositive motions are due on October 5, 2020;
-- APPELLEE certificate as to parties is due on September 18,
2020;
-- APPELLEE entry of appearance is due on September 18, 2020;
-- APPELLEE procedural motions are due on September 18, 2020;
and
-- APPELLEE dispositive motions are due on October 5,
2020.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee Afghan and Iraqi Allies, Under Serious Threat
Because of Their Faithful Service to the United States, on Their
Own and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:
David Y. Livshiz, Esq.
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER LLP
601 Lexington Avenue, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-4000
Facsimile: (212) 284-4979
E-mail: david.livshiz@freshfields.com
Defendants-Appellants Michael R. Pompeo, Carl C. Risch, Chad F.
Wolf, Kenneth T Cuccinelli, II, Renaud Tracy, and United States
Department of Homeland Security, are represented by:
DOJ Appellate Counsel
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-2000
UNITED STATES: Faces Scholl Suit Over Refusal to Issue EIP
----------------------------------------------------------
COLIN SCHOLL and LISA STRAWN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his official
capacity as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury;
CHARLES RETTIG, in his official capacity as U.S. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; the U.S.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; and, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case
No. 4:20-cv-05309-PJH (N.D. Cal., July 31, 2020), is brought on
behalf of persons, who have been incarcerated in the United States
at any time from March 27, 2020, to the present to challenge the
Defendants' unauthorized and unlawful refusal to issue Economic
Impact Payments to which these persons are entitled under the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.
The Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the Defendants lack
statutory authority to withhold EIP benefits from them and other
incarcerated persons based solely on their status as such. They
also seek injunctive relief ordering the Defendants (a) to
automatically issue EIP benefits to those who are entitled to an
automatic payment based on the IRS's records but for their
incarcerated status; (b) to re-consider any filed claim for an EIP
that has been denied based solely on the claimant's incarcerated
status and, moving forward, to prohibit the Defendants from
considering incarcerated status in reviewing claims for EIP
benefits under the CARES Act; and (c) to issue EIP benefits to all
incarcerated persons otherwise eligible for those benefits.
The Department of the Treasury is the national treasury of the
federal government of the United States where it serves as an
executive department.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
Yaman Salahi, Esq.
Jalle Dafa, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: 415 956 1000
Facsimile: 415 956 1008
E-mail: kdermody@lchb.com
ysalahi@lchb.com
jdafa@lchb.com
- and -
Eva Paterson, Esq.
Mona Tawatao, Esq.
Christina Alvernaz, Esq.
EQUAL JUSTICE SOCIETY
1939 Harrison St., Suite 818
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: 415-288-8703
Facsimile: 510-338-3030
E-mail: epaterson@equaljusticesociety.org
mtawatao@equaljusticesociety.org
calvernaz@equaljusticesociety.org
- and -
Lisa Holder, Esq.
EQUAL JUSTICE SOCIETY
P.O. Box 65694
Los Angeles, CA 90065
Telephone: 323 683-6610
E-mail: lisaholder@yahoo.com
VIRGINIA: Court Awards $1-Mil. in Fees & Costs to Scott's Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia issued
a Memorandum Opinion granting in part the Plaintiffs' Petition for
Award of Enforcement Phase Attorney's Fees and Costs in the case
captioned CYNTHIA B. SCOTT, et al. v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, et al.,
Case No. 3:12-CV-00036 (W.D. Va.).
Harold W. Clarke is the Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections.
The matter is before the Court on the Report & Recommendation of
U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Hoppe pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1)(B), proposing findings of fact and a recommended
disposition of the Plaintiffs' Petition for Award of Enforcement
Phase Attorney's Fees and Costs.
Originally, the Plaintiffs sought an award of $1,879,627.93 in
attorney's fees and $116,624.44 in costs. Thereafter, the Plaintiff
made some "limited" cuts to Legal Aid Justice Center's ("LAJC") fee
request, after which they sought $1,703,537 in attorney's fees--a
reduction of just over nine percent from their original fee
request. Judge Hoppe recommended an overall award of $1,028,821.91
(which included $923,660.90 in attorney's fees and $105,161.01 in
costs).
The Plaintiffs have filed objections to three portions of the R&R.
First, the Plaintiffs object to Judge Hoppe's proposed
twenty-percent reduction in lawyer time for "overstaffing,
duplicative efforts, and excessive hours spent on preparation."
Second, the Plaintiffs object to the proposed reductions in lawyer
time for "block billing and unacceptably vague
descriptions"--private counsel's time was reduced by five percent,
while LAJC's was reduced by twenty percent (and thirty percent for
one lawyer). Third, the Plaintiffs object to the exclusion of
nearly ninety hours of travel time for LAJC lawyers. The Defendants
raised no objections to Judge Hoppe's R&R.
Background
The action is "an Eighth Amendment class action concerning the
long-term failure to provide adequate medical care to inmates at
the Fluvanna (Va.) Correctional Center for Women (FCCW)." Scott v.
Clarke, 355 F.Supp.3d 472, 477 (W.D. Va. 2019), amended by 391
F.Supp.3d 610 (W.D. Va. 2019).
After years of litigation, the parties reached a settlement
agreement that would provide for constitutionally adequate medical
care at FCCW. Upon the parties' request, in February 2016, the
Court approved the Settlement Agreement, and entered a final
judgment order to that effect. In the Final Judgment Order granting
approval of the Settlement Agreement, the Court granted in part the
Plaintiffs' fee petition, and awarded the Plaintiffs $1,500,000 in
attorney's fees and costs.
A year and a half later, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to show
cause why the Defendants should not be held in contempt for failing
to abide by the Settlement Agreement, including its standards on
medical staffing, emergency care and life-saving equipment, and the
conditions in FCCW's infirmary.
A five-day bench trial commenced on June 11, 2018, and, at the
close of the Plaintiffs' evidence at trial, the Court granted the
motion to show cause, concluding that a prima facie case had been
made that the Defendants had not carried out the Settlement in some
respects. The Court ruled that the Defendants violated eight
standards in the Settlement Agreement, and indeed, "FCCW's own
officials had--by their own admission--actual knowledge that FCCW
was not complying with parts of the Settlement Agreement." The
Court subsequently issued an injunction to tailor the relief to be
provided in light of the Court's findings of fact and evidence
before the Court.
In June 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their Petition for Award of
"Enforcement Phase" Attorney's Fees and Costs.
On March 12, 2020, Judge Hoppe issued a thorough 48-page Report &
Recommendation on the Plaintiffs' fee request, recommending that
the Court award the Plaintiffs in total $1,028,821.91 (including
$923,660.90 in attorney's fees and $105,161.01 in costs).
Conclusion
The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the
following reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The Court will
award the Plaintiffs $934,668.69 in attorney's fees and $105,161.01
in costs, resulting in a total award of $1,039,829.70.
The R&R is, therefore, adopted except in relation to the
Plaintiffs' second objection as it related to the reasonable hours
of Ted Howard, Esq., of Wiley Rein, which the Court will sustain in
part, and the Plaintiffs' third objection regarding travel, which
the Court will sustain in part. In all other respects, the R&R will
be adopted, and the Plaintiffs' objections otherwise overruled. The
Plaintiffs' petition for attorney's fees and costs will be granted
in part in an Order to follow.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 28, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydxo5jhz from
Leagle.com.
VIVINT SOLAR: Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling in Dekker Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Vivint Solar, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Gerrie Dekker, et al. v.
Vivint Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07918-WHA, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jun. 19,
2020, the lawsuit arises from certain misrepresented termination
fees imposed by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs contend that these
termination fees constitute unlawful penalties that are void and
unenforceable under California Civil Code; unlawful and unfair
under California's Unfair Competition Law; and unconscionable under
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
According to the complaint, at consumers' front doors and around
their kitchen tables, Vivint Solar sales representatives falsely
promise consumers they will only pay for the energy they use.
Touting the simplicity of a single, lower energy bill, sales
representatives boast about the ease of transferring the Solar
System if a consumer sells her home, which is also false. Further,
claiming the Solar System will actually increase property value,
and they assure consumers installation and customer service is
their forte. It most certainly is not, the Plaintiffs assert.
The appellate case is captioned as Gerrie Dekker, et al. v. Vivint
Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-16584, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript shall be ordered by September 16, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on October 16, 2020;
-- Appellants Vivint Solar Developer, LLC, Vivint Solar
Holdings, Inc., Vivint Solar Provider, LLC and Vivint
Solar, Inc.'s opening brief is due on November 25, 2020;
-- Appellees Karen Barajas, Juan Bautista, Jae Chong, Gerrie
Dekker, Gennie Hilliard, Marci Hulsey, Cindy Piini, Marlene
Rogers, Phyllis Runyon and Daniel Thompson's answering
brief is due on December 28, 2020; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees GERRIE DEKKER; KAREN BARAJAS, as executor of
the Estate of Thompson Bryson; MARLENE ROGERS; DANIEL THOMPSON JAE
CHONG; MARCI HULSEY; CINDY PIINI; PHYLLIS RUNYON; GENNIE HILLIARD;
and JUAN BAUTISTA, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, are represented by:
Corey Benjamin Bennett, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1330 Broadway, Suite 428
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 227-3003
E-mail: cbennett@maternlawgroup.com
Defendants-Appellants VIVINT SOLAR, INC., VIVINT SOLAR HOLDINGS,
INC., VIVINT SOLAR DEVELOPER, LLC, and VIVINT SOLAR PROVIDER, LLC
are represented by:
Wyatt Honse, Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
2475 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 251-5168
Facsimile: (650) 251-5002
E-mail: wyatt.honse@stblaw.com
- and -
Chet Alan Kronenberg, Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 407-7557
Facsimile: (310) 407-7502
E-mail: ckronenberg@stblaw.com
- and -
Jonathan Sanders, Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP
2550 Hanover Dr.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 251-5071
E-mail: jsanders@stblaw.com
VOLT MANAGEMENT: Gragoosian Suit Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
TED GRAGOOSIAN, an individual, on behalf of himself and all other
aggrieved employees v. Volt Management Corporation, d/b/a Volt;
Workforce Solutions, a California Corporation; Modem Candles Co.
Inc, d/b/a Southern California Candle Co, a California Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV28880 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 31, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay minimum wage, and overtime and double time
wages in violation of the California Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to pay the
aggrieved employees' overtime in accordance with California law
when they worked in excess of eight hours in a day and/or 40 hours
within a workweek. The Defendants also failed to pay the aggrieved
employees' double time in accordance with California law when they
worked in excess of 12 hours in a workday.
The Plaintiff is employed by the Defendants from September 24,
2018, until February 28, 2019.
The Defendants are doing business in California as Chandlers,
specializing in hand-pouring all-natural soy candles, fine
fragrances, and essential oils.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
Kevin Crough, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS. APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: 1-818-696-2306
Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307
E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
cathy@hbklawyers.com
kevin@hbklawyers.com
VON HOUSEN'S: Faces Tracy Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Von Housen's
Sacrmanto Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Steve Tracy
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
employees v. Von Housen's Sacrmanto Inc.; Grinzewitsch Jr, George;
and Does 1 to 100, Case No. 34-2020-00282778-CU-OE-GDS (Calif.
Super., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 4, 2020).
The case type is stated as Other employment.
Von Housen's is part of the Automobile Dealers Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Galen T. Shimoda,Esq.
SHIMODA LAW CORP.
9401 E Stockton Blvd., Ste. 200
Elk Grove, CA 95624
Telephone: (916) 525-0716
Facsimile: (916) 760-3733
E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com
WALGREEN CO: Fails to Pay Hourly & Overtime Wages, President Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH PRESIDENT, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated v. WALGREEN CO., an Illinois corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CV368984 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., Aug. 3, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to
provide meal and rest periods, and to pay hourly and overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff contends that as a result of the Defendants' policy
or practice of automatically deducting one-half hour from
employees' timecards for every workday for a meal period, the
Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members were required to
perform off-the-clock work that the Defendants either knew or
should have known they were working.
Walgreen is an American company that operates as the second-largest
pharmacy store chain in the United States behind CVS Health.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
William M. Pao, Esq.
Jose Maria D. Patino, Jr., Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
william@setarehlaw.com
jose@setarehlaw.com
WESTROCK SERVICES: Faces Valverde Employment Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westrock Services
LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Ignacio Valverde, On behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Westrock Services LLC, a Georgia
Limited Liability Company, and Does 1 through 50, Case No.
34-2020-00282660-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 3,
2020).
The case type is stated as Other employment.
WestRock is an American corrugated packaging company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Suits Related to Stryker Tender Offer Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 28, 2020, that the company continues to defend several
suits including putative class actions in relation to its agreement
with Stryker Corporation and its subsidiary, Stryker B.V., were the
latter parties made a tender offer to purchase all of the
outstanding ordinary shares of the company.
On November 4, 2019, the company entered into a definitive
agreement with Stryker Corporation and its subsidiary, Stryker B.V.
Under the terms of the purchase agreement, and upon the terms and
subject to the conditions thereof, Stryker B.V. has commenced a
tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding ordinary shares of
Wright for $30.75 per share, without interest and less applicable
withholding taxes, in cash (the Offer). The Offer is currently
scheduled to expire at 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on August 31, 2020,
but may be extended in accordance with the terms of the purchase
agreement between Stryker and Wright.
On January 15, 2020, John Thompson, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company,
members of its board of directors, Stryker B.V., and Stryker
Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware.
The lawsuit is captioned Thompson v. Wright Medical Group N.V., et
al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00061 (the Thompson Action).
The complaint filed in the Thompson Action alleges that we and the
members of our board of directors violated federal securities laws
and regulations by failing to disclose material information in the
Schedule 14D-9 filed in connection with the transactions
contemplated by the Stryker purchase agreement, which the plaintiff
in the Thompson Action alleges rendered the Schedule 14D-9 false
and misleading.
In addition, the plaintiff in the Thompson Action alleges that
members of the company's board of directors and Stryker acted as
controlling persons of the company within the meaning of and in
violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act to influence and
control the dissemination of the allegedly defective Schedule
14D-9.
The plaintiff in the Thompson Action seeks, among other things, an
order enjoining consummation of the transactions contemplated by
the Stryker purchase agreement; rescission of such transactions if
they have already been consummated and rescissory damages; an order
directing the company's board of directors to file a Schedule 14D-9
that does not contain any untrue statements of material fact and
that states all material facts required or necessary to make the
statements contained therein not misleading; a declaration that the
defendants violated certain federal securities laws and
regulations; and an award of plaintiff's costs, including
attorneys' fees and expenses.
On January 31, 2020, William Grubb, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a lawsuit against the company and members of its
board of directors in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit is captioned Grubb v.
Wright Medical Group N.V., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00553 (the
Grubb Action).
The complaint filed in the Grubb Action alleges that the company
and the members of its board of directors violated federal
securities laws and regulations by failing to disclose material
information in the Schedule 14D-9 filed in connection with the
transactions contemplated by the Stryker purchase agreement, which
the plaintiff in the Grubb Action alleges rendered the Schedule
14D-9 false and misleading.
In addition, the plaintiff in the Grubb Action alleges that members
of the company's board of directors acted as controlling persons of
the company within the meaning of and in violation of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act to influence and control the dissemination of
the allegedly defective Schedule 14D-9.
The plaintiff in the Grubb Action seeks, among other things, an
order enjoining consummation of the transactions contemplated by
the Stryker purchase agreement; rescission of such transactions if
they have already been consummated and rescissory damages; a
declaration that the defendants violated certain federal securities
laws and regulations; and an award of plaintiff's costs, including
attorneys' fees and expenses.
On April 9, 2020, Gracie Woodward, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a lawsuit against the company and members of its
board of directors in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware.
The lawsuit is captioned Woodward v. Wright Medical Group N.V., et
al., Case No. 1:20-cv-494 (the Woodward Action).
The complaint filed in the Woodward Action alleges that the company
and the members of its board of directors violated federal
securities laws and regulations by failing to disclose material
information in the Schedule 14D-9 filed in connection with the
transactions contemplated by the Stryker purchase agreement, which
the plaintiff in the Woodward Action alleges rendered the Schedule
14D-9 false and misleading.
In addition, the plaintiff in the Woodward Action alleges that
members of the company's board of directors acted as controlling
persons of the company within the meaning of and in violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act to influence and control the
dissemination of the allegedly defective Schedule 14D-9.
The plaintiff in the Woodward Action seeks, among other things, an
order enjoining consummation of the transactions contemplated by
the Stryker purchase agreement; rescission of such transactions if
they have already been consummated and rescissory damages; a
declaration that the defendants violated certain federal securities
laws and regulations; and an award of plaintiff's costs, including
attorneys' fees and expenses.
On April 15, 2020, Marcy Curtis, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company,
members of its board of directors, Stryker B.V., and Stryker
Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware.
That suit is captioned Curtis v. Wright Medical Group N.V., et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00509 (the Curtis Action).
The complaint filed in the Curtis Action alleges that we and the
members of our board of directors violated federal securities laws
and regulations by failing to disclose material information in the
Schedule 14D-9 filed in connection with the transactions
contemplated by the Stryker purchase agreement, which the plaintiff
in the Curtis Action alleges rendered the Schedule 14D-9 false and
misleading.
In addition, the plaintiff in the Curtis Action alleges that
members of the company's board of directors and Stryker acted as
controlling persons of the company within the meaning of and in
violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act to influence and
control the dissemination of the allegedly defective Schedule
14D-9.
The plaintiff in the Curtis Action seeks, among other things, an
order enjoining consummation of the transactions contemplated by
the Stryker purchase agreement; rescission of such transactions if
they have already been consummated and rescissory damages; an order
directing the company's board of directors to file a Schedule 14D-9
that does not contain any untrue statements of material fact and
that states all material facts required or necessary to make the
statements contained therein not misleading; a declaration that the
defendants violated certain federal securities laws and
regulations; and an award of plaintiff's costs, including
attorneys' fees and expenses.
On April 28, 2020, Shiva Stein, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a lawsuit against the company, members of its board
of directors, Stryker B.V., and Stryker Corporation in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware.
That suit is captioned Stein v. Wright Medical Group N.V., et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00582 (the "Stein Action").
The complaint filed in the Stein Action alleges that the company,
the members of its board of directors, and the Stryker defendants
violated federal securities laws and regulations by failing to
disclose material information in the Schedule 14D-9 filed in
connection with the transactions contemplated by the Stryker
purchase agreement, which the plaintiff in the Stein Action alleges
rendered the Schedule 14D-9 false and misleading.
addition, the plaintiff in the Stein Action alleges that members of
the company's board of directors acted as controlling persons of
the company within the meaning of and in violation of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act to influence and control the dissemination of
the allegedly defective Schedule 14D-9.
The plaintiff in the Stein Action seeks, among other things, an
order enjoining consummation of the transactions contemplated by
the Stryker purchase agreement; rescission of such transactions if
they have already been consummated and rescissory damages; and an
award of plaintiff's costs, including attorneys' fees and
expenses.
Wright Medical Group N.V., a medical device company, designs,
manufactures, markets, and sells upper and lower extremities, and
biologics products in the United States, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, Canada, Asia, Australia, and Latin America. The company was
founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.
[*] 182 New Securities Class Actions Filed in First Half 2020
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed 182 new securities class action lawsuits in
federal and state courts in the first half of 2020, as the COVID-19
pandemic triggered extreme volatility in the financial markets,
according to a report released on July 29 by Cornerstone Research
and the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.
The report, Securities Class Action Filings-2020 Midyear
Assessment, found that the number of filings remained higher than
the historical average, but was 18% lower than in the second half
of 2019 and the lowest level since the second half of 2016. The
filing slowdown affected both core and M&A filings, which declined
by 13% and 25%, respectively.
According to Sasha Aganin, report coauthor and Cornerstone Research
senior vice president: "Not surprisingly, as the economic
consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic became apparent, many
industries experienced significant declines in market
capitalization in the first half of the year. A keen observer of
new securities class action filing activity may wonder why core
filings related to stock price drops declined rather than increased
in the first half of 2020. The puzzle is not the number of filings
in the first half of this year—this number was higher than at the
height of the financial crisis in the second half of 2008. The
puzzle is why there were so many filings in 2019 when financial
markets were relatively calm and rising."
Section 11 and 1933 Act filings declined more substantially than
M&A and core federal filings, and were the main cause of reduced
filing activity in the first half of 2020. Due to a steep decline
in state court -- only and parallel filings, the number of Section
11 and state 1933 Act filings in the first half of 2020 was roughly
a quarter of the number of such filings in 2019.
Joseph A. Grundfest, director of Stanford's Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse: "The M&A litigation decline is easy to explain:
COVID-19 depressed M&A activity, and without M&A activity, you
can't have M&A litigation. The Section 11 litigation decline calls
for more data to explain. COVID-19-induced volatility can create a
damage challenge for plaintiffs because defendants can easily point
to the pandemic as a confounding factor and explain that price
declines were caused by larger market forces, and not by any
alleged misrepresentation."
Eleven complaints involving COVID-19 allegations were filed in the
first half of the year. Aside from a flurry of cryptocurrency and
cannabis-related filings, other event-driven cases—including
those related to data breaches, opioid filings, or sexual
harassment allegations--declined in the first half of 2020. Most
cryptocurrency filings named non-U.S. issuers and three of the four
cannabis-related complaints involved Canadian firms.
Key Trends
* S&P 500: Core federal filings against S&P 500 firms in 2020
occurred at an annualized rate of 4.8%, the lowest since 2015.
* U.S. vs. Non-U.S. Companies: Almost one-third of core federal
filings were against non-U.S. issuers in 2020 H1, the
second-highest percentage on record. Annualized core federal
filings against non-U.S. issuers are on pace to be the highest on
record.
* Industries: The first half of 2020 saw an uptick in filing
activity in the financial sector, with the number of filings
increasing by 50% from this time last year, and Maximum Dollar Loss
increasing tenfold. The number of technology and communications
filings declined after rising in recent semiannual periods.
* Federal Circuits: There were 40 core federal filings in the
Second Circuit in the first half of 2020, dropping from 51 and 52
in the first and second halves of 2019, respectively. Plaintiffs
filed 35 complaints in the Ninth Circuit, up from 24 in the second
half of 2019.
* Dollar Disclosure Loss: This measure of litigation activity
decreased by 25% from $108 billion in the second half of 2019 to
$81 billion in the first half 2020.
* Maximum Dollar Loss: This measure of litigation activity
increased by 48% from $394 billion in the second half of 2019 to
$584 billion, due partially to market capitalization losses in a
broad swath of industry sectors during the first half of the year.
About Cornerstone Research
Cornerstone Research provides economic and financial consulting and
expert testimony in all phases of complex litigation and regulatory
proceedings. The firm works with an extensive network of prominent
faculty and industry practitioners to identify the best-qualified
expert for each assignment. Cornerstone Research has earned a
reputation for consistent high quality and effectiveness by
delivering rigorous, state-of-the-art analysis for more than 30
years. The firm has over 700 staff and offices in Boston, Chicago,
London, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Silicon Valley and
Washington. [GN]
[*] Broadridge Releases New Global Class Action Report
------------------------------------------------------
Global class actions continue to expand in reach and complexity,
according to a new report from global Fintech leader, Broadridge
Financial Solutions, Inc. (NYSE:BR). The Broadridge Global Class
Action Report provides an in-depth analysis of the 10 most complex
class actions involving financial instruments in 2019, collectively
totaling more than $2.4 billion in payments.
"Billions of dollars are distributed each year from securities
class action and collective action matters around the globe, and
each year it is becoming increasingly more difficult for global
institutional investors to track and recover on their own the funds
they and their clients are owed," said Steve Cirami, Head of
Corporate Actions & Class Actions at Broadridge. "Class actions
remain complicated and confusing, the methods of determining
settlement allocation are complex and processing requirements can
be arduous resulting in claims being missed or denied for foot
faults or reduced due to errors in the administrative process."
The Broadridge Global Class Action Report looks at 2019 and uses
recent examples to help financial institutions ensure they recover
the funds to which they are owed in future matters. The report arms
hedge and pension funds, asset managers, custodial banks,
investment advisors and broker-dealers, with information to
evaluate these top opportunities for recovery, as well as provides
tools to anticipate future complex litigation recovery challenges
and plan appropriately for them.
Report Methodology
This report covers important global securities and antitrust cases
that involve both publicly traded financial instruments and
recovery via a class action or collective redress mechanism.
Broadridge evaluated the cases in this report from the standpoint
of a financial institution's ability to recover its funds, or those
of its investors or clients. The complexity of the case is measured
from a claim submission and administration standpoint based on
these required tasks: the lift required to track and monitor the
case; the challenges in housing, scrubbing and preparing the right
data to make the claim; complexities in jurisdictional, judicial
and/or filing requirements; complex or conflicting deadlines (e.g.,
more than one settlement, with different legal rights and
deadlines); sophistication of the security/product at issue and the
related underlying data needed to prove the claim; complexities in
the loss calculation formula(s); competing litigations (multiple
law firm/funder groups); and other factors influencing the
expertise and work required to file a complete and accurate claim
to recover assets.
This study is for informational purposes only and does not, and is
not intended to, constitute investment, legal or any other advice
of any kind.
The Ten Most Complex Class Action Cases in 2019:
1. Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor) Antitrust Litigation
2. BlackRock Wells Fargo Trustee Class Action
3. The Three Complex ADR Class Actions
4. Concordia International Corporation
5. Danske Bank A/S: Five Different International Opt-in Options
6. Cobalt International Energy, Inc., Securities Litigation
7. Poseidon Concepts Corp. Securities Litigation
8. Stichting Investor Claims Against Fortis (Dutch Foundation
Case)
9. Orbital ATK Securities Litigation
10. BHP Billiton Securities Litigation
About Broadridge Global Class Action Services
Broadridge's Global Securities Class Action Services anticipate and
manage the class action recovery needs of financial services
entities, providing industry-leading relationship management,
technology, and data protection to support end-to-end class action
claims recovery services
About Broadridge
Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (NYSE: BR), a U.S $4 billion
global Fintech leader, is a provider of investor communications and
technology-driven solutions to banks, broker-dealers, asset and
wealth managers and corporate issuers. Broadridge's infrastructure
underpins proxy voting services for over 50 percent of public
companies and mutual funds globally, and processes on average more
than U.S. $7 trillion in fixed income and equity securities trades
per day. Broadridge is part of the S&P 500(R)Index and employs over
11,000 associates in 18 countries.
For more information about Broadridge, please visit
www.broadridge.com [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Had $39.7MM A&E Reserves at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. has net loss reserves of
US$39.7 million for asbestos and environmental matters for its
Run-off Lines at June 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.
For the three months ended June 30, 2020, the Company has incurred
losses (net) of US$0.5 million and paid losses (net) of US$4.6
million for asbestos and environmental matters.
The Company states, "Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the
six months ended June 30, 2020 were the result of unfavorable loss
reserve development on prior accident years other run-off lines,
partially offset by favorable development in risk management
workers compensation reserves. Losses and loss adjustment expenses
for the six months ended June 30, 2019 were the result of net
unfavorable loss reserve development on prior accident years in
other run-off lines, partially offset by net favorable loss reserve
development on prior accident years in risk management."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/v75fiS
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bausch Health Bid to Nix Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of Bausch Health US to dismiss the consumer protection
action filed by the New Mexico Attorney General related to talcum
powder products has been fully briefed, according to Bausch Health
Companies Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.
The motion remains pending.
The Company states, "The Company and Bausch Health US were named in
an action brought by State of New Mexico ex rel. Hector H.
Balderas, Attorney General of New Mexico, in the County of Santa Fe
New Mexico First Judicial District Court (New Mexico ex rel.
Balderas v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Civil Action No.
D-101-CV-2020-00013, filed on January 2, 2020), alleging consumer
protection claims against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Companies, Inc., the Company and Bausch Health US related
to Shower to Shower(R) and its alleged causal link to mesothelioma
and other cancers. The State of New Mexico brings claims against
all defendants under the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, the New
Mexico Medicaid Fraud Act, the New Mexico Fraud Against Taxpayers
Act, and other common law and equitable causes of action, alleging
defendants engaged in wrongful marketing, sale and promotion of
talcum powder products. The lawsuit seeks to recover the cost of
the talcum powder products as well as the cost of treating
asbestos-related cancers allegedly caused by those products. The
Company disputes the claims asserted in this lawsuit and intends to
vigorously defend the matter. On April 17, 2020, Bausch Health US
filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending and fully
briefed."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ucozS4
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Accrues $7MM Liabilities at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s subsidiary Consolidated Edison Company
of New York, Inc. (CECONY) had accrued liability of US$7 million
for asbestos suits at June 30, 2020, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020
CECONY also deferred US$7 million as regulatory assets related to
asbestos suits at June 30, 2020.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/j14nb4
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Defends Suits at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the Company, CenterPoint Energy Houston
Electric, LLC, and CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. are from time
to time named, along with numerous others, as defendants in
lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to
exposure to asbestos.
The Company states, "Some facilities owned by the Registrants or
their predecessors contain or have contained asbestos insulation
and other asbestos-containing materials. The Registrants are from
time to time named, along with numerous others, as defendants in
lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to
exposure to asbestos, and the Registrants anticipate that
additional claims may be asserted in the future. Although their
ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, the Registrants
do not expect these matters, either individually or in the
aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on their financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/lNsZJ6
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Still Defends Claims at June 28
-------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 28, 2020, that subsidiaries Spence Engineering
Company, Inc. and CIRCOR Instrumentation Technologies, Inc.
continue to face asbestos-related product liability claims.
The Company states, "Asbestos-related product liability claims
continue to be filed against two of our subsidiaries: Spence
Engineering Company, Inc. ("Spence"), the stock of which we
acquired in 1984; and CIRCOR Instrumentation Technologies, Inc.
(f/k/a Hoke, Inc.) ("Hoke"), the stock of which we acquired in
1998. The Hoke subsidiary was divested in January 2020 through our
sale of the I&S business. However, the Company has indemnified the
buyer for asbestos-related claims that are made against Hoke. Due
to the nature of the products supplied by these entities, the
markets they serve and our historical experience in resolving these
claims, we do not expect that these asbestos-related claims will
have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results
of operations or liquidity of the Company."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/HxDT5n
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $65.8MM Accrued Liability at July 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had accrued asbestos-related liability of
US$65,792,000 as of July 3, 2020, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended July 3, 2020.
The Company also disclosed long-term asbestos liability of
US$277,303,000 at July 3, 2020.
The accrued liability represents current accruals for probable and
reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability costs that the
Company believes the subsidiaries will pay, and unpaid legal costs
related to defending themselves against asbestos-related liability
claims and legal action against the Company’s insurers, which is
included in Accrued liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets.
The Company states, "Management's analyses are based on currently
known facts and assumptions. Projecting future events, such as new
claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving each
claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method in
which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies,
interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms
and limits and their interrelationships, the continuing solvency of
various insurance companies, the amount of remaining insurance
available, as well as the numerous uncertainties inherent in
asbestos litigation could cause the actual liabilities and
insurance recoveries to be higher or lower than those projected or
recorded which could materially affect the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flow."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/K5kH0f
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConEd Accrues $3MM for Manhattan Incident
----------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. has accrued US$3 million liabilities
related to the rupture of a steam main owned by its subsidiary in
Manhattan, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020.
The Company states, "In July 2018, the NYSPSC commenced an
investigation into the rupture of a CECONY steam main located on
Fifth Avenue and 21st Street in Manhattan. Debris from the
incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos. The response
to the incident required the closing of buildings and streets for
various periods. The NYSPSC has commenced an investigation. As of
June 30, 2020, with respect to the incident, the company incurred
operating costs of US$17 million for property damage, clean-up and
other response costs and invested US$9 million in capital and
retirement costs. At June 30, 2020, the company accrued US$3
million to an Other current liabilities account related to this
matter."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/j14nb4
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Defends Suits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. is still facing asbestos-related
lawsuits pending in Louisiana state courts, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.
The Company states, "We are one of several unrelated defendants in
lawsuits filed in Louisiana state courts alleging that defendants
manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud containing
asbestos and, in our case, allowed such drilling mud to have been
utilized aboard our drilling rigs. The plaintiffs seek, among
other things, an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages. The manufacture and use of asbestos-containing drilling
mud had already ceased before we acquired any of the drilling rigs
addressed in these lawsuits. We believe that we are not liable for
the damages asserted in the lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our
1989 asset purchase agreement with Diamond M Corporation. We are
unable to estimate our potential exposure, if any, to these
lawsuits at this time but do not believe that our ultimate
liability, if any, resulting from this litigation will have a
material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/RUgsUk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FCX Unit Still Defends Talc Suits at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (FCX) disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that its indirectly wholly owned
subsidiary continues to face cases related to asbestos
contamination matters.
The Company states, "There has been a significant increase in the
number of cases alleging the presence of asbestos contamination in
talc-based personal care products and in cases alleging exposure to
talc products that are not alleged to be contaminated with
asbestos. The primary targets have been the producers of those
products, but defendants in many of these cases also include talc
miners. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company (CAMC), an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of FCX, and Cyprus Mines Corporation (Cyprus
Mines), a wholly owned subsidiary of CAMC, are among those targets.
Cyprus Mines was engaged in talc mining from 1964 until 1992 when
it exited its talc business by conveying it to a third party in two
related transactions. Those transactions involved (i) a transfer
by Cyprus Mines of the assets of its talc business to a newly
formed subsidiary that assumed all pre-sale and post-sale talc
liabilities, subject to limited reservations, and (ii) a sale of
the stock of that subsidiary to the third party. In 2011, the
third party sold that subsidiary to Imerys Talc America (Imerys),
an affiliate of Imerys S.A."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/vPdNWQ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Defends Lawsuits at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation still defends itself against lawsuits alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in,
or accompanying, its products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.
Graham Corp. states, "The Company has been named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
allegedly contained in, or accompanying, products made by the
Company. The Company is a co-defendant with numerous other
defendants in these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend
itself against these claims. The claims in the Company's current
lawsuits are similar to those made in previous asbestos-related
suits that named the Company as a defendant, which either were
dismissed when it was shown that the Company had not supplied
products to the plaintiffs' places of work or were settled for
immaterial amounts. The Company cannot provide any assurances that
any pending or future matters will be resolved in the same manner
as previous lawsuits."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/sPfQFr
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Still Defends PI Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) said in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the costs to resolve
cases during the six months ended June 30, 2020 and 2019, were
immaterial individually and in the aggregate.
The Company states, "HII and its predecessors-in-interest are
defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and
continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country,
wherein former and current employees and various third parties
allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or
associated with HII premises or while working on vessels
constructed or repaired by HII. The cases allege various injuries,
including those associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis,
cancer, mesothelioma, and other alleged asbestos related
conditions. In some cases, several of HII's former executive
officers are also named as defendants. In some instances, partial
or full insurance coverage is available to the Company for its
liability and that of its former executive officers. The costs to
resolve cases during the six months ended June 30, 2020 and 2019,
were immaterial individually and in the aggregate. The Company's
estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty
because liabilities are influenced by numerous variables that are
inherently difficult to predict. Key variables include the number
and type of new claims, the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms made by state and
federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform
legislation. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution
of current cases will not have a material effect on its
consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation
might be asserted or what information might come to light and can,
therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of
asbestos related litigation."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/DJvysw
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Still Defends PL Suits at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that it has been named as a defendant in
several multi-defendant asbestos-related product liability
lawsuits.
The Company states, "In certain instances, the Company is
indemnified by a former owner of the product line in question. In
the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to
establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products.
The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes
that it will not incur any material liability with respect to these
claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/YkhnCc
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Still Faces Lawsuits at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc. continues to defend itself against
numerous lawsuits involving asbestos-related claims, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.
Manitowoc Co. states, "The Company is involved in numerous lawsuits
involving asbestos-related claims in which the Company is one of
numerous defendants. After taking into consideration legal
counsel's evaluation of such actions, the current political
environment with respect to asbestos related claims, and the
liabilities accrued with respect to such matters, in the opinion of
management, ultimate resolution is not expected to have a material
adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations,
or cash flows of the Company."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/1CmlPY
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Subsidiary Had 1,121 New Claims in 1H 2020
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
received approximately 1,121 new asbestos-related claims during the
six months ended June 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.
The Company states, "MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large
number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts.
These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs
suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and
seek both actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in
the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued
liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally
have focused on allegations with respect to certain research,
publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's employees
during the period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's
and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain
health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly
publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes
that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The
outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain
and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in
legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged
injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the
claims asserted against MLIC. MLIC employs a number of resolution
strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking
resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling
individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate
circumstances.
"Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional
tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with
asbestos. MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the
plaintiffs— it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs
and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos
products that allegedly injured plaintiffs, (ii) plaintiffs did not
rely on any actions of MLIC, (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause
of the plaintiffs' injuries, (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred
after the dangers of asbestos were known, and (v) the applicable
time with respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of
the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions
dismissing claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have
denied MLIC's motions. There can be no assurance that MLIC will
receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most
cases brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to
defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure,
including defending claims at trials.
"As reported in the 2019 Annual Report, MLIC received approximately
3,187 asbestos-related claims in 2019. For the six months ended
June 30, 2020 and 2019, MLIC received approximately 1,121 and 1,705
new asbestos-related claims, respectively. The number of asbestos
cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any liability
that MLIC may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in
any given year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year
to year.
"The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is
subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting
its liability can be dynamic and subject to change. The
availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to
predict the numerous variables that can affect liability estimates,
including the number of future claims, the cost to resolve claims,
the disease mix and severity of disease in pending and future
claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in a
particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the
jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of
tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs
to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place
after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the
impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts.
"The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure
declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in
the future. In the Company's judgment, there is a future point
after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable.
It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to
asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos
liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may
be necessary. While the potential future charges could be material
in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are
recorded, based on information currently known by management,
management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a
material effect on the Company's financial position.
"The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. MLIC's recorded
asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following
elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its
understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the
probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims
already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not yet
paid, (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for
asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC
believes are reasonably probable of assertion, and (iii) the legal
defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant
assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the adequacy of its
recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include: (i)
the number of future claims, (ii) the cost to resolve claims, and
(iii) the cost to defend claims.
"MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from
asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience,
reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience
in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos
liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its
asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis.
These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in
asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the
number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of
new claims filed against it and other defendants and the
jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its regular
reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has
updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through
June 30, 2020."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Uj0SCV
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Units Still Defend Suits at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries remain defendants in legal
proceedings on alleged exposures to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.
The Company states, "We, and our subsidiaries, are defendants in
various other legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged
exposures to asbestos) incidental to our past and current business
activities. As of June 30, 2020, December 31, 2019 and June 30,
2019, our condensed balance sheets included accrued liabilities for
these other legal actions of US$12.4 million, US$12.4 million and
US$14.0 million, respectively. These liabilities do not include
costs associated with legal representation. Based on our analysis,
and considering the inherent uncertainties associated with
litigation, we do not believe that it is reasonably possible that
these other legal actions will materially adversely affect our
financial position, cash flows or results of operations. In
connection with the October 5, 2015 acquisition of Dow's U.S. Chlor
Alkali and Vinyl, Global Chlorinated Organics and Global Epoxy
businesses, the prior owner of the businesses retained liabilities
related to litigation to the extent arising prior to October 5,
2015."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/OJORtp
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Still Defends Various Lawsuits at June 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. still defends itself against numerous asbestos-related
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 28, 2020.
The Company states, "Numerous lawsuits are pending against Pfizer
in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged
personal injury from exposure to products allegedly containing
asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and
certain of its previously owned subsidiaries.
"There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to
asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its
subsidiaries."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/XC8SLA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Faces at Most 500 US Cases, 50 in Europe
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. still has less than 500 active and inactive
asbestos-related cases in the United States and less than 50 in
Europe, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020.
The Company states, "For many years the Company has been and
continues to be subject to lawsuits initiated by claimants alleging
health problems as a result of exposure to asbestos. The Company's
current docket of active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases
in the United States and less than 50 in Europe.
"With respect to the claims filed in the United States, the
substantial majority of the claims are related to alleged exposure
to asbestos in the Company's line of Walker(R) exhaust automotive
products although a significant number of those claims appear also
to involve occupational exposures sustained in industries other
than automotive. A small number of claims have been asserted
against one of the Company's subsidiaries by railroad workers
alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars. The
Company believes, based on scientific and other evidence, it is
unlikely that U.S. claimants were exposed to asbestos by the
Company's former products and that, in any event, they would not be
at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work
with these products. Further, many of these cases involve numerous
defendants. Additionally, in many cases the plaintiffs either do
not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar
amount for damages.
"With respect to the claims filed in Europe, the substantial
majority relate to occupational exposure claims brought by current
and former employees of Federal-Mogul facilities in France and
amounts paid out were not material. A small number of occupational
exposure claims have also been asserted against Federal-Mogul
entities in Italy and Spain.
"As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to go out of
business or file for bankruptcy, the Company may experience an
increased number of these claims. The Company vigorously defends
itself against these claims as part of its ordinary course of
business. In future periods, the Company could be subject to cash
costs or charges to earnings if any of these matters are resolved
unfavorably to the Company. To date, with respect to claims that
have proceeded sufficiently through the judicial process, the
Company has regularly achieved favorable resolutions. Accordingly,
the Company presently believes that these asbestos-related claims
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's annual
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/5GXmkY
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Solutions Has 165 Claims at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Univar Solutions Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that there were approximately 165 asbestos-related
cases as of June 30, 2020, for which the Company has the obligation
to defend and indemnify.
Univar Solutions states, "The Company is subject to liabilities
from claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos.
The claims result primarily from an indemnification obligation
related to Univar Solutions USA Inc.'s ("Univar") 1986 purchase of
McKesson Chemical Company from McKesson Corporation ("McKesson").
Once certain conditions have been met, Univar will have the ability
to pursue insurance coverage, if any, that may be available under
McKesson's historical insurance coverage to offset the impact of
any fees, settlements, or judgments that Univar is obligated to pay
because of its obligation to defend and indemnify McKesson. As of
June 30, 2020, there were approximately 165 asbestos-related cases
for which Univar has the obligation to defend and indemnify;
however, this number tends to fluctuate up and down over time.
Historically, the vast majority of these asbestos cases have been
dismissed without payment or with a nominal payment. While the
Company is unable to predict the outcome of these matters, it does
not believe, based upon currently available facts, that the
ultimate resolution of any of these matters will have a material
effect on its overall financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/OjrMrL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ViacomCBS Had 31,190 Pending Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
ViacomCBS Inc. had approximately 31,190 pending asbestos claims as
of June 30, 2020, compared with approximately 30,950 as of December
31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020.
The Company states, "We are a defendant in lawsuits claiming
various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials,
which allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor
a manufacturer of asbestos. We are typically named as one of a
large number of defendants in both state and federal cases. In the
majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified
which of our products is the basis of a claim. Claims against us
in which a product has been identified most commonly relate to
allegations of exposure to asbestos-containing insulating material
used in conjunction with turbines and electrical equipment.
"Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period. We do not report as pending those claims on inactive,
stayed, deferred or similar dockets that some jurisdictions have
established for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment. As
of June 30, 2020, we had pending approximately 31,190 asbestos
claims, as compared with approximately 30,950 as of December 31,
2019. During the second quarter of 2020, we received approximately
590 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket
approximately 480 claims. We report claims as closed when we
become aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or
when we have reached agreement with the claimants on the material
terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on the seriousness
of the injuries that form the basis of the claims, the quality of
evidence supporting the claims and other factors. Our total costs
for the years 2019 and 2018 for settlement and defense of asbestos
claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax were approximately
US$58 million and US$45 million, respectively. Our costs for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and
insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as
the insured portion of the expenses.
"Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly
increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may
be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be
asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are
substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of
individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly
asbestos-related disease. The predominant number of pending claims
against us are non-cancer claims. It is difficult to predict
future asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances may impact
the estimate of our asbestos liabilities, including, among others,
the number and types of claims and average cost to resolve such
claims. We record an accrual for a loss contingency when it is
both probable that a liability has been incurred and when the
amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. We believe that
our accrual and insurance are adequate to cover our asbestos
liabilities. Our liability estimate is based upon many factors,
including the number of outstanding claims, estimated average cost
per claim, the breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim
filings, costs per claim of resolution and the filing of new
claims, as well as consultation with a third party firm on trends
that may impact our future asbestos liability."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/cnQCue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warner-Lambert Still Defends Claims v. Former Unit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 28, 2020, that that its wholly owned subsidiary,
Warner-Lambert, is actively defending claims against American
Optical pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages
for alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other
allegedly hazardous materials.
The Company states, "Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned
American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured
and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety
clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982,
Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain
liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims.
Claims against American Optical and numerous other defendants are
pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for
alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other
allegedly hazardous materials. Warner-Lambert was acquired by
Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer.
Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the defense of, and will
continue to explore various means of resolving, these claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/XC8SLA
*********
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 ***