/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200921.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, September 21, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 189 Headlines ABBVIE INC: Delays Market Entry of Generic Bystolic, Cook Alleges ABBVIE INC: Fraternal Order Sues Over Monopoly of Bystolic Drug ABBVIE INC: Monopolizes Market for Nebivolol HCl, Maffei Claims ADTALEM GLOBAL: Brown Putative Class Suit Dismissed ADTALEM GLOBAL: Magana Putative Class Suit Closed ADTALEM GLOBAL: Robinson Putative Class Suit Dismissed AETNA INC: Plan Participants Hit Share Drop from Merger Deal AIR METHODS: Cowen, et al. File Motion for Class Certification AMATEUR ATHLETIC: Can Compel Arbitration in Hidalgo Class Suit AMAZON.COM INC: Sells Faulty Lithium-Ion Batteries, Crosby Claims AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces Gude Suit Over Unlawful Subrogation Claims AMERICAN PUBLIC: Security Officers Seek OT Pay, Reimbursements AMERIHEALTH CARITAS: Webb-Jones Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ANALOG DEVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hong Suit Alleges APEX SYSTEMS: McDaniel Seeks Pay for Missed Breaks, Rest Periods APTDECO INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Calcano Alleges ASSET MARKETING: Sosa Asserts Breach of American Disabilities Act ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: KPH Antitrust Suit Moved to Delaware ATM RESPONSE: Faces Culver FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages AU CAPITAL: Sosa Alleges Violation under ADA in New York B CHIC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Suit Says BANK OF AMERICA: Did Not Pay Unused Vacation Pay, Carroll Claims BLACKBAUD INC: Fails to Protect Clients' Data, Estes Suit Alleges BLACKBAUD: Faces Class Action Following Ransomware Attack BLINK CHARGING: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 23 Deadline BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Data Incident Suit BRUNEL ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Townley Suit Alleges C.R. BARD: Master Complaint Filed in Defective IVC Filters Suit C2 FINANCIAL: Franco Balks at Unlawful Credit Report Inquiries CAMERON MUTUAL: Scott Craven DDS Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri CANADA: Revenue Agency Faces Class Action Over Data Breach CAROLINA HERRERA: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Brooks Says CELINE INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Suit Claims COAST ALUMINUM: Coleman Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices CONCORDE CAREER: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Davis Suit Claims CONCOURSE VILLAGE: Peebles Sues Over Missing Paystubs, Unpaid Wages COSTCO WHOLESALE: Seeks KCFA's Subpoena Compliance in Corker Suit CVS PHARMACY: Behboudi Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California CWI INC: Milligan Wage and Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California DOLGEN MIDWEST: Wadding Sues Over Improperly Paid Overtime Wages ENVESTNET: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California EXAGEN INC: Mt. Lookout Chiropractic Sues Over Unsolicited Faxes FANATICS INC: Fails to Timely Notify Staff on Layoff, Calero Says FOGO DE CHAO: Bid to Dismiss Filed in Garcia-Alvarez FLSA Suit GEICO GENERAL: Ventrice-Pearson Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes GOOGLE LLC: Apps Record Audio Data Without Consent, Brekhus Says GOOGLE LLC: Sued by Carr for Monopolizing Mobile App Downloads GROVE COLLABORATIVE: Sends Unwanted Marketing Texts, Nieman Says GSE SYSTEMS: Settlement Agreement Reached in Joyce Suit GUADAMUZ CONCRETE: Matus Employment Suit Removed to S.D. Florida H&R ACCOUNTS: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Garcia-Martinez Claims HALLSONS OF LEBANON: Shortchanges Vehicle Reimbursements, Neal says HCC SPECIALTY: Escape Room Operators Slam Denied Insurance HONDA CANADA: Settles Takata Airbag Inflator Class Action HOSPITALITY BUILDERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ewald Says HY-LOND HOME: Estrada Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California INDEGENE INC: Bid to Certify Class Hearing Adjourned to Oct. 15 INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Bid to Dismiss Tchatchou Class Suit Pending JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Pollack Balks at Proposed $900MM NexPoint Sale JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Rosenblatt Files Suit Over NexPoint Merger Deal JMI REPORTS: Misclassifies Field Inspectors, Snow Suit Alleges KENOSHA, WI: Akindes Challenges Arrest of Peaceful Protesters KIRKLAND'S INC: Discovery Ongoing in Miles Class Suit KLX ENERGY: Quintana Energy Services Merger-Related Suits Nixed KRAFT HEINZ: Brower Sues Over Mislabeled Maxwell House Coffee LAFISE CORP: Guevara Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla. LEGACY TRANSIT: Shortchanges Workers' Wages, McCurry Claims LINKEDIN CORP: Bailey Sues Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plan LOANCARE LLC: Alvarez Seeks to Certify FCCPA & FDUTPA Classes LUCKY STORES: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Beasley Suit LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend Gathmann-Landini Suit MCM PRODUCTS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Says MDO2 FITNESS: McKee Suit Removed to District of South Carolina MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Moreno Sues Over Inaccurate Wage Statements MEI PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 9 Deadline MH SUB I: Bid to Dismiss/Strike Class Claims in Rattler Suit Denied MONEY STORE: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Claims Dismissal in Piatt Suit MS PIMA: Lozada Sues Over Wrongful Termination & Disability Bias NCAA: Aldrich Suit Moved From N.D. California to S.D. Indiana NEW HILL TOP: Han Suit Challenges Unlawful Employment Policies NEW MEXICO: Class Action Calls for Coronavirus Safety in Prisons NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed v. Felix in Gulino Bias Suit NEWTON CITY, MA: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Carresi Says NORDSON CORP: Settlement Reached in Ortiz Suit NVIDIA CORP: Bid to Nix Consolidated Putative Class Suit Pending NY TEX CARE: Use of Proposed FLSA Notice in Francisco Modified OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP: Decof Files Suit in California ON DECK: D&Os Faces Doaty Shareholder Suit Over Sale to Enova OREGON MUTUAL: Thai Restos Slam Denied Insurance Claims PERFORMING ARTS: Marroquin Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation PRECISION DIRECTIONAL: Ferron Sues Over Improper Overtime Wages PRINCIPIA BIOPHARMA: Sanofi Sale Filings Lack Info, Hawkins Says PRODUCTION RESOURCE: Perez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California PROGENITY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of October 27 Deadline PROGENITY INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 27 Deadline PSCU INC: Gibbons Sues Over Unpaid OT Pay for Call-Center Workers PURITAN'S PRIDE: Partial Summary Judgment Granted in Sharpe Suit QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Manta Files Class Action in Massachusetts RAPID FINANCIAL: Watkins EFTA Suit Removed to District of Nevada S.R. INTERIORS: Fails to Pay Brick Layers' OT Wages, Delgado Says SALT SPRINGS: Dismissal of Williams Suit Under FCCPA Reversed SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Romero Suit Has Prelim Approval SERCO INC: Removes Bernal Suit From Super. Ct. to C.D. California SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Class Suits in Calif. Ongoing STAAR SURGICAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 19 Deadline SYNCHRONOSS TECH: Complaint Amended in Securities Litigation TELIGENT INC: Econazole Antitrust Litigation Ongoing TELIGENT INC: Generic Drug Price-Fixing Suit in Canada Ongoing TELIGENT INC: Okla. Police Pension Fund & Retirement Suit Ongoing THS GROUP: Faces Campo Class Suit Arising From Unsolicited Calls TILLY'S INC: Settlement Talks in Gonzales Suit Still Ongoing U.S. BANK: Yousefi Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. California UBER: New Contracts Won't Allow Drivers to Join Class Action UNDERWEST WESTSIDE: May Directly Mail Notice to Hilaire Class UNITED STATES: Fails to Accommodate Disabled Worker, Maloney Says UNITED STATES: Harrington Sues USPS Over Merging of Post Offices VYSTAR CORP: LaChapelle Class Suit vs. Rotmans Furniture Ongoing WAITERCOM INC: Moreno Sues in California Over Untimely Wages WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Whitaker Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo. WESTROCK SERVICES: Castrejon Suit Moved From E.D. to N.D. Calif. XEROX BUSINESS: Must Face Call Center Workers' Class Action YAYYO INC: Vanbecelaere Securities Suit Moved to C.D. California ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: Securities Action in New Jersey Dismissed ********* ABBVIE INC: Delays Market Entry of Generic Bystolic, Cook Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- NINA M. COOK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ABBVIE INC.; ALLERGAN, INC.; ALLERGAN SALES, LLC; ALLERGAN USA, INC.; FOREST LABORATORIES, INC.; FOREST LABORATORIES HOLDINGS, LTD.; FOREST LABORATORIES IRELAND, LTD.; and FOREST LABORATORIES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07352 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2020), asserts claims against the Defendants for conspiracy, monopolization and monopolistic scheme under state law, unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts in violation of state consumer protection laws, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated consumers, alleges that the Defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired to monopolize the Bystolic and AB-rated bioequivalent nebivolol hydrochloride (HCl) products market in the United States. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants accomplished this scheme by, among other things, (1) engaging into a series of unlawful reverse-payment agreements with potential generic competitors by sharing monopoly profits with them to induce them to delay the entry of generic Bystolic until September 2021 in order to lengthen the period in which the Defendants' brand Bystolic could monopolize the market and make supracompetitive profits; and (2) raising and maintaining prices so that the Plaintiff and Class members would pay for Bystolic at supracompetitive prices. As a result of the Defendants' monopolistic scheme and concerted monopolistic conduct, they unlawfully maintained, enhanced, and extended its monopoly power and the Plaintiff and Class members were harmed and suffered overcharge damages as they would have been able to purchase less expensive generic Bystolic instead of branded Bystolic at artificially inflated prices, the Plaintiff asserts. AbbVie, Inc., is an American biopharmaceutical company with its corporate headquarters at 1 North Waukegan Road, in North Chicago, Illinois. Headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey, Allergan, Inc., is a global pharmaceutical company that focused on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and urologics. Allergan Sales, LLC, is a pharmaceutical company that provides eye care, medical aesthetics and dermatology, gastroenterology, women's health, urology, and anti-infective therapeutic diseases related products, headquartered in Madison, New Jersey. Allergan USA, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company that develops and markets medicines for overactive bladders, urinary tract infections, and menopause symptoms, well as urinary analgesic-antiseptic products, with its principal place of business located in Madison, New Jersey. Forest Laboratories, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company with its principal place of business located at 909 Third Avenue, in New York City. Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd., is a pharmaceutical company with principal place of business located in Hamilton, Bermuda. Forest Laboratories Ireland Ltd. is a pharmaceutical company with a place of business at Clonshaugh Industrial Estate, in Dublin, Ireland. Forest Laboratories, LLC, is a pharmaceutical company with its principal place of business located in Parsippany, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael M. Buchman, Esq. Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq. Jacob Onile-Ere, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 777 Third Avenue, 27th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 577-0040 Facsimile: (212) 577-0044 E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com mclerkin@motleyrice.com jonileere@motleyrice.com - and – John Alden Meade, Esq. MEADE YOUNG LLC 909 Poydras St., Suite 1600 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 799-3102 Facsimile: (504) 717-2846 E-mail: jam@meadeyoung.com ABBVIE INC: Fraternal Order Sues Over Monopoly of Bystolic Drug --------------------------------------------------------------- FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, MIAMI LODGE 20, INSURANCE TRUST FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. ABBVIE, INC., ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN SALES, LLC, ALLERGAN USA, INC., FOREST LABORATORIES, INC., FOREST LABORATORIES, LLC, FOREST LABORATORIES HOLDINGS, LTD., and FOREST LABORATORIES IRELAND LTD., Case No. 1:20-cv-07304 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2020), alleges that Defendants engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to monopolize the branded drug Bystolic. Bystolic, the brand name for nebivolol hydrochloride or nebivolol HCl, is a "beta blocker" used for the treatment of high blood pressure. According to the complaint, Forest engineered a series of unlawful reverse-payment deals pursuant to which each of the generic competitors agreed not to compete with Forest or enter the market prior to September 17, 2021, unless another generic competitor entered the market earlier. These generic competitors include Hetero Labs Ltd. and Hetero USA Inc.; Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Torrent Pharma Inc.; Alkem Laboratories Ltd.; Indchemie Health Specialties Private Ltd.; Glenmark Generics Inc., USA; Glenmark Generics Ltd. and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; and Watson Pharma, Inc. and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The monopoly power of the Defendants in the nebivolol HCl market was maintained through willful exclusionary conduct, as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a legally-obtained valid patent, other legally-obtained market exclusivity, a superior product, business acumen, or historical accident, according to the complaint. The Defendants' unlawful conduct injured the Plaintiff and the proposed Class by preventing generic nebivolol HCI manufacturers from entering the market with competing generic products and has cost Plaintiff and the proposed Class hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharge damages. Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund is a governmental plan established and funded through contributions from the City of Miami and the plan's members, who are current and retired sworn officers from the City of Miami Police Department and their dependents. Abbvie Inc., Allergan, Inc., Allergan Sales, LLC, Allergan USA, Inc., Forest Laboratories, Inc., Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd., and Forest Laboratories, LLC are pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. Forest Laboratories Ireland, Ltd. is a Dublin, Ireland-based pharmaceutical company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurie Rubinow, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 52 Duane Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (860) 526-1100 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: lrubinow@sfmslaw.com - and - Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1625 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 320 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 515-0123 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com - and - Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com ABBVIE INC: Monopolizes Market for Nebivolol HCl, Maffei Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA MAFFEI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ABBVIE INC.; ALLERGAN, INC.; ALLERGAN SALES, LLC; ALLERGAN USA, INC.; FOREST LABORATORIES, INC.; FOREST LABORATORIES HOLDINGS, LTD.; FOREST LABORATORIES IRELAND, LTD.; and FOREST LABORATORIES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07296 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2020), asserts claims for conspiracy, monopolization and monopolistic scheme, unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts, in violation of state consumer protection laws. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated entities or individuals, alleges that the Defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired to monopolize the Bystolic and AB-rated bioequivalent nebivolol hydrochloride (HCl) products market. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants accomplished this scheme by, among other things, (1) entering into a series of unlawful reverse-payment agreements with potential generic competitors to delay the entry of generic Bystolic in the United States until September 17, 2021, and to lengthen the period in which the Defendants' brand Bystolic could monopolize the market and make supracompetitive profits; and (2) raising and maintaining prices so that the Plaintiff and Class members would pay for Bystolic at supracompetitive prices. As a result of the Defendants' monopolistic scheme and concerted monopolistic conduct, they unlawfully maintained, enhanced, and extended its monopoly power and the Plaintiff and Class members were harmed and suffered overcharge damages as they would have been able to purchase less expensive generic Bystolic instead of branded Bystolic at artificially inflated prices, according to the complaint. AbbVie, Inc., is an American biopharmaceutical company with its corporate headquarters at 1 North Waukegan Road, in North Chicago, Illinois. Headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey, Allergan, Inc., is a global pharmaceutical company that focused on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and urologics. Based in Madison, New Jersey, Allergan Sales, LLC, is a pharmaceutical company that provides eye care, medical aesthetics and dermatology, gastroenterology, women's health, urology, and anti-infective therapeutic diseases related products. Allergan USA, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company that develops and markets medicines for overactive bladders, urinary tract infections, and menopause symptoms, well as urinary analgesic-antiseptic products, with its principal place of business located in Madison, New Jersey. Forest Laboratories, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company with its principal place of business located in New York City. Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd., is a pharmaceutical company with principal place of business located in Hamilton, Bermuda. Forest Laboratories Ireland Ltd. is a pharmaceutical company with a place of business in Dublin, Ireland. Forest Laboratories, LLC, is a pharmaceutical company with its principal place of business located at in Parsippany, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 3 Terry Drive, Suite 205 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: (267) 685-0676 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com elechtzin@edelson-law.com - and – Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. GRABAR LAW OFFICE 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 507-6085 Facsimile: (267) 507-6048 E-mail: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com ADTALEM GLOBAL: Brown Putative Class Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------------------- Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, that court entered an order of dismissal without prejudice on the putative class action suit initiated by Robby Brown,. On March 29, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Robby Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., in the Western District of Missouri. The complaint was filed on behalf of himself and two separate classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Missouri and who purchased or paid for and received any part of a DeVry University program. The plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate and assert claims of breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs sought compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest disgorgement, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 31, 2019. On October 9, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and conversion, allowing the remaining claims to proceed. On October 29, 2019, defendants filed an answer to the complaint. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action on May 11, 2020. The court entered an Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice on May 13, 2020. Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business. Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in Chicago, Illinois. ADTALEM GLOBAL: Magana Putative Class Suit Closed ------------------------------------------------- Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, that the putative class action suit initiated by Magana has been closed by the court. On August 13, 2019, a plaintiff, Magana, filed a putative class action lawsuit against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging damages based on allegedly deceptive statements made about the benefits of obtaining a DeVry University degree. Plaintiffs asserted claims under the California Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising Law, and claims of fraud/material misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment/intentional omission of material facts, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action on May 11, 2020. The court closed the case on May 13, 2020. Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business. Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in Chicago, Illinois. ADTALEM GLOBAL: Robinson Putative Class Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, that the putative class action suit initiated by T'Lani Robinson has been dismissed. On April 3, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by T'Lani Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., in the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Georgia who purchased or paid for and received any part of a DeVry University program. The plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate and assert claims of breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs sought compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest disgorgement, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 31, 2019. On November, 25, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion with prejudice. The court dismissed the claims for negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment without prejudice, ordering plaintiffs' to file an amended class-action complaint within fourteen days of the order. The court allowed the claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief to proceed. On December 9, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended class-action complaint. On December 23, 2019, defendants filed their answer to the amended class action complaint. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action on May 12, 2020. The court dismissed the case on May 13, 2020. Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business. Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in Chicago, Illinois. AETNA INC: Plan Participants Hit Share Drop from Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ Tammy Marion and Raymond Radcliffe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Aetna, Inc., CVS Health Corporation, Aetna Benefits Finance Committee, Larry J. Merlo, Frank M. Clark, Betty Z. Cohen, Jefferey Garten, Mark T. Bertolini, Roger N. Farah, Edward J. Ludwig, Eva C. Borratto, Aetna Does 1-20 and CVS Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01274 (D. Conn., August 28, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages, monetary and appropriate equitable relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Plaintiffs are participants in Aetna 401(k) Plan, which on November 28, 2018 was converted into the CVS 401(k) Plan after Aetna and CVS signed a merger agreement on December 3, 2018. Aetna Stock Plan 401K participant's Aetna stock units were exchanged into CVS stock units upon closing of the merger. Plaintiffs allege that CVS stock price became inflated after its acquisition of Omnicare in 2015, touting the potential boost to its earning from the Omnicare operations since that acquisition. However, the Omnicare acquisition did not contribute to CVS in anywhere near the predicted levels of accretive earnings causing CVS stock price to drop more than 20%. In late February 2019, CVS announced a multi-billion-dollar impairment charge to its Omnicare-related goodwill, citing "operational challenges" as a basis. The price of CVS share value had declined over 13% relative to healthcare-related funds causing substantial loss and damage to Plan assets and participants accounts' who had/were invested in Aetna stock units.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Kindall, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Tel: (860) 493-6292 Fax: (860) 493-6290 Email: mkindall@ikrlaw.com ofaircloth@ikrlaw.com AIR METHODS: Cowen, et al. File Motion for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY SCARLETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AIR METHODS CORPORATION and ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-02723-RBJ (D. Colo), the Plaintiffs Cowen, Kranhold, Hughes O'Neal, and Armato ask the Court for an order certifying a class consisting of: "all persons who have been charged or to whom charges have been submitted by Defendants for air medical transportation by the Defendants from a location in (a) Arizona, (b) Missouri, and/or (c) Alabama." According to the complaint, the experiences of the Cowen Plaintiffs were all part of the same uniform practice, and the Defendants have admitted that the same forms and procedures and practices were employed for "every patient" it transports. As such the evidence regarding contract formation is common to all transported patient and the contract at issue is the same. The Defendants allege that all transported patients are obligated to pay "whatever" the Defendants charge for air ambulance transportation, which charges are not constrained by reasonableness. In fact, the reasonableness of the Defendants rates cannot be litigated because the reasonableness of its rates is subject to federal preemption under the FAA, 49 U.S.C. section 41713 (ADA). The Defendants have no legal entitlement to payment as the common law remedies for payment in the absence of contract are unavailing by virtue of the broad sweep of ADA preemption. Air Methods Corporation is an American privately owned helicopter operator. The air medical division provides emergency medical services to 70,000-100,000 patients every year, and operates in 48 states and Haiti. Rocky Mountain Holdings LLC provides air medical transportation services utilizing a fleet of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. A copy of the Cowen Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3c0QBCQ at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Cowen and Armato, et al., are: Richard J. Burke, Esq. Jamie Weiss, Esq. Zachary A. Jacobs, Esq. QUANTUM LEGAL, LLC 513 Central Ave., Suite 300 Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone: (847) 433-4500 Facsimile: (847) 433-2500 E-mail: richard@qulegal.com jamie@qulegal.com zach@qulegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Jessica J. Smith Matthew J. Smith HOLLAND & HART LLP 555 17th Street, Suite 3200 Denver, CO 80202 E-mail: JJSmith@hollandhart.com MJSmith@hollandhart.com - and - David A. King, Esq. Amy D. Fitts, Esq. POLSINELLI PC 900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900 Kansas City, MO 64112 E-mail: dking@polsinelli.com afitts@polsinelli.com AMATEUR ATHLETIC: Can Compel Arbitration in Hidalgo Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TIMOTHY HIDALGO, Plaintiff, v. AMATEUR ATHLETIC UNION OF THE UNITED STATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-10545 (JGK) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge John G. Koetl of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Defendant's (i) motion to compel arbitration, and (ii) motion to stay the action pending arbitration. Plaintiff Hidalgo brought claims for common law negligence, negligence per se, and breach of implied contract, as well as for statutory violations of the New York General Business Law, and the Rhode Island Deceptive Trade Practices Act. All the Plaintiff's claims arise out of a data breach that allegedly resulted in financial losses, identity theft, and other injuries to people, like the Plaintiff, who had personal information, including credit card and debit card information, stored with the Amateur Athletic Union of the United States ("AAU"). The AAU is a non-profit, volunteer-based, multi-sport event organization that promotes and develops amateur sports and physical fitness programs for youths and adults. Individuals may apply to become members of the AAU as athletes or non-athletes; the latter category includes coaches, administrators, managers, instructors, and officials. Individuals may apply for AAU membership by filling out an online application at https://aausports.org. The AAU online membership application contains many questions that require the applicant to answer. Before submitting the application by clicking the green "Continue" button in the bottom right corner, an applicant must, among other things, check a box that appears to the immediate left of the words "I understand and agree to all terms and conditions listed." The check box and the accompanying text appear at the bottom of a yellow box in the application immediately below the bold heading "Terms and Conditions - Digital Signature. The blue text is a hyperlink that takes the applicant to a separate "AAU Code Book" screen. The resulting page that a user is taken to displays the table of contents of the AAU Code Book. On the table of contents page, is a button to the complete PDF version of the AAU Code Book. The AAU Code Book screen also contains hyperlinks to each chapter contained within the AAU Code Book, one of which is titled "Policies." In the "Policies" section of the table of contents, the first subheading is labeled "Membership Policy" and a sub-subheading below the "Membership Policy" subheading is labeled "Binding Arbitration." Upon clicking on the hyperlink labeled "AAU National Policies of the AAU," which contains the "Binding Arbitration" provision, which appears in bold text and in capital letters. On May 16, 2019, the Plaintiff applied for membership with the AAU by filling out an application on the Website. He used his debit card to pay the $32 fee for a coach's certificate at the time he submitted his application. He applied for membership by accessing the Website on the Safari web browser application on his iPhone. When the Plaintiff applied for membership he necessarily checked the box in the "terms and conditions." His membership was accepted by the AAU on May 29, 2019, roughly two weeks after he applied, and the Plaintiff thereafter became eligible to participate in the AAU's youth program as a coach or other kind of volunteer. Private information, including credit and debit card information, of individuals who conducted transactions on the Website between Oct. 1, 2018 and July 2, 2019, including that information from the Plaintiff, was subject to a data breach that the AAU publicly disclosed in September 2019. The Plaintiff generally alleged in the Complaint that the AAU failed to take reasonable steps to employ adequate security measures or to properly protect sensitive payment Personal Information and that in the aftermath of the breach, AAU's actions in remedying the injuries of victims of the breach were inadequate. On Nov. 13, 2019, the Plaintiff brought the case as a class action on behalf of all residents of the United States whose Personal Information was compromised as a result of the data breach first disclosed by AAU in September 2019. He brought claims for common-law negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violations of the Rhode Island Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and violations of the New York General Business Law. The Defendant moved pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, to compel arbitration of the plaintiff's claims and stay the case pending arbitration. The first question is whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate. With respect to this question, the parties dispute only whether the Plaintiff had "reasonable notice" of the arbitration provision contained in the AAU Code Book sufficient for him to manifest assent to the terms of the arbitration provision by virtue of completing the AAU membership application and becoming a member of the AAU. Judge Koetl finds that the Plaintiff has failed to raise any issue of triable fact as to whether he had "reasonable notice" that he would be bound by the arbitration provision contained in the AAU Code Book upon completing his application for membership in the AAU. There is therefore no dispute that he assented to the arbitration provision when he checked the box on the AAU membership application page indicating his agreement with all the terms and conditions listed and then submitted the membership application. The next question is whether the particular claims brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant are within the scope of the arbitration provision. The Plaintiff argues principally that because his payment information was stolen from AAU's website when he applied for membership on May 16, 2019, 13 days before his AAU membership began, the dispute between the parties in the case does not arise out of or during the term of membership. In light of the broad delegation to the arbitrator of issues of arbitrability, the Plaintiff's argument that his claims are not covered by the arbitration provision because the claims do not arise out of or during the term of membership is an argument that must be submitted to the arbitrator in the first instance. Therefore, all of the Plaintiff's claims must be submitted to arbitration as provided for in the arbitration provision contained in the AAU Code Book. It will be for the arbitrator to decide whether any of the Plaintiff's claims are beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement. The Defendant requests that the Court stay the case pending arbitration if it grants its motion to compel arbitration. In the case, all claims have been ordered to be submitted to arbitration, therefore, the case is stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration. Juduge Koetl has considered all of the arguments of the parties. To the extent not discussed, the arguments are either moot or without merit. The motion to compel arbitration is granted. The motion to stay the action pending the outcome of arbitration is granted. The parties should report back to the Court promptly at the conclusion of the arbitration. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 16, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://bit.ly/3mwGSsS from Leagle.com. AMAZON.COM INC: Sells Faulty Lithium-Ion Batteries, Crosby Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- CRAIG CROSBY and CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-08003 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 1, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for violations of California's False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and Washington Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated consumers, allege that the Defendant is engaged in false and deceptive advertising, marketing, and selling of defective lithium-ion 18650 batteries. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant failed to disclose material information about the quality and dangerous nature of lithium-ion batteries and products containing them, including their energy capacity, the absence of protective circuits and voltage cutoffs, and the risks associated with their use. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions, the Plaintiffs say they and Class members have been, and continue to be, exposed to false information regarding the quality and dangerous nature of lithium-ion 18650 batteries. Amazon.com Inc. is a multinational technology company that focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence, with its principal place of business at 410 Terry Avenue, in Seattle, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Niall P. McCarthy, Esq. Eric J. Buescher, Esq. Kelsey J. Moe, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com ebuescher@cpmlegal.com kmoe@cpmlegal.com AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces Gude Suit Over Unlawful Subrogation Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- DORIS GUDE v. AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:20-cv-01168-RLW (E.D. Mo., Aug. 27, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all similarly situated arising from the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct of presenting "subrogation claims" against another insurance company that issued policies to third-party tortfeasor, without the consent of the Plaintiff insured and despite Missouri law, which does not permit such activity. On July 1, 2019, the Plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident with a third-party tortfeasor not named in this action. As a result of the collision, the Plaintiff made a claim to the Defendant for property damage. The Defendant paid only a portion of her claim to and the amount that the she received was less than the damages she was entitled to, the Plaintiff avers. According to the complaint, after paying a portion of the property damage covered by the Plaintiff's policy, the Defendant made a "subrogation claim" directed to the tortfeasor's insurance company, Geico Casualty Company, which Geico paid. The Defendant and Geico privately negotiated and/or arbitrated the "subrogation claim" and together came to an agreement regarding inter alia, who was at fault, the amount of damages or loss involved, whether any discounts should be applied, and other matters affecting the rights of the Plaintiff, without the Plaintiff's knowledge and/or consent. As a result of the conduct, the Plaintiff was damaged when, because of the Defendant's illegal "subrogation claims" directed at third-party tortfeasors' insurance companies, the Plaintiff recovered less than she otherwise would have recovered from third party tortfeasors, or their insurance companies, due to the third party insurance companies having already paid over monies to the Defendant without the Plaintiff's knowledge or consent, according to the complaint. The Defendant has been unjustly enriched to the extent that the Defendant withheld payments it received from Geico, as reimbursement for payments it made to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Defendant's "subrogation claim" when in fact, the amount received by the Plaintiff from or on behalf of the thirdparty tortfeasors did not exceed the Plaintiff's "uninsured losses." American Family Insurance Company is a Wisconsin-based foreign insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony G. Simon, Esq. Anthony R. Friedman, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C. 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 Facsimile: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com afriedman@simonlawpc.com - and - Michael D. Stokes, Esq. Gonzalo A. Fernandez, Esq. DEVEREAUX, STOKES, NOLAN, FERNANDEZ & LEONARD 133 S. 11th Street, Suite 350 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-3743 Facsimile: (314) 621-5705 E-mail: lori@stltriallawyers.com gonz@stltriallawyers.com AMERICAN PUBLIC: Security Officers Seek OT Pay, Reimbursements -------------------------------------------------------------- Bryson McCaskill and Carlitos McTizic, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Public Defense Inc., Lewis Brown, Valencia Brown, Ernest Jackson and Juan Batalla, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-05097 (N.D. Ill., August 28, 2020), seeks overtime wages for hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek, wages and final compensation for hours worked, including, hours logged but not paid, required travel time, wait time and meetings, reimbursement for necessary expenditures or losses required in the discharge of their employment duties and for unauthorized deductions from wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law and Illinois Wage Payment Collection Act. McCaskill and McTizic worked as a security officers for American Public Defense. They claim that they were deducted for uniforms, fines, infractions and rule violations without obtaining their written consent. They also claim to be not compensated for all of the hours that they worked during their shifts. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Antonio DeBlasio, Esq. David M. Gower, Esq. DEBLASIO & GOWER LLC 2001 Midwest Road, Suite 100 Oak Brook, IL 60523 Tel: (630) 560-1123 Fax: (630) 364-4206 Email: deblasio@DGLLC.net gower@DGLLC.net AMERIHEALTH CARITAS: Webb-Jones Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- TARA L. WEBB-JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERIHEALTH CARITAS SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-04361 (E.D. Penn., Sept. 4, 2020), challenges the Defendant's alleged failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as Grievance Coordinator from August 2017 until her separation from employment on January 7, 2020. The Plaintiff alleges that she regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. However, the Defendant did not properly compensate her at one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Allegedly, the Defendant denied her of overtime compensation due to the Defendant's policy and practice of misclassifying its Grievance Coordinators as employees exempt from overtime compensation. Amerihealth Caritas Services, LLC, provides health care solution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: 267-273-1054 Fax: 215-525-0210 Email: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com ANALOG DEVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hong Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CALVIN HONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANALOG DEVICES, INC.; LINEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20CV369017 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Aug. 7, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation, to authorize and permit meal and rest periods, to provide accurate wage statements, and to reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Hong was employed by the Defendants as staff. Analog Devices, Inc., designs, manufactures, and markets integrated circuits used in analog and digital signal processing. The Company's products are used in communications, computer, industrial, instrumentation, military, aerospace, automotive, and high-performance consumer electronics applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Philip Song, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 APEX SYSTEMS: McDaniel Seeks Pay for Missed Breaks, Rest Periods ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ivey McDaniel and Jay Perry, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apex Systems, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-06073, (N.D. Cal., August 28, 2020), seeks monetary damages and restitution, penalties/premium pay for missed meal and rest periods, restitution and restoration of sums owed and property unlawfully withheld, reimbursement of business-related expenses, payment of final wages upon termination, statutory penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs under California labor code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Orders. Apex operates a consulting business and directly employ workers on a contractual basis. McDaniel and Perry worked for Apex as hourly-paid employees. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Areen Babajanian, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Glendale, CA 91203 Tel: (818) 230-7502 Fax: (818) 230-7259 - and - Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq. STEPHANIE E. YASUDA, Esq. Rian G. Lee, Esq. YOON LAW, APC One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612-0988 Facsimile: (213) 947-1211 Email: blee@yoonlaw.com APTDECO INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Calcano Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- EVELINA CALCANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APTDECO, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-06497-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2020), alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.aptdeco.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. AptDeco, Inc., is a peer to peer marketplace for buying and selling furniture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal danalgottlieb@aol.com ASSET MARKETING: Sosa Asserts Breach of American Disabilities Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Asset Marketing Services, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Asset Marketing Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07129 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 1, 2020). Asset Marketing Services, LLC operates as a private distributor of precious metal coins.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: KPH Antitrust Suit Moved to Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a/k/a KINNEY DRUGS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS L.P.; ASTRAZENECA L.P.; ASTRAZENECA UK LIMITED; HANDA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; and PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01096, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on September 9, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the District of Delaware assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01201-UNA to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing and foreclosing competition in the market for Seroquel XR, quetiapine fumarate extended-release tablets, in the United States. KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc., is an operator of retail and online pharmacies, with headquarters in Gouverneur, New York. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP is a pharmaceutical company, with a principal place of business at 1800 Concord Pike, in Wilmington, Delaware. AstraZeneca LP is a pharmaceutical company, with its principal place of business at 1800 Concord Pike, in Wilmington, Delaware. AstraZeneca UK Limited is a pharmaceutical firm, with its principal place of business at 15 Stanhope Gate, in London, United Kingdom. Handa Pharmaceuticals, LLC is a pharmaceutical company, with a principal place of business at 1732 N. 1st Street, Suite 200, in San Jose, California. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with its principal place of business at One Ram Ridge Road, in Chestnut Ridge, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Roberts, Esq. Debra G. Josephson, Esq. Karen S. Halbert, Esq. Stephanie E. Smith, Esq. Sarah E. DeLoach, Esq. William R. Olson, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A. 20 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 Telephone: (501) 821-5575 Facsimile: (501) 821-4474 E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us debrajosephson@robertslawfirm.us karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us stephaniesmith@robertslawfirm.us sarahdeloach@robertslawfirm.us williamolson@robertslawfirm.us - and – Dianne M. Nast, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 923-9300 Facsimile: (215) 923-9302 E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com ATM RESPONSE: Faces Culver FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN CULVER, THOMAS HEAPE, ROY THOMAS EIDSON, ANASTASIA COX, CORDELIA GOBER, and JOSHUA LAWSON, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated persons v. ATM RESPONSE, INC., and CLAYTON BRASWELL, Case No. 1:20-cv-03551-TWT (N.D. Ga., Aug. 27, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act relating to the misclassification of all current or former non-exempt employees as independent contractors and depriving them of overtime wages. According to the complaint, in violation of the FLSA and as a regular and routine practice, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and similarly-situated persons overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Instead, during the relevant time period, the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated as independent contractors and paid them straight time for all on-the-clock hours worked, including all recorded time worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants employed Plaintiff Culver from approximately 2005 to August 2020 as route manager; Plaintiff Heape from approximately August 1, 2016, to August 7, 2020, as assistant vault manager; Plaintiff Eidson as an ATM service technician from May 2017 to March 5, 2020; Plaintiff Cox as an ATM service technician from December 2018 to February 2020; Plaintiff Gober as an ATM Service Technician from August 2019 to August 21, 2020; and Plaintiff Lawson from approximately 2010 to December 28, 2019, as field training officer and supervisor. Based in Duluth, Georgia, ATM Response Inc. is in the business of servicing and maintaining automatic teller machines, as well as providing other cash services to clients.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin M. Scott, Esq. Michael David Forrest, Esq. SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C. 160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 780-4880 Facsimile: (478) 575-2590 E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com mforrest@scottemploymentlaw.com AU CAPITAL: Sosa Alleges Violation under ADA in New York -------------------------------------------------------- AU Capital Management, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AU Capital Management, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07126 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 1, 2020). AU Capital Management is engaged in the business of buying and selling rare coins and precious metals. .[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com B CHIC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. B CHIC FASHIONS INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01711-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal., Aug. 26, 2020), seeks to secure redress against the Defendants for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their Web site to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Because the Company's Web site, https://www.bchicfashions.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the Defendants violate the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act ("UCRA"). The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that their Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. B Chic Fashions Inc. is a Belmont, California-headquartered company, which provides to the public important goods and services. The Company's Web site provides consumers with access to a collection of women's specialty dresses including bridesmaid dresses, evening/long dresses, prom dresses, cocktail dresses, shoes and other products and services, which are available online and in store for purchase.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. Bobby Saadian, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com ada@wilshirelawfirm.com BANK OF AMERICA: Did Not Pay Unused Vacation Pay, Carroll Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA CARROLL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; and BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-07133 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay unused vacation pay, and to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff Carroll was employed by the Defendants as staff. Bank of America, National Association, operates as a bank. The Bank offers saving and current account, investment and financial services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr., Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91301 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com BLACKBAUD INC: Fails to Protect Clients' Data, Estes Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- MAMIE ESTES and SHAWN REGAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BLACKBAUD, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-08275 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 9, 2020), is brought for negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, and violations of California Unfair Competition Law and California Consumer Privacy Act. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated clients of Blackbaud, allege that the Defendant failed to protect their sensitive personal information following the ransomware attack and data breach of several schools, healthcare, non-profit companies, and other organizations, whose data and servers were managed, maintained, and secured by Blackbaud, in May 2020. Moreover, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant failed to provide timely and adequate notice to them and other Class Members that their information had been subjected to the unauthorized access of an unknown third-party, failed to identify all information that was accessed, and also failed to provide them with any redress for the data breach. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Blackbaud, Inc., provides cybersecurity services with its principal place of business located in Charleston County, South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alex R. Straus, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP 16748 McCormick Street Los Angeles, CA 91436 Telephone: (917) 471-1894 Facsimile: (615) 921-6501 E-mail: astraus@whitfieldbryson.com - and – Harper Todd Segui, Esq. Matthew E. Lee, Esq. Erin J. Ruben, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: alex@whitfieldbryson.com harper@whitfieldbryson.com matt@whitfieldbryson.com BLACKBAUD: Faces Class Action Following Ransomware Attack --------------------------------------------------------- Mathew J. Schwartz, writing for Bank Info Security, reports that filing a class action lawsuit against a business that has suffered a data breach is a common occurrence. Increasingly, however, ransomware is becoming part of the mix, owing to gangs first exfiltrating data and then threatening to leak it if victims don't pay a ransom. Ransomware adds a further wrinkle to the data breach discussion and potential legal ramifications for breached organizations: A growing number of organizations hit by ransomware have said that they were able to wipe and restore systems from backups, but they paid a ransom to their attackers anyway in return for a promise that they would delete all of the stolen data and not provide or sell it to anyone else first. Can thieves be trusted to honor such promises? That's one question posed by a lawsuit seeking class action status filed against South Carolina-based Blackbaud. The publicly traded firm, which provides cloud-based marketing, fundraising and customer relationship management software used by thousands of charities, universities, healthcare organizations and others, suffered a data exfiltration and ransomware attack in May. Questions persist about the Blackbaud breach because the company detected the intrusion in May but only notified customers beginning in July. The list of victims includes organizations in Europe, meaning Blackbaud must comply with the EU's General Data Protection Regulation, which requires that regulators be informed within 72 hours of any breach about the details of what happened and what was stolen. Blackbaud has yet to respond to Information Security Media Group's request to clarify when it first notified European regulators (see: Blackbaud's Bizarre Ransomware Attack Notification). 'We Paid the Cybercriminal's Demand' In its breach notification, Blackbaud notes that it paid a ransom to secure a promise from attackers that they would delete all stolen data. "Prior to our locking the cybercriminal out, the cybercriminal removed a copy of a subset of data from our self-hosted environment," Blackbaud states in its breach notification. "The cybercriminal did not access credit card information, bank account information or Social Security numbers. Because protecting our customers' data is our top priority, we paid the cybercriminal's demand with confirmation that the copy they removed had been destroyed." Following the breach notification, Blackbaud was hit on Aug. 12 by a lawsuit seeking class action status, filed by Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP on behalf of U.S. resident William Allen, whose "private information was compromised as a direct and proximate result of the data breach." The lawsuit seeks, in part, seven years of prepaid identity theft monitoring for victims. It alleges that the company's security defenses were inadequate and that attackers may have compromised massive quantities of PII, including Social Security, credit card and bank account numbers. One of the firm's attorneys, Matthew Lee, tells ABC affiliate WFTS in Florida that tens of thousands of individuals could have had their PII compromised and may thus be at life-long risk of identity theft. The lawsuit also calls out the company's mention of paying attackers as a way to try and safeguard victims. "To believe basically a criminal who's hacked into your system that they have stood by their word and deleted the information, I don't think that cuts it," Lee told WFTS. Most Data Breach Lawsuits (Still) Fail Many data breaches trigger lawsuits alleging that the breached organization had poor security controls and that victims are due compensation. But at least in the U.S., very few of these lawsuits succeed. Legal experts say that's because many courts have held that victims must suffer harm, and such harm can only be demonstrated by financial loss (see: Why So Many Data Breach Lawsuits Fail). "In pure privacy violations, courts have been reluctant to find compensable harm to data breach victims as the result of mere exposure of certain types of personal information, because the victim can't show any actual harm as a result, as opposed to theoretical harm -- fear that at some point in the future, I might have my identity stolen," says attorney Mark Rasch, who's of counsel to the law firm of Kohrman, Jackson & Krantz, who is not involved in the case. "If you look at the history of data breaches, the early breaches were of credit card information, and the harm was that someone would steal money from the account and you'd be liable for it," he tells Information Security Media Group. States' data breach notification laws are designed to ensure affected consumers are notified so they can take steps to safeguard their PII. But banks or credit card companies are now often the first ones to spot a breach -- because they see a series of unusual charges across cards -- after which they'll cancel cards and issue new ones. Card issuers will typically reimburse any fraud that results. "So the mitigation has already happened before the breach notification," Rasch says. Many breached organizations will also offer at least a year of prepaid identity theft monitoring services, if credit card, Social Security numbers or other data that might be used for identity theft purposes was exposed. That doesn't stop numerous lawsuits from alleging privacy violations. But in the U.S., harm requires showing a financial loss, and privacy has no dollar value. "The fact that we don't assign a dollar value to privacy [means] we don't value privacy," Rasch says. Blackbaud Focused on Mitigation What about the lawsuit's strategy of attempting to blame Blackbaud for paying a ransom to attackers to try to safeguard stolen data? Rasch says that action might actually work in Blackbaud's favor because it shows the company took deliberate steps to try to manage the incident and mitigate its impact, rather than something nefarious, like trying to cover it up. "They didn't . . . pay the hackers for their silence; they paid the hackers to delete and wipe and validate the deletion and wiping of the data -- and that's not necessarily an unreasonable thing to do," Rasch says. "I don't know how much you can believe them or credit them, but even so, you know you're not paying for silence; you're paying for mitigation." [GN] BLINK CHARGING: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 23 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 31 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Blink Charging Co. (NASDAQ: BLNK) between March 6, 2020 and August 19, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Blink investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Blink class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1931.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) many of Blink's charging stations are damaged, neglected, non-functional, inaccessible, nor non-accessible; (2) Blink's purported partnerships and expansions with other companies were overstated; (3) the purported growth of the Company's network has been overstated; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 23, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1931.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Data Incident Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Brinker International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the putative class action suit entitled, In re: Brinker Data Incident Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-00686-TJC-MCR. In fiscal 2018, the company issued a public statement that malware had been discovered at certain Chili's restaurants that may have resulted in unauthorized access or acquisition of customer payment card data. Based on investigation by the company's third-party forensic experts, the company believe most Company-owned Chili's restaurants were impacted by the malware during time frames that vary by restaurant, but the company believes in each case began no earlier than March 21, 2018 and ended no later than April 22, 2018. The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida styled In re: Brinker Data Incident Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-00686-TJC-MCR relating to the cyber security incident described above. In the Litigation, plaintiffs assert various claims stemming from the cyber security incident at the Company's Chili's restaurants involving customer payment card information and seek monetary damages in excess of $5.0 million, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees and costs. On January 4, 2019, we filed a Motion to Dismiss all of plaintiffs' claims asserting that plaintiffs do not have standing to bring the lawsuit and that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. On August 1, 2019, the court granted the company's Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing as to two plaintiffs and denied the motion as to the remaining plaintiffs. On January 28, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the remaining portion of the company's Motion to Dismiss. On March 5, 2020, the court granted the company's Motion for Protection in its entirety. On April 15, 2020 the court entered a first phase scheduling order establishing August 31, 2020 as Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for class certification and November 19, 2020 as the date for hearing Plaintiffs' motion. The parties selected a mediator and the discovery process has resumed. Brinker said, "We believe we have defenses and intend to continue defending the Litigation. As such, as of June 24, 2020, we have concluded that a loss, or range of loss, from this matter is not determinable, therefore, we have not recorded a liability related to the Litigation. We will continue to evaluate this matter based on new information as it becomes available." Brinker International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns, develops, operates, and franchises casual dining restaurants in the United States and internationally. As of June 27, 2018, it owned, operated, or franchised 1,686 restaurants comprising 997 company-owned restaurants and 689 franchised restaurants under the Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy brand names. The company was founded in 1975 and is based in Dallas, Texas. BRUNEL ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Townley Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARK TOWNLEY, individually and for others similarly situated v. BRUNEL ENERGY, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-03115 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 4, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, including failing to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Instrument Commissioning Supervisor from March 2018 until May 2020. The Plaintiff alleges that he was not paid the Defendant overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek despite routinely working 50-60 or more hours a week. Instead, the Defendant paid him the same hourly rate for all hours worked. Brunel Energy, Inc., provides staffing solutions to projects ranging from energy, oil and gas, infrastructure, and mining industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Emails: 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 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com C.R. BARD: Master Complaint Filed in Defective IVC Filters Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the case styled IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC, filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona a master complaint against Defendants C.R. BARD, INC. and BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC., on September 1, 2020. The lawsuit is brought for strict products liability, negligence, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraudulent concealment, loss of consortium, wrongful death, and violations of state consumer fraud and unfair deceptive trade practices in the United States. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in the manufacturing and selling of defective Bard Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filters. The Defendants failed to apply design changes to improve the safety of the Bard IVC Filters despite being aware of the product's design and manufacturing defects. Results from adverse event reports (AERs) also showed that the Bard IVC Filters are more prone to failure than other similar IVC filters for fracture, perforation, migration, and death. As a result of the Defendants' negligence and omissions, the Plaintiffs say they and all other individuals implanted with the Bard IVC Filters have suffered permanent and continuous injuries and damages. C.R. Bard, Inc., is a medical device manufacturer with its principal place of business in New Jersey. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary corporation of Defendant C.R. Bard, with its principal place of business at 1625 West Third Street, in Tempe, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ramon Rossi Lopez, Esq. LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 812-5771 E-mail: rlopez@lopezmchugh.com - and – Robert W. Boatman, Esq. GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A. 2575 East Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225 Telephone: (602) 530-8000 E-mail: rwb@gknet.com C2 FINANCIAL: Franco Balks at Unlawful Credit Report Inquiries -------------------------------------------------------------- CINDY FRANCO, OCTAVIO DAVILA, ABRA DAVILA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. C2 FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a California corporation, PARTNERS CREDIT AND VERIFICATION SOLUTIONS LLC., an Illinois LLC., and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-01754-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal., Sept. 8, 2020), arises from the Defendants' unauthorized and unlawful credit inquiries in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiffs refinanced their home loans with Defendant C2, on multiple occasions. At the time they refinanced, the Plaintiffs assert that they did not authorize the Defendants to run any subsequent credit inquiries after each refinance period. According to the complaint, C2 engaged--without prior authorization--in an unauthorized credit report inquiries, through Defendant PCVS, to all three major credit bureaus, which included Equifax, Experian and TransUnion. The Defendants violated FCRA by using the Plaintiffs' consumer reports for impermissible uses that fall outside the scope of the law. The Defendants' practices were carried out in the manner that their actions were willful under the provisions of FCRA because they were aware of the prohibitions on pulling consumers' credit reports. The Plaintiffs say they suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest when the Defendants accessed their highly confidential personal information on their credit reports at a time when the Defendants had no right to do so, which was an invasion of their right to privacy. C2 Financial Corporation is a California-based residential mortgage broker. Partners Credit and Verification Solutions, LLC, is a credit-related service provider based in California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Rosenberg, Esq. Chad F. Edwards, Esq. ROSENBERG, SHPALL & ZEIGEN, APLC A PROFESSIONAL LEGAL CORPORATION Bernardo Heights Corporate Center 10815 Rancho Bernardo Road, Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (619) 232-1826 Facsimile: (619) 232-1859 - and - Malte Famaes, Esq. Christina Lucio, Esq. FARNAES & LUCIO, APC 2235 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 210 Encinitas, CA 92024 Telephone: (700) 942-9430 Facsimile: (760) 452-4421 E-mail: malte@farnaeslaw.com clucio@farnaeslaw.com CAMERON MUTUAL: Scott Craven DDS Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as SCOTT CRAVEN DDS PC, and MET BUILDING LLC, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated Missouri Citizens v. CAMERON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 20CY-CV06381, was removed from the Missouri Circuit Court, Clay County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on September 8, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00715-NKL to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract by denying the Plaintiffs' coverage claims under the Business Income, Extra Expense, Civil Authority, and Sue and Labor provisions of Cameron's insurance policy. Cameron Mutual Insurance Company is an insurance company based in Cameron, Missouri.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Robert J. Hoffman, Esq. Robert M. Thompson, Esq. Cassandra R. Wait, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP One Kansas City Place 1200 Main Street, Suite 3800 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 374-3200 Facsimile: (816) 374-3300 E-mail: rjhoffman@bclplaw.com rmthompson@blcplaw.com cassie.wait@bclplaw.com - and – Jonathan B. Potts, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 259-2000 Facsimile: (314) 259-2020 E-mail: jonathan.potts@bclplaw.com CANADA: Revenue Agency Faces Class Action Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Lyle Adriano, writing for Insurance Business Canada, reports that a proposed class action has been filed against the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), accusing both the agency and the federal government of negligence and breach of privacy over the recent data breach incidents that rocked the revenue service. The lawsuit was filed August 24, 2020 in Federal Court in Vancouver, CBC News reported. If given approval, the lawsuit will seek financial compensation for all victims to cover damage to credit ratings, costs for credit monitoring, and for mental distress. It is alleged in the lawsuit that several "failings" by the government and the CRA allowed at least three cyberattacks to take place -- they occurred from mid-March to mid-August. But news of the attack was not publicly disclosed until CBC News broke the story in August. The lawsuit further alleges that due to the delay in detecting the breaches, the number of victims whose data was compromised grew to at least 14,500. "The actions of the [CRA] are reprehensible," the claim stated. "and showed a callous disregard for the rights of [victims]." In addition, the lawsuit purported that the CRA's conduct was "a deliberate . . . departure from ordinary standards of decent behaviour, and as such merits punishment." CRA announced that it was "a vulnerability in security software" that led to the online breaches, and that it was not aware of the first cyberattack until August 07. CBC News reported that both the CRA and the federal government have yet to file a response to the lawsuit. [GN] CAROLINA HERRERA: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Brooks Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAROLINA HERRERA LTD., a Delaware limited company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01724-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal., Aug. 27, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act due to its failure to design a Web site that is accessible to Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers during her numerous visits to Company's website at https://www.carolinaherrera.com/us/en, denying her of full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public on Company's website, and its prior iterations. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Company's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Company's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Carolina Herrera Ltd. is a New York-headquartered company whose Web site provides consumers with access to a collection of designer ready to wear women's apparel including dresses, tops, shirts and gowns; accessories, including scarfs and belts; makeup including lipsticks, highlighter, powder and mattifiers; makeup accessories, including tassels, lipstick caps, compact cases, charms, bangles, powder brushes and lip brushes; body care including body cream, deo sticks, deodorant and shower gel. The Web site also provides consumers with access to a collection of fragrances for women and men along with a bridal collection and other products and services, which are available online and in store for purchase.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. Bobby Saadian, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com ada@wilshirelawfirm.com CELINE INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CELINE INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01722-WBS-AC (E.D. Cal., Aug. 27, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act due to its failure to design a Web site that is accessible to Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers during her numerous visits to Company's website at https://www.celine.com/en-us/home, denying her of full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public on Company's website, and its prior iterations. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Company's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Company's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Celine Inc. is a Paris, France-headquartered company whose Web site provides consumers with access to a collection of designer ready to wear apparel for men and women. The Company's website also provides consumers with a fragrance collection, which is available for online and in store for purchase.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. Bobby Saadian, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com ada@wilshirelawfirm.com COAST ALUMINUM: Coleman Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- RAHSAAN COLEMAN, as an individual, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a private attorney general v. COAST ALUMINUM, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG20071694 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Aug. 26, 2020), challenges the Defendants' systemic illegal employment practices that violate the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in California accurate, itemized wage statements whenever overtime wages were paid. Whenever overtime wages were paid, the pay rate shown on the wage statements consistently identified the pay rate as the regular or base hourly rate of pay, rather than an overtime rate. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants in January 2019 as a shear operator. Coast Aluminum, Inc., is a California-based company, which distributes steel and other primary metals and metal products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Simon L. Yang, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com sly@diversitylaw.com - and - William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 531-4214 Facsimile: (831) 634-0333 E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com CONCORDE CAREER: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Davis Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- IDA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. CONCORDE CAREER COLLEGES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02674 (W.D. Tenn., Sept. 4, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, including failure to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a full-time, hourly-paid instructor. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely worked 40 or more hours per week for the Defendant. However, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff the applicable overtime compensation at one and one-half times his regular hourly rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Concorde Career Colleges, Inc., provides health care and dental professional training at its various colleges in the U.S., including one in Memphis, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, Esq. Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 754-8524 Emails: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com CONCOURSE VILLAGE: Peebles Sues Over Missing Paystubs, Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Peebles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Concourse Village, Inc. and Firstservice Residential New York, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06940 (S.D. N.Y., August 27, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and redress for failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants operate Concourse Village, a New York City housing community located in Bronx, New York and contains over 1,800 apartment units where Peebles was employed in the maintenance department. He claims that the time clocks were rounded down and artificially reduced the amount of time worked, automatically deducted time for meal breaks despite having worked through said breaks and that he was denied appropriate pay rate acknowledgement forms and weekly wage statements. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Lee S. Shalov, Esq. Brett R. Gallaway, Esq. Jason S. Giaimo, Esq. McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP 260 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 448-1100 Email: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com bgallaway@mclaughlin.com jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Seeks KCFA's Subpoena Compliance in Corker Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as CORKER, et al. v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00290-RSL (W.D. Wash., Aug. 27, 2020), the Defendants filed a motion to enforce and compel compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum served on respondent Kona Coffee Farmers Association. The subpoena arises out of the said putative class action lawsuit currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington before Judge Robert Lasnik. Despite the Defendants' efforts to compromise with the KCFA, it has produced only 59 documents in response to the Subpoena, according to the Motion. The KCFA has refused to search for, identify, or produce documents falling within the following three categories of documents: (1) any documents dated prior to 2015; (2) any documents the KCFA believes are "already publicly available"; and (3) any documents within the possession of its officers and directors. Because each of these categories of documents is directly relevant to the Defendants' laches defense, an order compelling the KCFA to produce documents falling within these three categories is appropriate, the Defendants tell the Court. Costco Wholesale Corporation, doing business as Costco, is an American multinational corporation, which operates a chain of membership-only warehouse clubs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jaime Drozd Allen, Esq. Sarah Cox, Esq. Benjamin J. Robbins, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: jaimeallen@dwt.com sarahcox@dwt.com benrobbins@dwt.com - and - Kelly G. Laporte, Esq. Nathaniel Dang, Esq. CADES SCHUTTE, A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP Bishop Street, 12th Floor Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 521-9200 Facsimile: (808) 521-9210 E-mail: klaporte@cades.com ndang@cades.com CVS PHARMACY: Behboudi Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as AMIR BEHBOUDI, an individual, for himself and all others similarly situated v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. and DOES 1-50 inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-585042, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on September 8, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-06333 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to timely pay all wages earned in violation of California Labor Code and for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., is a retail company that distributes pharmaceutical products. CVS is headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq. Jessica Dent, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com Jessica.dent@morganlewis.com CWI INC: Milligan Wage and Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as KAYLA MILLIGAN, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CWI, INC. d/b/a CAMPINGWORLD and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS2013999, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 9, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-01847 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to pay wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to timely pay all wages earned in violation of California Labor Code and for violation of California Business & Professions Code. CWI, Inc., d/b/a CampingWorld, is a company that offers sporting equipment, bicycles, and bicycle parts and accessories, with its principal place of business in Bowling Green, Kentucky.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Rebecca Aragon, Esq. Hovannes G. Nalbandyan, Esq. Laura E. Schneider, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 W. Fifth Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4300 Facsimile: (213) 443-4299 E-mail: Raragon@littler.com Hnalbandyan@littler.com Lschneider@littler.com DOLGEN MIDWEST: Wadding Sues Over Improperly Paid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE WADDING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DOLGEN MIDWEST, LLC and DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-01996 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 4, 2020), alleges that the Plaintiff and other employees frequently work in excess of 40 without proper overtime wages. The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Constitution Article II Section 34a, the Ohio overtime compensation statute, and Ohio's Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as either a keyholder or an assistant manager from March 2016 until May 2020. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay her and other similarly situated employees lawful overtime pay of not less than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40. She adds that the Defendants intentionally and willfully circumvented federal and state wage-and-hour laws by designing their scheduling, timekeeping, and payroll policies and practices in an attempt to reduce employees' paid hours. Dollar General Corporation is one of the largest discount retailers in the U.S. Dolgen Midwest, LLC, is a subsidiary of Dollar General.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. TITLE & PERLMUTER LAW FIRM 4106 Bridge Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: 216-308-1522 Fax: 888-604-9299 Email: scott@titlelawfirm.com - and – Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq. THE FUCHS FIRM LLC 14717 South Woodland Road Shaker Heights, OH 44120 Tel: 216-505-7500 Email: josh@fuchsfirm.com ENVESTNET: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------- Envestnet and its subsidiary finance data aggregator, Yodlee, were sued in a class-action complaint in the Northern District of California over their alleged failure to protect consumer data by selling and sharing it via unencrypted files, which the plaintiff claimed left her and the class vulnerable to fraud and identity theft. Yodlee's business "focuses on selling highly sensitive financial data, such as bank balances and credit card transaction histories, collected from individuals throughout the United States." The plaintiff averred that Yodlee "surreptitiously collects such data from software products that it markets and sells to some of the largest financial institutions in the country," including Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, and Citibank, as well as wealth management firms and digital payment platforms like PayPal. These financial companies use Yodlee's software to, for example, connect their systems to each other. In return, Yodlee obtains individuals' financial data when they interact with the financial companies' systems; however, according to the plaintiff, "these individuals often have no idea they are dealing with Yodlee," which is allegedly "by design." Reportedly, Yodlee seamlessly integrates with a financial company's current website or mobile app "in a way that obscures who the individual is dealing with and where their data is going." For instance, when a person connects his bank account to PayPal, he will be prompted to log in to connect, the login screen will replicate what would be shown if the individual "directly logged into (his) respective bank's website." The bank's logo is "prominently displayed on each of the screens" an individual interacts with and the consumer uses the same login credentials used for their bank. The plaintiff alleged that an individual is not "prompted to create or use a Yodlee account." Furthermore, the plaintiff argued that people are "not given accurate information about what Yodlee does or how it collects their data." For example, plaintiff Deborah Wesch stated that while PayPal notes that Yodlee is involved in order to connect the bank accounts it does not give the full extent of said involvement. Additionally, the plaintiff proffered that Yodlee stores login information for bank accounts and then "exploits this information to routinely extract data from that user's accounts without their consent." Wesch asserted that when she was connecting her bank account to PayPal using Yodlee she did not receive adequate disclosure in violation of several privacy laws. Envestnet and Yodlee have been accused of "mishandling the data they collected from individuals without authorization by distributing it in unencrypted plain text files." The plaintiff alleged that since Yodlee has failed to take steps to safeguard this sensitive data, the plaintiff and the class are "at a significant risk of fraud and identity theft." According to the plaintiff, this threat is heightened by Yodlee's data reselling practice because those accessing this sensitive data could be using it "for nefarious purposes." The plaintiff claimed that she and the class have suffered economic damages, loss of control over valuable property, and increased risk of identity theft and fraud. Wesch also asserted that she and the class had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that Yodlee does not have adequate safeguards for the data. In sum, the claims of relief for the aforementioned conduct include: common law invasion of privacy – intrusion upon seclusion; violations of the Stored Communications Act, various California Civil Code provisions, the California Unfair Competition Law, California's Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act, California's Anti-Phishing Act of 2005, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff has sought to certify the class and appoint themselves as class representative; declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief; and an award for damages. The plaintiff is represented by Robins Kaplan LLP and Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. [GN] EXAGEN INC: Mt. Lookout Chiropractic Sues Over Unsolicited Faxes ---------------------------------------------------------------- MT. LOOKOUT CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, INC., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. EXAGEN INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-01757-GPC-AGS (S.D. Cal., Sept. 8, 2020), arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. According to the complaint, the Defendant has sent facsimile transmissions of unsolicited advertisements to the Plaintiff and the Class in violation of the TCPA, including the facsimile transmission of an unsolicited advertisement on July 3, 2018. The Fax promotes the availability and quality of the Defendant's property, goods, or services by advising the recipients that its laboratory continues to remain fully operational and confirming the various services it offers. The Defendant faxed the same and other unsolicited facsimiles without the required opt-out language to the Plaintiff and more than 40 other recipients. The Plaintiff insists that the Defendant's facsimile did not display a proper opt-out notice as required by TCPA. Plaintiff Mt. Lookout Chiropractic Center, Inc., is an Ohio-based chiropractic clinic. Exagen Inc. operates as a commercial-stage diagnostics company based in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John R. Habashy, Esq. LEXICON LAW, PC 501 West Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (800) 581-3603 Facsimile: (888) 373-2107 E-mail: john@lexiconlaw.com - and - Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com FANATICS INC: Fails to Timely Notify Staff on Layoff, Calero Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- OLGA CALERO, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FANATICS, INC., and FANATICS RETAIL GROUP FULFILLMENT, LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-02114 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 9, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to provide the Plaintiff and other workers with 60-day advance written notice before terminating them as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. According to the complaint, due to COVID-19, the Defendants will likely claim exemption from this requirement under the unforeseeable business circumstance exception of the WARN Act. However, the Defendants were still mandated by the WARN Act to give the Plaintiff and the putative class members as much notice as is practicable. As soon as it is probable that a mass layoff will occur, the employer must provide notice as soon as is practicable. Here, the Defendants likely knew near the end of March, or in very early April, that a mass layoff was reasonably foreseeable. Despite all of this, rather than notifying her and the putative class members that the mass layoff was reasonably foreseeable, from March 20 through August 24, 2020, the Defendants led them to believe they would soon return to work through various e-mail correspondences, the Plaintiff contends. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and the class members did not seek other employment as they erroneously assumed that they would be brought back to work. The Plaintiff worked as a shipping clerk for the Defendants at the Fanatics facility located at 8221 Eagle Palm Drive, in Riverview, Florida, until she was furloughed on March 20, 2020. Fanatics, Inc., is an American online retailer of licensed sportswear, sports equipment, and merchandise. Fanatics is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. Fanatics Retail Group Fulfillment, LLC, is an online retailer of officially licensed sports merchandise based in Jacksonville.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com gnichols@wfclaw.com FOGO DE CHAO: Bid to Dismiss Filed in Garcia-Alvarez FLSA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to dismiss was filed on September 9, 2020, in the case styled CHRISTIAN GARCIA-ALVAREZ, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (PITTSBURGH) LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01345-CB (W.D. Pa.). The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure and refusal to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated servers, bartenders, and carvers proper minimum wages for time worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The other Defendants are FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (KING OF PRUSSIA) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (PHILADELPHIA) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (PHOENIX) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (CA HOLDINGS) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (CALIFORNIA) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (EL SEGUNDO) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (IRVINE) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (LOS ANGELES) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (SAN DIEGO) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (SAN FRANCISCO) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (SAN JOSE) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (DENVER) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (PARK MEADOW) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (WASHINGTON, D.C.) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (JACKSONVILLE) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (MIAMI) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (ORLANDO) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (SUNRISE FLORIDA) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (ATLANTA) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (DUNWOODY ATLANTA) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (NAPERVILLE) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (CHICAGO) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (OAK BROOK ILLINOIS) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (OLD ORCHARD) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (ROSEMONT) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA, (INDIANAPOLIC) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (NEW ORLEANS) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (BALTIMORE) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (BETHESDA) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (BOSTON) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (BURLINGTON) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (TROY) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (MINNEAPOLIS) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (KANSAS CITY) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (ST. LOUIS) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (LAS VEGAS) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (SUMMERLIN) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (LONG ISLAND) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO 53RD STREET, NEW YORK LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (WHITE PLAINS) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (PORTLAND) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (AUSTIN) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (LEGACY PLANO) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (DALLAS) LLP, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (DALLAS) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO (HOLDINGS) INC., FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (HOLDINGS) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (HOUSTON) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (SAN ANTONIO) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (TEXAS GP) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (TYSONS) LLC, and FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (BELLEVUE) INC., Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Pittsburgh) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (King of Prussia) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Philadelphia) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Phoenix) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Phoenix, Arizona. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (CA Holdings) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant headquartered in Plano, Texas. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (California) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant headquartered in Plano, Texas. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (El Segundo) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in El Segundo, California. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Irvine) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Irvine, California. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Los Angeles) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Los Angeles, California. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (San Diego) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in San Diego, California. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (San Francisco) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in San Francisco, California. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (San Jose) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in San Jose, California. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Denver) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Denver, Colorado. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Park Meadow) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Park Meadow, Colorado. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Washington, D.C.) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Washington, D.C. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Jacksonville) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Jacksonville, Florida. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Miami) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Miami, Florida. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Orlando) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Orlando, Florida. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Sunrise Florida) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Sunrise, Florida. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Atlanta) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Atlanta, Georgia. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Dunwoody Atlanta) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Dunwoody Atlanta, Georgia. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Naperville) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Naperville, Illinois. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Chicago) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Chicago, Illinois. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Oak Brook Illinois) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Oak Brook, Illinois. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Old Orchard) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Old Orchard, Illinois. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Rosemont) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Rosemont, Illinois. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria, (Indianapolis) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Indianapolis, Indiana. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (New Orleans) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in New Orleans, Louisiana. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Baltimore) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Baltimore, Maryland. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Bethesda) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Bethesda, Maryland. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Boston) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Boston, Massachusetts. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Burlington) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Burlington, Massachusetts. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Troy) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Troy, Michigan. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Minneapolis) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Kansas City) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Kansas City, Missouri. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (St. Louis) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in St. Louis, Missouri. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Las Vegas) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Las Vegas, Nevada. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Summerlin) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Summerlin, Nevada. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Long Island) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Long Island, New York. Fogo De Chao 53rd Street, New York LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in New York. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (White Plains) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in White Plains, New York. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Portland) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Portland, Oregon. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Austin) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Austin, Texas. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Legacy Plano) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Plano, Texas. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Dallas) LLP is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Dallas, Texas. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Dallas) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Dallas, Texas. Fogo De Chao (Holdings) Inc. is a holding company that operates a chain of Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurants. It is headquartered in Plano, Texas. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Holdings) LLC is a holding company that operates a chain of Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurants in the United States. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Houston) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Houston, Texas. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (San Antonio) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in San Antonio, Texas. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Texas GP) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Texas. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Tysons) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Tysons, Virginia. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Bellevue) Inc. is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Bellevue, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com - and – Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 631 S. Orlando Ave., Suite 300 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com - and – Richard Celler, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com GEICO GENERAL: Ventrice-Pearson Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ----------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit In re: GEICO General Insurance Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-03768-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs Cindy Ventrice-Pearson and Poonam Subbaiah will move the Court on January 21, 2021 for an order: 1. granting class certification pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the following Actual Cash Value (ACV) Regulatory Fees Class: "all individual insureds under a California policy issued by GEICO covering a vehicle with private-passenger auto physical damage coverage with comprehensive or collision coverage, who made a first-party claim, filed within four years of the date the lawsuit was filed through the date of a certification Order, that was determined by GEICO to be a covered claim and where GEICO did not pay to repair the damage to the vehicle (total-loss) and where GEICO did not include all ACV Regulatory Fees in the total-loss claim payment(s)"; 2. appointing themselves Class Representatives of the ACV Regulatory Fees Class; 3. granting class certification pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the following ACV Sales Tax Class: "all individual insureds under a California policy issued by GEICO covering a leased vehicle with private-passenger auto physical damage coverage with comprehensive or collision coverage, who made a first-party claim, filed within four years of the date the lawsuit was filed through August 27, 2020, that was determined by GEICO to be a covered claim and where GEICO did not pay to repair the damage to the vehicle (total-loss) and where GEICO did not include complete ACV Sales Tax in the total-loss claim payment(s)"; 4. appointing Plaintiff Subbaiah as Class Representative of the ACV Sales Tax Class; and 5. appointing their counsel, Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Edelsberg Law, PA, Kirtland & Packard LLP, Normand PLLC, and Shamis & Gentile, P.A., as Class Counsel for the Classes. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim is susceptible to common proof because GEICO provides private-passenger property damage auto coverage to insureds in California under a uniform form Policy. Geico operates as an insurance company. The Company offers vehicle, property, motorcycle, boat, homeowners, flood, mobile home, general liability, and pet insurance. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iPLAQn at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes are: Annick M. Persinger, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1101 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com GOOGLE LLC: Apps Record Audio Data Without Consent, Brekhus Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD BREKHUS and JON HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC; and ALPHABET INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-05488 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2020), alleges that the Defendants' Google Home product violated privacy rights of the Plaintiffs and the class by recording audio data without consent. Google markets and sells a popular line of voice-activated hardware device that enables consumers to get information regarding a range of topics, like the time, weather, status of traffic, and current news. Consumers can also use these devices to play music, to play alarms at particular times, and to control smart devices in their homes, like light bulbs, thermostats, and security systems. These devices, which include the Google Home, Google Home Hub, Google Home Mini, and Google Nest (collectively, "Google Home" or "Product"), utilize the Google Assistant platform, which enables the devices to engage in two-way conversations with listeners. According to the complaint, the Google Home contains a sensitive microphone that can pick up sound throughout much of a user's home. To allay privacy concerns and increase sales of the device, Google has consistently represented to consumers that it will not record or process their conversations or other audio unless they use a specific activation phrase, such as "Hey Google" or "Ok Google." Google's representations left consumers with the impression that their conversations and other audio would not be recorded and/or sent to Google without their authorization. Google, in fact, configured the Google Home to record, retrieve, and process audio throughout users' homes--even when users did not do anything to activate it, the Plaintiffs allege. Google LLC is a global technology company that specializes in internet-related services and products. The Company is primarily focused on web-based search and display advertising tools, search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 789-6390 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com hayley@gutridesafier.com GOOGLE LLC: Sued by Carr for Monopolizing Mobile App Downloads -------------------------------------------------------------- MARY CARR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC; GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED; GOOGLE COMMERCE LIMITED; GOOGLE ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LIMITED; and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., Case No. 5:20-cv-05761 (Aug. 16, 2020), alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Google erected contractual and technological barriers that foreclose Android users' ability to utilize app distribution platforms other than Google Play Store. She contends that this ensures that the Google Play Store accounts for nearly all the app downloads from app stores on Android devices. Google, thus, maintains a monopoly over the market for distributing mobile apps to Android users (hereafter, the "Android App Distribution Market"), she adds. According to the complaint, Google also enforces anticompetitive restrictions against app developers. Specifically, Google contractually prohibits app developers from offering an app through the Google Play Store that is, in turn, used to download other apps. Additionally, Google forces app developers to distribute their apps through the Google Play Store to take advantage of advertising channels controlled by Google, such as ad placements on Google Search or YouTube that are specially optimized to advertise mobile apps. Because Google also has a monopoly in internet searches, app developers have no choice but to acquiesce to Google's anticompetitive restrictions on Google Play. Google stifles or blocks consumers' ability to download alternative app stores and apps directly from developers' Web sites, according to the complaint. Downloading apps on an Android device outside of Google Play requires multiple steps that require the user to, among other things, change default settings and click through multiple warnings. Even if a user runs this gauntlet and manages to install a competing app store, Google protects the Play Store's competitive advantage by blocking the alternative store from offering basic functions, such as automatic "background" updates of the kind seamlessly available for apps downloaded from the Google Play Store. Google LLC is a global technology company specializes in internet-related services and products. The Company is primarily focused on web-based search and display advertising tools, search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George A. Zelcs, Esq. Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq. Jonathon D. Byrer, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 205 North Michigan, Suite 1950 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 641-9750 Facsimile: (312) 641-9751 E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com rewing@koreintillery.com jbyrer@koreintillery.com - and - Stephen M. Tillery, Esq. Jamie Boyer, Esq. Michael E. Klenov, Esq. Carol O'Keefe, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-4844 Facsimile: (314) 241-3525 E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com jboyer@koreintillery.com mklenov@koreintillery.com cokeefe@koreintillery.com - and - Karma M. Giulianelli, Esq. Glen E. Summers, Esq. BARTLIT BECK LLP 1801 Wewetta St. Suite 1200, Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 592-3100 Facsimile: (303) 592-3140 E-mail: karma.giulianelli@bartlitbeck.com glen.summers@bartlitbeck.com - and - Ann Ravel, Esq. MCMANIS FAULKNER Fairmont Plaza, 10th Floor 50 West San Fernando Street San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 279-8700 Facsimile: (408) 279-3244 E-mail: aravel@mcmanisfaulkner.com GROVE COLLABORATIVE: Sends Unwanted Marketing Texts, Nieman Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL NIEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GROVE COLLABORATIVE, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-08224 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 8, 2020), alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants sent text messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated consumers using automatic telephone dialing system in an attempt to advertise and promote their products without prior express written consent. The Plaintiff contends that together with the proposed class members, they were harmed by the Defendants' acts, including causing them to incur certain cellular telephone charges or reduce cellular telephone time for which they previously paid, and invading their privacy. Grove Collaborative, Inc., is an e-commerce company that offers a direct-to-consumer e-commerce platform for natural home and personal care products, headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com GSE SYSTEMS: Settlement Agreement Reached in Joyce Suit ------------------------------------------------------- GSE 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 a settlement agreement has been entered in Joyce v. Absolute Consulting Inc., case number 1:19 cv 00868 RDB. On March 29, 2019, a former employee of Absolute Consulting, Inc., filed a putative class action against Absolute and the company, Joyce v. Absolute Consulting Inc., case number 1:19 cv 00868 RDB, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit alleges that plaintiff and certain other employees were not properly compensated for overtime hours that they worked. The Company has been dismissed from the case, but Absolute intends to vigorously defend this litigation with the Company's assistance and support. Absolute has entered into a settlement agreement as of August 17, 2020 and, pending court approval, anticipates the probable conclusion of this matter to be dismissal of the case in exchange for Absolute's payment of a settlement amount and fees totaling $861 thousand. The Company has provisioned for this amount in its financial statements for the period ended June 30, 2020. Certain terms of the settlement agreement would require Absolute to pay up to $639 thousand in additional claims that may be asserted, for a total potential liability not to exceed $1.5 million, however no other claims are known at this time. Absolute continues to deny the allegations and defend the case. The Company has asserted an indemnification claim related to this litigation against the sellers of Absolute, which holds approximately a $1 million escrow balance. GSE Systems, Inc. provides simulation, training, and engineering solutions to the power and process industries in the United States, Asia, Europe, and internationally. It operates through two segments, Performance Improvement Solutions and Nuclear Industry Training and Consulting. GSE Systems, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Sykesville, Maryland. GUADAMUZ CONCRETE: Matus Employment Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as RUDDY ISMAEL MATUS MORALES and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. GUADAMUZ CONCRETE FINISHI, INC. and AROLDO GUADAMUZ, Case No. 2020-016646-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 September 1, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-23648-UU to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime and minimum wages. Guadamuz Concrete Finishi, Inc., is a provider of concrete pumping services based in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ena T. Diaz, Esq. ENA T. DIAZ, P.A. 999 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Ste. 720 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 377-8828 Facsimile: (305) 356-1311 E-mail: ediaz@enadiazlaw.com H&R ACCOUNTS: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Garcia-Martinez Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- SONYA GARCIA-MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. H&R ACCOUNTS, INC., d/b/a AVADYNE HEALTH, Case No. 4:20-cv-04188-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill., Sept. 4, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. According to the complaint, despite working in excess of 40 hours per week, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated telephone-dedicated employees all earned regular and overtime pay for all time they worked. Additionally, the Defendant failed to maintain true and accurate time records. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt telephone-dedicated employee from October 2018 to March 2019. H&R Accounts, Inc., doing business as Avadyne Health, is a debt collection agency that manages, controls and operates call centers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 726-3400 Email: tom@tomryanlaw.com - and – James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Ave., Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 201-0575 Emails: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com cpsons@bormeslaw.com HALLSONS OF LEBANON: Shortchanges Vehicle Reimbursements, Neal says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Michele Neal, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hallsons of Lebanon, Inc., Hallsons Enterprises Inc., Robert Hall, Jr., Doe Corporation 1-10, John Doe 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00672, (S.D. Ohio, August 27, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Defendants operate multiple LaRosa's Pizza locations in the Cincinnati area, including stores in Blue Ash and Lebanon. Neal worked for Hallsons as a delivery driver. He claims to be paid minimum wage minus a tip credit for the hours worked but says that his mileage allowance does not cover his exact expenses in delivering pizzas. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 604-8759 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 Email: abiller@billerkimble.com - and - Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. Louise M. Roselle, Esq. Nathan J. Spencer, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 715-8711 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 Email: akimble@billerkimble.com pkrzeski@billerkimble.com lroselle@billerkimble.com nspencer@billerkimble.com Website: www.billerkimble.com HCC SPECIALTY: Escape Room Operators Slam Denied Insurance ---------------------------------------------------------- R&J Entertainment LLC and Trapped! LLC, on behalf themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HCC Specialty Insurance Company and Houston Casualty Company, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-06035 (N.D. Cal., August 27, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate, attorney's fees and costs and such other relief from breach of contract. R&J operates two "escape room" game businesses in Upland, CA and San Dimas, CA while Trapped! operates a similar business in Las Vegas, Nevada. Both purchased all-risk commercial property insurance policies from HCC Specialty Insurance and Houston Casualty for protection in the event of property loss and business interruption. But during the COVID-19 pandemic, they were denied coverage despite that their respective policies do not contain exclusions for pandemic and/or virus-related losses. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: William F. Merlin, Jr., Esq. MERLIN LAW GROUP 777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 950 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 229-1000 Facsimile: (813) 229-3692 Email: cmerlin@merlinlawgroup.com - and - Victor J. Jacobellis, Esq. Daniel J. Veroff, Esq. MERLIN LAW GROUP 1160 Battery St East, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 851-2300 Facsimile: (415) 960-3882 Email: vjacobellis@merlinlawgroup.com dveroff@merlinlawgroup.com - and - Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. Howard Bushman, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM 2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Tel: (305) 479-5508 Email: adam@moskowitz-law.com adams@moskowitz-law.com howard@moskowitz-law.com HONDA CANADA: Settles Takata Airbag Inflator Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Honda Canada has reached an agreement to resolve Takata airbag inflator class action litigation in Canada. The settlement will further enhance Honda Canada's significant efforts to reach and encourage customers to bring their vehicles to authorized dealers for a free airbag inflator replacement. As part of the settlement, Honda Canada will continue its comprehensive recall efforts. Honda Canada has taken unprecedented steps to reach owners, in order to expedite the replacement of recalled Takata airbag inflators. Honda Canada will continue to take steps to replace recalled inflators in every vehicle on the road that is affected by a Takata airbag inflator recall in an ongoing effort to better assure the safety of vehicle operators and passengers. An ample supply of replacement airbag inflators is readily available to service remaining affected vehicles. The proposed class action settlement also makes provision for the reimbursement of certain out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Honda Canada customers, as a result of the recall. The agreement also sets out continued activities by Honda Canada to recover recalled airbag inflators from scrap sellers through its Takata airbag inflator re-purchase program. The proposed settlement agreement covers recalled Honda and Acura vehicles (automobiles and Goldwing motorcycles) with Takata airbag inflators. The proposed class action settlement also provides additional service/repair coverage for defective materials or workmanship in non-Takata replacement airbag inflators installed in recalled vehicles. Honda continues to urge owners of Honda and Acura vehicles affected by the Takata airbag inflator recalls to bring their vehicles to authorized dealers for the recall service as soon as possible. Honda vehicle owners can check their vehicles' recall status at www.honda.ca/recalls or www.motorcycle.honda.ca/safety/recalls, or by calling Honda Canada Customer Relations at 1-888-946-6329. Acura vehicle owners can check their vehicles' recall status at www.acura.ca/recalls, or by calling or Acura Canada Client Services at 1-888-922-8729. For more information on the class action settlement, visit www.hondaairbagsettlement.ca About Honda Canada Honda Canada Inc. was founded in 1969 and is the parent company for both Honda and Acura vehicle brands in Canada. Since 1986, the company has produced Honda engines and more than nine million cars and light trucks at its Alliston, Ontario manufacturing facilities, where the Honda CR-V and Honda Civic are currently built. Honda Canada has invested more than $4.7 billion in Canada, and each year it sources nearly $2.1 billion in goods and services from Canadian suppliers. Honda Canada has sold more than five million Honda and Acura passenger cars and light trucks in Canada. For more information on Honda Canada, please visit www.hondacanada.ca. [GN] HOSPITALITY BUILDERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ewald Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MARK EWALD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HOSPITALITY BUILDERS, INC., a South Dakota Corporation, Case no. 7:20-cv-07267 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Site Superintendent between approximately May 2018 and December 2019. The Plaintiff alleges that despite working in excess of 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay him and other similarly situated Site Superintendents overtime wages at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40. Moreover, the Defendant failed to maintain accurate time records. Hospitality Builders operates a construction business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Orin Kurtz, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP 126 East 56th St., 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 905-0509 Fax: (212) 905-0508 Email: okurtz@gardylaw.com - and – Keith M. Stern, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. 80 SW 8th Street, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33130 Tel: (305) 901-1379 Fax: (561) 288-9031 Email: employlaw@keithstern.com HY-LOND HOME: Estrada Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as MARIA ESTRADA, ADRIAN ESTRADA, on behalf of themselves and for all similarly situated persons, and the general public v. HY-LOND HOME, RSCR CALIFORNIA INC., and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01126121-CU-OB-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 September 8, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:20-cv-01703 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to pay missed meal and rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked, failure to pay all wages earned, failure to maintain accurate payroll records and produce personnel file, and failure to pay wages owed upon separation from employment in violations of California Labor Code and for violations of California Business and Professions Code and Penal Code. Hy-Lond Home offers assisted living facilities located in Garden Grove, California. RSCR California Inc. offers healthcare services for mentally retarded persons in California.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Phil J. Montoya, Jr., Esq. HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG, LLP 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1651 Telephone: (213) 486-8000 Facsimile: (213) 486-8080 E-mail: pmontoya@hpylaw.com - and – David A. Wimmer, Esq. Emily Camastra, Esq. SWERDLOW FLORENCE SANCHEZ SWERDLOW & WIMMER, A Law Corporation 9401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 828 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 288-3980 Facsimile: (424) 281-2575 E-mail: ecamastra@swerdlowlaw.com dwimmer@swerdlowlaw.com INDEGENE INC: Bid to Certify Class Hearing Adjourned to Oct. 15 --------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as PROGRESSIVE HEALTH AND REHAB CORP., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, v. INDEGENE, INC., a Delaware corporation, INDEGENE ENCIMA, INC., INDEGENE WINCERE, INCORPORATED, and INDEGENE HEALTHCARE, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-10106-MAS-DEA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Douglas E. Arpert entered an order that: -- the time of the Defendants to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Complaint is extended October 15, 2020; and -- the plaintiff's motion to certify class is adjourned to October 15, 2020. Indegene is a company offering research and development and management services to healthcare and pharmaceutical enterprises. It was founded in 1998 and is based in Bangalore, India. A copy of the Court's Order on Stipulation Extending Time to Answer dated Sept. 3, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35HbeD4 at no extra charge.[CC] INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Bid to Dismiss Tchatchou Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- India Globalization Capital, Inc. (IGC) 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 consolidated class action suit entitled, Tchatchou v. India Globalization Capital, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-03396 (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland), is still pending. On November 2, 2018, IGC shareholder Alde-Binet Tchatchou instituted a shareholder class action complaint on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. IGC, Ram Mukunda, Richard Prins, and Sudhakar Shenoy were named as defendants. On May 13, 2019, the plaintiff in the Tchatchou litigation filed an amended complaint against IGC, Mukunda, and Claudia Grimaldi, (collectively, the "Class Action Defendants"), thereby removing Prins and Shenoy as defendants. The plaintiff in Tchatchou alleges that the Class Action Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and made false and misleading statements to the public by issuing a September 25, 2018, press release entitled "IGC to Enter the Hemp/CBD-Infused Energy Drink Space" and related disclosures, in which IGC announced it had "executed a distribution and partnership agreement" for the sugar-free energy drink named Nitro G, as well as through related public statements. The plaintiff in Tchatchou has not publicly disclosed the amount of damages they seek. On February 28, 2019, all pending shareholder class actions were consolidated, and the Tchatchou litigation was designated as the lead case. On October 11, 2019, Company and the other the Class Action Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated shareholder class action litigation on a number of grounds, including that the Class Action Defendants did not make any false or misleading statements or any materially false or misleading statements to the public; the Class Action Defendants did not act with any intent to deceive the public, nor did they recklessly do so; and that the Class Action Defendants' alleged conduct did not cause any loss allegedly suffered by the class action plaintiffs. The motion to dismiss remains pending before the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, and the Company anticipates that a decision is likely to be issued during calendar 2020, although it can provide no assurances of the same. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. India Globalization Capital, Inc. engages in the development and commercialization of cannabis-based therapies to treat Alzheimer's, pain, nausea, eating disorders, several end points of Parkinson's, and epilepsy in humans, dogs, and cats. The company operates through two segments, Legacy Infrastructure and Medical Cannabis Based Alternative Therapies. The company was founded in 2005 and is based in Bethesda, Maryland. JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Pollack Balks at Proposed $900MM NexPoint Sale ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRAD POLLACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JERNIGAN CAPITAL, INC., JOHN A. GOOD, MARK O. DECKER, JAMES DONDERO, HOWARD A. SILVER, HARRY J. THIE, and REBECCA OWEN, Case No. 1:20-cv-07160 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed merger and acquisition of Jernigan by NexPoint Advisors, L.P., in an all-cash transaction valued at approximately $900 million, including debt and prefers stock to be assumed or refinanced. The Company's shareholders stand to receive $17.30 in cash for each share of Jernigan stock they own pursuant to the Merger Agreement. The Plaintiff owns Jernigan Capital common stock. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants filed a materially incomplete and misleading FORM PREM14A Preliminary Proxy Statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on August 20, 2020, in connection with the proposed transaction. According to the complaint, the Proxy Statement contains materially incomplete and misleading information, concerning the financial projections for Jernigan, as well as the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by Jernigan's financial advisor, Jefferies LLC, which are important for shareholders to make an informed decision whether or not to approve the proposed merger. Jernigan Capital, Inc., is a commercial real estate company that invests primarily in new or recently-constructed and opened self-storage facilities located predominately in dense urban submarkets within the top 50 United States metropolitan statistical areas. John A. Good is Jernigan's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board. Mark O. Decker, James Dondero, Howard A. Silver, Harry J. Thie and Rebecca Owen are directors of Jernigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 983-9330 Fax: (212) 983-9331 Emails: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Rosenblatt Files Suit Over NexPoint Merger Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jordan Rosenblatt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jernigan Capital, Inc., John A. Good, Mark O. Decker, James Dondero, Howard A. Silver, Harry J. Thie, Rebecca Owen, Jernigan Capital Operating Company, LLC, Nexpoint Re Merger, Inc. and Nexpoint RE Merger OP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01141 (D. Del., August 27, 2020), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of Jernigan Capital, Inc. by affiliates of NexPoint Advisors, L.P., rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Under the transaction, Jernigan's stockholders will receive $17.30 in cash for each share of Jernigan common stock they own. According to the complaint, the August 20, 2020 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the deal lacked all line items used to calculate EBIT and Unlevered Free Cash Flow and a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. This provides stockholders with a basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and allows stockholders to better understand the financial analyses performed by Jeffries LLC in support of its fairness opinion. Jernigan is a real estate investment trust that provides debt and equity capital to private developers, owners and operators of self-storage facilities.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com JMI REPORTS: Misclassifies Field Inspectors, Snow Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- WARREN SNOW, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. JMI REPORTS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01999 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 4, 2020), alleges that the Plaintiff was improperly classified by the Defendant as independent contractor and not as an employee, in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. As a result, he was not paid overtime at the rate of one and one-half times his regular hourly rate for the hours he worked over 40 each workweek, according to the complaint. Moreover, the Defendant failed to make, keep and preserve accurate records of the unpaid work performed by the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated field inspectors. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a field inspector since March 2019. JMI Reports, LLC, provides risk management assessment services on residential, industrial, and agricultural property for insurance companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Tel: 216-696-5000 Fax: 216-696-7005 Emails: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com KENOSHA, WI: Akindes Challenges Arrest of Peaceful Protesters ------------------------------------------------------------- ADELANA AKINDES, OSCAR WALTON, DANICA GAGLIANO-DELTGEN, and VICTOR GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF KENOSHA and KENOSHA COUNTY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01353-JPS (E.D. Wis., Sept. 1, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the First Amendment and Equal Protection rights of peaceful demonstrators. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated residents in the city and county of Kenosha, Wisconsin, allege that the Defendants violated their rights to peaceful protest against police brutality following the arrest of over 150 peaceful demonstrators by the Kenosha City Police Department and the Kenosha County Sheriff's Department in August 2020. The arrest was due to the protesters' alleged violation of the county-imposed curfew order. The Plaintiffs contend that there were also pro-police protesters and militias at that time but not a single one of them was arrested. The Defendants use the curfew ordinance to silence the voices of those who peacefully demonstrate against police brutality while allowing pro-police activists and militias to roam the streets without fear of arrest, the Plaintiffs assert. The City of Kenosha is a municipality incorporated in the State of Wisconsin. Kenosha County is a county located in the southeastern corner of the U.S. state of Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kimberley Cy. Motley, Esq. MOTLEY LEGAL 2206 Bonnie Butler Way Charlotte, NC 28270 Telephone: (704) 765-4887 E-mail: inquiries@motleylegal.com - and – E. Milo Schwab, Esq. ASCEND COUNSEL, LLC 3000 Lawrence Street Denver, CO 80205 Telephone: (303) 888-4407 E-mail: milo@ascendcounsel.co KIRKLAND'S INC: Discovery Ongoing in Miles Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Kirkland's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the putative class action suit entitled, Miles v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc. The Company has been named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of California, Miles v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc. The case has been removed to Federal Court, Central District of California, and trial is not yet set. The complaint alleges, on behalf of Miles and all other hourly Kirkland's employees in California, various wage and hour violations. Kirkland’s denies the material allegations in the complaint and believes that its employment policies are generally compliant with California law. The parties are currently engaging in discovery, and the Plaintiff has until November 9, 2020, to file for class certification. The Company believes the case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Kirkland's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of home decor in the United States. The company's stores provide various merchandise, including holiday decor, framed arts, furniture, ornamental wall decor, fragrance and accessories, mirrors, lamps, decorative accessories, textiles, housewares, gifts, artificial floral products, frames, clocks, and outdoor living items. Kirkland's, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is based in Brentwood, Tennessee. KLX ENERGY: Quintana Energy Services Merger-Related Suits Nixed --------------------------------------------------------------- KLX Energy Services Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2020, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2020, that litigation related to the company's merger deal with Quintana Energy Services Inc. have been voluntarily dismissed. On July 28, 2020, KLX Energy Services, Krypton Intermediate, LLC, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of KLXE, Krypton Merger Sub, Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of KLXE (“Merger Sub”), and Quintana Energy Services Inc. ("QES"), completed the previously announced acquisition of QES, by means of a merger of Merger Sub with and into QES, with QES surviving the merger as a subsidiary of KLXE (the "Merger"). On July 28, 2020, immediately prior to the consummation of the Merger, the Reverse Stock Split Amendment became effective and thereby effectuated the 1-for-5 Reverse Stock Split of the Company's issued and outstanding common stock. On June 9, 2020, a putative class action was filed by a purported KLXE stockholder in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Eric Sabatini v. KLX Energy Services Holdings, Inc., et. al. (the Sabatini Complaint). On June 18, 2020, an individual action was filed by a purported KLXE stockholder in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Joey Zurchin v. KLX Energy Services Holdings, Inc., et. al. (the Zurchin Complaint). On June 24, 2020 an individual action was filed by a purported KLXE stockholder in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, captioned David Cajiuat v. KLX Energy Services Holdings, Inc., et. al. (the Cajiuat Complaint and, together with the Sabatini Complaint and the Zurchin Complaint, the KLXE Complaints). The plaintiff in the Sabatini Complaint purported to bring the litigation as a securities class action on behalf of the public stockholders of KLXE. The Sabatini Complaint named as defendants KLXE, the KLXE Board, certain of KLXE's subsidiaries and QES; the Zurchin complaint named as defendants KLXE and the KLXE Board; and the Cajiuat complaint named as defendants KLXE and the KLXE Board. The KLXE Complaints alleged violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as well as, in the case of the individual defendants, QES and KLXE's subsidiaries named as defendants, the control person provisions of the Exchange Act. The Zurchin Complaint also alleged, in the case of the individual defendants, breach of the duty of candor/disclosure under state law. The KLXE Complaints alleged that the Company's registration statement on Form S-4, originally filed on June 2, 2020 (the "Registration Statement"), omitted material information with respect to the Merger, which rendered the Registration Statement false and misleading. In particular, the KLXE Complaints alleged, among other things, that the Registration Statement omitted details with respect to information regarding KLXE's and QES's financial projections, the analyses performed by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. ("Goldman Sachs"), in the case of the Sabatini Complaint, any prior work performed by Goldman Sachs for QES and, in the case of the Cajiuat Complaint, the sales process leading up to the Merger. The KLXE Complaints sought to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the Merger, awards of the plaintiffs' costs of the action, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and such other and further relief as the court may have deemed just and proper. In addition, each of the Sabatini Complaint and the Cajiuat Complaint sought rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages if the Merger was consummated and a declaration that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, and the Sabatini Complaint sought an order directing the defendants to disseminate a registration statement that is free from material misstatement and omissions. The KLXE Complaints were subsequently voluntarily dismissed by the claimants. KLX Energy Services Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides oil field services which includes tools, technologies, and equipment facilities. KLX Energy Services Holdings serves clients in the United States. The company is based in Houston, Texas. KRAFT HEINZ: Brower Sues Over Mislabeled Maxwell House Coffee ------------------------------------------------------------- HAROLD BROWER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-01540-JM-WVG (S.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2020), arises from the Defendant's false and deceptive advertising and labeling of their Maxwell House ground coffee products. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant had grossly exaggerated the number of cups of coffee that certain varieties of Maxwell House ground coffee products (the "Products") can make in order to induce consumer purchases and to charge consumers more for these products. The Defendant has sold the Products to consumers based on the representation that they contain enough ground coffee to make up to a specific number of servings (e.g., "240 6 FL OZ CUPS"), according to the complaint. However, by following the Defendant's own definitions and instructions, the Products do not contain nearly enough ground coffee to make the number of servings represented. The Kraft Heinz Company produces food products. The Company distributes dairy products, sauces, flavored milk powders, and other products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Joshua Nassir, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com jnassir@faruqilaw.com - and - Aubry Wand, Esq. THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300 Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: (310) 590-4503 Facsimile: (310) 590-4596 E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com LAFISE CORP: Guevara Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla. -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Armando Banegas Guevara and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lafise Corp., a corporation, Robert Zamora SR, an individual and Maria J. Zamora, an individual, Defendants, was transferred from the 11th Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida with the assigned Case No. 20-015959-CA-01 to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on September 1, 2020, and assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-23658-AHS. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Fair Standards. Lafise Corp. operates as an investment advisor and broker dealer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Mark Nudel, Esq. J.H. Zidell P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Email: dnudel.jhzidellpa@gmail.com - and - Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. 300 71st Street Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: 865-7167 Email: Zabogado@aol.com - and - Natalie Ann Staroschak, Esq. J.H. Zidell, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Email: nstar.zidellpa@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Jose Dario Vazquez, Esq. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 333 SE 2 Ave Suite 4400 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 579-0540 Email: vazquezjo@gtlaw.com - and - Patrick F. Martin, Esq. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 4400 Miami, FL 33131-1804 Tel: (305) 579-0516 Fax: (305) 961-5742 Email: martinpa@gtlaw.com LEGACY TRANSIT: Shortchanges Workers' Wages, McCurry Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Monique McCurry, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Legacy Transit LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01335 (E.D. Wisc., August 30, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. Legacy Transit is a privately-owned transit company headquartered in Sussex, Wisconsin where McCurry worked as a driver. She claims to have frequently worked in excess of forty hours per workweek without being paid overtime premiums and claims that discretionary bonuses were not included in the computation of overtime. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com LINKEDIN CORP: Bailey Sues Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- DOUGLAS G. BAILEY, JASON J. HAYES, and MARIANNE ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF LINKEDIN CORPORATION; THE 401(K) COMMITTEE and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 5:20-cv-05704-SVK (N.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2020), alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that during the class period, the Defendants breached the duties they owed to the LinkedIn Corporation 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and Trust (the "Plan"), by (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. In many instances, 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, the Plaintiffs assert. LinkedIn Corporation operates a social networking Web site. The Company allows members to post a profile of their professional expertise and accomplishments on Web site. LinkedIn serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is 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 LOANCARE LLC: Alvarez Seeks to Certify FCCPA & FDUTPA Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA ALVAREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. LOANCARE LLC, a Virginia corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-21837-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying two Florida classes under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3): Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act Class: "all individuals with a Florida address who, since May 1, 2018, paid a processing fee to LoanCare for paying over the phone or online in connection with any residential mortgage loan owned or serviced by LoanCare"; and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act Class: "all individuals with a Florida address who, since May 1, 2016, paid a processing fee to LoanCare for paying over the phone or online in connection with any residential mortgage loan owned or serviced by LoanCare." Excluded from the Florida Classes are LoanCare and its officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, and employees, any governmental entities, any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff. The Plaintiff brought this action seeking not only to have LoanCare refund all of the processing fees that she and all class members have paid -- and to pay any and all damages that she and the class members may be entitled to -- but also a declaration from the Court that these processing fees are not expressly authorized, an injunction stopping LoanCare from charging these processing fees, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs expended in this action. According to the complaint, since May 1, 2015, LoanCare has issued fees on homeowners for paying their mortgages by phone or via the website, however, these fees are unauthorized by all class member mortgages, and under Florida law. The sole purpose of these new charges is to provide LoanCare with a secret profit center to collect millions of dollars from their customers, the Plaintiff contends. Ms. Alvarez is a citizen and resident of the State of Florida, and the owner of a house at 12034 Butler Woods Cir, Riverview, Florida 33579, which is subject to a Mortgage serviced by LoanCare. LoanCare provides loan servicing solutions that assist the lending industry achieve optimal asset performance. A copy of Donna Alvarez's Motion for Class Certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iAAT41 at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class are: Adam M. Moskowitz Joseph M. Kaye Barbara C. Lewis THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC 2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 740-1423 E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com joseph@moskowitz-law.com barbara@moskowitz-law.com LUCKY STORES: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Beasley Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARK BEASLEY, Plaintiff, v. LUCKY STORES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-07144-MMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment re Statute of Limitations. The instant case is a putative class action lawsuit brought by Mark Beasley, a California citizen, as a purchaser and consumer of Coffee-mate, a line of coffee-creamer products. Beasley alleges Defendant Nestle USA, Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells Coffee-mate; that four retailers, namely, Defendants Lucky, Save Mart Super Markets, Save Mart Companies, Inc., and The Kroger Co., sold Coffee-mate at their grocery stores throughout California; and that, during the class period, he purchased Coffee-mate from grocery stores owned by said retailers. According to Beasley, all flavors of Coffee-mate, other than the Natural Bliss' line, contained, during the class period, an artificial form of trans fat, specifically, partially hydrogenated oil ("PHO"), and that, during the class period, Coffee-mate's labels bore unauthorized nutrient content claims, namely, "0g Trans Fat" and/or "IT'S GOOD TO KNOW: 0g TRANS FAT/SERV," which language, Beasley alleges, was part of an intentional, long-term campaign to deceptively market Coffee-mate as healthful and free of trans fat. Based on these allegations, Beasley asserts the following four Causes of Action: (1) Unfair Competition Law, (2) California False Advertising Law, (3) Breach of Express Warranty, and (4) California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Beasley brings these claims both individually and on behalf of the following putative class: All citizens of California who purchased in California, between Jan. 1, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2014, Coffee-mate containing the nutrient content claim '0g Trans Fat' and containing partially hydrogenated oil. At the initial case management conference in January 2020, the Court granted the Defendants leave to file a motion for summary judgment on the limited issue of whether Beasley's claims are time-barred, set a briefing and discovery schedule thereon, and denied Beasley's request to file a cross-motion for summary judgment as to whether "0g Trans Fat" is an unlawful nutrient content claim. On March 10, 2020, the counsel for the Defendants deposed Beasley, and, shortly thereafter, the Defendants filed the instant motion. In support of his opposition to the Defendants' motion, Beasley filed, inter alia, deposition errata pursuant to Rule 30(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, whereby he made five changes to his deposition testimony, one of which changed his answer to a question pertaining to when he first knew PHO is the ingredient that is the source of artificial trans fat. In particular, Beasly changed his answer from "I guess maybe in the late 1990s" to "I've known trans fat was bad since I'd guess in the late 1990s, and I learned that trans fat came from PHO in 2017." In addition, Beasley filed a declaration, executed on April 3, 2020, in which he states he "did not know that partially hydrogenated oil was the source of artificial trans fat in food until 2017, or otherwise understand the connection between partially hydrogenated oil and trans fat. On Oct. 29, 2018, Beasley filed his initial complaint. By the instant motion, the Defendants argue that Beasley's claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, the longest of which is four years, and that, although Beasley declares he first learned that Coffee-mate contained trans fat in 2017 during a discussion with his attorney, he is not entitled to delayed accrual of his claims. In response, Beasley contends he "misspoke at his deposition" when he said he has known since the late 1990s that PHO is the source of trans fat and that the Court should credit his deposition errata and declaration, wherein he stated that, until 2017, he did not know PHO is the source of artificial trans fat. Judge Chesney concludes that there is no dispute that the phrase "0g Trans Fat" was placed on Coffee-mate packaging and that, on each Coffee-mate product, the Nutrition Facts panel above the ingredient list contains the phrase "Trans Fat/Grasa Trans 0g." Although, in any given case, a plaintiff may possess information to alter the noted general expectation and, as a matter of law, put such plaintiff on inquiry notice, in the instant case, even given his knowledge about the relationship between PHO and trans fat, the Judge finds a triable issue of fact exists as to whether Beasley, faced with multiple clear statements about the absence of trans fat in Coffee-mate, should have investigated the ingredient list. For these reasons, Judge Chesney denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 12, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/2i8RO5 from Leagle.com. LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend Gathmann-Landini Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2020, for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA inc. On October 9, 2015, certain current and former hourly employees of the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of New York entitled Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA inc. On December 2, 2015, the case was moved to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various New York labor codes by failing to pay all earned wages, including overtime compensation. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. lululemon athletica inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, distributes, and retails athletic apparel and accessories for women, men, and female youth. It operates through two segments, Company-Operated Stores and Direct to Consumer. lululemon athletica inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in Vancouver, Canada. MCM PRODUCTS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MCM PRODUCTS USA INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01723-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal., Aug. 27, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act due to its failure to design a Web site that is accessible to the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers during her numerous visits to Company's website at https://us.mcmworldwide.com/en_US/home, denying her of full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public on the Company's website, and its prior iterations. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Company's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Company's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. MCM Products USA Inc. is a Munich, Germany-headquartered company whose Web site provides consumers with access to a collection of designer ready to wear apparel for men and women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. Bobby Saadian, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com ada@wilshirelawfirm.com MDO2 FITNESS: McKee Suit Removed to District of South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as SARAH MCKEE, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated v. MDO2 FITNESS, LLC d/b/a O2 FITNESS, Case No. 2020-CP-10-03571, was removed from the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas for Charleston County to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on September 9, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-03227-DCN to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated personal trainers in violation of the South Carolina Wages Act. MDO2 Fitness, LLC, d/b/a O2 Fitness, is a company that operates physical fitness facilities, with its principal place of business in Raleigh, North Carolina.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Ashley Kutz Kelley, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP Five Exchange Street P.O. Box 999 Charleston, SC 29402 Telephone: (843) 720-4679 E-mail: Ashley.kelley@wbd-us.com - and – Theresa M. Sprain, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP 555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27601 E-mail: Theresa.sprain@wbd-us.com MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Moreno Sues Over Inaccurate Wage Statements --------------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN MORENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-VOE-2020-7446 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., Sept. 8, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements to the Plaintiff and other employees, in violation of California Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders of the California Industrial Welfare Commission. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a warehouse operator in Tracy, California, from January 16, 2020, to July 27, 2020. Medline Industries, Inc., is a private American healthcare company based in Northfield, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Mai Tulyathan, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 - and – William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 531-4214 Facsimile: (831) 634-0333 MEI PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 9 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of MEI Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: MEIP) between August 2, 2017 and July 1, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important October 9, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for MEI Pharma investors under the federal securities laws. To join the MEI Pharma class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1919.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) MEI Pharma overstated Pracinostat's potential efficacy as an acute myeloid leukemia ("AML"), treatment for the target population; (2) consequently, the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial was unlikely to meet its primary endpoint of overall survival; (3) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial condition and prospects for Pracinostat; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 9, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1919.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] MH SUB I: Bid to Dismiss/Strike Class Claims in Rattler Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KIM RATTLER, Plaintiff, v. MH SUB I, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02444-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss or strike a portion of the Plaintiff's class allegations based on Fair Credit Reporting Act's ("FCRA") statute of limitations. Plaintiff Kim Rattler has filed a putative class action against MH Sub I and Demandforce, Inc., alleging violations of the FCRA. The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant in the state of California. Although the Plaintiff does not specify which Defendant was her employer, the Defendants' motion states that the Plaintiff applied for a Customer Services Manager position with Demandforce on Nov. 12, 2018, and, as part of Demandforce's application process, authorized Demandforce to run a pre-employment background check as part of the hiring process. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants routinely acquire consumer reports to conduct background checks on Plaintiff and other prospective, current and former employees and use information from consumer reports in connection with their hiring process without providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in compliance with the law. More specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that when she applied for employment, she was provided with "a disclosure and authorization form" permitting the Defendants to conduct a background check. However, the disclosures provided by the Defendants contained extraneous and superfluous language that does not consist solely of the disclosure as required by the FCRA and/or is not clear and conspicuous. In particular, the Plaintiff alleges that the disclosure contained several sections not relevant to the rights of California applicants (of which she was one); it included sections entitled "State of Washington applicants and employees only," "Massachusetts and New Jersey applicants, employees, and residents only," and "New York applicants, employees, and residents only." She contends that because these sections "have no bearing on the rights of California applicants," the inclusion of such information makes the disclosures unclear and therefore noncompliant with FCRA. Plaintiff further contends that the disclosure is not "clear and conspicuous" because (1) the disclosure is not in all capital letters; (2) the disclosure is not in boldface to set off the required disclosure; (3) the disclosure includes multi-state information that is not a permissible element in an FCRA disclosure and reduces clarity as to what rights each applicant or employee possesses; and, (4) the disclosure provisions are set out in a dense, small font that reduces clarity. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' conduct is willful. In support of that allegation, Plaintiff contends that (1) the Defendants are large entities with access to legal advice, and (2) they required a purported authorization to perform credit and background checks in the process of employing the class members, which suggest awareness of and willful failure to follow the governing laws concerning such authorizations. On March 9, 2020, Ms. Rattler filed the putative class action against Defendants in California Superior Court in the County of Alameda. The Complaint defines the class as all of the Defendants' current, former and prospective applicants for employment in the United States who applied for a job with the Defendants at any time during the period for whom a background check was performed beginning five years prior to the filing of this action and ending on the date that final judgment is entered in the action. On April 9, 2020, the Defendants removed the case to federal court. On April 16, 2020, Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss or Strike Certain Class Allegations. The Defendants seek to strike the Plaintiff's class allegations that incorporate claims arising more than two years prior to the filing of the Complaint. They contend that those claims cannot be certified because they are subject to individual inquiries about whether and when each putative class member discovered the alleged violation of FCRA. Judge Chen holds that it is true, as Defendants point out, that courts have dismissed class allegations where the Plaintiffs have identified FCRA classes with exclaims extending beyond the shorter, two-year statute of limitations. However, in both Holman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc. and Molina v. Roskam Baking Co., the court declined to certify the earlier FCRA claims at the class certification stage. Accordingly, these cases provide only indirect support for the Defendants' contention that it would be proper to strike the Plaintiff's class claims at this time and instead appear to support the idea that the issue is better resolved at the class certification stage, once discovery has been completed. Importantly, the Court has previously approved a FCRA class settlement that reflected reduced recovery for those who might fall outside the two-year statute of limitations. In addition, the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that the existence of a statute of limitations issue does not compel a finding that individual issues predominate over common ones. Accordingly, Judge Chen denied the Defendants' motion to strike portions of the Plaintiff's class allegations pursuant to Rule 12(f). The denial is without prejudice to opposing class certification or seeking to limit the scope thereof at the appropriate juncture. The Defendants also ask the Court to consider striking the class allegations pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 23(d)(1)(D). But this, too, is disfavored. Accordingly, the Defendants' request to strike the class allegations pursuant to one of these alternative approaches is also denied. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Chen denied the Defendants' motion. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 12, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/KQrZM2 from Leagle.com. MONEY STORE: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Claims Dismissal in Piatt Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SHIRLEY PIATT; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE MONEY STORE; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-55780 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of all of the Plaintiffs' individual and putative class claims against the Defendants. The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not err in finding that res judicata barred the Plaintiffs' claims related to the improper collection of attorneys' fees and expenses. Basic principles of res judicata apply with equal force in the class action context. As to the elements of res judicata, the Plaintiffs only contest whether there is "an identity of claims" between the actions. In determining whether there is an identity of claims, courts most importantly consider the factor whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of fact. The "Fee-Split Class" claims in Mazzei v. Money Store, Inc., and the Plaintiffs' claims related to the collection of improper attorneys' fees and expenses arise out of the same transactional nucleus of fact. In both actions, the class members sought to recover damages based on attorneys' fees improperly charged to borrowers by the same defendants under the same or similar loan documents, including on the basis that attorneys' fees were shared with a non-attorney entity. Because these claims are related to the same set of facts, they could have been conveniently tried together in the Mazzei action. Thus, the district court correctly found an identity of claims between the Plaintiffs' individual and putative class claims related to the collection of improper attorneys' fees and the jury verdict in Mazzei. Neither equitable tolling nor any other tolling or delayed-accrual theory saves the Plaintiffs' otherwise time-barred claims related to the payment of post-acceleration late fees. First, California's equitable tolling doctrine is not available to toll successive class claims based on a prior class-action suit. Second, the Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege facts to support application of equitable tolling to their individual late-fee claims. Third, the district court correctly determined that the Plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to support the application of the discovery rule. Fourth, the district court correctly determined that the Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege facts supporting the application of equitable estoppel. Finally, the district court did not err in finding that the Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to support application of the fraudulent concealment doctrine. The district court correctly determined that the Plaintiffs' California unfair competition law ("UCL") claims were barred by the statute of limitations, the Ninth Circuit opines. To the extent that the Mazzei action equitably tolled any putative class member's UCL claim, any such tolling ceased when the Mazzei court declined to certify the UCL subclasses in 2012. Thus, the Plaintiffs' UCL claims expired no later than 2016. Because they did not file the instant suit until 2018, the Plaintiffs' UCL claims are time barred. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Plaintiffs leave to amend their late-fee claims where they previously failed to cure defects in their complaint, and they made a strategic choice not to raise their theories of equitable estoppel, fraudulent concealment, and the discovery rule prior to filing their SAC, the Ninth Circuit opines. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's June 12, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/xYzge3 from Leagle.com. MS PIMA: Lozada Sues Over Wrongful Termination & Disability Bias ---------------------------------------------------------------- MIRIAM LOZADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MS PIMA, INC.; BP CREATIONS, INC.; PIA Y. HUH; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2QSTCV34178 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 8, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants wrongfully terminated the Plaintiff after she requested for reasonable accommodations following an anxiety attack. The Plaintiff claimed she suffered an anxiety attack after the Defendants accused her of the mistake, which they knew was made by the prior manager of the Production Department and after Defendant Huh unfairly berated and yelled at her due to the said mistake. After receiving medical treatment, the Plaintiff contacted the Defendants about returning to work. Rather than engaging in the interactive process with the Plaintiff and discussing any reasonable accommodations, the Defendants told her to stay home one more day. Then, the next day, on September 10, 2018, when she attempted to return to work, the Defendants told her not to return to work because the owner of the Company, Defendant Huh, was upset that she had left work because of her anxiety attack. As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff says she has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, loss of employment and attendant earnings and job benefits The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee since 1999 and was promoted as a production department manager until her termination on September 10, 2018. MS Pima, Inc., is a manufacturer of athletic apparel with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. BP Creations, Inc., is a manufacturer of athletic apparel with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Lidman, Esq. Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq. Milan Moore, Esq. Romina Tamiry, Esq. LIDMAN LAW, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 150 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 322-4772 Facsimile: (424) 322-4775 E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com enguyen@lidmanlaw.com mmoore@lidmanlaw.com - and – Paul K. Haines, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com NCAA: Aldrich Suit Moved From N.D. California to S.D. Indiana ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ERIN ALDRICH, LONDA BEVINS, and JESSICA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and JOHN REMBAO, Case No. 5:20-cv-01733, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on September 8, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Indiana assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-02310-JPH-MPB to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentations and omissions, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, civil battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress for their failure to implement or enforce rules prohibiting sexual abuse, harassment, or relations between National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) coaches and student-athletes. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletes from several North American institutions and conferences, with its principal office located in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. Annika K. Martin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com akmartin@lchb.com - and – Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT, LLC 150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741-1019 Facsimile: (312) 264-0100 E-mail: beth@feganscott.com - and – Lynn A. Ellenberger, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT, LLC 500 Grant St., Suite 2900 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 515-1529 Facsimile: (412) 785-2400 E-mail: lynn@feganscott.com NEW HILL TOP: Han Suit Challenges Unlawful Employment Policies -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, SHUNJI HAN, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. NEW HILL TOP NAILS, INC., HYUN SHUL CHANG a/k/a TOM, and MYUNG SOOK CHANG a/k/a LEE, Case No. 3:20-cv-01322 (D. Conn., Sept. 5, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful and discriminatory employment policies and practices, which violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to: -- pay statutory minimum wage, as well as overtime compensation at rates not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek; -- distribute records of hours worked, earnings and overtime to the workers; -- keep records of hours; -- appropriately post a notice regarding wages, vacation pay, sick leave, health and welfare benefits and comparable matters; -- provide employees notice of the rate remuneration, hours of employment and wage payment schedules at the time of hiring; and -- provide 30 minutes meal period. Moreover, the Defendants willfully and unlawfully retaliated against the Plaintiff for complaining regarding their discriminatory employment practice. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a manicurist from July 2006 to July 31, 2020. New Hill Top Nails, Inc., provides nail salon services. Hyun Shul Chang a/k/a Tom, and Myung Sook Chang a/k/a Lee are the owners, officers, shareholders, and managers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Tel: 718-353-8588 Email: jhang@hanglaw.com NEW MEXICO: Class Action Calls for Coronavirus Safety in Prisons ---------------------------------------------------------------- The New Mexico Law Offices of the Public Defender strongly supports the pro bono lawsuit filed Aug. 24 by local and international law firms on behalf of people incarcerated in state prisons. The suit seeks to improve prison coronavirus safety measures as soon as possible to prevent further deaths of inmates and community spread. It does not seek monetary damages. "A huge number of incarcerated New Mexicans are current or former LOPD clients," Chief Public Defender Bennett Baur said. "When we as a community incarcerate people, we have a legal and ethical obligation for their health and welfare. On behalf of all incarcerated New Mexicans and their families, we are in full support of legal action that might make them safer during this very challenging time." LOPD joined the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico and New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association in April in an emergency petition to the New Mexico Supreme Court similarly seeking to protect individuals held in Department of Corrections' custody from coronavirus. That suit sought to facilitate adequate social distancing and management of the coronavirus inside all state facilities by safely reducing inmate populations. The Supreme Court denied that petition for failing to establish a constitutional violation. "Very early in the pandemic we understood the risk of an outbreak in New Mexico prisons. Believing it an emergency, we tried to convince the Supreme Court that the Corrections Department needed to do more to protect people," LOPD Appellate Defender Kim Chavez-Cook said. "It is gratifying to see that an international firm has taken notice of the situation in New Mexico and dedicated valuable attorney time and resources to further the cause in ways we simply couldn't, all pro bono with no money damages in return. It's really quite remarkable." [GN] NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed v. Felix 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. 20-2867, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Delores Felix 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 NEWTON CITY, MA: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Carresi Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICK CARRESI; MARK WHOOTEN; ROBERT D'AGASTINO; EUGENE FARESE; MICHAEL BARRILE; WILLIAM BERTRAND; FRANK BIANCO; PAUL BINDON; JOHN BRYANT; MOSES BRISSON; BRAD BUTERA; BRENDAN BUTLER; DOMINIC CAMILLI; MICHAEL CANNISTRANO; ERIK CAPOCCIA; SCOTT CARLIN; PATRICK CARRESI; ARTHUR CARTER; E. PETER COLON; WILLIAM CONSERVO; MATTHEW D'AGASTINO; MIKE DANIELE; ANTONIO DECARO; CLEBER DE ALMEIDA; ARBOLD DOBSON; MATTHEW DRAKAS; JOSEPH DRISCOLL; JEFF ECCLES; ANDREW FADDEN; JOHN FLEMING; ROBERT FLEMING; SR.; JACKSON FLORESTAL; STEPHEN HODGDON; SETH HUMPHREYS; HENRY LANGEVIN; BEN LANGKOPF; DONALD LEBLANC; STEVEN MAGAZY; BRIAN MALO; TIMOTHY MCDONNELL; AL MORU; BRIAN NAPOLITANO; JEFFREY O'NEIL; DENNIS PANZA; GREGORY PEREZ; RUI PERPETUA; CHRIS PETRIE; MATTHEW PINZONE; BRIAN QUINN; CARLO QUILES; JOSEPH RATTA; JOSH RICHARDSON; BRIAN RIORDAN; KELVIN SANDERS; JR.; MICHAEL SANFORD; BRIAN SAULNIER; NICK SHUBARIAN; PETER SPINELLI; PAUL THEA; GREGORY WANSIEWICZ; KENDELL WASHINGTON; PAUL WHELAN; JAMES WHITE; MARK WOODS; AND STEPHEN YERARDI v. CITY OF NEWTON, Case No. 1:20-cv-11538 (D. Mass., Aug. 16, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated individuals pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The lawsuit seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as staffs. Newton is a suburban city in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel W. Rice, Esq. GLYNN, LANDRY, & RICE, LLP 25 Braintree Hill Office Park, Suite 200 Braintree, MA 02184 Telephone: (781) 964-8377 E-mail: daniel.rice@glhrlaw.com NORDSON CORP: Settlement Reached in Ortiz Suit ---------------------------------------------- Nordson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2020, that the parties in a class action lawsuit initiated by a former employee named Ortiz have agreed to settle the dispute, subject to the execution of a written settlement agreement and court approval. On February 22, 2019, a former employee, Mr. Ortiz, filed a purported class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court, California, against Nordson Asymtek, Inc. and Nordson Corporation, alleging various violations of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount for unpaid wages, actual, consequential and incidental losses, penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs. Following mediation in June 2020, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit, subject to the execution of a written settlement agreement and court approval. If the settlement agreement is approved, the class action lawsuit will be resolved. Nordson said, "Management believes, based on currently available information, that the ultimate outcome of the proceeding described above will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or results of operations." Nordson Corporation engineers, manufactures, and markets products and systems to dispense, apply, and control adhesives, coatings, polymers, sealants, biomaterials, and other fluids worldwide. Nordson Corporation was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Westlake, Ohio. NVIDIA CORP: Bid to Nix Consolidated Putative Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- NVIDIA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 26, 2020, that the company moved to dismiss the amended complaint in the consolidated purported class action entitled, In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation. On December 21, 2018, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Iron Workers Joint Funds v. Nvidia Corporation, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-7669), naming as defendants NVIDIA and certain of NVIDIA's officers. On December 28, 2018, a substantially similar purported securities class action was commenced in the Northern District of California, captioned Oto v. Nvidia Corporation, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-07783), naming the same defendants, and seeking substantially similar relief. On February 19, 2019, a number of shareholders filed motions to consolidate the two cases and to be appointed lead plaintiff and for their respective counsel to be appointed lead counsel. On March 12, 2019, the two cases were consolidated under case number 4:18-cv-07669-HSG and titled In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation. On May 2, 2019, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On June 21, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. The consolidated complaint asserts that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements related to channel inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on GPU demand between May 10, 2017 and November 14, 2018. The plaintiffs also allege that the NVIDIA executives who they named as defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On August 2, 2019, NVIDIA moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint on the basis that plaintiffs failed to state any claims for violations of the securities laws by NVIDIA or the named defendants. On March 16, 2020, the Court issued an order dismissing the consolidated class action complaint with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 13, 2020. On June 29, 2020, NVIDIA moved to dismiss the amended complaint on the basis that plaintiffs failed to state any claims for violations of the securities laws by NVIDIA or the named defendants. NVIDIA Corporation operates as a visual computing company worldwide. It operates in two segments, GPU and Tegra Processor. The company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Santa Clara, California. NY TEX CARE: Use of Proposed FLSA Notice in Francisco Modified -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HERLINDA FRANCISCO, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff, v. NY TEX CARE, INC. and INSUN YUN, Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-1649 (PKC) (ST) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Pamela K. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and modified in part the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione on the motion to certify a collective action. On March 22, 2019, Plaintiff Herlinda Francisco initiated the putative class action against Defendants NY Tex Care and Insun Yun for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law, and the Family Medical Leave Act. On Nov. 22, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify a collective action under the FLSA and attached a proposed FLSA notice to her memorandum of law. On April 20, 2020, Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione issued a R&R recommending that the motion to certify a collective action be granted in part and denied in part, that the Plaintiff should be permitted to mail her proposed FLSA notice to all potential members of the collective action, and ordering discovery on the identities of members of the conditionally certified collective action. The Plaintiff has filed no objection to the R&R. On April 29, 2020, the Defendants filed an objection only to the portion of the R&R recommending that the Court adopt the Plaintiff's proposed FLSA notice, as currently written, as its date and scope are inconsistent with the remainder of the R&R. Judge Chen reviewed both the record and Judge Tiscione's thorough and well-reasoned R&R. Judge Chen finds no clear error in Judge Tiscione's recommendation to conditionally certify the FLSA collective action as including all current and former "pressers" employed by the Defendants at any time on or after March 22, 2016, and adopts that recommendation with respect to both the scope of employees that fit within the class definition and the time period the class covers, including the recommendation to deny the Plaintiff's request to apply equitable tolling and toll the statute of limitations until the Plaintiff sends notice to the potential opt-in Plaintiffs. She also finds no clear error in Judge Tiscione's recommendation on the appropriate scope of class discovery. However, as argued by the Defendants, Judge Chen finds that the Plaintiff's proposed notice is inconsistent with Judge Tiscione's first recommendation, now adopted by the Court, regarding the scope of the collective that is being preliminarily certified. The notice to class members should reflect the current state of the class. As it is currently written, the Proposed Notice is addressed to all "former or current non-exempt laundry employees" who worked for Tex Care "at any time between March 22, 2013 -- i.e., six years before the filing of the lawsuit and the present. Judge Chen, therefore, modifies Judge Tiscione's recommendation to use the Proposed Notice as it is currently written, and respectfully refers oversight of the revised proposed notice to Judge Tiscione. A full-text copy of Judge Chen's June 12, 2020 Memorandum & Order is available at https://bit.ly/32OesCI from Leagle.com. OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP: Decof Files Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Occidental Petroleum Corporation. The case is styled as Lee Decof, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Avedick B. Poladian, Carlos M. Gutierrez, Elisse B. Walter, Eugene L. Batchelder, Jack B. Moore, Margaret M. Foran, Robert M. Shearer, Spencer Abraham, Vicki Hollub and William R. Klesse, Defendants, Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Sheriff of New Castle County, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01729 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 26, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed as a Civil Miscellaneous Case. Occidental Petroleum Corporation is an American company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration in the United States, the Middle East, and Colombia as well as petrochemical manufacturing in the United States, Canada, and Chile. It is organized in Delaware and headquartered in Houston.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Bennett, Esq. Cooch & Taylor Pa-Wilmington 1000 W St 10th Fl Wilmington, DE 19899 Tel: (302) 984-3889 Fax: (302) 984-3939 Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com - and - Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: 865-7167 Email: Zabogado@aol.com - and - Natalie Ann Staroschak, Esq. J.H. Zidell, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Email: nstar.zidellpa@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Jose Dario Vazquez, Esq. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 333 SE 2 Ave Suite 4400 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 579-0540 Email: vazquezjo@gtlaw.com - and - Patrick F. Martin, Esq. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 4400 Miami, FL 33131-1804 Tel: (305) 579-0516 Fax: (305) 961-5742 Email: martinpa@gtlaw.com ON DECK: D&Os Faces Doaty Shareholder Suit Over Sale to Enova ------------------------------------------------------------- CONRAD DOATY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NOAH BRESLOW, DANIEL S. HENSON, CHANDRA DHANDAPANI, BRUCE P. NOLOP, MANOLO SANCHEZ, JANE J. THOMPSON, RONALD F. VERNI, and NEIL E. WOLFSON, Defendants, Case No. 2020-0763 (Del. Ch. Ct., September 4, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The case stems from the Defendants' decision to sell On Deck to Enova International resulting in a demonstrably unfair price in which stockholders will receive only $0.12 cents per share in cash and 0.092 of a share of Enova common stock for each share of On Deck held. According to the complaint, the Registration Statement filed by the Defendants with the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the proposed transaction contains material omissions concerning the financial projections prepared by the Company, the Tangible Book Value for the Company, and the confidentiality agreements entered into by other interested parties. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants have violated their fiduciary duties because they failed to provide On Deck's public stockholders with all material information necessary to their decision to vote whether to approve or not the proposed transaction. The Plaintiff owns On Deck common stock. Noah Breslow is the Chief Executive Officer and a director of On Deck. Daniel S. Henson, Chandra Dhandapani, Bruce P. Nolop, Manolo Sanchez, Jane J. Thompson, Ronald F. Verni, and Neil E. Wolfson are directors of On Deck.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 984-3889 Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com - and – Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (646) 300-8921 Fax: (212) 202-7880 Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com OREGON MUTUAL: Thai Restos Slam Denied Insurance Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Nari Suda LLC, Pakin Corporation, on behalf themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01476 (D. Or., August 27, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate, attorney's fees and costs and such other relief from breach of contract. Nari Suda LLC, operates as "Nari" while Pakin Corporation operates as Kin Khao. They are San Francisco restaurants that infuse traditional Thai recipes with modern California techniques and ingredients. Both purchased all-risk commercial property insurance policy from Oregon Mutual for protection in the event of property loss and business interruption. But during the COVID-19 pandemic, they were denied coverage despite that their respective policies do not contain exclusions for pandemic and/or virus-related losses. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Steve D. Larson, Esq. Elizabeth K. Bailey, Esq. STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C. 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 227-1600 Facsimile: (503) 227-6840 Email: slarson@stollberne.com ebailey@stollberne.com - and - Robert J. Nelson, Esq. Fabrice N. Vincent, Esq. Jacob H. Polin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 Email: rnelson@lchb.com fvincent@lchb.com jpolin@lchb.com - and - Alexandra L. Foote, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALEXANDRA L. FOOTE, P.C. 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (786) 408-8083 Facsimile: (415) 956-0561 PERFORMING ARTS: Marroquin Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------------- NERY MARROQUIN, and JOSE CASTANEDA, on behalf of themselves and other employees and on behalf of the State of California and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency v. PERFORMING ARTS CENTER OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 2OSTCV33336 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 1, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and other security officers appropriate wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiffs worked as security officers at the Performing Arts Center of Los Angeles County in California from 2016. The Plaintiffs also assert claims for failure to provide meal and/or rest breaks, failure to timely pay all wages earned, and for retaliation and discrimination, in violations of the California Labor Code. Performing Arts Center of Los Angeles County, also known as the Music Center, is a nonprofit corporation doing business in California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: T. Joshua Ritz, Esq. Laleh B. Shokohi, Esq. T. JOSHUA RITZ & ASSOCIATES, INC. 15233 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 1002 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-1123 Facsimile: (818) 788-1126 PRECISION DIRECTIONAL: Ferron Sues Over Improper Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN FERRON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. PRECISION DIRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC., and PRECISION DRILLING CORPORATION, Case No. 4:20-cv-03123 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 4, 2020), arises from Defendants' unlawful pay practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, including improperly paid overtime wages. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Measurement While Drilling (MWD) field operator. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the proposed class members regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. However, instead of paying them one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 each week, the Defendant paid them a fixed day-rate despite working at least 84 hours or more per week. Precision Directional Services, Inc., and Precision Drilling Corporation provide oilfield services in Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Cowan, Esq. Katie R. Caminati, Esq. BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC 5555 San Felipe St., Suite 900 Houston, TX 77056 Tel: (713) 425-7100 Fax: (713) 425-7101 Email: rcowan@bchlaw.com kcaminati@bchlaw.com PRINCIPIA BIOPHARMA: Sanofi Sale Filings Lack Info, Hawkins Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KELVIN HAWKINS v. PRINCIPIA BIOPHARMA INC., DAN BECKER, PATRICK MACHADO, ALAN B. COLOWICK, SIMEON GEORGE, SHAWN TOMASELLO, MARTIN BABLER, SHAOLEE LIN, Case No. 1:20-cv-07289 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated public shareholders of Principia arising from the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed acquisition of Principia by Sanofi. On August 16, 2020, Principia announced that the Company had entered into definitive agreement with Sanofi, pursuant to which Merger Sub, Kortex Acquisition Corp., commenced a tender offer to purchase all of Principia's outstanding common stock for $100 per share in cash. The Tender Offer is scheduled to expire on September 25, 2020. According to the complaint, Principia filed an incomplete and materially misleading Recommendation Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2020, wherein the statement omits material information concerning the proposed transaction. The failure to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act as Principia stockholders need such information to make a fully informed decision whether to tender their shares in support of the proposed transaction or seek appraisal, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff asserts that the Recommendation Statement fails to provide financial projections prepared by senior members of Principia's and Sanofi's management in connection with the proposed transaction; fails to provide the financial analyses and opinion of Centerview Partners LLC concerning the proposed transaction; and fails to provide the financial analyses and opinion of BofA Securities, Inc. concerning the proposed transaction. Based in South San Francisco, California, Principia Biopharma Inc. is a late-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel therapies for serious immune mediated diseases.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. LIFSHITZ LAW FIRM, P.C. 821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 493-9780 Facsimile: (516) 280-7376 E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com PRODUCTION RESOURCE: Perez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as JOSE LUIS TOPETE PEREZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRODUCTION RESOURCE GROUP LLC; FULL THROTTLE FILMS, LLC, d/b/a VER; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV27311, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 9, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:20-CV-08229 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to authorize and permit rest periods and failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code and for violation of California's Unfair Competition Act. Production Resource Group LLC is a provider of entertainment and event technology solutions based in Armonk, New York. Full Throttle Films, LLC, d/b/a Ver, is a company that provides video equipment on rent, headquartered in Glendale, California.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julie Dunne, Esq. Matthew Riley, Esq. Vani Parti, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101-4297 Telephone: (619) 699-2700 Facsimile: (619) 699-2701 E-mail: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com matthew.riley@us.dlapiper.com vani.parti@us.dlapiper.com PROGENITY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of October 27 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, on Aug. 31 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of investors that purchased Progenity, Inc. (NASDAQ: PROG) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement, as amended, issued in connection with Progenity's June 2020 IPO (the "Registration Statement"). Investors have until October 27, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On or about June 22, 2020, defendants conducted Progenity's IPO. In the IPO, defendants sold over 6.6 million shares of Progenity common stock to the investing public at a price of $15 per share, generating over $100 million in gross offering proceeds. Shortly after the IPO, the price of Progenity stock suffered significant price declines. By August 14, 2020, Progenity stock closed at just $7.71 per share -- nearly 50% below the $15 per share price investors paid for the stock in the IPO less than two months previously. The complaint, filed on August 28, 2020, alleges that the Registration Statement for the IPO was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make the necessary disclosures required under the rules and regulations governing its preparation. Specifically, the Registration Statement failed to disclose the following adverse facts that existed at the time of the IPO, rendering numerous statements provided therein materially false and misleading: (i) that Progenity had overbilled government payors by $10.3 million in 2019 and early 2020 and, thus, had materially overstated its revenues, earnings and cash flows from operations for the historical financial periods provided in the Registration Statement; (ii) that Progenity would need to refund this overpayment in the second quarter of 2020 (the same quarter in which the IPO was conducted), adversely impacting its quarterly results; and (iii) that Progenity was suffering from accelerating negative trends in the second quarter of 2020 with respect to the Company's testing volumes, revenues and product pricing. If you purchased Progenity common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with Progenity's June 2020 IPO, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] PROGENITY INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 27 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 31 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Progenity, Inc. (NASDAQ: PROG) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted in June 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Progenity investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Progenity class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1932.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement for the IPO was negligently prepared and made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Progenity had overbilled government payors by $10.3 million in 2019 and early 2020 and, thus, had materially overstated its revenues, earnings and cash flows from operations for the historical financial periods provided in the Registration Statement; (2) Progenity would need to refund this overpayment in the second quarter of 2020 (the same quarter in which the IPO was conducted), adversely impacting its quarterly results; and (3) Progenity was suffering from accelerating negative trends in the second quarter of 2020 with respect to the Company's testing volumes, revenues and product pricing. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 27, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1932.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] PSCU INC: Gibbons Sues Over Unpaid OT Pay for Call-Center Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM GIBBONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PSCU, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01719-DLR (D. Ariz., Sept. 1, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to compensate the Plaintiff and other call-center employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the overtime hours, include off-the-clock work. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a call-center employee in Phoenix, Arizona, from June 2016 until January 2020. PSCU, Inc., operates a call center with its principal place of business in Scottsdale, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq. Bruce C. Jackson, Jr., Esq. Clara S. Acosta, Esq. LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C. 349 North Fourth Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505 Telephone: (602) 234-0008 Facsimile: (602) 626-3586 E-mail: nick@lubinandenoch.com - and – Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Clif Alexander, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 North Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com clif@a2xlaw.com PURITAN'S PRIDE: Partial Summary Judgment Granted in Sharpe Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DARCEY L. SHARPE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PURITAN'S PRIDE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-06717-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment barring the Plaintiffs' claims for restitution and damages under the California consumer statutes. The putative consumer class action challenges Defendant Puritan's Pride's use of "buy one/get one free" ("BOGO") promotionals to sell vitamins and health supplements. The discounts were presented as available for a limited time only, but the Plaintiffs allege that the pricing was permanent and that "there has been no reasonably substantial period of time" when Puritan's Pride sold products at anything other than purportedly exceptional prices. The Plaintiffs allege that they bought the Defendants' products in reliance on the BOGO promotionals. The operative first amended consolidated complaint ("FACC") states claims for deceptive marketing practices under the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), False Advertising Law ("FAL"), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"). The Court dismissed causes of action under the New York General Business Law, and for unjust enrichment. The Defendants seek partial summary judgment barring the Plaintiffs' claims for restitution and damages under the California consumer statutes. The motion does not challenge the merits of the deceptive practices claims, or contest the availability of injunctive relief should the Plaintiffs prevail. The Defendants argue only that the measure of restitution in the case is limited as a matter of law to the difference between the prices the Plaintiffs paid under the BOGO promotionals and the value they received. They say the Plaintiffs' proposed "expected discount" method is not based on this differential, and so restitution is foreclosed as a remedy. The Defendants contend that actual damages under the CLRA are barred for similar reasons. The main dispute is whether the Plaintiffs can pursue restitution under an expected discount method, or whether they are limited to an approach based on a price/value differential, as the Defendants contend. Before reaching that issue, two other theories of recovery that the Plaintiffs mention can be dismissed in short order. They propose to pursue legal damages under California Business and Professions Code Section 17537, which is a provision in the FAL that makes it unlawful for any person to use the term 'prize' or 'gift' or other similar term in any manner that would be untrue or misleading. Unlike other violations of the FAL, treble damages are available. Judge Donato holds that the problem for the Plaintiffs is that the plain language of Section 17537 shows it does not apply to the case. The Defendants' BOGO promotionals were not marketed in that manner, or as a "gift" or "prize" in the ordinary meaning of those words. The Plaintiffs do not cite any evidence in the record suggesting otherwise. Consequently, they cannot seek damages under this statute. The Plaintiffs' disgorgement theory is equally unavailing, the Court opines. While the Plaintiffs are not necessarily restricted to a price/value method, they still have the burden of proving entitlement to an alternative measure of restitution proper under all the circumstances. On the record before the Court, they have not shown that their expected discount proposal is a viable method of measuring restitution. The expected discount approach focuses in a contract-law manner on the benefit of the bargain plaintiffs expected from buying Puritan's Pride products at an apparent discount. That is a far cry from the starting point of restitution, which is the money tje Plaintiffs lost and defendants acquired. For this reason, the California Supreme Court has rejected an "expectancy" measure as a proper basis of restitution. The Ninth Circuit has also said as much in an unpublished opinion. The Plaintiffs' suggestion that they might be able to establish the fair market value of Puritan's Pride products sometime in the future does not save them, the Court notes. After the Defendants moved for summary judgment, the Plaintiffs had the burden of supporting their restitution claims on the record as it stands. Rule 56 does not permit them to avoid an adverse judgment on the promise of delivering a better argument later. Vague references to "numerous spreadsheets" that could be used to calculate the fair market value of Puritan's Pride products at some point in the future do not meet the Rule 56 requirement to cite particular parts of materials in the record. It is not the Court's responsibility to scour the record for evidence on the Plaintiffs' behalf. The Defendants seek to foreclose actual damages under the CLRA on the same argument that the price/value differential is the exclusive measure available to the Plaintiffs. They say that California Civil Code Section 3343(a), which is a general provision on damages in fraud cases and not part of the CLRA itself, limits CLRA actual damages to the difference between the actual value of that with which the defrauded person parted and the actual value of that which he received, which the Defendants equate to price/value differential. This attempt to cabin actual damages to a single formula is again misdirected, the Court holds. The price/value measure in Section 3343(a) is at heart a restitutionary measure, and imposing it on the CLRA would render the separate enumeration of actual damages and restitution redundant -- a statutory construction error to be avoided. No specific damages measure is prescribed in the CLRA, and the door is open to any reasonable measure. The Defendants' reliance on Grace v. Apple is also misplaced. That case involved restitution under the UCL and not a CLRA claim for actual damages, which is subject to entirely different standards. It is also worth noting that benefit-of-the-bargain damages are typically available in a California fraud-based action, unless an exception like Section 3343 applies. Consequently, the Defendants are not entitled to bar a claim for actual damages under the CLRA as a matter of law, the Court finds. Whether the Plaintiffs ultimately establish that they are entitled to such damages is a question reserved for subsequent proceedings. Based on the foregoing, Judge Donato granted summary judgment for the Defendants on damages under California Business and Professions Code Section 17537 and restitution. Summary judgment is denied on actual damages under the CLRA, the Judge ruled. Because the Defendants filed for summary judgment before a class was certified, the Order binds only the named Plaintiffs, and no other putative class members. A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/HehShf from Leagle.com. QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Manta Files Class Action in Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the QuoteWizard.com, LLC. The case is captioned as Joseph Manta, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. QuoteWizard.com, LLC; and BlueFlame Web Marketing, LLC, Case No. 9:20-mc-81424-RS (D. Mass., Aug. 27, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Rodney Smith. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act involving review or appeal of agency decision. QuoteWizard.com, LLC provides online insurance services. The Company offers an insurance comparison platform for auto, home, life, health, and renters insurances. QuoteWizard.com serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Melissa Jill Gomberg, Esq. BROAD AND CASSEL 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Floor 21 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 373-9492 E-mail: mgomberg@broadandcassel.com RAPID FINANCIAL: Watkins EFTA Suit Removed to District of Nevada ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as CHRISTOPHER WATKINS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RAPID FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a ACCESS FREEDOM CARDS; CACHE VALLEY BANK; AXIOM BANK N.A.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20 TRT 00089 1B, was removed from the Nevada District Court, Carson City County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on September 8, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-00509 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) and the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act and for conversion, unjust enrichment, and unconstitutional taking. Rapid Financial Solutions, Inc., doing business as Access Freedom Cards, is a financial institution with its principal place of business in North Logan, Utah. Axiom Bank N.A. is a nationally chartered community bank with its headquarters and principal place of business in Florida. Cache Valley Bank is a state-chartered bank with its headquarters and principal place of business in Utah.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Robert McCoy, Esq. Ryan M. Lower, Esq. Sihomara L. Graves, Esq. KAEMPFER CROWELL 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 Las Vegas, NV 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-7000 Facsimile: (702) 796-7181 E-mail: rmccoy@kcnvlaw.com rlower@kcnvlaw.com sgraves@kcnvlaw.com - and – George Verschelden, Esq. STINSON LLP 1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 691-3382 Facsimile: (816) 412-9344 E-mail: george.verschelden@stinson.com S.R. INTERIORS: Fails to Pay Brick Layers' OT Wages, Delgado Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALICIDES E. DELGADO, JUAN ARRIAGA PABLE, LUCRECIO ROMANO, JOAQUIN CENOBIO, JUAN DOLORES, FRANCISCO CARDENAS, ANGEL CHAFLA, OMAR VAZQUEZ MORALES, JOSE LUIS TEPETITLA, VICTORINO TORRES, and FREDDY DE JESUS SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. S.R. INTERIORS, INC. and STEVEN P. ROBINSON, Case No. 7:20-cv-07332 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 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 brick layers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. According to the complaint, the Defendants 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 were employed by the Defendants as brick layers at 1051 Mile Square Rd., in Yonkers, New York, from around 2019. S.R. Interiors, Inc., is a general contractor that offers a full range of home remodeling services located in Yonkers, 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 SALT SPRINGS: Dismissal of Williams Suit Under FCCPA Reversed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LATHERESA WILLIAMS, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant, v. SALT SPRINGS RESORT ASSOCIATION, INC., AND BOSSHARDT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Appellees, Case No. 5D18-3913 (Fla. Dist. App.), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, reversed the dismissal of Williams' second amended class action complaint, and remanded the case for further proceedings. LaTheresa Williams owns a condominium in the Salt Springs Resort condominium complex, where she is a resident and an Association member. Salt Springs Resort's bylaws require residents to pay assessments, which are incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. The Appellees, Association and its property management company, Bosshardt Property Management, LLC, claim Williams is delinquent in payment. Accordingly, they publicly posted a list of over one hundred names of condominium owners who allegedly owed the Association money. They also listed the amounts owed. Williams, whose name appeared on the list, filed a one-count class action complaint contending the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA") prohibits the public posting of "deadbeat lists" to enforce or collect a "consumer debt." Recognizing the binding authority of Bryan v. Clayton, the trial court granted a motion to dismiss filed by the Appellees. Williams, individually and on behalf of similarly situated residents of Salt Springs Resort appealed the dismissal with prejudice of her second amended class action complaint. In determining the merits of a motion to dismiss, trial courts must limit their consideration to the complaint's four corners, accept all allegations as true, and draw all inferences in favor of the pleader. On appeal, the appellate court applies these same principles. The Florida District Court of Appeal agrees with the sister court that for the FCCPA to apply to Williams's complaint, her payment obligation or "debt" must arise (1) from a consumer out of a (2) money, property, insurance, or services transaction which is (3) primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. The purchase of a condominium is unquestionably a property transaction, and Williams alleged her condominium purchase was of residential property for personal, family, or household reasons. To determine whether Williams' obligation to pay assessments "arose out of" the transaction, the Court is guided by the Condominium Act, which provides the only mechanism by which a condominium may be created or operated in Florida. Every Florida condominium purchase subjects its purchaser to the condominium's declaration and bylaws. The declaration must include an obligation to pay association assessments, which apportion liability for condominium common areas. A declaration operates as a contract among unit owners and the association, outlining their respective rights and responsibilities. Condominium associations may collect assessments, and bylaws must outline the manner of collection. Regardless of how condominium owners acquire title, they are responsible for all assessments that become due while they own their unit. This obligation originates when they acquire the property, and it can extend to assessments owed on the unit even before they purchased it. Williams has alleged that the Association's bylaws require her to pay annual assessments, and the Appellees have alleged she is delinquent in her payment obligations. Florida law therefore dictates Williams' obligation to pay her assessments arose from the purchase of her unit. For these reasons, the Appellate Court recedes from the Bryan case and concludes that Williams has sufficiently alleged that her condominium assessment arises out of a consumer transaction to purchase property, and that her ongoing obligation to pay assessments is a "consumer debt" under the FCCPA. Like the sister court, the Appellate Court's conclusion is based on the FCCPA's plain language. The Appellate Court also draws support from decisions that a home purchase is a consumer transaction under the FCCPA, and a mortgage foreclosure proceeding is an attempt to collect a debt. Finally, the Appellate Court relies on numerous federal cases decided since Bryan that support the conclusion. In sum, the Appellate Court receded from the Bryan case, reversed the dismissal of Williams' second amended class action complaint, and remanded the case for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's June 12, 2020 Opinion is available at https://bit.ly/365yFq3 from Leagle.com. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Romero Suit Has Prelim Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUAN ROMERO, FRANK TISCARENO, and KENNETH ELLIOTT on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16cv1283 JM (MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. On May 27, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that Securus Technologies unlawfully recorded calls between detainees and attorneys. Securus provides inmate communication services for correctional facilities throughout California. The Plaintiffs are two former inmates and a criminal defense attorney who used Securus' telephone systems to make calls to and from certain correctional facilities in California and whose calls were recorded. After the Court partially granted two successive motions to dismiss, the Plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Complaint, which alleges claims for violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), unfair competition, violation of the California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq., concealment, fraud, negligence, and unjust enrichment. On Oct. 10, 2017, the Plaintiffs first moved for class certification, seeking to represent the class under both Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). They argued there were at least 123 potential class members in San Diego, and more statewide. On April 12, 2018, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice. The Court allowed the Plaintiffs to renew their motion within 90 days notwithstanding Securus' position that it had completed its production and that the deadline for discovery on class certification issues had passed. On May 22, 2018, the Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of whether their CIPA claim required proof of intent. On July 11, 2018, the Plaintiffs also filed a renewed motion for class certification. On Nov. 21, 2018, the court issued an order resolving both motions. The Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. However, the Court granted in part the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. The Court certified a class for the Plaintiffs' CIPA claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3), but denied class certification for each of their other claims. The Court certified the following class: Every person who was a party to any portion of a conversation between a person who was in the physical custody of a law enforcement officer or other public officer in California, and that person's attorney, on a telephone number designated or requested not to be recorded, any portion of which was eavesdropped on or recorded by Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. by means of an electronic device during the period from July, 10, 2008 to the applicable opt-out date, inclusive. The Court also appointed as class counsel the Law Office of Robert L. Teel, the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, and Foley & Lardner. Thereafter, the parties participated in a two-day mediation with the Ho. Leo S. Papas (Retired), first on Oct. 3, 2018 and again on Aug. 16, 2019. While the mediations did not result in an immediate settlement, the parties reportedly made significant progress and continued to engage in direct settlement negotiations following the conclusion of the second mediation. On Dec. 3, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory request with the Ninth Circuit to appeal the denial of their motion for partial summary judgment, which was denied. Additionally, the parties petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review of the district court's class certification order. The Plaintiffs sought review of the district court's denial of class certification as to all claims except their CIPA claim. Securus sought review of three questions, including whether the court could certify class claims without any evidence that Securus had a common, class-wide intention about recording. It also argued that the district court erred because the court misapplied the law governing allegations of improperly recorded calls after 2014. On Feb. 27, 2019, the Ninth Circuit denied the Plaintiff's, but granted Securus' petition. On April 17, 2019, the action was stayed in the district court pending Securus' appeal. Following the Ninth Circuit's grant of review of Securus' petition, the Ninth Circuit appointed a mediator. After multiple status conferences with the mediator, an agreement was reached. On March 12, 2020, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal without prejudice to reinstatement for approval of the settlement by the district court. On May 18, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The terms of the proposed settlement include only injunctive relief, and no monetary relief, to the class members. Under the proposed settlement agreement, within six months of the date the Court enters judgment granting final approval of the settlement, Securus will: (1) make available to its current and future California facility customers a "private call" option when dialing approved numbers that will allow inmates to make free calls that "will not be recorded;" (2) make available to its current and future California customers message prompts advising them, inter alia, that calls to non-approved numbers may be monitored and recorded, but calls to approved numbers will not; and (3) post on its website information on how to designate a telephone number as an approved number. For five years thereafter, Securus will provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with bi-annual declarations describing Securus' compliance. Additionally, subject to the Court's approval, Securus will pay each Plaintiff a service award of $20,000, and attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $840,000. Only the named Plaintiffs, not the class members, will release their claims for injunctive relief and for damages. Finally, upon issuance of the preliminary approval order, Securus will engage a third-party administrator, ILYM Group, to provide notice to class members by email, or in the event of an invalid email address, by mail. As a result of their settlement, the parties request that the court amend its Nov. 21, 2018 class certification order so that it includes only injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek to modify the Nov. 21, 2018 class definition to the following: Every person who was a party to any portion of a conversation between a person who was in the physical custody of a law enforcement officer or other public officer in California, and that person's attorney, on a telephone number designated or requested not to be recorded, any portion of which was eavesdropped on or recorded by Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. by means of an electronic device during the period July 10, 2008 through whichever occurs first: (1) the date on which the court grants preliminary approval of the settlement; or (2) June 16, 2020. Based on the April 17, 2020 settlement agreement, the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, supporting documents, and a hearing with the parties, Judge Miller preliminarily finds that the settlement of the action, on the terms and conditions set forth in the agreement and the exhibits, are fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the class members, taking into consideration the benefits to class members; the strength and weaknesses of the Plaintiffs' case; the complexity, expense and probable duration of further litigation; and the risk and delay inherent in possible appeals, subject to certain revisions. The Judge approved the selection of ILYM, Inc. to be the settlement administrator. In compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act, and as set forth in the agreement, the Defendant itself, or through its designee, is ordered to serve written notice of the proposed settlement on the U.S. Attorney General and the appropriate California state official, unless such notice has already been served. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), the certification of the action is confirmed for settlement purposes as a class action on behalf of the following class members: Every person who was a party to any portion of a conversation between a person who was in the physical custody of a law enforcement officer or other public officer in California, and that person's attorney, on a telephone number designated or requested not to be recorded, any portion of which was eavesdropped on or recorded by Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. by means of an electronic device during the period July 10, 2008 through June 16, 2020. The Judge confirmed the appointment of the Plaintiffs as the class representatives; and Foley & Lardner LLP, the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, and the Law Office of Robert L. Teel as the class counsel. The Judge approved the form, content and method of notice set forth in the agreement. The Defendant will provide the class list and email addresses to the settlement administrator without delay. The Court will conduct a final approval hearing on Sept. 28, 2020. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 16, 2020 Order is available at https://bit.ly/3mBMjH9 from Leagle.com. SERCO INC: Removes Bernal Suit From Super. Ct. to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as SERGIO V. BERNAL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SERCO, INC., a New Jersey Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 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 Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:20-cv-01639-JVS-ADS. The case alleges Labor Code violations arising from the Defendants' failure to pay all minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks and/or missed break premiums, and failure to reimburse for business expenses, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to timely pay wages during employment and upon termination of employment, and for Defendants' engagement in unfair competition. Serco Inc. is the Americas division of Serco Group, PLC, one of the world's leading service companies. Serco serves federal, state and local governments, along with the Canadian government and commercial customers.[BN] The Defendants are 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 SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Class Suits in Calif. Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Slack Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the the company continues to defend shareholder class action suits in California. Beginning in September 2019, seven purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, its directors, certain of its officers, and certain investment funds associated with certain of its directors, each alleging violations of securities laws in connection with the Company's registration statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC (the "Registration Statement"). Six of these lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo and one of these lawsuits was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Federal Action"). In the Federal Action, captioned Dennee v. Slack Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:19-CV-05857-SI, a lead plaintiff has been appointed and the operative complaint was filed in January 2020. In January 2020, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In April 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. On May 5, 2020, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to certify the court's order for interlocutory appeal. In May 2020, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to certify the court's order for interlocutory appeal. In June 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California certified the order for interlocutory appeal. Also in June 2020, the Company and the other defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the district court's order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In July 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the petition. The six state court actions were consolidated in November 2019, and the consolidated action is captioned In re Slack Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 19CIV05370 (the "State Court Action"). The operative complaint was filed in the State Court Action in December 2019. A seventh state court action was filed in June 2020, but was consolidated with the State Court Action in July 2020. The Company and the other defendants filed demurrers to the complaint in the State Court Action in February 2020. In August 2020, the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo sustained in part and overruled in part the demurrers, and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by October 2, 2020. The Federal Action and the State Court Action seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of investors who purchased the Company's Class A common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement. Slack Technologies, Inc. is the leading channels-based messaging platform, used by millions to align their teams, unify their systems, and drive their businesses forward. Slack offers a secure, enterprise-grade environment that can scale with the largest organizations in the world. The company is based in San Francisco, California. STAAR SURGICAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 19 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, on Aug. 31 disclosed that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the common stock of Staar Surgical Company ("STAAR" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: STAA) between February 26, 2020, and August 10, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased STAAR securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit STAAR Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors that the Company was overstating and/or mischaracterizing: (i) its sales and growth in China; (ii) its marketing spend; (iii) its research and development expenses; and that as a result of the foregoing; (iv) Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 5, 2020, after the markets closed, STAAR reported its financial results for the second quarter ended July 3, 2020 filing a form 10-Q and issuing a press release with the SEC. In the 10-Q, STAAR reported that "the Company's distributor in China, accounted for 57% and 43% of net sales for the three and six months ended June 28, 2019, respectively. On this news, the Company's stock price plummeted by approximately 10% from an August 5, 2020 close of $61.81 per share to an August 6 close of $55.86. Then on August 11, 2020 analyst J Capital Research published a report in which it wrote that "[w]e think that STAAR Surgical has overstated sales in China by at least one-third, or 21.6 mln. That would mean that all of the company's 14 mln in 2019 profit is fake." the report continued that "[f]ake sales [in China] come at 100% margins and therefore translate directly into profit. That means that roughly $21.6 mln in overstated Chinese sales in 2019 represent 152% of total company profit. In other words, without the fraud that we believe pervades the China business, STAAR is losing money." On this news, STAAR's stock price plummeted again, closing at $48.26 on August 11, 2020, down approximately 6.2% from its August 10, 2020 closing price of $51.42. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 19, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased STAAR securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/staarsurgicalcompany-staa-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-292/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact Information Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] SYNCHRONOSS TECH: Complaint Amended in Securities Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ An amended complaint was filed on July 13, 2020 in the case, IN RE SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS, Civil Action No. 17-7173 (FLW) (D. N.J.). The original shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in October 2017. Defendants are Stephen G. Waldis, William J. Cadogan, Thomas J. Hopkins, James M. McCormick, and Donnie M. Moore and nominal defendant, Synchronoss. Under the lawsuit, Plaintiffs allege that in December 2016, when Synchronoss divested its Activation business, a component of the Company which provides mobile handset activation and network services, the Synchronoss Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders by issuing misleading public statements in connection with the sale. In addition to other claims, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants breached their duty of loyalty to the Company's shareholders by disseminating misleading information regarding the accounting of revenue from a licensing transaction into which the Company entered, contemporaneously with the Activation Divestiture. The Defendants initially moved to dismiss the Complaint, which was denied by the Court on Nov. 29, 2019 (the "Prior Opinion"). Subsequently, the Defendants moved for reconsideration of the November 2019 decision. The Plaintiff opposed the motion. Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Motion for Reconsideration in a June 12, 2020 Opinion, a full-text copy of which is available at https://is.gd/Br2Y0T from Leagle.com. In its June 12 Decision, the Court opines that contrary to its prior finding, it appears that the Plaintiffs has not alleged that the directors other than Waldis had any involvement in making the misleading disclosures. Judge Wolfson finds that Prior Opinion erroneously attributes the statements in the SEC filings and during the press release and investor calls to all of the Defendants. Even if it is a minor factual error, the mistake is a material one which would result in manifest injustice if not corrected. Because the prior ruling hinged on a factual error which was material to the finding that the Plaintiff had adequately alleged a breach of the duty of disclosure, the Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration was granted. The Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to show that the Directors faced a substantial risk of liability for breach of fiduciary duty and could not have acted in a disinterested and independent fashion in the face of demand, such that demand was excused, the Court held. Because granting the Motion for Reconsideration results in the dismissal of the only remaining claim in the Plaintiff's Complaint, the Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint. And thus, an amended complaint in the Synchronoss Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation in July 2020. TELIGENT INC: Econazole Antitrust Litigation Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- Teligent, 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 antitrust litigation related to the pricing of econazole nitrate pharmaceutical products. To date, thirteen putative class action antitrust lawsuits have been filed against the Company along with co-defendants, including Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Perrigo New York Inc., regarding the pricing of generic pharmaceuticals, including econazole nitrate. The class plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide or state classes consisting of persons who directly purchased, indirectly purchased, paid and/or reimbursed patients for the purchase of generic pharmaceuticals from as early as July 1, 2009 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased or will cease. The class plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges during the alleged period of conspiracy, and certain of the class plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief against the defendants. The actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings as part of the In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter. On October 16, 2018 the court dismissed the class plaintiffs' claims against the Company with leave to replead. On December 21, 2018 the class plaintiffs filed amended complaints, which the Company moved to dismiss on February 21, 2019. This motion remains pending. On December 19, 2019 certain class plaintiffs filed a further complaint that included additional claims against the Company based on the Company's sales of fluocinolone acetonide. "Opt-out" antitrust lawsuits have additionally been filed against the Company by various plaintiffs, including Humana Inc.; The Kroger Co. et al.; United HealthCare Services, Inc.; Molina Healthcare, Inc.; MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; Health Care Service Corp.; Harris County, Texas; and Rite Aid Corporation. These complaints have been consolidated into the In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Each of the opt-out complaints names up to forty-seven defendants (including the Company) and involves allegations regarding the pricing of econazole along with up to 180 other drug products, most of which were not manufactured or sold by the Company during the period at issue. The opt-out plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for the drug products identified in the complaint during the alleged period of conspiracy, and some also seek injunctive relief. A motion to dismiss the Humana Inc. and The Kroger Co., et al. opt-out complaints was filed on February 21, 2019. A complaint has also been filed by state Attorneys General based on pricing of topical drugs, and naming the Company as a defendant with respect to econazole nitrate. The Attorney General plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges during the alleged period of conspiracy. This action has been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings as part of the In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter. Teligent said, "Due to the early stage of these cases, the Company is unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. The Company believes these cases are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend against these claims." Teligent, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and sells generic topical, branded generic, and generic injectable pharmaceutical products in the United States and Canada. The company was formerly known as IGI Laboratories, Inc. and changed its name to Teligent, Inc. in October 2015. Teligent, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is based in Buena, New Jersey. TELIGENT INC: Generic Drug Price-Fixing Suit in Canada Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Teligent, 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 and its Canadian subsidiary, Teligent Canada, are defendants in a putative class action suit related to alleged generic drug price fixing. On June 3, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Federal Court of Canada against the Company and its Canadian subsidiary, Teligent Canada, along with over fifty other pharmaceutical defendant companies. The Canadian lawsuit alleges that the generic drug manufacturer defendants conspired to allocate the Canadian market and customers, fix prices and maintain the supply of generic drugs in Canada to artificially maintain market share and higher generic drug prices in violation of Canada's Competition Act. In terms of the Company and Teligent Canada, without limiting the general allegation of a general conspiracy over the generic drug market, the lawsuit specifically asserts allegations in relation to econzaole dating back to September 2013 and continuing to the present. The representative individual plaintiff seeks to represent a class comprised of all persons and entities in Canada who, from January 1, 2012 to the present, purchased generic drugs in the private sector (i.e. purchases made by individuals out-of-pocket and by individuals and businesses through private drug plans). The plaintiff is alleging aggregate damages of CDN$2.75 billion for harm caused to class members being charged increased prices as a result of the alleged conspiracy. Teligent said, "The Canadian lawsuit is at a very early stage and the Company is unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable outcome is probable or remote or to provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and it intends to vigorously defend against the claim." Teligent, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and sells generic topical, branded generic, and generic injectable pharmaceutical products in the United States and Canada. The company was formerly known as IGI Laboratories, Inc. and changed its name to Teligent, Inc. in October 2015. Teligent, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is based in Buena, New Jersey. TELIGENT INC: Okla. Police Pension Fund & Retirement Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Teligent, 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 Oklahoma Police Pension Fund and Retirement System. On April 15, 2019 a federal class action was filed the Oklahoma Police Pension Fund and Retirement System against the Company and certain individual defendants in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly-traded Teligent, Inc. securities from March 7, 2017 through November 6, 2017. The complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies in violation of U.S. securities laws. The plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages. On June 17, 2020, the court, deeming pre-motion letters as a motion to dismiss, granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. Teligent said, "Due to the early stage of these cases, the Company is unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. The Company believes these cases are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend against these claims." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Teligent, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and sells generic topical, branded generic, and generic injectable pharmaceutical products in the United States and Canada. The company was formerly known as IGI Laboratories, Inc. and changed its name to Teligent, Inc. in October 2015. Teligent, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is based in Buena, New Jersey. THS GROUP: Faces Campo Class Suit Arising From Unsolicited Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- TRICIA CAMPO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THS GROUP, LLC d/b/a TOTAL HOME PROTECTION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00925 (E.D. Va., Aug. 14, 2020), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. THS Group, LLC, doing business as Total Home Protection, provides home warranties against home system component and appliance breakdowns.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis J. Driscoll, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FRANK J DRISCOLL JR., PLLC 4669 South Blvd., Suite 107 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 Telephone: (757) 321-0054 Facsimile: (757) 321-4020 E-mail: frank@driscolllawoffice.com - and - Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0808 E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com TILLY'S INC: Settlement Talks in Gonzales Suit Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2020, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2020, that the parties in Juan Carlos Gonzales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's Inc. et al, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2017-00948710-CU-OE-CXC, have agreed to continue their settlement discussions with the assistance of the mediator. In October 2017, the plaintiff filed a putative class action against the company, alleging various violations of California's wage and hour laws. The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. In December 2017, the company filed an answer to the complaint, denying all of the claims and asserting various defenses. In April 2018, the plaintiff filed a separate action under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) against the company seeking penalties on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees for the same alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws. The company requested the plaintiff to dismiss the class action claims based on an existing class action waiver in an arbitration agreement which plaintiff signed with our co-defendant, BaronHR, the staffing company that employed plaintiff to work at the Company. In June 2018, the plaintiff's class action complaint was dismissed. The parties mediated the PAGA case with a well-respected mediator in March 2020. Although the case did not settle at the mediation, the parties have agreed to continue their settlement discussions with the assistance of the mediator. The court has not yet issued a trial date. By agreement between co-defendant BaronHR and Tilly's, BaronHR is required to indemnify Tilly's for all of Tilly's losses and expenses incurred in connection with this matter. Tilly's said, "We have defended this case vigorously, and will continue to do so." Tilly's, Inc. retails casual apparel, footwear, and accessories for young men and women, and boys and girls in the United States. Its apparel merchandise includes tops, outerwear, bottoms, and dresses; and accessories merchandise comprises backpacks, hats, sunglasses, headphones, handbags, watches, jewelry, and others. Tilly's, Inc. was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. U.S. BANK: Yousefi Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as ATEFEH YOUSEFI, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-00022823-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on September 9, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01770-BAS-AGS to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages, failure to timely pay wages due upon separation of employment, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code and for unlawful and unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code. U.S. Bank National Association is a national banking association with its main office located in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Joan B. Tucker Fife, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street, 35th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 591-1000 Facsimile: (415) 591-1400 E-mail: jfife@winston.com - and – Emilie C. Woodhead, Esq. Jason S. Campbell, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543 Telephone: (213) 615-1700 Facsimile: (213) 615-1750 E-mail: ewoodhead@winston.com jscampbell@winston.com UBER: New Contracts Won't Allow Drivers to Join Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Tara Deschamps, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that Uber Technologies Inc. is trying to keep its Canadian drivers from joining or starting class-action lawsuits against the company -- a move that threatens to upend a $400-million fight from drivers wanting to be recognized as employees, says a lawyer. Employment lawyer Lior Samfiru, who is pursuing the case, said drivers using the platform were asked to sign new contracts days ago that ask them to agree not to pursue class or collective action. Uber, instead, wants drivers to agree to settle their issues with the company through arbitration or on an individual basis, Samfiru said. "The drivers get locked out of the Uber app, unless they click accept this new agreement," he said. "For a driver that is trying to earn a living wage, especially during these difficult times, what are the chances that someone is actually going to read this in detail, understand what it means, understand the options, and make an informed decision?" Uber said in a statement to The Canadian Press that "with the updated arbitration clause, dispute resolution is now more accessible to drivers, bringing Uber Canada in line with other jurisdictions." Samfiru, however, worries the contract could have a chilling effect on the class-action he started in 2017 with Ontario Uber Eats driver David Heller. Heller was hoping to force the San Francisco-based tech giant to recognize drivers as employees and provide them with a minimum wage, vacation pay and other protections under the Employment Standards Act. Uber fought the case and managed to have it stayed because the company required all disputes it is involved in go through mediation in the Netherlands, where it is incorporated. However, Uber said it recently amended its dispute resolution protocols to allow arbitration to occur in the province or territory where a driver resides and ensure drivers will pay no more to start arbitration than the filing fee to file a lawsuit in court. Samfiru said mediation costs US$14,500, but Heller was only making between $400 and $600 a week for up to 50 hours of work. That amounted to $20,800 to $31,200 a year before taxes and expenses. The case made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada, which sided with the drivers and paved the way for them to fight to be recognized as employees. Samfiru's lawsuit seeks $200 million in compensation and $200 million in punitive damages on behalf of the tens of thousands of Ontario residents who have driven for the ride-sharing service since 2012. If drivers sign Uber's contract, they'll have to stay out of his class action unless they read some of the contract's fine print and email the company at an address he said was provided to opt out of the clause. "I think (Uber) is counting on the fact that most are not going to do that, they're not going to understand that, they're not even going to read it," Samfiru said. "They will then have potentially thousands of drivers across the province and beyond who will then be prevented from participating in a class action." This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 31, 2020. [GN] UNDERWEST WESTSIDE: May Directly Mail Notice to Hilaire Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JEAN HILAIRE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNDERWEST WESTSIDE OPERATING CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19 Civ. 03169 (PAE) (RWL) (S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered that the Plaintiffs may mail their notice of pendency to the putative class action members directly instead of engaging a third-party notice administrator. In their notice of pendency, the Plaintiffs will provide putative class action members with 90 days to file a consent to joinder form. Sixty days after they have mailed their notice of pendency, the Plaintiffs may mail the putative class action members a reminder notice. Before any such reminder notice is mailed, the Defendants will have the opportunity to review and comment on the reminder notice, and the parties may bring any disagreements on the reminder notice to the Court's attention. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 12, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/BEqon4 from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Fails to Accommodate Disabled Worker, Maloney Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA MALONEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MICHAEL R. POMPEO, Secretary of the U.S. Department of State, Case No. 1:20-cv-02516 (D.D.C., Sept. 8, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for disability discrimination, retaliation and violation of the Rehabilitation Act. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated individuals with disabilities, alleges that the Defendant failed to accommodate her or to engage in the interactive process in good faith after she became disabled working as a Foreign Service Officer (FSO) for the U.S. Department of State. She contends that the Defendant's failure resulted in substantial harms to her career; specifically, among other things, repeated denial of tenure and career advancement opportunities in 2019 because of things she was unable to do absent reasonable accommodations, despite her solid performance otherwise. According to the complaint, the Defendant also retaliated against the Plaintiff for her repeated accommodations requests and her protected equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaints, including an already-pending class action suit in this Court, Case No. 18-cv-00809-ABJ.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan J. Schwartz, Esq. BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 444-9300 Facsimile: (510) 444-9301 E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com - and – Matthew H. Morgan, Esq. Anna P. Prakash, Esq. Robert L. Schug, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: morgan@nka.com aprakash@nka.com schug@nka.com UNITED STATES: Harrington Sues USPS Over Merging of Post Offices ---------------------------------------------------------------- APRIL HARRINGTON, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals v. LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster General of the United States Parcel Service, ROBERT M. DUNCAN, Chairman of the Postal Service Board of Governors, and the UNITED STATES PARCEL SERVICE, Case No. 1:20-cv-05303 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 8, 2020), seeks to enjoin the Defendants from violating the Plaintiff's right to vote by unlawfully consolidating post offices. For purposes of this suit, persons similarly situated to the Plaintiff are those persons, who have the right to vote under the Illinois constitution and are lawful registered voters in Illinois, who intend to vote in the upcoming November 3 election via USPS mail. The Plaintiff wishes to vote via USPS mail due to concerns that she could contract COVID-19 if she votes in person. According to the complaint, Defendant United States Post Office did not provide adequate notice of its intent to consolidate a post office at least 60 days prior to the proposed date of the consolidation to persons served by such post office to ensure that such persons will have an opportunity to present their views. The Defendants' act of removing or dismantling Delivery Bar Code Sorting machines constitutes a consolidation of a post office under 39 U.S.C. Section 404. The Defendants have directly and proximately caused the Plaintiff's voting rights to be placed at risk and infringed, because the Plaintiff's mail-in ballots may not be postmarked by November 3, 2020, or received by their election authority within 14 days after the election, the Plaintiff contends. United States Post Office is an independent establishment of the executive branch of the federal government.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arlo Walsman, Esq. ARLO LAW OFFICE 161 N. Clark Street, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 313-0035 Facsimile: (312) 724-9771 E-mail: Arlo@arlolawoffice.com VYSTAR CORP: LaChapelle Class Suit vs. Rotmans Furniture Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vystar Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that Robert LaChapelle's class action complaint against Rotmans Furniture, a company subsidiary, is ongoing. On March 13, 2020, Robert LaChapelle, a former employee of Rotmans Furniture, the Company's majority owned subsidiary, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against Rotmans and two of its prior owners (including Steve Rotman, President of the Company) in the Worcester Superior Court alleging non-payment of overtime pay and Sunday premium pay pursuant to the Massachusetts Blue Laws (Ch. 136), the Massachusetts Overtime Law (Chapter 151, Section 1A), and the Massachusetts Payment of Wages Law (Chapter 149 Sections 148 and 150). Specifically, LaChapelle has alleged that Rotmans failed to pay him and other sales people who were paid on a commission-only basis overtime pay at a rate of least 1.5 times the basic minimum wage or premium pay (also at 1.5 times the basic minimum wage) for hours they worked on Sundays. Rotmans is in the process of investigating these claims to determine whether it may be liable to the members of the putative class for unpaid overtime and Sunday pay and, if so, the approximate amount of such amounts. Vystar Corporation creates natural rubber latex. The Company's product is used in an extensive range of products including balloons, textiles, footwear and clothing (threads), adhesives, foams, furniture, carpet, paints, coatings, protective equipment, sporting equipment, and especially health care products such as condoms, surgical and exam gloves. WAITERCOM INC: Moreno Sues in California Over Untimely Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ MARTIN MORENO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. WAITERCOM, INC., a California corporation; and DOES through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20CV369926 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Aug. 26, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code by failing to timely pay all wages due to the Plaintiff and proposed class members. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid or non-exempt employee within the State of California. According to the complaint, the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and other class members required overtime compensation, meal and rest period premiums, minimum wages, and wages owed to them at the time of their discharge or resignation. The Defendants also failed to provide the Plaintiff complete and accurate wage statements and to reimburse necessary business-related expenses and costs. Waiter.com, Inc., is an online restaurant delivery service headquartered in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Arsine Grigoryan, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com agrigoryan@justicelawcorp.com WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Whitaker Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Lisa Whitaker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Washington University d/b/a Washington University Physicians, Defendant, was transferred from the Circuit Court of St. Louis City, MO with the assigned Case No. 2022-CC09439 to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis) on September 9, 2020, and assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-01219. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other filed over a Diversity-Contract Dispute. Washington University Physicians, the multispecialty group practice of the School of Medicine, is one of the five largest academic clinical practices in the nation.[BN] The Plaintiffs appears PRO SE. The Defendant is represented by: Christopher A. Smith, Esq. Husch Blackwell LLP - St Louis 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63105 Tel: (314) 480-1500 Fax: (314) 480-1505 Email: chris.smith@huschblackwell.com WESTROCK SERVICES: Castrejon Suit Moved From E.D. to N.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled HUMBERTO CASTREJON, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WESTROCK SERVICES, LLC and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 2:20-cv-01609, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on September 1, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-06162-SK to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged California Labor Code violations, including failure to pay applicable minimum wages and overtime premium, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to furnish accurate and itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages due upon discharge, and unfair business practices. Westrock Services, LLC, is a paper and packaging manufacturing company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Mia Farber, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com - and – Scott P. Jang, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Telephone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 E-mail: Scott.Jang@jacksonlewis.com - and – Isabella L. Shin, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Riverpark Tower, Suite 1625 333 West San Carlos St. San Jose, CA 95110 Telephone: (408) 579-0404 Facsimile: (408) 454-0290 E-mail: Isabella.Shin@jacksonlewis.com XEROX BUSINESS: Must Face Call Center Workers' Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that three companies were unable to escape a wage class action by call center workers after a federal court in Washington said their liability and damages could be handled on a class-wide basis despite differences in the amount of time each worker might be owed pay for. Xerox Business Services LLC, Livebridge Inc., and Affiliated Computer Services Inc. operate call centers at which agents respond to calls for third-party clients like phone companies, airlines, and hotels. The plaintiffs claim the companies' "achievement-based compensation" system violates the state's minimum wage law. [GN] YAYYO INC: Vanbecelaere Securities Suit Moved to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as MICHAEL VANBECELAERE, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YAYYO, INC., RAMY EL-BATRAWI, JONATHAN ROSEN, KEVIN PICKARD, HARBANT S. SIDHU, JEFFREY GUZY, CHRISTOPHER MIGLINO, PAUL RICHTER, AEGIS CAPITAL CORP., WESTPARK CAPITAL, INC. and DOES 1-25, Case No. 20STCV28066, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 1, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-07997-PA-AGR to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 concerning an initial public offering (IPO) of Defendant YayYo, Inc. YayYo, Inc., is a company that develops and delivers a rideshare booking and cost comparison application with its principal place of business in Beverly Hills, California. WestPark Capital, Inc., is a full-service investment banking and securities brokerage firm with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. Aegis Capital Corp. is a company that provides a variety of investment banking services, with its principal place of business located at 810 7th Ave., in New York City.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Julie E. Kamps, Esq. WESTPARK CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 310 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 203-2942 Facsimile: (310) 843-9389 E-mail: jkamps@wpcfs.com ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: Securities Action in New Jersey Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Zoompass 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 securities class action complaint, including applicable appeals, had been settled or dismissed by the parties and the applicable courts. During the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company learned that a class action complaint had been filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Class Action Complaint alleges, inter alia, that defendants violated the federal securities laws by, among other things, failing to disclose that the Company was engaged in an unlawful scheme to promote its stock. The Company has been served with the Class Action Complaint. The Company has analyzed the Class Action Complaint and, based on that analysis, has concluded that it is legally deficient and otherwise without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. On August 7, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the Class Action Complaint. Additionally, subsequent to the year end on August 21, 2018, the Company was served with the Second Amended Complaint in the District of New Jersey. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on September 18, 2018. On January 23, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order on February 7, 2019. On May 14, 2019, the Plaintiff's motion to reconsider was denied. On June 10, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. As of May 27, 2020, the Class Action Complaints, including applicable appeals, have been settled or dismissed by the parties and the applicable courts. Zoompass Holdings, Inc. develops a mobile money platform that enables brands to transform their financial interactions with customers. The company was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in Toronto, Canada with an additional location in Englewood, New Jersey. Zoompass Holdings, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Paymobile Inc. ********* 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 ***