/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200910.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, September 10, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 182
Headlines
440 CAR SERVICE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Barcia Claims
AHO ENTERPRISES: Ortega Class Certification Bid Granted in Part
ALASKA AIR: Appeal in Flight Attendants Class Suit Still Ongoing
ALLSTATE CORP: Discovery in Illinois Securities Suit Ends
AMERICAN RARE COIN: Faces Sosa ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Bid to Drop Generic Drug Price Fixing Pending
AMETEK INC: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing on October 5
APELLES LLC: Landry Sues in C.D. California Over FDCPA Violation
APMEX INC: Sosa Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
ARCONIC CORP: Bid to Dismiss Howard Consolidated Suit Pending
AVANOS MEDICAL: Dismissal of Jackson Suit Affirmed
AVANOS MEDICAL: Dismissed from Bahamas Indemnification Suit
BEACHBODY LLC: Illegally Discloses Customers' Data, Carbone Says
BETTER PLANS: Faces Flo-Tech TCPA Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
BNSF RAILWAY: Wrongfully Terminates Black Employees, Boddie Says
BOK FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Extended Overdraft Fees Suits
BOK FINANCIAL: Municipal Securities Suit Ongoing in Oklahoma
BOK FINANCIAL: New Jersey Class Action Stayed Until September 25
BOK FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan-Related Suit
BOK FINANCIAL: Unit Faces CARES Act-Related Putative Class Suit
CASELLA WASTE: Vandemortel Class Suit Ongoing
CHEWSE INC: Katy Lee Files Class Suit in California Super. Ct.
COMMUNITYAMERICA: Holt Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
DIGNITY HEALTH: Darling Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
E TRADE: Plaintiffs in Merger Related Suits Agree to Dismissal
EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Pre-Trial Discovery in Olenik Suit Ongoing
ELECTROLUX HOME: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
EQUITABLE HOLDINGS: Suit over COI Rate Increase Underway
EVOQUA WATER: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in NY Granted in Part
FEDEX FREIGHT: Valdes Discrimination Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
FISHER & PAYKEL: Faces Tenzer-Fuchs ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FORESCOUT TECH: Facing Blackwell Class Suit in California
FORESCOUT TECH: Facing Bushansky Putative Class Suit in California
FORESCOUT TECH: Sayce & Arbitrage Securities Suits Consolidated
FORESCOUT TECH: Smith Drops Class Suit
FRANKE KITCHEN: Tenzer-Fuchs Sues in New York Over ADA Violation
FTF EQUITY: Faces Ocasio Suit Over Contract and FLSA Violations
GATEWAY PLASTICS: Brooks Sues Over Packers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
GYRO TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Operators' OT Wages, Adams Claims
HARBOR FREIGHT: Mitchell Suit Moved From Georgia to California
HIBU PLC: Levien Appeals Decision in Stockholder Suit to 3rd Cir.
HOMELINK LLC: Abitbol Appeals Ruling in TCPA Suit to 9th Circuit
HUNTER WARFIELD: Blair Sues in Florida Alleging FDCPA Violation
INDIEGOGO INC: Suris Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
INNERWORKINGS INC: Khan Suit Challenges $177MM Sale to HH Global
INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Canez Class Suit Still Pending
J CHOO USA: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Suit Claims
KBR INC: Appellate Proceedings Postponed Sine Die
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORT: Approval of Rudsell Settlement Appealed
LEIKIN & INGBER: Van Vleck Suit Seek to Certify Class
LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY: Faces Hofmann Breach of Contract Suit
MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Class Suit Still Ongoing
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Suit by MSP Recovery Claims, Series II Ongoing
MARATHON PETROLEUM: Gray Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
MASONITE INT'L: Antitrust Suits Underway in E.D. Virginia
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss McCurdy Class Action Pending
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits in US & Canada
MICROCHIP TECH: Discovery Ongoing in Jackson Putative Class Suit
MIELE INCORPORATED: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MOBILE CITY: Uribe Sues Over Time Shaving and Sexual Harassment
MUELLER WATER: Says Chapman Suit Dismissed, No Appeal Filed
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Urena in Gulino Bias Suit
NVIDIA CORP: Tobias ERISA Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
OCWEN FINANCIAL: TCPA Class Suit Underway
P&G AUDITORS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Curry Says
P.D.K.N. HOLDINGS: Faces Newton Suit Over Servers' Unpaid Wages
PBC LINEAR: Faces Gordon Class Suit in Illinois Circuit Court
PBF HOLDING: Settlement in Kendig Suit Wins Final Approval
PLAYSITES + SURFACES: Rodriguez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS: Faces Flo-Tech Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ad
PROGRESSIVE COUNTY: Bid to Compel Class Discovery in Lopez Denied
REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Moehrl Class Action Still Pending
REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Tanaskovic Suit Pending
REALOGY GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Sitzer Suit
RECON MANAGEMENT: Sonnier Suit Seeks Conditional Certification
RESIDEO TECH: Tentative Argument on Bid to Dismiss Set for Dec. 1
RING LLC: Wise Product Liability Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
ROSLE USA: Angeles Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
ROYAL SEA: Court Narrows Class in McCurley et al. Autodial Suit
SERCO INC: Bernal Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. California
SHUTTERFLY LIFETOUCH: Faces Cullen Suit Over Unsolicited Photos
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Defends Wasa Medical Holdings & Calvo Suits
STARBUCKS CORP: Parties Agree to Dismiss Harisis Class Claims
STATE FARM: Court Certifies Plan Beneficiaries Class in King Suit
SUPER CARE: Affolder Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
TRANS UNION: Appeals E.D. Pa. Ruling in Norman Suit to 3rd Cir.
TRIBUNE PUBLISHING: Gusinsky Trust Balks at Poison Pill Adoption
TRUIST FINANCIAL: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Bickerstaff Pending
TU CASA #2: Chumil Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Pay
U.S. NONWOVENS: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought
UGI CORP: Agreement in Underfilled Propane Cylinders Wins Final OK
UNIFIN INC: Beck Sues in E.D. New York Alleging FDCPA Violation
UNITED BEAUTY: Angeles Sues in S.D.N.Y. Alleging Violation of ADA
UNITED CONTRACTOR: Cuellar Sues Over Inadequate COBRA Notice
VENATOR MATERIALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
WAYNE COUNTY, NC: Underpays Employees, Flores FLSA Suit Claims
WELLS FARGO: $18MM Settlement Reached in Hernandez Class Suit
WELLS FARGO: $20.8MM Settlement in ATM Access Fee Suit Pending
WELLS FARGO: Approval of GAP Case Settlement Under Appeal
WELLS FARGO: Defends Putative Class Actions Over PPP Loan
WELLS FARGO: Faces Urista Suit Over Unauthorized Loan Forbearance
WELLS FARGO: Shareholder Securities Fraud Class Suit Ongoing
WISCONSIN HOSPITALITY: Beyer Seeks OK of Class Action Notice
WW INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated SDNY Suit Pending
WW INTERNATIONAL: Studio + Digital Members Class Suits Ongoing
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Bid to Dismiss Gregory Suit Pending
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Facing 3 PPP Loan-Related Suits
*********
440 CAR SERVICE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Barcia Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SILVANA BARCIA, JENNIFER CORTES, and MIGUEL ROJAS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 440 CAR SERVICE,
INC., PATRICIO LEMA, and ALFREDO ENCALADA, Case No. 1:20-cv-04002
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and other workers appropriate minimum
wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek.
The Defendants have also failed to post notices of the minimum wage
and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at their
workplace, and to keep accurate payroll records, the Plaintiffs
allege.
Plaintiff Barcia was employed by the Defendants at 12-66 Myrtle
Avenue, in Brooklyn, New York, from February 2014 until March 2020.
Plaintiffs Cortes and Rojas were employed by the Defendants at
12-66 Myrtle Avenue, in Brooklyn from May 2015 until March 2020.
The Plaintiffs' primary duties were a phone operator, secretary,
and taxi dispatcher.
440 Car Service, Inc., is a car service provider with a principal
executive office located at 12-66 Myrtle Avenue, in Brooklyn, 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
AHO ENTERPRISES: Ortega Class Certification Bid Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE SALVADOR SANDOVAL ORTEGA,
et al., v. AHO ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Case No.
4:19-cv-00404-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered
an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and for conditional
certification of a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act;
2. appointing the Plaintiffs Jose Salvador Sandoval Ortega,
J. Guadalupe Alaniz, Efrain Henriquez, Norberto Rodriguez,
Jose Luis Correa Martinez, Melvin Efrain Godoy Ramirez,
Eduardo Rodriguez, Rodolfo Vazquez, Daniel Valencia, and
Jose Valencia as Class Representatives;
3. appointing Mallison & Martinez as Class Counsel; and
4. directing the parties shall meet and confer and submit a
proposed class notice by no later than August 25, 2020.
The motion is granted as to Plaintiffs' overtime pay and rest break
subclasses and the related derivative claims. It is also granted as
to conditional certification of an FLSA collective action.
The Overtime Pay Subclass is defined as:
"all non-exempt production employees, including body shop
technicians, technician helpers, detailers, painters, and
painter helpers, who were employed by Aho Enterprises, Inc.
in the State of California at any time from January 23, 2015
to September 30, 2019, who worked in excess of eight hours
in any workday or 40 hours in a week without proper overtime
pay."
The Rest Period Subclass is defined as:
"all non-exempt production employees, including body shop
technicians, technician helpers, detailers, painters, and
painter helpers, who were employed by Aho Enterprises, Inc.
in the State of California at any time from January 23, 2015
to September 30, 2019, who Sworked shifts of at least three
and one-half hours in any workday, who had their rest and
meal periods combined."[CC]
ALASKA AIR: Appeal in Flight Attendants Class Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Air Group, 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 appeal from a ruling in the Flight
Attendants class action suit remains pending.
In 2015, three flight attendants filed a class action lawsuit
seeking to represent all Virgin America flight attendants for
damages based on alleged violations of California and City of San
Francisco wage and hour laws. The court certified a class of
approximately 1,800 flight attendants in November 2016. The Company
believes the claims in this case are without factual and legal
merit.
In July 2018, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment, finding Virgin America, and Alaska Airlines, as a
successor-in-interest to Virgin America, responsible for various
damages and penalties sought by the class members.
On February 4, 2019, the Court entered final judgment against
Virgin America and Alaska Airlines in the amount of approximately
$78 million.
It did not award injunctive relief against Alaska Airlines.
The Company is seeking an appellate court ruling that the
California laws on which the judgment is based are invalid as
applied to national airlines pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and
federal law and for other employment law and improper class
certification reasons.
The Company remains confident that a higher court will respect the
federal preemption principles that were enacted to shield
inter-state common carriers from a patchwork of state and local
wage and hour regulations such as those at issue in this case and
agree with the Company's other bases for appeal. For these reasons,
no loss has been accrued.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Alaska Air Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
passenger and cargo air transportation services. The company
operates through three segments: Mainline, Regional, and Horizon.
The company was founded in 1932 and is based in Seattle,
Washington.
ALLSTATE CORP: Discovery in Illinois Securities Suit Ends
---------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate 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 in the class action suit
entitled, In re The Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation, was set
to conclude on September 4, 2020.
In re The Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation is a certified class
action filed on November 11, 2016 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company and
two of its officers asserting claims under the federal securities
laws.
Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Allstate common stock during
the class period and suffered damages as the result of the conduct
alleged.
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, costs, attorney's
fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate.
Plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain senior officers made
allegedly material misstatements or omissions concerning claim
frequency statistics and the reasons for a claim frequency increase
for Allstate brand auto insurance between October 2014 and August
3, 2015.
Plaintiffs' further allege that a senior officer engaged in stock
option exercises during that time allegedly while in possession of
material nonpublic information about Allstate brand auto insurance
claim frequency.
The Company, its chairman, president and chief executive officer,
and its former president are the named defendants.
After the court denied their motion to dismiss on February 27,
2018, defendants answered the complaint, denying plaintiffs'
allegations that there was any misstatement or omission or other
misconduct. On June 22, 2018, plaintiffs filed their motion for
class certification. The court allowed the lead plaintiffs to amend
their complaint to add the City of Providence Employee Retirement
System as a proposed class representative and on September 12,
2018, the amended complaint was filed.
On March 26, 2019, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and certified a class consisting of all persons who
purchased Allstate common stock between October 29, 2014 and August
3, 2015.
On April 9, 2019, defendants filed with the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals a petition for permission to appeal this ruling pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (f) and the Court of Appeals
granted that petition on April 25, 2019.
On July 16, 2020, the Court of Appeals vacated the class
certification order and remanded the matter for further
consideration by the district court.
The Allstate Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
property and casualty, and other insurance products in the United
States and Canada. The company operates through Allstate
Protection, Service Businesses, Allstate Life, and Allstate
Benefits segments. The Allstate Corporation was founded in 1931 and
is headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois.
AMERICAN RARE COIN: Faces Sosa ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Rare Coin &
Collectibles, LLC. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, On Behalf of
Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. American Rare
Coin & Collectibles, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07036 (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
29, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
American Rare Coin & Collectibles is one of the oldest and largest
full-time coin and bullion trading companies in the Midwest. The
Company is an active buyer of all forms of coins and currency and
diamonds.[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
AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Bid to Drop Generic Drug Price Fixing Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
AmerisourceBergen Corporation 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 and other industry
participants are seeking dismissal of a consolidated putative class
action suit initiated by Reliable Pharmacy, together with other
retail pharmacies and North Sunflower Medical Center, over alleged
price-fixing, market allocation and bid rigging of generic drugs.
In December 2019, Reliable Pharmacy, together with other retail
pharmacies and North Sunflower Medical Center, filed a civil
antitrust complaint against multiple generic drug manufacturers,
and also included claims against the Company, H.D. Smith, and other
drug distributors and industry participants.
The case is filed as a putative class action and plaintiffs purport
to represent a class of drug purchasers including other retail
pharmacies and healthcare providers.
The case has been consolidated for multidistrict litigation
proceedings before the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
The complaint alleges that the Company and others in the industry
participated in a conspiracy to fix prices, allocate markets and
rig bids regarding generic drugs. In March 2020, the plaintiffs
filed a further amended complaint.
On July 15, 2020, the Company and other industry participants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint.
AmerisourceBergen Corporation sources and distributes
pharmaceutical products in the United States and internationally.
AmerisourceBergen Corporation was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania.
AMETEK INC: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing on October 5
----------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Larry A. Burns of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California will hold a hearing October 5,
2020, at 1:30 p.m., to consider final approval of the settlements
in the groundwater contamination cases styled as:
-- Cox, et al. v. Ametek, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS (S.D. Cal.).; and
-- Trujillo v. Ametek, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-01394 (S.D.
Cal.).
In Cox, the parties agree that a Settlement Fund of $1,500,000 will
be established as the Medical Consultation Fund to pay for medical
consultations for Plaintiffs and Class Members, as well as fees and
costs consistent with the Settlement Agreement. A separate
$2,000,000 Settlement Fund will be established as the
Remediation/Mitigation Fund for sampling/mitigation/remediation of
the plume, consistent with the Settlement Agreement.
In Trujillo, the parties agree that a Settlement Fund of $1,000,000
will be established as the Medical Consultation Fund to pay for
medical consultation for Plaintiffs and Class Members, as well as
fees and costs consistent with the Settlement Agreement. A separate
$500,000 payment will be made to help establish the
Remediation/Mitigation Fund for sampling/mitigation/remediation of
the plume, consistent with the Settlement Agreement.
Ametek Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, the Company has been remediating groundwater contamination
for several contaminants, including trichloroethylene ("TCE"), at a
formerly owned site in El Cajon, California.
Several lawsuits have been filed against the Company alleging
damages resulting from the groundwater contamination, including
property damages and funds for medical monitoring to detect
causally related personal injury, and seeking compensatory and
punitive damages.
While the Company believes that it has good and valid defenses to
each of these claims and intends to defend them vigorously if
pursued through trial, the parties agreed to terms to globally
settle the cases.
After extensive negotiations, the Company entered into a global
settlement of these lawsuits for an aggregate amount of $6.8
million, for which the Company had previously established reserves
sufficient to cover this settlement. The global settlement is
subject to court approval in two class action cases.
The class representative plaintiffs have filed motions to
preliminarily approve the settlements, which the court recently
granted.
Additional information on the settlements is available at
http://www.elcajoncasesettlement.com/Cox/and
http://www.elcajoncasesettlement.com/Trujillo/
Ametek Inc. manufactures electronic instruments and
electromechanical devices. The Paoli, Pa.-based Company has
operations in North America, Europe, Asia, and South America.
APELLES LLC: Landry Sues in C.D. California Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apelles, LLC. The
case is styled as Donna M. Landry, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Apelles, LLC, Case No.
5:20-cv-01766 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 28, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Apelles, LLC, is a nationwide provider of debt collection services
and specialized customer lifecycle management programs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas M. Wajda, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS M. WAJDA
871 Coronado Center Dr., Ste. 200
Henderson, NV 89052
Phone: (702) 900-6339
Fax: (866) 286-8433
Email: nick@recoverylawgroup.com
APMEX INC: Sosa Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apmex, Inc. The case
is styled as Yony Sosa, On Behalf of Himself and All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. Apmex, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07037
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
APMEX, Inc., based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, is the world's
largest online retailer of precious metals.[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
ARCONIC CORP: Bid to Dismiss Howard Consolidated Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arconic Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the motion seeking to dismiss the consolidated
purported class action suit entitled, Howard v. Arconic Inc. et
al., is pending.
On June 13, 2017, the Grenfell Tower in London, U.K. caught fire
resulting in fatalities, injuries, and damage.
A purported class action complaint related to the Grenfell Tower
fire was filed on August 11, 2017 in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Arconinc
Inc. (ParentCo) and Klaus Kleinfeld.
A related purported class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
September 15, 2017, under the caption Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et
al., against ParentCo, three former ParentCo executives, several
current and former ParentCo directors, and banks that acted as
underwriters for ParentCo's September 18, 2014 preferred stock
offering (the "Preferred Offering").
The plaintiff in Sullivan had previously filed a purported class
action against the same defendants on July 18, 2017 in the Southern
District of New York and, on August 25, 2017, voluntarily dismissed
that action without prejudice. On February 7, 2018, on motion from
certain putative class members, the court consolidated Howard and
Sullivan, closed Sullivan, and appointed lead plaintiffs in the
consolidated case.
On April 9, 2018, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated purported
class action filed a consolidated amended complaint. The
consolidated amended complaint alleged that the registration
statement for the Preferred Offering contained false and misleading
statements and omitted to state material information, including by
allegedly failing to disclose material uncertainties and trends
resulting from sales of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses and by
allegedly expressing a belief that appropriate risk management and
compliance programs had been adopted while concealing the risks
posed by Reynobond PE sales.
The consolidated amended complaint also alleged that between
November 4, 2013 and June 23, 2017 ParentCo and Kleinfeld made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information about ParentCo's commitment to safety, business and
financial prospects, and the risks of the Reynobond PE product,
including in ParentCo's Form 10-Ks for the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, its Form 10-Qs and
quarterly financial press releases from the fourth quarter of 2013
through the first quarter of 2017, its 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016
Annual Reports, its 2016 Annual Highlights Report, and on its
official website.
The consolidated amended complaint sought, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and
expert fees and expenses.
On June 8, 2018, all defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On June 21, 2019,
the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in full,
dismissing the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety
without prejudice.
On July 23, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint alleges generally the same
claims as the consolidated amended complaint with certain
additional allegations, as well as claims that the risk factors set
forth in the registration statement for the Preferred Offering were
inadequate and that certain additional statements in the sources
identified above were misleading.
The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and
expenses.
On September 11, 2019, all defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. Plaintiffs' opposition to that motion was filed
on November 1, 2019 and all defendants filed a reply brief on
November 26, 2019.
On June 22, 2020, counsel for Arconic and the individual defendants
filed a letter apprising the Court of a recent decision by the
Third Circuit and discussing its relevance to the pending motion to
dismiss.
Pursuant to an Order by the Court directing the plaintiffs to
respond to this letter, the plaintiffs filed a letter response on
July 9, 2020. The motion to dismiss remains pending.
Arconic said, "Given the preliminary nature of this matter and the
uncertainty of litigation, Arconic Corporation cannot reasonably
estimate at this time the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or
the possible loss or range of losses in the event of an unfavorable
outcome."
Arconic Corporation manufactures engineered products and forgings.
The Company offers aluminum sheets, plates, and other extruded
products for the aerospace, automotive, commercial transportation,
brazing, and industrial markets. Arconic serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
AVANOS MEDICAL: Dismissal of Jackson Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------
Avanos Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that an appellate court has affirmed the district
court's order dismissing the putative class action suit styled,
Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E.
Voskuil, et al., No. 1:16-cv-05093-LTS.
The company was served with a complaint in a matter styled Jackson
v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et
al., No. 1:16-cv-05093-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), filed on June 28, 2016.
In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative class action against
the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief
Financial Officer and other defendants, asserting claims for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act, Sections 10(b) and
20(a).
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations
and failed to disclose certain information about the safety and
effectiveness of the company's MicroCool gowns and thereby
artificially inflated the Company's stock prices during the
respective class periods.
The alleged class period for purchasers of Kimberly-Clark
securities who subsequently received Avanos securities is February
25, 2013 to October 21, 2014, and the alleged class period for
purchasers of Avanos securities is October 21, 2014 to April 29,
2016.
On February 16, 2017, the company moved to dismiss the case.
On March 30, 2018, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss and entered judgment in the company's favor. On April 27,
2018, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief from the Judgment and
for Leave to Amend. On April 1, 2019, the court denied the
plaintiff's motion.
On May 1, 2019, Jackson appealed the dismissal of the action to the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 27, 2020, the appellate
court affirmed the district court's order dismissing the case.
Avanos said, "We intend to continue our vigorous defense of this
matter."
Avanos Medical, Inc. operates as a medical technology company that
focuses on delivering medical device solutions to improve patients'
quality of life worldwide. Avanos Medical, Inc. was incorporated in
2014 and is headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia.
AVANOS MEDICAL: Dismissed from Bahamas Indemnification Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Avanos Medical, 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 appellate court has vacated the judgment
against Avanos in the case, Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc., No.
2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH, and remanded the case to the district court
with instructions to dismiss Avanos because Bahamas lacked standing
to sue the company.
The company had an Indemnification Obligation for the matter styled
Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and
Halyard Health, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.)
("Bahamas"), filed on October 29, 2014.
In that case, the plaintiff brought a putative class action
asserting claims for common law fraud (affirmative
misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment) and violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") in connection with our
marketing and sale of MicroCool surgical gowns.
On April 7, 2017, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
finding that Kimberly-Clark was liable for $3.9 million in
compensatory damages (not including prejudgment interest) and
$350.0 million in punitive damages, and that Avanos was liable for
$0.3 million in compensatory damages (not including prejudgment
interest) and $100.0 million in punitive damages.
Subsequently, the court also ruled on the plaintiff's UCL claim and
request for injunctive relief. The court found in favor of the
plaintiff on the UCL claim but denied the plaintiff's request for
restitution.
The court also denied the plaintiff's request for injunctive
relief.
On May 25, 2017, the company filed post-trial motions seeking,
among other things, to have the award of punitive damages reduced.
On April 11, 2018, the court issued an Amended Judgment in favor of
the plaintiff and against us and Kimberly-Clark that substantially
reduced the punitive damages awards.
The judgment against the company is now $0.4 million in
compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest and $1.3 million in
punitive damages. The judgment against Kimberly-Clark is now $3.9
million in compensatory damages, $2.6 million in pre-judgment
interest, and $19.4 million in punitive damages.
On April 12, 2018, the company filed a notice of appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 23, 2020, the appellate
court vacated the judgment against Avanos and remanded the case to
the district court with instructions to dismiss Avanos because
Bahamas lacked standing to sue the company.
The appellate court also ruled that the district court abused its
discretion by failing to decertify the class as defined and,
therefore, vacated the judgment against Kimberly-Clark and remanded
it to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its
ruling.
Avanos said, "We intend to continue our vigorous defense of the
Bahamas matter."
Avanos Medical, Inc. operates as a medical technology company that
focuses on delivering medical device solutions to improve patients'
quality of life worldwide. Avanos Medical, Inc. was incorporated in
2014 and is headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia.
BEACHBODY LLC: Illegally Discloses Customers' Data, Carbone Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER W. CARBONE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BEACHBODY, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-11608 (D.
Mass., Aug. 27, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the
Video Privacy Protection Act by disclosing its customers' personal
viewing information.
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated consumers, alleges that the Defendant is engaged in the
practices of intentionally disclosing its customers' personal
viewing information, including names and addresses, to various
third parties. After the Defendant discloses its customers'
personal information, the various third-party recipients of this
data then append to it a myriad of other categories of personal and
demographic data pertaining to those customers, only to then
re-sell that personal information, enhanced with the appended
demographic information, to other third parties on the open
market.
As a result of the Defendant's sales, rentals, transmissions,
and/or other disclosures of the Plaintiff's and Class members'
personal viewing information to third parties, they now receive
junk mail from various companies and other organizations that do
not offer products or services through the mail, according to the
complaint.
Beachbody, LLC, is a creator and direct marketer of exercise and
workout video products, with its principal place of business
located in Santa Monica, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
REARDON SCANLON LLP
45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 955-9455
Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
- and –
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
- and –
David W. Hall, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 766-3534
Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com
- and –
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
pfraietta@bursor.com
BETTER PLANS: Faces Flo-Tech TCPA Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Better Plans, Inc.
The case is styled as Flo-Tech Mechanical Systems, Inc.,
individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons and entities v. Better Plans, Inc. doing business
as: BetterPlans.net, Case No. 1:20-cv-05083 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 28,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Better Plans Inc. is a national agency providing health insurance &
financial services for the self-employed, individual & family.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alejandro Emmanuel Figueroa, Esq.
Eric Donald Coleman, Esq.
Nathan Charles Volheim, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: alejandrof@sulaimanlaw.com
ecoleman@sulaimanlaw.com
nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com
BNSF RAILWAY: Wrongfully Terminates Black Employees, Boddie Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE BODDIE, VERNON CHATMAN, ZEDERICK DIXON, ROBERT FARLAND,
TERENCE FENNEL, RICKEY HOWARD, DAVID MCDANIEL, KURTIS MORGAN,
JOSHUA SANDERS, ANTHONY SMITH, and DERRICK WEBSTER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BNSF RAILWAY
COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-05060 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 27, 2020), alleges
discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has discriminated against
its African American employees in the terms and conditions of their
employment. African American employees, who have been hired by BNSF
after the discrimination charges filed against the Company in the
mid-1970s have been subjected to other racially discriminatory
practices that have been designed to sabotage their employment
after becoming an employee, and in many cases force their
separation of employment either through a retaliatory or racially
motivated termination.
Once employed, the Plaintiffs allege they have been subjected to a
system of unequal discipline, which is designed to cause African
Americans to be terminated from their employment and/or threatened
with termination for perceived or alleged infractions. These same
perceived or alleged infractions do not result in significant or
serious consequences, if any, for non-African-American employees.
As a result of this discrimination, the Plaintiffs say they and
Class members have been damaged emotionally and/or financially
and/or have been denied substantial employment opportunities and
benefits.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant in a variety of positions
including conductors and/or engineers in Chicago, Illinois.
BNSF Railway Company is a company that operates a national freight
transportation company with a rail network, with multiple business
locations within Cook County, the State of Illinois, and throughout
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edward M. Fox, Esq.
ED FOX & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
300 W. Adams St., Ste. 330
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 345-8877
E-mail: efox@efoxlaw.com
BOK FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Extended Overdraft Fees Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation 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 subsidiary BOKF, NA,
continues to defend class action suits related to extended
overdraft fee charged by the latter.
On March 7, 2017, a plaintiff filed a putative class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
alleging an extended overdraft fee charged by BOKF, NA is interest
and exceeds permitted rates.
On September 18, 2018, the District Court dismissed the Texas
action and the plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which heard argument
on October 8, 2019.
On August 22, 2018, a plaintiff filed a second putative class
action in the United States District Court for New Mexico making
the same allegations as the Texas action.
The District Court dismissed the plaintiff's action. The plaintiff
has appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.
BOK Financial said, "Management is advised by counsel that a loss
is not probable in either the now dismissed Texas action or the New
Mexico action and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
BOK FINANCIAL: Municipal Securities Suit Ongoing in Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation 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's wholly owned subsidiary
bank, BOKF, NA, continues to defend a putative class action in
Oklahoma initiated by bondholders representing a set of municipal
securities.
On March 14, 2017, BOKF, NA was sued in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma by bondholders in a
second putative class action representing a different set of
municipal securities.
The bondholders in this action allege two individuals purchased
facilities from the principals who are the subject of the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) New Jersey proceedings by
means of the fraudulent sale of $60 million of municipal securities
for which BOKF, NA also served as indenture trustee.
The bondholders allege BOKF, NA failed to disclose that the seller
of the purchased facilities had engaged in the conduct complained
of in the New Jersey action.
BOKF, NA properly performed all duties as indenture trustee of this
second set of municipal securities, timely commenced proceedings
against the issuer of the securities when default occurred, is
cooperating with the SEC in actions against the two principals, is
not a target of the SEC proceedings, and has been advised by
counsel that BOKF, NA has valid defenses to the claims of these
bondholders.
BOK Financial said, "Management is advised by counsel that a loss
is not probable and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
BOK FINANCIAL: New Jersey Class Action Stayed Until September 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the class action in New Jersey initiated
by two bondholders has been stayed until September 25, 2020.
On August 26, 2016, BOKF, NA was sued in the United States District
Court for New Jersey by two bondholders in a putative class action
on behalf of all holders of the bonds alleging BOKF, NA
participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the
principals. The New Jersey Federal District Action has been stayed
until September 25, 2020.
On September 14, 2016, BOKF, NA was sued in the District Court of
Tulsa County, Oklahoma by 19 bondholders alleging BOKF, NA
participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the
principals.
The Tulsa County District Court Action is pending on BOKF, NA's
motion to dismiss the plaintiff's Second Amended Petition.
BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
BOK FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that BOKF, NA, the Plan Committee of the
BOKF, NA 401k Plan, and Cavanal Hill Investment Management, Inc.,
continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by three
former employees of BOKF, NA
On March 7, 2020, three former employees sued BOKF, NA, the Plan
Committee of the BOKF, NA 401k Plan, and Cavanal Hill Investment
Management, Inc., a subsidiary of BOKF, NA, alleging that the
Defendants included proprietary investment products as investment
options in the BOKF, NA 401k Plan, whose fees were too high and
performance too low, for the purpose of earning fees.
The action is brought as a putative class action on behalf of all
Plan Participants.
The action is pending on the defendants' motion to dismiss.
BOK Financial said, "Management is advised by counsel that a loss
is not probable and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
BOK FINANCIAL: Unit Faces CARES Act-Related Putative Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that BOKF, NA, a company subsidiary, is a
defendant in a putative class action suit initiated by an
accounting firm alleging that BOKF, NA failed to pay the agents of
borrowers making application through the Bank to the Small Business
Administration for Paycheck Protection Program (CARES Act) loans.
On May 12, 2020, an accounting firm filed a putative class action
in the District Court of Colorado alleging that BOKF, NA failed to
pay the agents of borrowers making application through the Bank to
the Small Business Administration for Paycheck Protection Program
(CARES Act) loans.
BOKF, NA implemented a policy to pay, and paid, all agents of PPP
borrowers where the principals agreed the principals had agents.
BOK Financial said, "Management is advised by counsel that a loss
is not probable and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated."
BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
CASELLA WASTE: Vandemortel Class Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
Casella Waste Systems, 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 initiated by Richard Vandemortel and Deb Vandemortel.
On or about September 17, 2019, Richard Vandemortel and Deb
Vandemortel filed a class action complaint against the company on
behalf of similarly situated citizens in Ontario County, New York.
The lawsuit has been filed in Ontario County (the "New York
Litigation").
It alleges that over one thousand (1,000) citizens constitute the
putative class in the New York Litigation, and it seeks damages for
diminution of property values and infringement of the putative
class' rights to live without interference to their daily lives due
to odors emanating from the Subtitle D landfill located in Seneca,
New York , which is operated by the company pursuant to a long-term
Operation, Maintenance and Lease Agreement with Ontario County.
The New York Litigation was served on the company on October 14,
2019.
Casella said, "We intend to present a vigorous defense."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Casella Waste Systems, Inc. provides integrated and non-hazardous
solid waste services throughout the Eastern United States. The
Company offers collection, transfer, disposal, and recycling
services, generates steam, and manufactures finished products
utilizing recyclable materials. The company is based in Rutland,
Vermont.
CHEWSE INC: Katy Lee Files Class Suit in California Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CHEWSE, INC., et al.
The case is styled as Katy Lee, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, and the general public v. CHEWSE, INC., A
DELAWARE CORPORATION; DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE; FOODEE INC., A DELAWARE
CORPORATION; FOODEE MEDIA US INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, Case No.
CGC20586280 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Aug. 28, 2020).
The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS."
Chewse delivers family-style office meals from local restaurants.
The Plaintiff is represented by David Spivak, Esq.[BN]
COMMUNITYAMERICA: Holt Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as LISA HOLT, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. COMMUNITYAMERICA
CREDIT UNION, Case No. 4:19-cv-00629-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:
1. preliminarily approving the class action Settlement
Agreement and Release reached between Plaintiff Lisa Holt
and Defendant Community America Credit Union;
2. certifying the classes and appointing class counsel; and
3. approving the proposed notice plan and deadlines for class
members to object to, or opt-out of, the proposed
Settlement and scheduling a hearing for mid–November 2020
to consider final approval of the Settlement as set forth
in the proposed approval timeline:
The Proposed Approval Timeline:
EVENT TIME FOR COMPLIANCE
Deadline for Settlement Within 30 days from entry of the
Administrator to E-mail Preliminary Approval Order
and Mail Notice
Deadline for any motions 15 days after notice is first
requesting attorneys' fees sent
and expenses, the Settlement
Administrator’s costs, or
class representative
service awards
Deadline for Class Member 30 days after notice is sent
Objections
Deadline for Opt-Outs 30 days after notice is sent
Deadline for motion for 45 days after notice is sent
final approval
Final Approval Hearing Approximately 60 days after
notice is sent, but no sooner
than November 19, 2020. Counsel
anticipates needing no more than
hour for the hearing.
CommunityAmerica is a credit union headquartered in Lenexa, Kansas,
regulated under the authority of the Missouri Division of Credit
Unions and the National Credit Union Administration of the U.S.
federal government.[CC]
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Plaintiff Settlement
Classes, are:
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 6204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
Ashlea Schwarz, Esq.
PAUL LLP
601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64106
Telephone: (816) 984-8100
E-mail: ashlea@paulllp.com
- and -
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
JOHNSON FIRM
610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 372-1300
E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Martin F. Schubert, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH
& JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
martys@bsjfirm.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
KALIEL PLLC
1875 Connecticut Ave. NW 10th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20009
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielplllc.com
DIGNITY HEALTH: Darling Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOMERY DARLING and ANA JARA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DIGNITY HEALTH, DIGNITY COMMUNITY
CARE, and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 3:20-cv-06043 (N.D. Cal.,
Aug. 27, 2020), asserts claims for violations of the California
Labor Code and Nevada Law, including failure to pay the Plaintiffs
and other medical workers overtime and minimum wages.
According to the complaint, the Defendants also failed to provide
meal and rest periods, to provide accurate wage statements, and to
timely pay all wages due and owing.
Plaintiff Darling was employed by Dignity Health as a nursing
employee in Sacramento, California, from May 2012 to December 2016.
Plaintiff Jara was employed by the Defendants as a medical
assistant in Las Vegas, Nevada, from November 2015 to December 3,
2019.
Dignity Health is a health care organization with a principal place
of business at 185 Berry Street, in San Francisco, California.
Dignity Community Care is a health care organization located in
Sacramento, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
Leah L. Jones, Esq.
Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq.
THIERMAN BUCK LLP
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NV 89511
Telephone: (775) 284-1500
Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
josh@thiermanbuck.com
leah@thiermanbuck.com
joshh@thiermanbuck.com
E TRADE: Plaintiffs in Merger Related Suits Agree to Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
E-TRADE Financial Corporation 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 federal actions
related to the Company's merger with Morgan Stanley have agreed to
dismiss their claims with prejudice.
On February 20, 2020, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement) with Morgan Stanley under
which Morgan Stanley agreed to acquire the Company in an all-stock
transaction. The Company's shareholders approved the merger on July
17, 2020. The acquisition is subject to customary closing
conditions, including regulatory approvals, and is expected to
close in the fourth quarter of 2020.
As of July 6, 2020, 10 complaints had been filed by purported
E-TRADE stockholders challenging the Merger.
The first, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York by Shiva Stein individually, was
captioned Stein v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al., case
number 1:20-cv-03134-LAP. Stein v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et
al. named as defendants E-TRADE and each member of the E-TRADE
board of directors.
The second complaint, a putative class action complaint, was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by
John Thompson and was captioned Thompson v. E-TRADE Financial
Corporation et al., case number 1:20-cv-00553-RGA. Thompson v.
E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al. named as defendants Morgan
Stanley, Merger Sub, E-TRADE and each member of the E-TRADE board
of directors.
The third complaint, filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey by Jacqueline Galeano individually, was
captioned Galeano v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al., case
number 2:20-cv-05123-KM-ESK. Galeano v. E-TRADE Financial
Corporation et al. named as defendants E-TRADE and each member of
the E-TRADE board of directors.
The fourth complaint, a putative class action complaint, was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York by Kevin Brown and was captioned Brown v. E-TRADE
Financial Corporation et al., case number 1:20-cv-03322-LAP. Brown
v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al. named as defendants E-TRADE
and each member of the E*TRADE board of directors.
The fifth complaint, filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey by Yael Respler individually, was
captioned Respler v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al., case
number 2:20-cv-05229-KM-ESK. Respler v. E-TRADE Financial
Corporation et al. named as defendants E*TRADE and each member of
the E-TRADE board of directors.
The sixth complaint, filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York by Stourbridge Investments LLC
individually, was captioned Stourbridge Investments LLC v. E-TRADE
Financial Corporation et al., case number 1:20-cv-03457-LAP.
Stourbridge Investments LLC v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al.
named as defendants E-TRADE and each member of the E-TRADE board of
directors.
The seventh complaint, filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York by Chris Ramsubhag
individually, was captioned Ramsubhag v. E-TRADE Financial
Corporation et al., case number 1:20-cv-03891-LAP. Ramsubhag v.
E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al. named as defendants E-TRADE
and each member of the E-TRADE board of directors.
The eighth complaint, filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey by Abby Katz individually, was captioned
Katz v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al., case number
2:20-cv-06212-KM-ESK. Katz v. E*TRADE Financial Corporation et al.
named as defendants E-TRADE and each member of the E-TRADE board of
directors.
The ninth complaint, filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York by Victor Serebruany
individually, was captioned Serebruany v. E-TRADE Financial
Corporation et al., case number 1:20-cv-04344-UA. Serebruany v.
E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al. named as defendants E-TRADE
and each member of the E*TRADE board of directors.
The tenth complaint, filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York by the Rosenfeld Family
Foundation individually, was captioned Rosenfeld Family Foundation
v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al., case number 1:20-cv-05013.
Rosenfeld Family Foundation v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al.
named as defendants E-TRADE and each member of the E*TRADE board of
directors.
The complaints generally alleged, among other things, that the
defendants named therein authorized the filing of a materially
incomplete and misleading registration statement. Among other
remedies, the complaints sought to enjoin the approval and adoption
of the Merger Agreement by a vote of the company's stockholders
and/or the closing of the Merger, as well as damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.
On July 6, 2020, the Company announced that the plaintiffs in the
federal actions agreed to dismiss their claims with prejudice.
There can be no assurances that additional complaints or demands
will not be filed or made with respect to the merger. If additional
similar complaints or demands are filed or made, absent new or
different allegations that are material, neither E-TRADE nor Morgan
Stanley will necessarily announce them.
E-TRADE said, "One of the conditions to completion of the Merger is
the absence of any applicable law (including any order) being in
effect that prohibits completion of the Merger. Accordingly, if a
plaintiff is successful in obtaining an order prohibiting
completion of the Merger, then such order may prevent the Merger
from being completed, or from being completed within the expected
timeframe."
E-TRADE Financial Corporation is a financial services company that
provides brokerage and related products and services for traders,
investors, stock plan administrators and participants, and
registered investment advisors (RIAs). The company is based in
Arlington, Virginia.
EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Pre-Trial Discovery in Olenik Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Earthstone Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that pre-trial discovery is ongoing in the purported
class action suit entitled, Olenik v. Lodzinksi et al.
On June 2, 2017, Nicholas Olenik filed a purported shareholder
class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against Earthstone's Chief Executive Officer, along with other
members of the Board, EnCap Investments L.P. ("EnCap"), Bold, Bold
Holdings and Oak Valley Resources, LLC.
The complaint alleges that Earthstone's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the contribution agreement
dated as of November 7, 2016 and as amended on March 21, 2017 (the
"Bold Contribution Agreement"), by and among Earthstone,
Earthstone Energy Holdings, LLC (EEH), Lynden US, Lynden USA
Operating, LLC, Bold Holdings and Bold.
The Plaintiff asserts that the directors negotiated the business
combination pursuant to the Bold Contribution Agreement (the "Bold
Transaction") to benefit EnCap and its affiliates, failed to obtain
adequate consideration for the Earthstone shareholders who were not
affiliated with EnCap or Earthstone management, did not follow an
adequate process in negotiating and approving the Bold Transaction
and made materially misleading or incomplete proxy disclosures in
connection with the Bold Transaction.
The suit seeks unspecified damages and purports to assert claims
derivatively on behalf of Earthstone and as a class action on
behalf of all persons who held common stock up to March 13, 2017,
excluding defendants and their affiliates.
On July 20, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss and entered an order dismissing the
action in its entirety with prejudice.
The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court. On
April 5, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Delaware
Court of Chancery's dismissal of the proxy disclosure claims but
reversed the Delaware Court of Chancery's dismissal of the other
claims, holding that the allegations with respect to those claims
were sufficient for pleading purposes. The parties thereafter have
engaged in extensive pre-trial discovery, which is ongoing. Trial
is currently scheduled to occur in May 2021.
Earthstone and each of the other defendants believe the claims are
entirely without merit and intend to mount a vigorous defense.
Earthstone said, "The ultimate outcome of this suit is uncertain,
and while Earthstone is confident in its position, any potential
monetary recovery or loss to Earthstone cannot be estimated at this
time."
Earthstone Energy, Inc., an independent energy company, engages in
the development and operation of oil and gas properties in the
United States. Earthstone Energy, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is
headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.
ELECTROLUX HOME: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Electrolux Home
Products, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Electrolux
Home Products, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-04030 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 28,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Electrolux Home Products, Inc., manufactures and distributes
electrical appliances. The Company offers refrigerators,
dishwashers, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, cookers,
air-conditioners, and microwave ovens.[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
EQUITABLE HOLDINGS: Suit over COI Rate Increase Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Equitable Holdings, Inc. continues to defend litigation over COI
rate increase, it said in a Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020.
In February 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Brach Family
Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. This
lawsuit is a putative class action brought on behalf of all owners
of universal life (“UL”) policies subject to Equitable
Financial’s COI rate increase.
In early 2016, Equitable Financial raised COI rates for certain UL
policies issued between 2004 and 2007, which had both issue ages 70
and above and a current face value amount of $1 million and above.
A second putative class action was filed in Arizona in 2017 and
consolidated with the Brach matter.
The current consolidated amended class action complaint alleges the
following claims: breach of contract; misrepresentations by
Equitable Financial in violation of Section 4226 of the New York
Insurance Law; violations of New York General Business Law Section
349; and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, and
the California Elder Abuse Statute.
Plaintiffs seek: (a) compensatory damages, costs, and, pre- and
post-judgment interest; (b) with respect to their claim concerning
Section 4226, a penalty in the amount of premiums paid by the
plaintiffs and the putative class; and (c) injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees in connection with their statutory claims.
Five other federal actions challenging the COI rate increase are
also pending against Equitable Financial and have been coordinated
with the Brach action for the purposes of pre-trial activities.
They contain allegations similar to those in the Brach action as
well as additional allegations for violations of various states'
consumer protection statutes and common law fraud. Three actions
are also pending against Equitable Financial in New York state
court.
Equitable Financial is vigorously defending each of these matters.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Equitable Holdings, Inc. operates as a diversified financial
services company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Individual Retirement, Group Retirement, Investment Management and
Research, and Protection Solutions. The company was founded in 1859
and is based in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Holdings, Inc. is
a subsidiary of AXA S.A.
On January 14, 2020, the company announced its plans to rebrand as
"Equitable" and to discontinue the use of the "AXA" brand. In
connection with this rebranding, the company removed "AXA" from its
legal entity name, which is now Equitable Holdings, Inc.
EVOQUA WATER: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in NY Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. 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's motion to dismiss
filed in the class action suit entitled, In re Evoqua Water
Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation," Master File No.
1:18-CV-10320 has been granted in part.
On or around November 6, 2018, a purported shareholder of the
Company filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, captioned McWilliams v. Evoqua
Water Technologies Corp., et al., Case No. 1:18-CV-10320, alleging
that the Company and senior management violated federal securities
laws.
On January 31, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel in connection with the action and captioned the action "In
re Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation," Master
File No. 1:18-CV-10320.
On March 28, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which asserts claims pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act") against the Company, members of the Company's
Board of Directors, senior management, other executives and/or
employees, AEA Investors LP and a number of its affiliated
entities, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering and secondary public offering.
The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing false, misleading, and/or omissive
disclosures concerning the Company's integration of acquired
companies, the Company's reduction-in-force, and the Company's
accounting practices.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount to
be proved at trial, an award of reasonable costs and expenses to
the plaintiff and class counsel, and such other relief as the court
may deem just and proper.
On June 26, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint. Briefing in connection with the motions to
dismiss was completed on October 4, 2019.
On March 30, 2020, the Court granted the motions to dismiss the
Exchange Act claims and denied the motions to dismiss the
Securities Act claims.
Evoqua said, "The Company believes that this lawsuit is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations."
Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. provides a range of water and
wastewater treatment systems and technologies, and mobile and
emergency water supply solutions and services. It operates in
three
segments: Industrial, Municipal, and Products. The company has
operations in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the
Netherlands, Germany, Australia, China, and Singapore. Evoqua Water
Technologies Corp. was incorporated in 2013 and is headquartered in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
FEDEX FREIGHT: Valdes Discrimination Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GONZALO VALDES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FEDEX FREIGHT, INC., an Arkansas
Profit Corporation, Case No. Case No. 2020-014726-CA-01, was
removed from the Florida Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
August 26, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-23565-XXXX to
the proceeding.
The case alleges employment discrimination based on national origin
and on color.
FedEx Freight, Inc., provides delivery and transportation
services.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michelle D. Cofino, Esq.
Reginald J. Clyne, Esq.
QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A.
9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor
Miami, FL 33156
Tel: (305) 670-1101
Fax: (305) 670-1161
Email: michelle.confino@qpwblaw.com
Reginald.clyne@qpwblaw.com
FISHER & PAYKEL: Faces Tenzer-Fuchs ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fisher & Paykel
Appliances, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Fisher &
Paykel Appliances, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-04031 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 28,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Fisher & Paykel Appliances, Inc., designs and manufactures
household appliances. The Company offers refrigerators,
dishwashers, clothes washers, dryers, ovens, rangehoods, and
electric and gas cooktops.[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
FORESCOUT TECH: Facing Blackwell Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Forescout Technologies, 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 a defendant in a
purported class action suit initiated by Ronald Blackwell.
In a July 22 ruling, Judge Colm F. Connolly granted Blackwell's
Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of his
Selection of Lead and Delaware Counsel.
On February 6, 2020, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Original Merger Agreement") with Ferrari Group
Holdings, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("Parent"), and
Ferrari Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"). Parent and Merger
Sub are affiliates of Advent International Corporation ("Advent").
On August 4, 2020, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Northern District of California,
by Ronald Blackwell, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, against the Company and its Board for alleged
violations of Section 14(e) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
related to the Schedule 14D-9.
The complaint seeks to (1) enjoin the consummation of the Offer;
(2) cause defendants to disseminate revised disclosures; and (3)
rescind the transactions contemplated by the Amended and Restated
Merger Agreement or recover damages in the event that such
transactions were completed.
Forescout Technologies, Inc. provides device visibility and control
solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the
Asia Pacific, and Japan. The company offers its products to various
industries, such as government, financial services, healthcare,
technology, manufacturing, energy, services, retail, entertainment,
and education through distributors and resellers. Forescout
Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in San
Jose, California.
FORESCOUT TECH: Facing Bushansky Putative Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Forescout Technologies, 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 a named defendant
in a purported class action suit initiated by Stephen Bushansky.
On February 6, 2020, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Original Merger Agreement") with Ferrari Group
Holdings, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("Parent"), and
Ferrari Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"). Parent and Merger
Sub are affiliates of Advent International Corporation ("Advent").
On July 31, 2020, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Northern District of California,
by Stephen Bushansky, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated against the Company and its Board for alleged
violations of Delaware law and Section 14(e) and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act related to the entry into the Amended and Restated
Merger Agreement and the Schedule 14D-9.
The complaint seeks to (1) enjoin the consummation of the tender
offer contemplated by the Amended and Restated Merger Agreement
(the "Offer"); (2) cause defendants to disseminate revised
disclosures; and (3) rescind the transactions contemplated by the
Amended and Restated Merger Agreement or recover damages in the
event that such transactions were completed.
Forescout Technologies, Inc. provides device visibility and control
solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the
Asia Pacific, and Japan. The company offers its products to various
industries, such as government, financial services, healthcare,
technology, manufacturing, energy, services, retail, entertainment,
and education through distributors and resellers. Forescout
Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in San
Jose, California.
FORESCOUT TECH: Sayce & Arbitrage Securities Suits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Forescout Technologies, 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 class action suits initiated
by Christopher L. Sayce and by The Arbitrage Fund, Water Island
LevArb Fund, L.P., Water Island Diversified Event-Driven Fund,
Water Island Merger Arbitrage Institutional Comingled Master Fund
LP and AltShares Merger Arbitrage ETF, have been consolidated
On January 2, 2020, Christopher L. Sayce filed a class action
lawsuit ("Sayce action") in the Northern District of California
alleging that the Company, Michael DeCesare and Christopher Harms
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The purported class includes all persons who purchased or acquired
the company's securities between February 7, 2019, and October 9,
2019. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 22,
2020.
The amended complaint purports to bring claims on behalf of a class
of purchasers of the company's securities during the period from
February 7, 2019 through May 15, 2020. On July 6, 2020, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On June 10, 2020, a putative stockholder class action complaint
("The Arbitrage Fund action") was filed in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California by The Arbitrage
Fund, Water Island LevArb Fund, L.P., Water Island Diversified
Event-Driven Fund, Water Island Merger Arbitrage Institutional
Comingled Master Fund LP and AltShares Merger Arbitrage ETF,
alleging that Forescout, Michael DeCesare and Christopher Harms
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The purported class includes all persons who purchased or acquired
the company's securities between February 6, 2020, and May 15,
2020, and generally alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or omitted material facts concerning the
company's financial performance and the risk that the acquisition
of Forescout by Advent would not close.
On June 17, 2020, the Court granted an administrative motion to
relate The Arbitrage Fund action and the Sayce action.
On July 22, 2020, the Court entered an order consolidating the
Sayce and The Arbitrage Fund actions. The Court also vacated its
prior order appointing the lead plaintiff and appointing lead
counsel and ordered the former lead plaintiff to republish notice
under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act by July 31,
2020, and that any member of the putative class seeking to be
appointed lead plaintiff must file a lead plaintiff motion within
60 days thereafter.
The former lead plaintiff republished notice on July 29, 2020.
The Court also denied as moot defendants' pending motion to dismiss
without prejudice to refiling a motion to dismiss following the
conclusion of the new lead plaintiff process.
Forescout Technologies, Inc. provides device visibility and control
solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the
Asia Pacific, and Japan. The company offers its products to various
industries, such as government, financial services, healthcare,
technology, manufacturing, energy, services, retail, entertainment,
and education through distributors and resellers. Forescout
Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in San
Jose, California.
FORESCOUT TECH: Smith Drops Class Suit
--------------------------------------
The case, Smith v. Forescout Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00376-CFC, was closed after Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal.
Forescout Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that on February 6, 2020, the Company
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Original Merger
Agreement") with Ferrari Group Holdings, L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership ("Parent"), and Ferrari Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub"). Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of Advent
International Corporation ("Advent").
On July 15, 2020, the Company, Parent and Merger Sub entered into
an Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Amended
and Restated Merger Agreement") in order to amend and restate the
Original Merger Agreement.
Between March 13, 2020 and April 3, 2020, four lawsuits were filed
by purported stockholders of the Company challenging disclosures
made by the company in connection with the transactions
contemplated by the Original Merger Agreement.
Of those four lawsuits, three were brought by plaintiffs
individually and are captioned Blackwell v. Forescout Technologies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02267 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 13,
2020); Bushansky v. Forescout Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:20-cv-01867-BLF (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 17, 2020); and Williams v.
Forescout Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02784-ALC
(S.D.N.Y. filed April 3, 2020).
The Complaints named as defendants the Company and the members of
its board of directors. The Complaints alleged violations of
Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder.
The Blackwell and Bushansky complaints contended that the company's
preliminary proxy statement omitted or misrepresented material
information regarding the transactions contemplated by the Original
Merger Agreement.
The Williams complaint contended that the company's definitive
proxy statement omitted or misrepresented material information
regarding the transactions contemplated by the Original Merger
Agreement.
The allegations in the Complaints included that material
information was misstated or omitted regarding the company's
financial projections, the analyses performed by its investment
banker, and certain details about past services that the company's
investment banker provided to Advent and its affiliates.
The Blackwell complaint also alleged that the preliminary proxy
statement omitted material information regarding the recusal of a
member of the Board from meetings of the Board and its Strategic
Committee relating to the transactions contemplated by the Original
Merger Agreement, as well as certain details of confidentiality
agreements between ForeScout and ten potential acquirors.
In addition, the Bushansky complaint alleged that the preliminary
proxy statement omitted material information regarding discussions
of the potential continued employment, retention, or other benefits
of the company's executive officers and/or directors following the
transactions contemplated by the Original Merger Agreement.
The Complaints sought, among other things, to (1) enjoin the
defendants from consummating the transactions contemplated by the
Original Merger Agreement; (2) cause the defendants to disseminate
revised disclosures; and (3) rescind the transactions contemplated
by the Original Merger Agreement or recover damages in the event
that such transactions were completed.
The Blackwell action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on
June 8, 2020. The Bushansky action was voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice on June 1, 2020. The Williams action, which was
not served, was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on June 22,
2020.
The fourth lawsuit, which was brought as a putative class action,
was captioned Smith v. Forescout Technologies, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:20-cv-00376-CFC (D. Del. Filed Mar. 17, 2020).
The Smith complaint alleged that the company and members of its
Board violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.
The Smith complaint contended that the company's preliminary proxy
statement omitted or misrepresented material information regarding
the transactions contemplated by the Original Merger Agreement and
sought the remedies of injunctive relief, rescission or rescissory
damages, and an award of plaintiffs' costs, including attorneys'
fees and expenses.
The Smith complaint also sought dissemination of a proxy statement
with revised disclosures.
The Smith action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on
June 1, 2020. On June 5, 2020, the plaintiff in the Blackwell
action filed a motion to be appointed as the lead plaintiff in the
Smith action. On June 26, 2020, the same plaintiff filed a notice
of non-opposition to his motion to be appointed lead plaintiff.
In a July 22 ruling, Judge Colm F. Connolly granted Blackwell's
Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of his
Selection of Lead and Delaware Counsel.
Forescout Technologies, Inc. provides device visibility and control
solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the
Asia Pacific, and Japan. The company offers its products to various
industries, such as government, financial services, healthcare,
technology, manufacturing, energy, services, retail, entertainment,
and education through distributors and resellers. Forescout
Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in San
Jose, California.
FRANKE KITCHEN: Tenzer-Fuchs Sues in New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Franke Kitchen
System, LLC. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Franke Kitchen
System, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-04032 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Franke brings open-concept and multi-functional integrated systems
that help bring style, convenience and craft into the kitchen.[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
FTF EQUITY: Faces Ocasio Suit Over Contract and FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID OCASIO and JOKAYLVEIA WARD, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. FTF EQUITY GROUP CORPORATION, D/B/A
WHOLESALE FINANCE CAPITAL, CORP., and MICHAEL GOLDSTEIN,
individually, Case No. 9:20-cv-81404-RAR (S.D. Fla., Aug. 26,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for their alleged breach
of contract and violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as Business Loan Advisors.
Plaintiff Ocasio started from December 17, 2019, until May 31,
2020, while Plaintiff Ward worked from March 28, 2020, until May 5,
2020.
The Plaintiffs allege that they were intentionally misclassified by
the Defendants as independent contractors and/or inside salespeople
in order to avoid their obligations under the FLSA. Despite
regularly working in excess of 40 hours, the Defendants refused to
pay the Plaintiffs overtime pay at one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for each hour they worked in excess of 40 in
work weeks. Moreover, the Defendants allegedly employed improper
pay procedures that denied the Plaintiffs any salary for the entire
duration of their employment with the Defendants. For instance, the
Defendants would purportedly issue a payment through PayPal, and
then cancel the payment at the last minute.
The complaint also alleges that the Defendants breached the
parties' agreement with the Plaintiffs by not paying them their
agreed salary and commissions.
FTF Equity Group Corporation, doing business as Wholesale Finance
Capital, Corp., offers business loan. Michael Goldstein owns and
operates the Corporate Defendant.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin D. Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN D. SMITH, P.A.
6099 Stirling Road, Suite 101
Davie, FL 33314
Tel: (954) 797-9626
Fax: (954) 239-3956
Email: kevin@kdsmithlaw.com
GATEWAY PLASTICS: Brooks Sues Over Packers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAREKA BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GATEWAY PLASTICS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01318-JPS
(E.D. Wis., Aug. 27, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws.
According to the complaint, the Defendant violates the laws by
failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated inspector packers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek despite having an actual and
accurate record of said employees' pre-shift and post-shift hours
worked and/or work performed via its electronic timekeeping
system.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an inspector packer
at 5650 West County Line Road, in Mequon, Wisconsin, from December
2019 until August 13, 2020.
Gateway Plastics, Inc., is a plastic fabrication company located in
Mequon, Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 North Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
GYRO TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Operators' OT Wages, Adams Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH ADAMS, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GYRO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-00219 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 26, 2020), accuses the Defendants of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime
wages to wireline operators.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a wireline operator
from May 2013 to August 2019. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant denied him and other similarly situated wireline
operators overtime pay despite being required to work 7-day work
weeks. Instead, the Defendant paid them a flat monthly salary plus
a day rate for each day spent in the field.
The Defendant also allegedly classified the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated wireline operators as exempt from overtime pay,
and the Defendant did not calculate their hourly regular rate of
pay for purposes of paying overtime. Additionally, the Defendant
has been sued multiple times for violating the FLSA.
Gyro Technologies, Inc., is an oilfield services company that
focuses on the provision of wireline services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
5612 Chaucer Drive
Houston, TX 77005
Tel: (281) 885-8844
Fax: (281) 885-8813
Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
- and –
John Neuman, Esq.
SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
5612 Chaucer Drive
Houston, TX 77005
Tel: (281) 885-8630
Fax: (281) 885-8813
Email: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com
HARBOR FREIGHT: Mitchell Suit Moved From Georgia to California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Markeith Mitchell, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA INC., Case
No. 5:20-cv-00236, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Georgia to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on Aug. 28, 2020.
The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-07906-GW-JPR to the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability.
Harbor Freight Tools is a privately held discount tool and
equipment retailer, headquartered in Calabasas, California. Harbor
Freight Tools operates a chain of retail stores, as well as a
mail-order and e-commerce business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John E. Norris, Esq.
Dargan Maner Ware, Esq.
2154 Highland Ave. S
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: (205) 541-7759
Fax: (205) 930-9989
Email: jnorris@davisnorris.com
dware@davisnorris.com
- and -
Steven N. Newton, Esq.
401 Westpark Dr., Ste. 200
Peachtree City, GA 30269
Phone: (678) 837-6398
Fax: (770) 716-6270
Email: snnewtonlaw@gmail.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam Reinke, Esq.
Gilbert O. Oladeinbo, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 1600
Atlanta, GA 30306
Phone: (404) 572-2774
Email: areinke@kslaw.com
goladeinbo@kslaw.com
- and -
Livia M. Kiser, Esq.
Michael B. Shortnacy, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
633 W 5th St., Ste. 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 443-4344
Email: lkiser@kslaw.com
mshortnacy@kslaw.com
HIBU PLC: Levien Appeals Decision in Stockholder Suit to 3rd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Thomas Levien and James Westhead filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in their lawsuit entitled THOMAS LEVIEN and
JAMES WESTHAND, Individually and on Behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HIBU PLC; HIBU GROUP LIMITED; HIBU (UK) LIMITED; YH
LIMITED; HIBU INC.; HIBU (USA) LLC; HIBU HOLDINGS (USA) INC.; HIBU
OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., ESTATE OF JOHN MICHAEL POCOCK; ANTONY
JEFFREY BATES; ROBERT CHARLES MICHAEL WIGLEY; ELIZABETH GRACE
CHAMBERS; JOHN BERNARD COGHLAN; TOBY RUFUS COPPEL; CARLOS ESPINOSA
DE LOS MONTEROS; ESTATE OF KATHLEEN FLAHERTY; AND RICHARD HOOPER,
Case No. 2-19-cv-03239, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that Levien and Westhead, and all other similarly situated
shareholders, were deprived of the opportunity to sell their shares
before the company extinguished their rights, and suffered losses
when the company shares became worthless.
In 2012, Yell Group was renamed hibu plc and was deeply in debt.
The officers and Board of Directors conducted a campaign of
disinformation and knowing false statements about the company's
financial well-being and future prospects that culminated, from the
shareholders' perspective, in the delisting of the company's traded
shares on or about July 25, 2013, effectively reducing the value of
the shareholders' investment to zero.
The Yell/hibu shareholders, including the Plaintiffs, and all other
similarly situated shareholders, reasonably relied on the
fraudulent and deceitful misrepresentation and omission by the
company officers and directors and were therefore deprived of the
right to make decisions regarding the holding or selling of their
stock based on accurate information.
The conspiracy culminated when, in secret cooperation with its
lenders, the company effectively divested itself of assets so as to
qualify for "administration" (the British analogue to Chapter 11
bankruptcy) and extinguished the rights of all of its shareholders,
with no compensation.
The appellate case is captioned as Thomas Levien, et al. v. Hibu
PLC, et al., Case No. 20-2731, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants THOMAS LEVIEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, and JAMES WESTHEAD, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, are represented by:
Zachary S. Feinberg, Esq.
Aaron J. Freiwald, Esq.
FREIWALD LAW
1500 Walnut Street, 18th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 875-8000
E-mail: zsf@freiwaldlaw.com
ajf@freiwaldlaw.com
- and -
Clifford E. Haines, Esq.
HAINES & ASSOCIATES
1339 Chestnut Street
The Widener Building, 5th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 246-2200
E-mail: info@haines-law.com
Defendant-Appellee HIBU PLC is represented by:
Scott S. Balber, Esq.
KELLY & BALBER
516 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (917) 542-7600
E-mail: Scott.Balber@hsf.com
- and -
Peter Behmke, Esq.
HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (917) 542-7600
E-mail: Peter.Behmke@hsf.com
- and -
Paige M. Willan, Esq.
KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG
1835 Market Street, Suite 1400
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 569-2700
E-mail: pwillan@klehr.com
HOMELINK LLC: Abitbol Appeals Ruling in TCPA Suit to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David Abitbol filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in his lawsuit entitled David Abitbol, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Homelink, LLC and Sunnova
Energy Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-03654-RGK-PJW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 13,
2020, the lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, statutory and treble
damages for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Sunnova is an energy company that provides, among other things, the
sale of solar panels. Sunnova engaged Homelink to tele-market on
its behalf to consumers, engaging in automated telemarketing calls.
Abitbol claims he heard a clicking sound and there was a pause
until an agent joined the call.
The appellate case is captioned as David Abitbol v. HomeLink, LLC,
et al., Case No. 20-55894, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant David Abitbol's opening brief is due on
October 26, 2020;
-- Appellees HomeLink, LLC and Sunnova Energy Corporation's
answering brief is due on November 25, 2020; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID ABITBOL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
Defendants-Appellees HOMELINK, LLC and SUNNOVA ENERGY CORPORATION
are represented by:
Arjun P. Rao, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
2029 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-5800
E-mail: arao@stroock.com
- and -
Tania L. Rice, Esq.
BAKER BOTTS LLP
101 California Street, Suite 3600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 291-6204
E-mail: tania.rice@bakerbotts.com
HUNTER WARFIELD: Blair Sues in Florida Alleging FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunter Warfield, Inc.
The case is styled as Frederick Blair, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Hunter Warfield, Inc., Case No.
8:20-cv-02034 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 29, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Hunter Warfield provides revenue recovery and risk mitigating
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
INDIEGOGO INC: Suris Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Indiegogo, Inc. The
case is styled as Yaroslav Suris, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Indiegogo, Inc. doing business as:
Indiegogo, Case No. 1:20-cv-04025 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Indiegogo, Inc., develops and publishes a crowdfunding platform.
The Company's platform allows users to raise money via published
campaigns that can be distributed through email and social
channels.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Segal, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 415-0100
Fax: (516) 706-6631
Email: msegal@segallegal.com
INNERWORKINGS INC: Khan Suit Challenges $177MM Sale to HH Global
----------------------------------------------------------------
WASEEM KHAN, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
INNERWORKINGS, INC., JACK M. GREENBERG, CHARLES K. BOBRINSKOY,
LINDSAY Y. CORBY, DAVID FISHER, ADAM GUTSTEIN, JULIE M. HOWARD,
KIRT P. KARROS, RICH STODDART, and MARC ZENNER, Case No.
653867/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Aug. 17, 2020), is brought
against InnerWorkings and its Board of Directors for breaches of
fiduciary duty as a result of their efforts to sell the Company to
HH Global Group Limited, HH Global Finance Limited, and Project
Idaho Merger Sub, Inc.
The Plaintiff alleges that the proposed sale is a result of an
unfair process for an unfair price, and he seeks to enjoin the
proposed transaction, which is valued at approximately $177
million.
The terms of the proposed transaction were memorialized in a July
15, 2020 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form
8-K attaching the definitive agreement and plan of merger. Under
the terms of the merger agreement, InnerWorkings will be the
surviving corporation in the Merger and a wholly-owned subsidiary
of HH Global. InnerWorkings public stockholders will receive, in an
all-cash transaction, pursuant to which each share of InnerWorkings
common stock will be exchanged for $3 per share.
On August 10, 2020, InnerWorkings filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement on Schedule PREM14A with the SEC in support of the
proposed transaction. The Plaintiff contends that the proposed
transaction is unfair and undervalued for a number of reasons.
Significantly, the Plaintiff asserts, the Preliminary Proxy
describes an insufficient process in which the Board rushed through
an inadequate "sales process" in which the only end goal was a sale
to HH Global, with no committee of disinterested directors created
to run the sales process.
In approving the Proposed Transaction, the individual Defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due
care and disclosure by, inter alia, (i) agreeing to sell
InnerWorkings without first taking steps to ensure that Plaintiff
and Class members would obtain adequate, fair and maximum
consideration under the circumstances; and (ii) engineering the
proposed transaction to benefit themselves and/or HH Global without
regard for InnerWorkings' public stockholders, the Plaintiff avers.
Accordingly, this action seeks to enjoin the proposed transaction
and compel the individual Defendants to properly exercise their
fiduciary duties to InnerWorkings' stockholders.
Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, InnerWorkings, Inc., provides
marketing execution solutions in the United States, Canada, the
United Kingdom, continental Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia,
Mexico, Central America, and South America. The Company's software
applications and databases create an integrated solution that
stores, analyzes, and tracks the production capabilities of its
supplier network, as well as detailed pricing data.[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
E-mail: jbrodsky@brodskysmith.com
INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Canez Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligent Systems Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the
securities class action suit headed by Edgardo Canez, is pending.
On or about July 9, 2019, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York (Case No. 1:19-cv-03949) by Michael Skrzeczkoski,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
against the company, and certain current and former directors and
officers.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of the
company's press releases and Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) filings were misleading as a result of the failure to
disclose alleged related party transactions affecting revenue
recognition and the absence of disclosure regarding certain
allegations against former director Parker H. Petit in connection
with his former position with MiMedx, Inc.
The complaint seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs and
unspecified damages on behalf of purchasers who acquired our stock
during the period from January 23, 2019, through May 29, 2019, and
purportedly suffered financial harm as a result of the alleged
misleading statements.
On September 26, 2019, the Court appointed Edgardo Canez as lead
plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") on behalf of the putative class. On
November 18, 2019, Lead Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a
putative class of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded company securities from May 23, 2014
through May 29, 2019, filed an amended class action complaint
against the company, and certain current and former directors and
officers (the "Amended Complaint").
The Amended Complaint alleges similar allegations in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as the
previously filed complaint. The Amended Complaint seeks to recover
attorney's fees and costs and unspecified damages.
On January 2, 2020, Defendants submitted a motion to dismiss, and
on March 3, 2020, briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed.
The motion to dismiss is currently pending.
Intelligent said, "We dispute these claims and intend to defend the
matter vigorously."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Intelligent Systems Corporation, incorporated on November 8, 1991,
is engaged in the business of providing technology solutions and
processing services to the financial technology and services
market. The Company's financial transaction solutions and services
(FinTech) operations are conducted through its CoreCard Software,
Inc. (CoreCard) subsidiary. The company is based in Norcross,
Georgia.
J CHOO USA: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. J CHOO USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to
10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01632-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal., Aug. 14,
2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act due
to their inability to maintain a Web site that is accessible to
visually-impaired individuals.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using her
computer. She alleges that when she visited the Company's Web site,
https://us.jimmychoo.com/en/home, on numerous times, she
encountered multiple barriers, which denied her full and equal
access to the facilities, goods, and services offered to the public
and made available to the public on Defendant's website and its
prior iterations.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination because they failed to construct and
maintain a Web site that is accessible to visually-impaired
individuals, and failed to take actions to correct these access
barriers in the face of substantial harm and discrimination to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
J Choo USA, Inc., offers the Web site to the public to provide
consumers with access to a collection of designer ready to wear
women's and men's shoes, accessories, and ready to wear apparel
along with a collection of bags. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Bobby Saadian, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
ada@wilshirelawfirm.com
KBR INC: Appellate Proceedings Postponed Sine Die
-------------------------------------------------
KBR, 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 hearing on a class action appeal that was scheduled
for April 17, 2020, has been postponed indefinitely due to COVID-19
travel restrictions.
In May 2018, former employees of the company's former Chadian
subsidiary, Subsahara Services, Inc. (SSI), filed a class action
suit claiming unpaid damages arising from the ESSO Chad Development
Project for Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) dating back to the
early 2000s. Exxon is also named as a defendant in the case.
The SSI employees previously filed two class action cases in or
around 2005 and 2006 for alleged unpaid overtime and bonuses.
The Chadian Labour Court ruled in favor of the SSI employees for
unpaid overtime resulting in a settlement of approximately $25
million which was reimbursed by Exxon under its contract with SSI.
The second case for alleged unpaid bonuses was ultimately dismissed
by the Supreme Court of Chad.
The current case claims $122 million in unpaid bonuses
characterized as damages rather than employee bonuses to avoid the
previous Supreme Court dismissal and a 5-year statute of
limitations on wage-related claims.
SSI's initial defense was filed and a hearing was held in December
2018. A merits hearing was held in February 2019. In March 2019,
the Labour Court issued a decision awarding the plaintiffs
approximately $34 million including a $2 million provisional award.
Exxon and SSI have appealed the award and requested suspension of
the provisional award which was approved on April 2, 2019.
Exxon and SSI filed a submission to the Court of Appeal on June 21,
2019 and filed briefs at a hearing on February 28, 2020. The
plaintiffs failed to file a response on March 13, 2020 and a
hearing was scheduled for April 17, 2020 but has been postponed
indefinitely due to COVID-19 travel restrictions.
KBR said, "At this time we do not believe a risk of material loss
is probable related to this matter. SSI is no longer an existing
entity in Chad or the United States. Further, we believe any
amounts ultimately paid to the former employees related to this
adverse ruling would be reimbursable by Exxon based on the
applicable contract."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
KBR, Inc. is a global engineering, construction, and services
company supporting the energy, petrochemicals, government services,
and civil infrastructure sectors. The Company offers a wide range
of services through two business segments, Energy and Chemicals
(E&C) and Government and Infrastructure (G&I). The company is
basedin Houston, Texas.
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORT: Approval of Rudsell Settlement Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Knight-Swift Transportation 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 plaintiff has taken an
appeal from the court's decision granting final approval of the
settlement in the class action suit initiated by James R. Rudsell.
On April 5, 2012, James R. Rudsell, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated instituted a class action suit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.
The plaintiffs generally allege one or more of the following: that
the Company 1) failed to pay the California minimum wage; 2) failed
to provide proper meal and rest periods; 3) failed to timely pay
wages upon separation from employment; 4) failed to pay for all
hours worked; 5) failed to pay overtime; 6) failed to properly
reimburse work-related expenses; and 7) failed to provide accurate
wage statements.
In April 2019, the parties reached settlement of this matter. In
January 2020, the court granted final approval of the settlement.
The plaintiff appealed the court's decision granting final approval
of the settlement. The likelihood that a loss has been incurred is
probable and estimable, and the loss has accordingly been accrued
as of June 30, 2020.
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides truckload transportation and logistics
services in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The company
operates through six segments: Knight Trucking, Knight Logistics,
Swift Truckload, Swift Dedicated, Swift Refrigerated, and Swift
Intermodal. The Company was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona.
LEIKIN & INGBER: Van Vleck Suit Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as VINCE NICOLAS VAN VLECK,
individually and in a representative capacity on behalf of
similarly situated persons, v. LEIKIN, INGBER & WINTERS, P.C.,
d/b/a INGBER & WINTERS, P.C., Case No. 4:20-cv-11635-SDD-EAS (E.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"(1) all persons with a Michigan address; (2) who after
March 23, 2020, and until and including June 19, 2020,
were served with a Summons, SCAO Form MC 01; (3) where
Leikin, Ingber & Winters, P.C., was the law firm
representing the named plaintiff in the lawsuit filed
against the person."
2. appointing Vince Nicholas Van Vleck, in a representative
capacity on behalf of similarly situated persons, as the
class representative; and
3. appointing Curtis C. Warner as class counsel.
Leikin & Ingber is a Southfield, Michigan law firm.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
5 E. Market St., Suite 250
Corning, NY 14830
Telephone: (888) 551-8685
E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal
- and -
B. Thomas Golden, Esq.
GOLDEN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
318 E. Main St., Ste. L, P.O. Box 9
Lowell, MI 49331
Telephone: (616) 897-2900
E-mail: btg@bthomasgolden.com
LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY: Faces Hofmann Breach of Contract Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Long Island
University. The case is styled as James Hofmann, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Long Island University,
Case No. 1:20-cv-04027 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Long Island University is a private university with two main
campuses, LIU Post and LIU Brooklyn, in the U.S. state of New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter B. Katzman, Esq.
MOREA SCHWARTZ BRADHAM FRIEDMAN & BROWN LLP
444 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 599-0320
Email: pkatzman@msbllp.com
MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Class Suit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 26, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action
suit entitled, City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.
In April 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and United BioSource Corporation in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The case is captioned City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc.,
et al.
The complaint was subsequently amended to, among other things,
include an additional named plaintiff and additional defendants. As
amended, the complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all
self-funded entities in the U.S. and its Territories, excluding any
Medicare Advantage Organizations, related entities and certain
others, that paid for Acthar Gel from August 2007 to the present.
Plaintiff alleges violations of federal antitrust and The Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) laws, as well as
various state law claims in connection with the distribution and
sale of Acthar Gel.
In January 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint, which was granted in part in January 2019.
The court dismissed one of two named plaintiffs and all claims with
the exception of Plaintiff's federal and state antitrust claims.
The remaining allegation in the case is that the Company engaged in
anti-competitive acts to artificially raise and maintain the price
of Acthar Gel.
To this end, Plaintiff alleges that the Company unlawfully
maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by
acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen and conspired with the other
named defendants by selling Acthar Gel through an exclusive
distributor.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.
Mallinckrodt said, "At this stage, the Company is not able to
reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any
loss associated with this lawsuit."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Suit by MSP Recovery Claims, Series II Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 26, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative
class action suit entitled, MSP Recovery Claims, Series II LLC, et
al. v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.
In October 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and United BioSource Corporation in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
Pursuant to a motion filed by the defendants, the case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois in January 2018, and is currently proceeding as MSP
Recovery Claims, Series II, LLC, et al. v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc.,
et al.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss in February 2018, which was
granted in January 2019 with leave to amend. MSP filed the
operative First Amended Class Action Complaint on April 10, 2019,
in which it asserts claims under federal and state antitrust laws
and state consumer protection laws and names additional
defendants.
The complaint alleged that the Company unlawfully maintained a
monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by acquiring the U.S.
rights to Synacthen(R) Depot ("Synacthen") and reaching
anti-competitive agreements with the other defendants by selling
Acthar Gel through an exclusive distribution network.
The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of all third-party
payers, or their assignees, in the U.S. and its territories, who
have, as indirect purchasers, in whole or in part, paid for,
provided reimbursement for, and/or possess the recovery rights to
reimbursement for the indirect purchase of Acthar Gel from August
1, 2007 to present.
In March 2020, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the complaint with leave to amend.
MSP filed an amended complaint on July 3, 2020.
The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in this
matter.
Mallinckrodt said, "At this stage, the Company is not able to
reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any
loss associated with this lawsuit."
Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.
MARATHON PETROLEUM: Gray Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled CLEMENT GRAY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MARATHON PETROLEUM LOGISTICS SERVICES,
LLC; MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY, LP; ANDEAVOR LOGISTICS, LP; TESORO
REFINING & MARKETING COMPANY, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, Case No.
20STCV23544, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on August 27, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-07865 to the
proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated transport drivers
appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay, failure to provide
required meal and rest periods, failure to reimburse for business
expenses, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to
pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, and failure
to maintain required records.
Marathon Petroleum Logistics Services, LLC, is an energy solutions
company headquartered in Findlay, Ohio. Marathon Petroleum Company,
LP, is a petroleum refining, marketing, and transportation company
headquartered in Findlay, Ohio.
Andeavor Logistics, LP, is a company that offers midstream
logistics services based in Findlay, Ohio. Tesoro Refining &
Marketing Company, LLC, is a petroleum refining and marketing
company based in Auburn, Washington. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Sheryl L. Skibbe, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
- and –
Hyun B. Lee, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
Telephone: (213) 270-9600
Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
- and –
Michael W. Kopp, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 448-0159
Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
E-mail: mkopp@seyfarfh.com
MASONITE INT'L: Antitrust Suits Underway in E.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------
Putative antitrust class action suits remain pending in Eastern
District of Virginia against Masonite International Corporation.
Masonite said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2020,
that with respect to the putative antitrust class action cases
pending in the Eastern District of Virginia, the parties have
completed class certification briefing and expert discovery.
A hearing on Plaintiffs' motions for class certification was set
for August 19, 2020. The Court has reset the presumptive trial date
as February 8, 2021.
Masonite International Corporation designs, manufactures, and
distributes interior and exterior doors for the new construction
and repair, renovation, and remodeling sectors of the residential
and non-residential building construction markets worldwide.
Masonite International Corporation was founded in 1925 and is
headquartered in Tampa, Florida.
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss McCurdy Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maxar Technologies 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 defendants in the putative class action
suit entitled, McCurdy v. Maxar Technologies Inc., et al. No.
T19-074, is pending.
On October 21, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit captioned McCurdy v. Maxar Technologies Inc., et al.
No. T19-074 in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara, naming Maxar, and certain members of
management and the board of directors as defendants.
The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company's June 2,
2017 Registration Statement and prospectus filed in anticipation of
its October 5, 2017 merger with DigitalGlobe.
On April 30, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging the same causes of action against the same set of
defendants as set forth in his original complaint.
The lawsuit is based upon many of the same underlying factual
allegations as the Colorado Action. Specifically, the lawsuit
alleges the Company's statements regarding its accounting methods
and risk factors, including those related to the GEO communications
business, were false and/or misleading when made.
The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against it.
On June 29, 2020, defendants moved to stay this case, which motion
is currently pending.
Maxar Technologies Inc. provides space technology solutions for
commercial and government customers worldwide. The company operates
through three segments: Space Systems, Imagery, and Services. The
company was founded in 1969 and is based in Westminster, Colorado.
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits in US & Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maxar Technologies 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 class action
suits in Colorado and in Canada alleging violation of the federal
securities laws.
On January 14, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit captioned Oregon Laborers Employers Pension Trust
Fund, et al. v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC
in the District Court of Colorado (the "Colorado Action"), naming
Maxar and members of management as defendants alleging, among other
things, that the Company's public disclosures were deficient in
violation of the federal securities laws and seeking monetary
damages.
On October 7, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and members
of management in connection with the Company's public disclosures
between March 26, 2018 and January 6, 2019.
The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company's statements
regarding the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO
communications assets, and WorldView-4 were allegedly false and/or
misleading during the class period.
On December 6, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the Colorado
Action, which motion is currently pending.
Also, in January 2019, a Maxar stockholder resident in Canada
issued a putative class action lawsuit captioned Charles O'Brien v.
Maxar Technologies Inc., No. CV-19-00613564-00CP in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice against Maxar and members of management
claiming misrepresentations in Maxar's public disclosures and
seeking monetary damages.
On November 15, 2019, Mr. O'Brien and another Maxar stockholder
resident in Canada issued a new putative class action lawsuit
captioned Charles O'Brien v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No.
CV-19-00631107-00CP, naming Maxar and certain members of management
and the board of directors as defendants as well as Maxar's
auditor, KPMG LLP.
On February 7, 2020, the January 2019 claim was discontinued.
The Statement of Claim alleges that the Company's statements
regarding the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO
communications assets, and WorldView-4 were false and/or misleading
during the class period, and claims damages of $700 million.
On April 24, 2020, the plaintiffs served their motion record for
leave under the Securities Act (Ontario) and to certify the action
as a class proceeding, which motion is currently pending.
The Company believes that these cases are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against them.
Maxar Technologies Inc. provides space technology solutions for
commercial and government customers worldwide. The company operates
through three segments: Space Systems, Imagery, and Services. The
company was founded in 1969 and is based in Westminster, Colorado.
MICROCHIP TECH: Discovery Ongoing in Jackson Putative Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microchip Technology 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 putative
class action suit entitled, Jackson v. Microchip Technology Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02914-JJT.
Beginning on September 14, 2018, the Company and certain of its
officers were named in two putative shareholder class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Arizona, captioned Jackson v. Microchip Technology Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02914-JJT and Maknissian v. Microchip Technology
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02924-JJT.
On November 13, 2018, the Maknissian complaint was voluntarily
dismissed.
The Jackson complaint is allegedly brought on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of Microchip common stock between March 2, 2018
and August 9, 2018.
The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws and generally alleges that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects during the putative class period.
The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. On
December 11, 2018, the Court issued an order appointing the lead
plaintiff.
An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2019. Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 1, 2019,
which motion was granted in part and denied in part on March 11,
2020. Defendants filed their answer on April 24, 2020.
Discovery is ongoing.
Microchip Technology Inc. develops and manufactures semiconductor
products for various embedded control applications worldwide. The
company, which was incorporated in 1989, is based in Chandler,
Arizona.
MIELE INCORPORATED: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Miele, Incorporated.
The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Miele, Incorporated, Case No.
2:20-cv-04029 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Miele, Incorporated, offers household appliances. The Company
provides refrigerators, freezers, ovens, warming drawers,
ventilation hoods, coffee systems, and related products.[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
MOBILE CITY: Uribe Sues Over Time Shaving and Sexual Harassment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yesenia Rojo Uribe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MOBILE CITY NY, LLC, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100 PARAS
CHHABRA, PREET CHHABRA, WINKY CHHABRA, VICTOR TREJO, EMILY
MARTINEZ, and VERONICA ANDUJAR, Case No. 1:20-cv-04023 (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 28, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law to recover from the Defendants: unpaid wages
due to time shaving, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff also alleges that, pursuant to New York State Human
Rights Law, she is entitled to recover damages from the Defendants
for creating and fostering a hostile work environment through
persistent sexual harassment against her.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for a total of 35
to 42 hours per week. The Defendants had several timekeeping and
payroll policies that functioned to reduce the paid hours of the
Plaintiff in violation of the FLSA and NYLL. From the start of her
employment until August 2018, the Defendants deducted a 30 minute
meal break from the Plaintiff's time each workday, but the she was
required to work through the break three times per week. Hence, the
Plaintiff was time-shaved one and a half hours per week due to the
Defendants meal break policy.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a retail sales
employee at Mobile City.
The Defendants own and operate a chain of approximately 34 Sprint
authorized cell phone and cellular accessories retail stores in New
York and New Jersey, doing business under the trade name "Mobile
City."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: 212-465-1188
Fax: 212-465-1181
MUELLER WATER: Says Chapman Suit Dismissed, No Appeal Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Water Products, 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 plaintiff in the case, Chapman
v. Mueller Water Products, et al., has not taken an appeal from the
court decision dismissing the complaint and the time period to take
an appeal has expired.
In 2017, the company's warranty analyses identified that certain
Technologies radio products produced prior to 2017 and installed in
particularly harsh environments had been failing at higher than
expected rates. During the quarter ended March 31, 2017, the
company conducted additional testing of these products and revised
its estimates of warranty expenses.
As a result, the company recorded additional warranty expense of
$9.8 million in the second quarter of 2017. During the quarter
ended June 30, 2018, the company completed a similar analysis and
determined, based on this new information, that certain other
Technologies products had been failing at higher-than-expected
rates as well and that the average cost to repair or replace
certain products under warranty was higher than previously
estimated.
As a result, in the third quarter of 2018, the company recorded
additional warranty expense of $14.1 million associated with such
products.
Related to the above warranty expenses, on April 11, 2019, an
alleged stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit against
Mueller Water Products, Inc. and certain of its former and current
officers (collectively, the "Defendants") in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court").
The proposed class consists of all persons and entities that
acquired the company's securities between May 9, 2016 and August 6,
2018 (the "Class Period").
The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
including, among other things, that the company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about its business, operations, and prospects during
the proposed Class Period.
Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on November 1, 2019 and
second motion to dismiss (in response to the second amended
complaint filed on December 24, 2019) on January 31, 2020.
On June 11, 2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
and dismissed the action with prejudice. The time period for
appealing the Court's decision has expired.
Mueller Water Products, Inc. manufactures and markets products and
services for use in the transmission, distribution, and measurement
of water in the United States, Canada, and internationally. It
operates in two segments, Infrastructure and Technologies. The
company is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Urena in Gulino Bias Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated July 29, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL.
v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY
OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (New York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
class-wide injunctive relief.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of
Education, Case No. 20-2857, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee Mayra Urena is represented by:
Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 806-1245
E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com
Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:
James Edward Johnson, Esq.
CORPORATION COUNSEL
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-2500
NVIDIA CORP: Tobias ERISA Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTINA TOBIAS, ANTHONY BRIGGS, ANN MACDONALD and DAVID CALDER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
NVIDIA CORPORATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NVIDIA CORPORATION,
THE 401(K) BENEFITS PLAN COMMITTEE OF NVIDIA CORPORATION, and JOHN
DOES 1-30, Case No. 5:20-cv-06081 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 28, 2020), is
brought against the Plan's fiduciaries for breaching their
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.
The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative class period, the
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, breached the duties they
owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants
of the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing to objectively and
adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to
ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost;
and (2) maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the
availability of identical or similar investment options with lower
costs and/or better performance histories.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to utilize the
lowest cost share class for many of the mutual funds within the
Plan, and failed to consider certain collective trusts available
during the Class Period as alternatives to the mutual funds in the
Plan, despite their lower fees and materially similar investment
objectives. Thus, the Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the
detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach
of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of
the ERISA. The Defendants' actions were contrary to actions of a
reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants
millions of dollars.
NVIDIA Corporation is the Plan sponsor and a named fiduciary with a
principal place of business in Santa Clara, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel L. Germain, Esq.
ROSMAN & GERMAIN LLP
16311 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
Encino, CA 91436-2152
Telephone: (818) 788-0877
Facsimile: (818) 788-0885
E-mail: Germain@lalawyer.com
- and -
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
OCWEN FINANCIAL: TCPA Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation 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 alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).
Ocwen is involved in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
(TCPA) class action that involves claims against trustees of
Residential Mortgage Backed Securities trusts (RMBS trusts) based
on vicarious liability for Ocwen's alleged non-compliance with the
TCPA. The trustees have sought indemnification from Ocwen based on
the vicarious liability claims.
Additional lawsuits have been and may be filed against the company
in relation to its TCPA compliance.
At this time, Ocwen is unable to predict the outcome of existing
lawsuits or any additional lawsuits that may be filed, the possible
loss or range of loss, if any, above the amount accrued or the
potential impact such lawsuits may have on the Company or its
operations.
Ocwen intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. "If our
efforts to defend these lawsuits are not successful, our business,
reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of
operations could be materially and adversely affected," it said.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
originates and services loans in the United States, the United
States Virgin Islands, India, and Philippines. Ocwen Financial
Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm
Beach, Florida.
P&G AUDITORS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Curry Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH CURRY, RICARDO MAZZITELLI, and JACQUELINE BROWN PILGRIM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. P&G
AUDITORS AND CONSULTANTS, LLC; GRC SOLUTIONS, LLC; PGX, LLC; and
APPLE BANCORP, INC. d/b/a APPLE BANK FOR SAVINGS, Case No.
1:20-cv-06985 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and other workers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
The Defendants have also failed to provide accurate wage statements
and to provide proper time of hire wage notice, the Plaintiffs
state.
Plaintiff Curry worked as an anti-money laundering investigator
(AML) in New York for the Defendants from October 9, 2017, to
August 26, 2018. Plaintiff Mazzitelli worked as a team lead (TL)
for the Defendants in New York from July 2017 to February 2018.
P&G Auditors and Consultants, LLC, is a provider of internal audit
and risk management services for community banks, credit unions,
foreign branches and agencies in New York and elsewhere, with its
principal place of business located in East Brunswick, New Jersey.
GRC Solutions, LLC is a provider of internal audit and risk
management services for community banks, credit unions, foreign
branches and agencies in New York and elsewhere.
PGX, LLC, is a provider of internal audit and risk management
services for community banks, credit unions, foreign branches and
agencies in New York and elsewhere. Apple Bancorp, Inc., d/b/a
Apple Bank for Savings, is a bank holding company headquartered in
Manhasset, New York, and operates in the New York metropolitan
area.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Julia Klein, Esq.
KLEIN LAW GROUP OF NEW YORK PLLC
120 East 79th Street, Suite 1A
New York, NY 10021
Telephone: (347) 292-8170
E-mail: jklein@kleinlegalgroup.com
P.D.K.N. HOLDINGS: Faces Newton Suit Over Servers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIMBREL NEWTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. P.D.K.N. HOLDINGS, LLC, P.D.K.N. P-4, LLC, P.D.K.N.
P-4, OP., LLC, Case No. 0:20-cv-61761-RKA (S.D. Fla., Aug. 28,
2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay federal and state
minimum wages and federal overtime wages for certain hours worked
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum
Wage Act.
The complaint has been filed to cure and correct the Defendants'
alleged unlawful pay policies, which have triggered federal and
state wage violations over the course of the past five years. The
Defendants' unlawful wage and hour practices have stripped hundreds
of front-of-the-house restaurant servers and bartenders of minimum
and overtime wages at Bokamper's restaurant located in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida.
The Defendants have violated the minimum wage requirements under
federal and Florida law because they paid all restaurant servers
the reduced "tip credit" wage for all hours worked during a shift
even though servers are required to spend more than 20% of their
shifts performing non-tipped duties and responsibilities, the
Plaintiff alleges. She adds that the Defendants also failed to pay
her, and similarly situated individuals, the appropriate overtime
wages when they worked more than 40 hours in a week.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as restaurant server from March
2019 until March 20, 2020.
P.D.K.N. Holdings, LLC, P.D.K.N. P-4, LLC, and P.D.K.N. P-4, OP.,
LLC, operate a popular waterfront restaurant and bar in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
805 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 301
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
PBC LINEAR: Faces Gordon Class Suit in Illinois Circuit Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PBC Linear. The case
is styled as Samuel Gordon, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PBC Linear, Case No. 2020-L-0000305
(Ill. Cir., Winnebago Cty., Aug. 28, 2020).
The case type is stated as "Contract-Money Damages."
Pacific Bearing Company, dba PBC Linear and PBC Lineartechnik GmbH,
is a manufacturer and distributor of plain bearings, linear guides
and custom machined parts.
The Plaintiff is represented by Mara Baltabols, Esq.[BN]
PBF HOLDING: Settlement in Kendig Suit Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case, Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al. v.
ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., have won final court approval
of their settlement.
Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald entered a JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CLAIMS on August
24. The Court finds, pursuant to Rules 54(a) and (b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the Final Judgment should be
entered and that there is no just reason for delay in the entry of
this Final Judgment as to Plaintiffs and the Class and Defendants.
PBF Holding Company LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that on September 18, 2018, in Michelle Kendig and
Jim Kendig, et al. v. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., PBF
Energy Limited and Torrance Refining along with ExxonMobil Oil
Corporation and ExxonMobil Pipeline Company were named as
defendants in a class action and representative action complaint
filed on behalf of Michelle Kendig, Jim Kendig and others similarly
situated.
The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges failure to authorize
and permit uninterrupted rest and meal periods, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements, violation of the Private Attorneys
General Act and violation of the California Unfair Business and
Competition Law.
Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified economic damages, statutory
damages, civil penalties provided by statute, disgorgement of
profits, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, interest,
attorney's fees and costs.
To the extent that plaintiffs' claims accrued prior to July 1,
2016, ExxonMobil has retained responsibility for any liabilities
that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement
relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and logistics
assets. On October 26, 2018, the matter was removed to the Federal
Court, California Central District.
A mediation hearing between the parties was held on August 23,
2019. From the mediation hearing, the parties have reached a
tentative agreement in principle to settle. On March 17, 2019,
plaintiffs filed with the court a Notice of Motion and Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement for the Court's
approval of the proposed settlement pursuant to which Torrance
Refining would pay $2.9 million to resolve the matter and receive a
full release and discharge from any and all claims and make no
admission of any wrongdoing or liability.
On May 1, 2020 the court entered an order preliminarily approving
the proposed settlement. The court scheduled a hearing on August
17, 2020 to consider whether to grant approval of the settlement.
PBF Holding said, "We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."
PBF Holding Company LLC is one of the largest independent petroleum
refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation fuels, heating
oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other petroleum
products in the United States. The company sells its products
throughout the Northeast, Midwest, Gulf Coast and West Coast of the
United States, as well as in other regions of the United States and
Canada, and is able to ship products to other international
destinations. The company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.
PLAYSITES + SURFACES: Rodriguez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
LEONEL RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself, individually, and all other
persons similarly situated v. PLAYSITES + SURFACES, INC. a/k/a
PLAYSITES PLUS SURFACES, INC., TYW CONTRACTING INC., and WILLIAM
CALDERONE, Case No. 2:20-cv-04034 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2020), is
brought to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
laborer and construction worker from April 2015 through August
2019. He alleges that the unpaid wages stems from the Defendants'
failure to pay him wages for certain hours worked at his agreed
upon rates of pay under the NYLL. He adds that the Defendants also
failed to provide accurate wage statements for each pay period
under the NYLL, and to furnish a wage notice upon his hire in his
primary language under the NYLL.
Playsites + Surfaces, Inc., also known as Playsites Plus Surfaces,
Inc., and TYW Contracting Inc. are two corporations that operate as
a common enterprise. The Companies design and install playgrounds
and safety surfaces for their clients across various states in the
U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Barnhorn, Esq.
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
825 Veterans Highway, Suite B
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: dbarnhorn@romerolawny.com
promero@romerolawny.com
PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS: Faces Flo-Tech Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ad
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FLO-TECH MECHANICAL SYSTEMS, INC., individually and as the
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons and
entities v. PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS FUNDING, INC., d/b/a SHAMROCK
BUSINESS CAPITAL, Case No. 1:20-cv-05087 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 28,
2020), is brought against the Defendant for sending an unsolicited
advertisement to the Plaintiff in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.
According to the complaint, the Defendant transmitted (or caused to
be transmitted) an unsolicited facsimile advertisement to the
Plaintiff's facsimile number on August 13, 2020, to promote
business loans. The Plaintiff contends that it did not consent to,
request or otherwise solicit the subject facsimile. Accordingly, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff
brings this civil action to certify a class of persons and
entities, who were sent facsimile advertisements by the Defendant
without their prior express invitation or permission.
Plaintiff Flo-Tech Mechanical Systems, Inc., is an Addison,
Illinois-based corporation.
Progressive Business Funding, Inc., doing business as Shamrock
Business Capital, is a California-based company that offers a wide
variety of loan packages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan C. Volheim, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 568-3056
Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
E-mail: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com
PROGRESSIVE COUNTY: Bid to Compel Class Discovery in Lopez Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD LOPEZ, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED; AND GLORIA LOPEZ, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; Plaintiffs, v. PROGRESSIVE COUNTY
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APRIL HAGER, Defendants, Case No.
SA-19-CV-00380-FB (W.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S.
Chestney of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas, San Antonio Division, denied the Plaintiff's Opposed Motion
(1) to Compel and Reconsider Certain Class Discovery, (2) to Stay
Ruling on Class Certification, (3) to Amend Scheduling Order, and
(4) for Leave of Court.
Plaintiff Gloria Lopez filed the putative Rule 23 class action
against her auto insurer, Defendant Progressive, and its employee,
Defendant April Hager, on behalf of herself and a class of other
Progressive insureds. The Plaintiff alleges that that she suffered
serious personal injuries in a motor-vehicle accident caused by a
tortfeasor insured by GEICO Choice Insurance Co. She received
medical treatments for her injuries and accrued medical bills for
the services rendered. The bills were paid by Progressive County
Mutual under her Medical Payments Coverage.
The Plaintiff alleges that Progressive sent standardized letters
designated "Sub41" to GEICO with a copy of her counsel asserting a
right to reimbursement and a subrogation lien under the insurance
policy, demanding payments be made directly to Progressive from any
third-party personal injury recovery or settlement proceeds. She
settled her personal injury claim with GEICO and its insured and
asked Progressive, through Hager, to share the costs of attorney's
fees and litigation expenses; Hager declined and reaffirmed
Progressive's claim for reimbursement.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants did not have a right to
reimbursement or to assert a subrogation lien under the policy
because she interprets the governing insurance policy as only
providing a right of recovery where medical payments are made
directly to the insureds. The majority of payments made by
Progressive were made directly to health-care providers.
The Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint asserts that the
Defendants engaged in deceptive practices in violation of the Texas
Insurance Code and had knowledge that their Sub41 letters were a
fraudulent lien or claim against her personal injury recovery. Her
class allegations seek damages and injunctive relief on behalf of
all individuals who had Medical Payments Coverage with their
Progressive auto-insurance policy and against whom Defendants
asserted rights to reimbursement and a subrogation lien through a
Sub41 letter from personal injury recoveries with respect to monies
paid to anyone other than the insured individuals for a specified
time period.
Well before the filing of the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint,
in March 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, asking the Court to interpret the insurance contract as a
matter of law and find in their favor on all issues of liability.
Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Class
Certification, which she has since amended.
The Certification Motion asks the Court to certify the following
class: All individuals who had Medical Payments Coverage with
their Auto Insurance policy issued by Progressive County Mutual
Insurance Co. in and subject to the laws of Texas, and against whom
Defendants asserted the existence of rights to reimbursement, a
subrogation lien, or demands for repayment through a Sub41 letter
from their personal injury recoveries of money that was paid to
anyone other than the insured individuals from April 3, 2015 to the
present.
After several requests for extensions of time to respond and reply
to the Certification Motion, both motions have been fully briefed.
The current Motion to Compel filed by the Plaintiff renews her
request for the Sub41 letters and Medical Payments Details ledgers
and asks for additional relief. Plaintiff believes that she is
entitled to an order that Progressive's designated corporate
representatives reappear for deposition due to alleged
inconsistencies between deposition testimony and a declaration
submitted in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class
certification. The Plaintiff also asks the Court for the
opportunity to amend the class definition and her class
certification motion, to amend the scheduling order, and to
continue ruling on the class certification and summary judgment
motions until the discovery issues have been resolved. Magistrate
Judge Chestney denied the motion.
The Plaintiff asks the Court to rule that the corporate
representative depositions be reopened and that the Defendant
reproduces both Carrie Morris and Keith Benefiel for depositions
based on statements in Morris's Declaration attached to the
Defendants' response to her motion for class certification.
Plaintiff contends that Morris's deposition testimony on Topic 5
(which concerned Progressive's policies and practices regarding the
assertion of a subrogation lien) contradict her statements in her
declaration regarding those same practices and procedures.
The Magistrate Judge disagrees that the statements are
unambiguously contradictory, although they are open to different
reasonable interpretations. After hearing the arguments of counsel
at the hearing and reviewing the briefing and record, she strikes
paragraph 5 of Morris' declaration, as the Defendant suggested in
compromise. Striking the paragraph such that it will not be
considered in ruling on the motion for class certification removes
any purported contradiction and obviates the need to reopen any
depositions. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's request for leave to
amend the scheduling order to accommodate the reopening of the
depositions is also denied, the Court ruled.
As to the Plaintiff's renewed request for the Sub41 letters and
Medical Payments Ledgers, the Magistrate Judge also denied the
request. The Plaintiff has not presented any compelling reason to
depart from the Court's previous ruling that the production of the
discovery would cause undue burden at this stage of the litigation,
before any class has been certified. The Judge declined to
continue her ruling on the motion for class certification. If a
class is ultimately certified, the Plaintiff may renew her request
for the discovery (and, as the Court mentioned in its previous
order, if a class is certified, the Defendant is unlikely to oppose
it as disproportional and irrelevant).
The Magistrate Judge, however, held the motion for partial summary
judgment in abeyance. The Defendants' response to the motion
raises several concerns regarding the prematurity of the motion.
One such concern is that a ruling on liability prior to
certification would result in impermissible one-way intervention,
whereby members of the claimed class could in some situations await
developments in the trial or even final judgment on the merits in
order to determine whether participation would be favorable to
their interests. The Magistrate Judge will not issue a ruling on
the summary judgment motion until the certification question has
been decided.
Additionally, at the hearing, the parties agreed that April Hager
is no longer a necessary party to the lawsuit and will be dismissed
with prejudice. However, the parties disagreed on whether costs
should be assessed against the Plaintiff based on the delay
associated with the voluntary dismissal. The Magistrate Judge
provided Hager two weeks to brief the Court on why costs should be
awarded, and the Plaintiff will have two weeks to respond.
Finally, the only issue raised with respect to the definition in
the current motion for class certification is its reference to
"Defendants," which suggests that to be a member of the class, both
Progressive and Hager had to have asserted the right to
reimbursement and subrogation lien. With Hager no longer in the
lawsuit, any class definition that is certified will simply be
amended to reflect Progressive as the sole Defendant.
Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Chestny denied the
Plaintiff's Opposed Motions.
The parties will confer on whether the Plaintiff's Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment can be dismissed without prejudice to
refiling. The motion is currently held in abeyance.
The parties are also directed to file an agreed order of dismissal
of April Hager as a Defendant in the lawsuit. Hager is to brief
the Court on why costs should be assessed against the Plaintiff.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 14, 2020 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y48gxk6q from
Leagle.com.
REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Moehrl Class Action Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the complaint in the
case, Moehrl, Cole, Darnell, Nager, Ramey, Sawbill Strategic, Inc.,
Umpa and Ruh v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy
Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC,
The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams
Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois), is still pending.
This amended putative class action complaint (the "amended Moehrl
complaint"), filed on June 14, 2019, (i) consolidates the Moehrl
and Sawbill litigation reported in the company's Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2019, (ii) adds certain plaintiffs and
defendants, and (iii) serves as a response to the separate motions
to dismiss filed on May 17, 2019 in the prior Moehrl litigation by
each of NAR and the Company (along with the other defendants named
in the prior Moehrl complaint).
In the amended Moehrl complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or
conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because defendant NAR allegedly
established mandatory anticompetitive policies for the multiple
listing services and its member brokers that require brokers to
make an offer of buyer broker compensation when listing a property.
The plaintiffs further allege that commission sharing, which
provides for the broker representing the seller sharing or paying a
portion of its commission to the broker representing the buyer, is
anticompetitive and violates the Sherman Act, and that the
defendant franchisors conspired with NAR by requiring their
respective franchisees to comply with NAR’s policies and Code of
Ethics.
The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants
from requiring home sellers to pay buyer broker commissions or to
otherwise restrict competition among buyer brokers, an award of
damages and/or restitution, attorneys fees and costs of suit.
Plaintiffs' counsel has filed a motion to appoint lead counsel in
the case, which has yet to be decided by the Court.
On August 9, 2019, NAR and the Company (together with the other
defendants named in the amended Moehrl complaint) each filed
separate motions to dismiss this litigation. The plaintiffs filed
their opposition to the motions to dismiss on September 13, 2019,
and the defendants filed their replies in support of the motions on
October 18, 2019.
In October 2019, the Department of Justice filed a statement of
interest for this matter, in their words "to correct the inaccurate
portrayal, by defendant The National Association of Realtors
('NAR'), of a 2008 consent decree between the United States and
NAR." Discovery between the plaintiffs and defendants is stayed
pending rulings on the outstanding motions to dismiss this
litigation.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.
REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Tanaskovic Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC 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's motion to dismiss the complaint
in Tanaskovic v. Realogy Holdings Corp., et. al. (U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey), remains pending.
This is a putative class action complaint filed on July 11, 2019 by
plaintiff Sasa Tanaskovic against the Company and certain of its
current and former executive officers.
The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule
10b-5 of the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the Company about its business,
operations, and prospects.
The plaintiffs seek, among other things, compensatory damages for
purchasers of the Company's common stock between February 24, 2017
through May 22, 2019, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Locals
302 and 612 of the International Union of Operating
Engineers-Employers Construction Industry Retirement Trust, was
appointed lead plaintiff on November 7, 2019.
Lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint on March 6, 2020 and the
Company filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August
3, 2020.
Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.
REALOGY GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Sitzer Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC 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 putative class
action suit entitled, Sitzer and Winger v. The National Association
of Realtors (NAR), Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America,
Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri).
This is a putative class action complaint filed on April 29, 2019
and amended on June 21, 2019 by plaintiffs Joshua Sitzer and Amy
Winger against NAR, the Company, Homeservices of America, Inc.,
RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
The complaint contains substantially similar allegations, and seeks
the same relief under the Sherman Act, as the Moehrl litigation.
The Sitzer litigation is limited both in allegations and relief
sought to the State of Missouri and includes an additional cause of
action for alleged violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act, or MMPA.
On August 22, 2019, the Court denied defendants' motions to
transfer the Sitzer matter to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and on October 16, 2019, denied the
motions to dismiss this litigation filed respectively by NAR and
the Company (together with the other named brokerage/franchisor
defendants).
In September 2019, the Department of Justice filed a statement of
interest and appearances for this matter for the same purpose
stated in the Moehrl matter and in July 2020 requested the company
provided them with all materials produced for Sitzer.
Discovery between the plaintiffs and defendants is ongoing.
Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.
RECON MANAGEMENT: Sonnier Suit Seeks Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS SONNIER, Individually
and For Others Similarly Situated, v. RECON MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00002-JDC-KK (W.D. La.), the Plaintiff
Douglas Sonnier moves for conditional certification, judicial
notice, and for disclosure of the names and addresses of potential
"opt-in" plaintiffs.
Recon Management is an engineering company providing engineering
design and project management services.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 751-0025
Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
417 W. University Avenue
P.O. Box 4325
Lafayette, LA 70502
Telephone: 337-235-5294
Facsimile: 337-235-1095
E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com
RESIDEO TECH: Tentative Argument on Bid to Dismiss Set for Dec. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Resideo Technologies, 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 tentative argument on the company's
motion to dismiss the purported class action suit entitled, In re
Resideo Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, 19cv-02889, is
scheduled for December 1, 2020.
The Company, the Company's former CEO Michael Nefkens, the
Company's former CFO Joseph Ragan, and the Company's former CIO
Niccolo de Masi are named defendants in a purported class action
securities suit styled In re Resideo Technologies, Inc. Securities
Litigation, 19cv-02889 (the "Securities Litigation").
The Securities Litigation is a class action securities suit with
the class defined as all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired common stock of Resideo during the class period
of October 29, 2018 to November 6, 2019.
The complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, broadly alleging, among
other things, that the defendants (or some of them) made false and
misleading statements regarding, among other things, Resideo's
business, performance, the efficiency of its supply chain,
operational and administrative issues resulting from the spin-off
from Honeywell, certain business initiatives, and financial
guidance in 2019.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 10,
2020. A tentative argument is scheduled for December 1, 2020.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations in
the complaint, but there can be no assurance that the defense will
be successful.
Resideo Technologies, Inc. is a leading global provider of critical
comfort, residential thermal solutions and security solutions
primarily in residential environments. The Company was incorporated
in Delaware on April 24, 2018, but was separated from Honeywell
International Inc. on October 29, 2018, becoming an independent
publicly traded company as a result of a pro rata distribution of
the company's common stock to shareholders of Honeywell. The
company is based in Austin, Texas.
RING LLC: Wise Product Liability Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Michelle Wise, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Ring LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 20-00002-11887-7 SEA, was removed from
the Washington Superior Court, King County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington on Aug. 28, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01298 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Ring Inc. provides security products. The Company offers alarms,
video doorbells, security systems, cameras, and lighting
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrienne McEntee, Esq.
Benjamin Drachler, Esq.
Beth E Terrell, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Phone: (206) 816-6603
Fax: (206) 350-3528
Email: amcentee@terrellmarshall.com
bdrachler@terrellmarshall.com
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David Maas, Esq.
Jaime Drozd Allen, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE (SEA)
920 Fifth Ave., Ste. 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Phone: (206) 622-3150
Fax: (206) 757-7700
Email: davidmaas@dwt.com
jaimeallen@dwt.com
ROSLE USA: Angeles Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rosle USA Corp. The
case is captioned as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Rosle USA Corp., Case No.
1:20-cv-06525-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lorna G.
Schofield.
An initial pretrial conference is set for October 8, 2020, before
Judge Schofield.
Rosle USA Corp. is a division of German kitchenware manufacturer
Rosle GmbH & Co. KG, a company that manufactures kitchen tools,
cookware and barbecue grills and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
ROYAL SEA: Court Narrows Class in McCurley et al. Autodial Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MCCURLEY, DAN DEFOREST,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ROYAL SEA CRUISES, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-00986-BAS-AGS (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant entered an order:
1. granting the plaintiffs' motion to decertify in part; and
2. denying the defendant's motion to decertify.
The following Transfer Subclass remains certified as a class (any
other class is decertified):
"all persons within the United States who received a telephone
call (1) from Prospects, DM, Inc. on behalf of Royal Seas
Cruises, Inc. (2) on said Class Member's cellular telephone
(3) made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) between
November 2016 and December 2017, (5) where such calls were
placed for the purpose of marketing, (6) to non-customers of
Royal Seas Cruises, Inc. at the time of the calls, (7) whose
cellular telephone number is associated in Prospects, DM's
records with either diabeteshealth.info or
www.yourautohealthlifeinsurance.com, and (8) whose call
resulted in a Transfer to Royal Seas Cruises, Inc."
The Court said, "Although the Defendant filed an opposition, it
does not object to the Plaintiffs' request to the extent the
Plaintiffs seek decertification of the larger class. Instead, the
Defendant simply argues that the subclass should be decertified as
well. Since the Defendant does not object to the Plaintiffs'
decertification request, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' request
for decertification and will allow Plaintiffs to proceed solely on
the Transfer Subclass.[CC]
SERCO INC: Bernal Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as SERGIO v. BERNAL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. SERCO, INC. and DOES 1 through
50, Case No. 30-2020-01150203-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on August 27, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-07863 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated parking enforcement
officers appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay, failure to
provide meal and rest periods, failure to reimburse for business
expenses, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure
to pay due wages upon separation in violation of California's
Private Attorneys General Act.
Serco, Inc., is an information technology (IT) service management
company, with its principal place of business located in Herndon,
Virginia.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Neal A. Fisher Jr., Esq.
Chris Petersen, Esq.
Marissa M. Franco, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
Telephone: (213) 633-6800
Facsimile: (213) 633-6899
E-mail: nealfisher@dwt.com
chrispetersen@dwt.com
marissafranco@dwt.com
SHUTTERFLY LIFETOUCH: Faces Cullen Suit Over Unsolicited Photos
---------------------------------------------------------------
DON CULLEN and ELLEN ROSS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SHUTTERFLY LIFETOUCH, LLC and SHUTTERFLY,
LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-06040 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 27, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for false advertising, fraud, deceit,
misrepresentation, unlawful trade practices, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the
Postal Reorganization Act of 1970.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in an
unlawful practice of taking unsolicited photographs of school
children and sending home copies of the photographs with an option
to purchase, as part of their Family Approval Program photo
packages. Parents are instructed to review the photographs and pay
for any photos they choose to keep or return the photos to the
school to presumably be destroyed within days. Parents are not
provided with an option to request that their child's picture not
be taken or to opt-out of receiving the photos. Despite the
unsolicited nature of the photographs, the Defendants maintain that
any photographs that are not returned must be paid for and send
parents reminders for payment.
As a result of the Defendants' actions, the Plaintiffs say they and
Class Members have suffered, and continue to suffer, injury in fact
and have lost money and/or property as a result of such false,
deceptive and misleading advertising.
Shutterfly Lifetouch LLC is a professional photography company
headquartered in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Shutterfly, LLC, f/k/a
Shutterfly Inc., is a company that operates an online retailer and
manufacturer of personalized products and services, headquartered
in Redwood City, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie McCrary, Esq.
Anthony Patek, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 336-6545
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Defends Wasa Medical Holdings & Calvo Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorrento Therapeutics, 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 a defendant in two
putative securities class action suits initiated by Wasa Medical
Holdings and Jeannette Calvo.
On May 26, 2020, Wasa Medical Holdings filed a putative federal
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, Case No. 3:20-cv-00966-AJB-DEB, against the
company, its President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Board of Directors, Henry Ji, Ph.D., and its SVP of Regulatory
Affairs, Mark R. Brunswick, Ph.D.
The action alleges that the company, Dr. Ji and Dr. Brunswick made
materially false and/or misleading statements to the investing
public by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements
regarding STI-1499 and its ability to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 virus
infection and that such statements violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
The suit seeks to recover damages caused by the alleged violations
of federal securities laws, along with the plaintiffs' reasonable
costs and expenses incurred in the lawsuit, including counsel fees
and expert fees.
On June 11, 2020, Jeannette Calvo filed a second putative federal
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, Case No. 3:20-cv-01066-JAH-WVG, against the
same defendants alleging the same claims and seeking the same
relief.
It is anticipated that these cases will be consolidated as part of
the lead plaintiff and counsel appointment process under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
Sorrento said, "We intend to defend these matters vigorously."
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company. The
Company is engaged in the discovery, acquisition, development and
commercialization of drug therapeutics. Its primary focus is to
transform cancer into a treatable or chronically manageable
disease. It is also developing therapeutic products for other
indications, including immunology and infectious diseases. The
company is based in San Diego, California.
STARBUCKS CORP: Parties Agree to Dismiss Harisis Class Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Western Division issued an Order dismissing the Class
Claims in the case captioned MIHALY HARISIS, on behalf of himself
and other similarly-situated employees, Plaintiff, v. STARBUCKS
CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation, Defendants. Case No.
2:20-cv-05210 JFW (Ex). (C.D. Cal.), pursuant to the parties'
stipulation.
The class claims are dismissed without prejudice. This matter is
remanded to the Los Angeles Superior Court. Each party shall bear
its own attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the removal and
subsequent remand of this Action pursuant to the stipulation and
this order.
A full-text copy of the District Court's August 3, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2Rdw7x8 from Leagle.com
STATE FARM: Court Certifies Plan Beneficiaries Class in King Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as BOB KING, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES
HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ARRANGEMENT PLAN FOR UNITED STATES ELIGIBLE
INDIVIDUALS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01120-JES-TSH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon.
Judge James E. Shadid entered an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"all participants and beneficiaries of the State Farm
Insurance Companies Health Reimbursement Arrangement Plan
for United States Eligible Individuals who presented
claims for services, and either received those services in
January of 2019 or began a course of treatment in January
2019, which claims were not paid";
2. appointing Mr. King as the representative of the class;
3. appointing Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC as
class counsel.
Mr. King asserts there are approximately 283 persons who were not
reimbursed for services.
The Court said the parties have not identified any other litigation
by putative class members concerning this controversy, and the
Defendants have not identified how the interests of individual
class members would be better served through separate actions. The
difficulties in managing this class action seem minimal, as the
class will likely be 256 individuals or less and those individuals
have already been identified. Additionally, the liability portion
of this litigation can be separated from those specific questions
individual to each class member. Thus, a class action seems
superior to other methods in resolving this controversy in a fair
and efficient manner, and class certification under FRCP 23(b)(3)
is proper.
State Farm is a large group of insurance companies throughout the
United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington,
Illinois.[CC]
SUPER CARE: Affolder Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW AFFOLDER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SUPER CARE, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-07776 (C.D. Cal.,
Aug. 26, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of
placing artificial/prerecorded and autodialed telemarketing calls
to individuals in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
According to the complaint, shortly after the Plaintiff's purchase
of CPAP machine from the Defendant in January 2019, the Defendant
began placing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system
(ATDS) to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 9523
even without his prior express written consent. Despite the
Plaintiff's request to the Defendant to stop calling, the Defendant
continued placing calls to his cellular telephone number.
The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff has suffered actual injury
because of the Defendant's unwanted and untrained telemarketing
telephone calls.
Super Care, Inc., provides medical equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zack Broslavsky, Esq.
BROSLAVSKY & WEINMAN, LLP
1500 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90266
Tel: 310-575-2550
Email: zbroslavsky@bwcounsel.com
- and –
Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq.
GLAPION LAW FIRM
1704 Maxwell Drive
Wall, NJ 07719
Tel: 732-455-9737
Email: jmg@glapionlaw.com
TRANS UNION: Appeals E.D. Pa. Ruling in Norman Suit to 3rd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Trans Union LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled DUANE E. NORMAN, SR., on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case
No. 2-18-cv-05225, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
moves the Court for an order certifying the case as a class
action.
Trans Union develops and delivers information and risk management
solutions. The Company offers various credit monitoring products,
risk management solutions, marketing services, and other related
solutions. TransUnion provides its products and services throughout
the world.
The appellate case is captioned as Duane Norman, Sr. v. Trans Union
LLC, Case No. 20-8033, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent DUANE E. NORMAN, SR., on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
Jody T. Lopez-Jacobs, Esq.
Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
FLITTER MILZ
450 North Narberth Avenue, Suite 101
Narberth, PA 19072
Telephone: (610) 822-0782
Facsimile: 610 667-0552
E-mail: cflitter@consumerslaw.com
jlopez-jacobs@consumerslaw.com
amilz@consumerslaw.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: 215-940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
Defendant-Petitioner TRANS UNION LLC is represented by:
Kristen DeGrande, Esq.
Maxwell J. Eichenberger, Esq.
Albert E. Hartmann, Esq.
Michael C. O'Neil, Esq.
REED SMITH
10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 207-1000
E-mail: kdegrande@reedsmith.com
meichenberger@reedsmith.com
ahartmann@reedsmith.com
michael.oneil@reedsmith.com
- and -
Michael C. Falk, Esq.
REED SMITH
Three Logan Square, Suite 3100
1717 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 851-8100
E-mail: mfalk@reedsmith.com
- and -
James C. Martin, Esq.
REED SMITH
225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 288-3546
E-mail: jcmartin@reedsmith.com
TRIBUNE PUBLISHING: Gusinsky Trust Balks at Poison Pill Adoption
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated holders of TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY (the
"Company"), a Delaware corporation v. CAROL CRENSHAW, PHILIP G.
FRANKLIN, TERRY JIMENEZ, CHRISTOPHER MINNETIAN, DANA GOLDSMITH
NEEDLEMAN, RICHARD A. RECK, TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, and
COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY, N.A., Case No. 2020-0716- (Del. Ch.,
Aug. 28, 2020), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief
against the Tribune board of directors for breaches of their
fiduciary duties in connection with their adoption of an unusually
onerous poison pill or shareholder rights plan.
Carol Crenshaw has served as a director of the Company since 2016
On July 28, 2020, the Board announced that it had unilaterally
adopted a highly aggressive version of a "Poison Pill" shareholder
rights plan. The combination of a low 10% trigger and a vague and
grossly overbroad definition of "Acting-in-Concert" in the Tribune
Poison Pill exceeds any prior notion of permissible exercise of
director power.
According to the complaint, the Poison Pill is particularly
aggressive for two reasons. First, the Pill utilizes a 10%
triggering threshold (the "10% Trigger"), which, is a lower
threshold than is typical for poison pills and is likely to itself
chill proxy contests. Second, the Pill also contains broad and
facially unmanageable "aggregation" and "acting in concert"
provisions (the "Wolfpack" provisions), which go far beyond the
aggregation provisions previously approved in the context of rights
plans. In concert with the aggressive 10% Trigger, these Wolfpack
provisions are so draconian as to be highly coercive and even
effectively preclusive as the provisions severely hobble or shut
down the ability of any stockholder or group of stockholders to
seek to influence the direction of the Company. These extremely
aggressive provisions working together undermine the stockholder
franchise, which the law recognizes as the single most important
legitimizing factor to the Delaware corporate governance scheme.
The Company, in describing the Board's decision to adopt the Pill
in a press release dated July 28, 2020, stated: "The adoption of
the Pill is intended to . . . protect the interests of the Company
and its stockholders by reducing the likelihood that any person or
group gains control of Tribune Publishing through acquisitions from
other stockholders, open market accumulation or other tactics
(especially in current volatile markets) without paying an
appropriate control premium." Thus, it appears that the Board did
not act in response to any specific threat but instead, at best to
an "environment" that the Board felt threatened by, the Plaintiff
contends.
In that context, utilizing the extremely aggressive 10% Trigger and
the Wolfpack provisions in this Pill cannot stand as a "reasonable"
response to a non-specific "threat," according to the complaint. By
moving to undermine the ability of any dissident to mount an
effective proxy contest, the Defendants effectively denuded the
corporate franchise and breached their fiduciary duties. A prompt
adjudication of this matter is essential to protect and restore the
franchise, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff is and has been a common stockholder of the Company.
Tribune Publishing Company operates as a diversified media and
marketing-solutions company. The Company offers sports,
entertainment, business, real estate, and travel news and
information in various markets throughout the United States.
Tribune Publishing also offers market solutions as a
Spanish-language publisher.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
500 Delaware Avenue
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 364-3601
- and -
Mark Lebovitch Esq.
Thomas G. James
Jacqueline Y. Ma, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 554-1400
- and -
Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
David F.E. Tejtel, Esq.
FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
Bedford Hills, NY 10507
Phone: (888) 529-1108
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: (484) 324-6800
TRUIST FINANCIAL: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Bickerstaff Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Truist Financial Corporation 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's renewed motion to
compel arbitration of the claims of some of the class members, in
Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, is pending.
This class action case was filed in the Fulton County State Court
on July 12, 2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9,
2010.
Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account
which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually
interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of
Georgia.
Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and criminal
usury laws, conversion, and money had and received.
On October 6, 2017, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for
class certification and defined the class as "Every Georgia citizen
who had or has one or more accounts with SunTrust Bank and who,
from July 12, 2006, to October 6, 2017 (i) had at least one
overdraft of $500.00 or less resulting from an ATM or debit card
transaction (the "Transaction"); (ii) paid any Overdraft Fees as a
result of the Transaction; and (iii) did not receive a refund of
those Fees" and the granting of a certified class was affirmed on
appeal.
On April 8, 2020, the Company filed a motion seeking to narrow the
scope of this class and on May 29, 2020, it filed a renewed motion
to compel arbitration of the claims of some of the class members.
Discovery has commenced.
The Company believes that the claims are without merit.
Truist Financial Corporation is a banking organization
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Truist conducts its
business operations primarily through its bank subsidiary, Truist
Bank, and other nonbank subsidiaries.
TU CASA #2: Chumil Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCELLINO CHUMIL and JOSE CHUMIL, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. TU CASA #2 RESTAURANT CORP. (D/B/A TU
CASA RESTAURANT), WILLIAM ALBA SR., WILLIAM ALBA JR., MARITZA DOE,
CARLOS DOE, and RODOLFO DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-04016 (E.D.N.Y., Aug.
28, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiffs were employed as a delivery worker and food
preparer, and a delivery worker at the Defendants' restaurant
located in Astoria, New York. The Plaintiffs also assert claims for
violations of the N.Y. Labor Law and the "spread of hours" and
overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor.
Tu Casa #2 Restaurant Corp., doing business as Tu Casa Restaurant,
is a Latin restaurant company based in Astoria, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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
E-mail: michael@faillacelaw.com
U.S. NONWOVENS: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as Efrain Danilo Mendez a/k/a
Efrain D. Mendez-Rivera, Aldraily Alberto Coiscou, Fernando Molina
a/k/a Jorge Luis Flores Larios, Siryi Nayrobik Melendez, Rene
Alexander Oliva, Juan Flores Larios and Ramiro Cordova,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
U.S. Nonwovens Corp., Samuel Mehdizadeh a/k/a Solomon Mehdizadeh,
Shervin Mehdizadeh, and Rody Mehdizadeh, Case No. 12-CV-05583-SIL
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. granting preliminary approval of the class and collective
action settlement agreement;
2. preliminarily certifying the following settlement class
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) for purposes of
effectuating the settlement:
"all non-exempt workers employed by USN in the State of
New York at any time from November 14, 2006 to the date of
preliminary approval of this Agreement who were not paid a
spread-of-hours premium pursuant to 12 NYCRR section 142-
2.4.3.";
3. approving the proposed class action notice to the Class
Action Settlement Agreement and distribution thereof to
the class members;
4. setting the date for the final fairness hearing;
5. approving the proposed class action settlement procedure;
and
6. granting such other, further, or different relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
U.S. Nonwovens was founded in 1998. The Company's line of business
includes the manufacturing of polishes and sanitation goods.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven John Moser, Esq.
MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C.
5 East Main Street
Huntington, NY 11743
Telephone: (631) 824-0200
E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com
UGI CORP: Agreement in Underfilled Propane Cylinders Wins Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the settlement agreement in the class action
suit involving direct purchasers of propane cylinders has received
final court approval.
Between May and October of 2014, purported class action lawsuits
were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI
and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers.
The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to
reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds
to 15 pounds and combined to persuade their common customer,
Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in
increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in
violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws.
The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’
fees and costs on behalf of the putative classes.
On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class
action cases to the Western Missouri District Court.
As the result of rulings on a series of procedural filings,
including petitions filed with the Eighth Circuit and the U.S.
Supreme Court, both the federal and state law claims of the direct
customer plaintiffs and the state law claims of the indirect
customer plaintiffs were remanded to the Western Missouri District
Court. The decision of the Western Missouri District Court to
dismiss the federal antitrust claims of the indirect customer
plaintiffs was upheld by the Eighth Circuit.
On April 15, 2019, the Western Missouri District Court ruled that
it has jurisdiction over the indirect purchasers' state law claims
and that the indirect customer plaintiffs have standing to pursue
those claims.
On August 21, 2019, the District Court partially granted the
Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the
claims of indirect customer plaintiffs from ten states and the
District of Columbia.
On October 2, 2019, the Partnership reached an agreement to resolve
the claims of the direct purchaser class of plaintiffs; the
agreement received final court approval on June 18, 2020.
UGI said, "Although we cannot predict the final results of these
pending claims and legal actions, we believe, after consultation
with counsel, that the final outcome of these matters will not have
a material effect on our financial statements."
UGI Corporation distributes, stores, transports, and markets energy
products and related services in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through four segments:
AmeriGas Propane, UGI International, Midstream & Marketing, and UGI
Utilities. UGI Corporation was founded in 1882 and is based in King
of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
UNIFIN INC: Beck Sues in E.D. New York Alleging FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifin Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Nelly Beck, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Unifin Inc., LVNV Funding LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-04017-WFK-VMS (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Unifin, Inc., is a full service BPO and Accounts Receivable
Management firm licensed and bonded nationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (718) 705-8706
Fax: (718) 705-8705
Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com
UNITED BEAUTY: Angeles Sues in S.D.N.Y. Alleging Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Beauty Brands,
LLC. The case is captioned as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. United Beauty Brands, LLC,
Case No. 1:20-cv-06522-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Alison J.
Nathan.
United Beauty Brands, LLC, provides products and services for the
professional salon industry in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
UNITED CONTRACTOR: Cuellar Sues Over Inadequate COBRA Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
DERLE CUELLAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNITED CONTRACTOR SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
5:20-cv-00207-H (N.D. Tex., Aug. 27, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to provide the
participants and beneficiaries in the United Plan with adequate
notice, as prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their
health coverage upon the occurrence of a qualifying event as
defined by the statute. The Defendant's COBRA enrollment notice
failed to include information on the enrollment process, an address
indicating where COBRA payments should be mailed, and the
identification of the plan administrator.
As a result of the Defendant's omissions, the Plaintiff and Class
members were confused and misled and have suffered injuries in the
form of lost health insurance and unpaid medical bills, as well as
informational injuries.
United Contractor Services, LLC, is a national multi-craft
specialty contractor with its headquarters in Georgia. The Company
also conducts business in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and –
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60630
Telephone: (312) 283-3814
Facsimile: (773) 496-8617
E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com
- and –
Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
300 S. Biscayne Blvd., #2704
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 610-5223
E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com
- and –
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
VENATOR MATERIALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Venator Materials 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 parties in the consolidated suit entitled,
In re Venator Materials PLC Securities Litigation, are awaiting the
court's decision on a motion to dismiss the amended class action
complaint.
On February 8, 2019 the company, certain of its executive officers,
Huntsman Corporation (Huntsman) and certain banks who acted as
underwriters in connection with the company's initial public
offering (IPO) and secondary offering were named as defendants in a
proposed class action civil suit filed in the District Court for
the State of Texas, Dallas County (the "Dallas District Court"), by
an alleged purchaser of the company's ordinary shares in connection
with its IPO on August 3, 2017 and its secondary offering on
November 30, 2017.
The plaintiff, Macomb County Employees' Retirement System, alleges
that inaccurate and misleading statements were made regarding the
impact to he company's operations, and prospects for restoration
thereof, resulting from the fire that occurred at he company's
Pori, Finland manufacturing facility, among other allegations.
Additional complaints making substantially the same allegations
were filed in the Dallas District Court by the Firemen's Retirement
System of St. Louis on March 4, 2019 and by Oscar Gonzalez on March
13, 2019, with the third case naming two of the company's directors
as additional defendants.
The cases filed in the Dallas District Court were consolidated into
a single action, In re Venator Materials PLC Securities
Litigation.
On May 8, 2019, the company filed a "special appearance" in the
Dallas District Court action contesting the court's jurisdiction
over the Company and a motion to transfer venue to Montgomery
County, Texas and on June 7, 2019 the company and certain
defendants filed motions to dismiss.
On July 9, 2019, a hearing was held on certain of these motions,
which were subsequently denied.
On January 21, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of
Texas reversed the Dallas District Court's order that denied the
special appearances of Venator and certain other defendants, and
rendered judgment dismissing the claims against Venator and certain
other defendants for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeals also remanded the case for the Dallas District
Court to enter an order transferring the claims against Huntsman to
the Montgomery County District Court.
On March 19, 2020, plaintiffs from the Dallas District Court case
filed suit in New York State Court (New York County) against
Venator and the other defendants dismissed from the Dallas District
Court case, making substantially the same allegations as were filed
in the Dallas District Court.
On July 31, 2020, Venator and the other defendants filed a motion
to dismiss all claims in the New York State Court case.
An additional case was filed on July 31, 2019, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York by the City of Miami
General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust, making
substantially the same allegations, adding claims under sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act, and naming all of our
directors as additional defendants.
A case also was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas by the Cambria County Employees Retirement System
on September 13, 2019, making substantially the same allegations as
those made by the plaintiff in the case pending in the Southern
District of New York.
On October 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York entered an order transferring the case brought
by the city of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees'
Retirement Trust to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, where it was consolidated into a single action
with the case brought by the Cambria County Employees' Retirement
Trust and is now known as In re: Venator Materials PLC Securities
Litigation.
On January 17, 2020, plaintiffs in the consolidated federal action
filed a consolidated class action complaint. On February 18, 2020,
all defendants joined in a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint, which plaintiffs have opposed, and for which oral
argument was heard on May 14, 2020.
A decision on the motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint has
not been published.
The plaintiffs in these cases seek to determine that the
proceedings should be certified as class actions and to obtain
alleged compensatory damages, costs, rescission and equitable
relief.
The company may be required to indemnify its executive officers and
directors, Huntsman, and the banks who acted as underwriters in the
company's IPO and secondary offerings, for losses incurred by them
in connection with these matters pursuant to the company's
agreements with such parties.
Venator said, "Because of the early stage of this litigation, we
are unable to reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of
loss and we have not accrued for a loss contingency with regard to
these matters."
Venator Materials PLC manufactures and markets chemical products
worldwide. It operates through two segments, Titanium Dioxide and
Performance Additives. The company was founded in 2017 and is
headquartered in Stockton-On-Tees, the United Kingdom.
WAYNE COUNTY, NC: Underpays Employees, Flores FLSA Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROY THOMAS FLORES, JUNIOR v. WAYNE COUNTY; and WAYNE COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Case No. 5:20-cv-00454-BO (E.D.N.C., Aug. 21,
2020), is brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all
those similarly situated against the Defendants for their alleged
unlawful pay practices, including underpaying employees, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants in 1996 as a patrol
officer and currently working as a full-time Detective Lieutenant
with Defendant Wayne County Sheriff's Office.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked an average of at
least 240 hours each Pay Period. However, when he totaled his hours
worked for the week on his timesheet entitled "HRS WRKD", he is
required by Defendant to exclude any time worked pre-shift or
post-shift and deducting one-hour from each day's work, thereby,
making his total worked 168 hours on the timesheet.
Even though the Plaintiff's timesheet is fraudulent and does not
accurately summarize the total hours he worked, the Defendants
required the Plaintiff to attest to the accuracy of his timesheet
and systematically calculate the Plaintiff's wages based on the
"underreported" number of hours worked. Moreover, despite the
internal auditor and USDOL's investigations following the
Plaintiff's supervisors' admittance that the Defendants are
violating federal labor law, the Defendants continued to short
Plaintiff compensation for all hours worked, according to the
complaint.
Wayne County is a local governmental entity with a principal
location of 224 East Walnut Street, in Goldsboro, North Carolina.
Wayne County Sheriff's Office is a Wayne County governmental entity
responsible for providing policing services throughout Wayne
County, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
Charlotte Smith, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130
Cary, NC 27513
Tel: (919) 741-8693
Fax: (919) 869-1853
Email: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com
WELLS FARGO: $18MM Settlement Reached in Hernandez Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & 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 has entered into an agreement
pursuant to which the Company will pay $18.5 million to resolve the
claims of the certified class in Hernandez v. Wells Fargo, et al.
Plaintiffs representing a putative class of mortgage borrowers have
filed separate putative class actions, Hernandez v. Wells Fargo, et
al., Coordes v. Wells Fargo, et al., Ryder v. Wells Fargo, Liguori
v. Wells Fargo, and Dore v. Wells Fargo, against Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, the United States District Court for the District of
Washington, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, respectively.
Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo improperly denied mortgage loan
modifications or repayment plans to customers in the foreclosure
process due to the overstatement of foreclosure attorneys' fees
that were included for purposes of determining whether a customer
in the foreclosure process qualified for a mortgage loan
modification or repayment plan.
The district court in the Hernandez case certified a nationwide
breach of contract class for foreclosed borrowers and denied
certification on claims pertaining to other impacted borrowers.
In March 2020, the Company entered into an agreement pursuant to
which the Company will pay $18.5 million to resolve the claims of
the certified class in the Hernandez case.
Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
WELLS FARGO: $20.8MM Settlement in ATM Access Fee Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & 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 has reached a settlement in
principle pursuant to which the Company will pay $20.8 million to
resolve the ATM Access Fee related suit, subject to final
documentation of the settlement agreement.
In October 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action, Mackmin,
et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al., against Wells Fargo & Company, Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., Visa, MasterCard, and several other banks in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Plaintiffs allege that the Visa and MasterCard requirement that if
an ATM operator charges an access fee on Visa and MasterCard
transactions, then that fee cannot be greater than the access fee
charged for transactions on other networks, violates antitrust
rules.
Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees where available under federal and state law. Two
other antitrust cases that make similar allegations were filed in
the same court, but these cases did not name Wells Fargo as a
defendant.
On February 13, 2013, the district court granted defendants'
motions to dismiss the three actions. Plaintiffs appealed the
dismissals and, on August 4, 2015, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the district
court's decisions and remanded the three cases to the district
court for further proceedings.
On June 28, 2016, the United States Supreme Court granted
defendants' petitions for writ of certiorari to review the
decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. On November 17, 2016, the United States Supreme Court
dismissed the petitions as improvidently granted, and the three
cases returned to the district court for further proceedings.
On March 18, 2020, the Company reached a settlement in principle
pursuant to which the Company will pay $20.8 million to resolve the
cases, subject to final documentation of the settlement agreement.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
WELLS FARGO: Approval of GAP Case Settlement Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that an appeal has been taken from the court order
granting final approval of a settlement in the class action related
to guaranteed automobile protection (GAP).
A putative class of shareholders also filed a securities fraud
class action against the Company and its executive officers
alleging material misstatements and omissions of collateral
protection insurance (CPI)-related information in the Company's
public disclosures.
In January 2020, the court dismissed this action as to all
defendants except the Company and a former executive officer and
limited the action to two alleged misstatements.
In addition, the Company is subject to a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California alleging that customers are entitled to refunds related
to the unused portion of guaranteed automobile protection (GAP)
waiver or insurance agreements between the customer and dealer and,
by assignment, the lender.
Allegations related to the CPI and GAP programs are among the
subjects of shareholder derivative lawsuits pending in federal and
state court in California.
The court dismissed the state court action in September 2018, but
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in November 2018. The parties
to the state court action have entered into an agreement to resolve
the action pursuant to which the Company will pay plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and undertake certain business and governance
practices.
The state court granted final approval of the settlement on January
15, 2020, and a notice of appeal has been filed. These and other
issues related to the origination, servicing, and collection of
consumer automobile loans, including related insurance products,
have also subjected the Company to formal or informal inquiries,
investigations, or examinations from federal and state government
agencies.
In December 2018, the Company entered into an agreement with all 50
state Attorneys General and the District of Columbia to resolve an
investigation into the Company's retail sales practices, CPI and
GAP, and mortgage interest rate lock matters, pursuant to which the
Company paid $575 million.
Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
WELLS FARGO: Defends Putative Class Actions Over PPP Loan
---------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & 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 putative class
action suits related to the Company's offering of Paycheck
Protection Program (PPP) loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security Act.
Plaintiffs have filed putative class actions in various federal
courts against the Company.
The actions seek damages and injunctive relief related to the
Company's offering of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans under
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, as well as
claims for fees by purported agents who allegedly assisted
customers with preparing PPP loan applications submitted to the
Company.
The Company has also received formal and informal inquiries from
federal and state governmental agencies regarding its offering of
PPP loans.
Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
WELLS FARGO: Faces Urista Suit Over Unauthorized Loan Forbearance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Urista, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No.
3:20-cv-01689-H-AHG (S.D. Cal., Aug. 29, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' unlawful actions in placing the Plaintiff's loan in
forbearance without his consent, and incorrectly reported this to
credit reporting agencies.
Because of the Defendants' actions, the Plaintiff contends that he
now suffers from negative credit reporting, a lack of the ability
to refinance at historically low rates, and a loss of the interest
on the payments he has been timely making to Wells Fargo to pay his
mortgage, which they have been not crediting to his account due to
the unauthorized forbearance.
According to the complaint, Wells Fargo unilaterally and without
consent, and certainly without requesting or receiving any
financial hardship attestation, opted unwitting clients into its
COVID-19 mortgage forbearance program. In addition, Wells Fargo put
through secondary requests for forbearance on behalf of homeowners,
who had asked to participate in the program initially but who did
not ask for extensions and no longer wanted to be in the
forbearance program.
Since the advent of COVID-19, approximately 5.5 million homeowners
have participated in a mortgage forbearance program, either
knowingly or unknowingly. Wells Fargo has deferred approximately
2.5 million payments and it is not clear whether any of those
affected supplied such documents to Wells Fargo. The requirement of
a volitional act on the part of mortgagor participants is
intentional as mortgage forbearance has serious consequences for
homeowners, including an inability to obtain additional credit
and/or to refinance any existing loans.
As a result, those homeowners, including the Plaintiff, suffered
damages, including an inability to access credit, to refinance to
lower interest rates (and away from particular mortgage servicers
like Wells Fargo--which is especially egregious during a period in
time in which mortgage interest refinance rates are at historically
low rates), and in dealing with the difficult situation of removing
their mortgages from a program they did not want. The Defendants
benefit by unilaterally opting unwitting homeowners into its
forbearance program in a number of ways, including retaining
borrowers who might otherwise refinance their mortgages with other
institutions, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Jose Urista has a mortgage serviced by Wells Fargo.
Wells Fargo is a mortgage servicing company operating throughout
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ahren A. Tiller, Esq.
BLC LAW CENTER, APC
1230 Columbia St., Ste. 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 894-8831
Facsimile: (866) 444-7026
Email: ahren.tiller@blc-sd.com
WELLS FARGO: Shareholder Securities Fraud Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & 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 a securities
fraud class action suit brought by its shareholders.
Wells Fargo shareholders have brought securities fraud class
actions in the United States District Courts for the Northern
District of California and the Southern District of New York
alleging that the Company made false or misleading statements
regarding its efforts to comply with the February 2018 consent
order with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
(FRB) and the April 2018 consent orders with the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency OCC.
Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
WISCONSIN HOSPITALITY: Beyer Seeks OK of Class Action Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as Ed Beyer, On behalf of himself
and those similarly situated, v. Wisconsin Hospitality Group, LLC,
et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01133-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff
seeks to notify the following employees:
"all current and former delivery drivers employed at the
Defendants' Pizza Hut stores between the date three years
prior to filing of the original complaint and the date of the
Court's Order approving notice who are reimbursed a per-mile
reimbursement rate less than the IRS standard business
mileage rate for the miles they drive completing deliveries."
Wisconsin Hospitality operates as a restaurants. The Company
provides prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Nathan B. Spencer, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 604-8759
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
nspencer@billerkimble.com
- and -
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
WW INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated SDNY Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
WW International, 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 company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York remains pending.
In March 2019, two substantially identical class action complaints
alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed by
individual shareholders against the Company, certain of the
Company's current officers and the Company's former controlling
shareholder, Artal Group S.A. ("Artal"), in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The actions
were consolidated and lead plaintiffs were appointed in June 2019.
A consolidated amended complaint was filed on July 29, 2019, naming
as defendants the Company, certain of the Company's current
officers and directors, and Artal and certain of its affiliates. A
second consolidated amended complaint was filed on September 27,
2019.
The operative complaint asserts claims on behalf of all purchasers
of the Company's common stock between May 4, 2018 and February 26,
2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including purchasers of the
Company's common stock traceable to the May 2018 secondary offering
of the Company's common stock by certain of its shareholders.
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealed or recklessly disregarded material adverse facts. The
complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and with respect to the secondary offering, under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.
The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages on behalf of the
class members.
The Company believes that the action is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend it.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 31,
2019.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
WW International, Inc. provides weight control programs. The
Company offers subscriptions for commitment plans that give their
clients access to meetings and online subscriptions. WW
International also gives their members guidance and access to a
supportive community to help enable them for healthy habits. The
company is based in New York, New York.
WW INTERNATIONAL: Studio + Digital Members Class Suits Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
WW International, 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 company continues to defend class actions
suits filed by individual Studio + Digital members.
Two substantially similar class action complaints were filed by
individual Studio + Digital members against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
in May 2020 (referred to herein as the New York Matter) and the
Superior Court of California in Ventura County in June 2020
(referred to herein as the California Matter, and together with the
New York Matter, referred to herein as the 2020 Class Actions).
The complaints were filed on behalf of all Studio + Digital members
nationwide and regard the fees charged for Studio + Digital
memberships since the temporary replacement of in-person workshops
with virtual workshops in March 2020 in response to the COVID-19
pandemic.
The complaints allege that the Company's decision to charge its
members the full Studio + Digital membership fee while only
providing a virtual experience violated state consumer protection
laws in New York and/or California, as applicable, and gave rise to
claims for breach of contract, fraud, and other tort causes of
action based on the same factual allegations that are the basis for
the breach of contract claim.
The plaintiffs seek to recover damages plus injunctive relief to
enjoin the Company from engaging in similar conduct in the future
on behalf of the class members.
The Company believes that the 2020 Class Actions are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend them.
The Company filed a notice to remove the California Matter to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on July 30, 2020 and a motion to dismiss the New York Matter on
August 3, 2020.
WW International, Inc. provides weight control programs. The
Company offers subscriptions for commitment plans that give their
clients access to meetings and online subscriptions. WW
International also gives their members guidance and access to a
supportive community to help enable them for healthy habits. The
company is based in New York, New York.
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Bid to Dismiss Gregory Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation, National Association said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that trial on the motion to
dismiss the class action suit entitled, Gregory, et. al. v. Zions
Bancorporation, has not been set.
A civil class action lawsuit, Gregory, et. al. v. Zions
Bancorporation, brought against the company in the United States
District Court for Utah in January 2019.
This case was filed on behalf of investors in Rust Rare Coin, Inc.,
alleging that the company aided and abetted a Ponzi scheme fraud
perpetrated by Rust Rare Coin, a Zions Bank customer.
The case follows civil actions and the establishment of a
receivership for Rust Rare Coin by The Commodities Futures Trading
Commission and the Utah Division of Securities in November 2018, as
well as a separate suit brought by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) against Rust Rare Coin and its principal, Gaylen
Rust.
The matter is in the early motion practice state.
Zions said, "During the second quarter of 2019, we filed a motion
to dismiss which has not yet been ruled upon by the Court. Trial
has not been scheduled."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking
and related services primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was formerly known as ZB, National Association
and changed its name to Zions Bancorporation, National Association
in September 2018. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was
founded in 1873 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Facing 3 PPP Loan-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation, National Association 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 a named
defendant in three class action suits related to the Government's
Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) fees.
Two civil class action lawsuits, Fahmia Inc.v. Zions
Bancorporation, et. al., brought against the company in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado in June 2020,
and ImpAcct LLC v. JPMorgan Chase, et. al., brought against the
company and other banks in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in June 2020.
A third class action lawsuit, Manoloff v. Bank of America, et. al.,
was filed against the company in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas in July 2020.
These cases allege that the company wrongly failed to pay agents of
borrowers receiving loans from the company under the Government's
Paycheck Protection Program fees that were allegedly owed to them
under the program.
These cases are similar to class action lawsuits filed against
other banks and will likely involve complicated procedural issues.
Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking
and related services primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was formerly known as ZB, National Association
and changed its name to Zions Bancorporation, National Association
in September 2018. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was
founded in 1873 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.
*********
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 ***