/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200928.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, September 28, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 194
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Appeals Denial of Bid to Move HGL Fund Suit to Minn.
3M COMPANY: Carbo Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products
A.T. CROSS COMPANY: Romero Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
AETNA RESOURCES: Faces Munoz Suit Over Unpaid Wages for CSRs
ALLIANCE TRI-STATE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Duka Suit Claims
ALTERYX INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL: Olivares Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Claims
APOLLO GLOBAL: Blair Suit over Classic Party Rentals Underway
APOLLO GLOBAL: Combined Appraisal Proceeding and Funds Suit Sought
APOLLO GLOBAL: Faces Securities Suit over PlayAGS Disclosures
BAIDU INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Manipulates Metals Futures, Alishaev Claims
BARNES & NOBLE: Aliperto Suit Moved From D.N.J. to S.D. New York
BARNES & NOBLE: Lopez Suit Moved to Northern District of Florida
BARNES & NOBLE: McGee Suit Moved to Southern District of New York
BEST BUY: Adibzadeh Files Breach of Contract Suit in N.D. Calif.
BUNGA BUNGA: Court Dismisses With Prejudice Ponce's Class Claims
CALADANSIX-CM LLC: Faces Chapman Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Fla.
CAMPOR INC: Graciano Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
CARDONE CAPITAL: Pino Sues Over Misleading Info on Equity Funds
CIGNA HEALTH: Avila Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. California
CIRCLE K STORES: James Suit Moved to Northern District of Florida
CITY PARK CLEARWATER: Hollis TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
CLEANING COMPANY: Faces Martinez Wage and Hour Suit in California
COMENITY BANK: Moton Sues Over Auto-dialed Telemarketing Calls
COMPASS GROUP: Meola Labor Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
CONESTOGA SETTLEMENT: Lane Sues Over Fraudulent Sale of Contracts
CONTAINER STORE: Irving Files Civil Rights Suit in California
CONTINENTAL 406 FUND: Hollis TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
CONTINENTAL 409 FUND: Hollis TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
CONTINENTAL 422 FUND: Hollis TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
CONTINENTAL 425 FUND: Hollis TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Sieving Sues Over Unfair Premium Hikes
CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Certification of Settlement Subclass Sought
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Dunn Sues Over Arabica Coffee's Deceptive Label
COVANTA PLYMOUTH: Facility Releases Noxious Odors, Lloyd Claims
CURLMIX INC: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
DREAMLAND BABY: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
FAMILY DOLLAR: Bynum Sues Over Mislabeled Smoked Almond Products
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
FOREST CITY: Rapp Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
FORTIFI FINANCIAL: Portaluppi Slams Green-Energy Home Upgrade Scam
FUBOTV INC: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Mislabels Fiber Products, Angeles Says
GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Romero Sues in New York Over Violation of ADA
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Law Association Holds Forum on Class Action
HILLBILLY BRAND: Romero Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
HOLABIRD SPORTS: Graciano Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
HOUSTON ASTROS: Files Permissive Appeal From Wallach Suit Ruling
HUNT GUILLOT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Griffin Suit Alleges
HZ OPS HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Bush Says
IC SYSTEM: Brown Sues in Delaware Alleging Violation of FDCPA
INTEL CORP: Hallandale Beach Trust Sues Over Drop in Share Price
IZ CASH INC: Faces Aboin FLSA Suit Over Unlawful Wage Deductions
J.B. HUNT: Williams Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
J.M.W. INC: Kincaid Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
JELD-WEN INC: Settles Molded Door Price-Fixing Class Action
JOE'S SPORTING: Graciano Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
KIND GROUP: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Budnick Wage Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
LABORATORY CORP: Faces Peterson Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
LEE HECHT: Latham Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
LIFE GENERATIONS: Dardi Seeks Penalties for Unpaid Overtime Wages
LYFT INC: Smith, et al. Seek to Certify Class of WAVs Users
MAA WWARRS LLC: Hollis TCPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
MARRIOTT INT'L: Kraft Class Suit Moved From S.D. to W.D. New York
MARYLAND: Emergency Bid for Relief in Duvall Prisoners Suit Denied
MCGRAW-HILL LLC: Miller Suit Moved From D.N.J. to S.D. New York
MONDELEZ INT'L: Coleman Asserts Fraud Claims in C.D. California
MUSIC123 INC: Graciano Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
NANO: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Fabian Suit
NATIONAL RETAIL: Sawall Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Leo Suit
NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Godwin Sues Over Denied Auto Insurance Claim
NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Illegally Sells Viewing Data, Breault Claims
NEW YORK CITY: Corwin Files Request for Judicial Intervention
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 14 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir.
NS8 INC: Faces Rosenberg Suit Alleging Violation of WARN Act
ONESPAN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
ONTEL PRODUCTS: Faces Martin Fraud Suit in C.D. California
ORION GROUP: Court Junks Amended Heck Securities Class Suit
PEARSON EDUCATION: Pelletier Class Suit Moved to S.D. New York
PENTEGRA RETIREMENT: Breaches Fiduciary Duties to Plan, Khan Says
PFIZER INC: Faces Drogueria Suit Alleging Atorvastatin Monopoly
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Gibson Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
PROSHARES TRUST II: Appeal from Dismissed Securities Suit Pending
PROTON DIGITAL: Faces Jimenez Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages
RECEIVABLES: Abduganieva Files FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. New York
RSCR CALIFORNIA: Espinosa Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
SILVER FARM: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Jimenez Suit Alleges
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Counsel Supports Dismissal of Chardonnet Suit
SMS SYSTEMS: Kelly Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit to Ninth Circuit
SOUTHERN CO: Settles Clean Coal Class Suit for $87.5 Million
SPARTAN ENERGY: Bailey Hits Fisker Merger Deal
STAAR SURGICAL: Faces Alwazzan Suit Over Drop in Share Price
SUTTER HEALTH: Bonicarlo Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
SYNCHRONY BANK: Zevon Sues in S.D. New York Over TILA Violation
TEMESCAL WELLNESS: Barton Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Faces Class Action Over Travel Insurance
TREVENA INC: Bid to Drop Consolidated Amended Suit Still Pending
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Vagvala Named Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
UNIFIN INC: Fisher Sues Over Unpaid Call Center Workers' OT Wages
US FUND: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
VIKING CLIENT: Ebanks Sues in S.D. Florida Over FDCPA Violation
WALGREEN CO: President FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
WARNER MUSIC: Fails to Secure Consumers' PII, Kuhn Suit Alleges
WELLS ENTERPRISES: Faces Martinez Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages
WESTERN MILLING: $650,000 Deal in Benitez Suit Gets Final Approval
WORTH UNLIMITED: Aussieker Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
ZAYO GROUP: Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Dickerson Suit Alleges
*********
3M COMPANY: Appeals Denial of Bid to Move HGL Fund Suit to Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants 3M Company, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Opinion and Order, dated August 31, 2020, entered in the
lawsuit entitled Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Welfare
Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Respondents v. 3M Company, Inge G. Thulin, Michael F.
Roman and Nicholas C. Gangestad, Defendants-Petitioners, Case No.
2:19-cv-15982-CCC-MF, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.
The Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to grant their petition, to
vacate the court opinion and accompanying order denying transfer to
the District of Minnesota, and to direct the District Court to
transfer this matter under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).
The issues presented are:
1. Whether the District Court committed clear abuse of
discretion or legal error in considering purported
environmental harm in a securities class action that does
not and cannot seek redress for such harm;
2. Whether the District Court committed clear abuse of
discretion or legal error in ascribing weight to the forum
choice of a small 3M stockholder who filed a placeholder
complaint but relinquished control of the litigation to
other investors, and is now merely one of over 75,000
putative class members; and
3. Whether the District Court committed clear abuse of
discretion or legal error in refusing transfer of this
action, where the securities claims arose in Minnesota;
almost all of the defendants and witnesses to the alleged
securities fraud are located there; Lead Plaintiffs have no
connection to New Jersey and sue on behalf of a nationwide
putative class of investors; Minnesota, which has much less
court congestion than New Jersey, has a much stronger
interest in regulating the activity of the corporations and
officers acting within its borders; and the District
Court's prior decisions, and numerous others, repeatedly
grant transfer in such circumstances.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 12,
2020, 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that it was waiting for the
ruling on the motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota of the consolidated class action suit
initiated by Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Welfare
Fund.
In July 2019, Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Welfare
Fund filed a putative securities class action against 3M Company,
its former Chairman and CEO, current Chairman and CEO, and current
CFO in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
In August 2019, an individual plaintiff filed a similar putative
securities class action in the same district. The Plaintiffs allege
that defendants made false and misleading statements regarding 3M's
exposure to liability associated with Perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFAS), and bring claims for damages under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 against all
defendants, and under Section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 against the individual defendants.
In October 2019, the court consolidated the securities class
actions and appointed a group of lead plaintiffs.
In January 2020, the Defendants filed a motion to transfer venue to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The suit is
in the early stages of litigation.
The appellate case is captioned as IN RE 3M COMPANY, INGE G.
THULIN, NICHOLAS C. GANGESTAD, AND MICHAEL F. ROMAN, Petitioners,
Case No. 20-2864, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.[BN]
Defendants-Petitioners 3M COMPANY, INGE G. THULIN, NICHOLAS C.
GANGESTAD, AND MICHAEL F. ROMAN are represented by:
Walter R. Krzastek, Esq.
Eric Todd Kanefsky, Esq.
CALCAGNI & KANEFSKY LLP
One Newark Center
1085 Raymond Blvd., 14th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (862) 397-1796
E-mail: walterk@ck-litigation.com
eric@ck-litigation.com
- and -
Meredith Kotler, Esq.
Mary Eaton, Esq.
Scott A. Eisman, Esq.
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 277-4000
E-mail: meredith.kotler@freshfields.com
mary.eaton@freshfields.com
scott.eisman@freshfields.com
3M COMPANY: Carbo Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY CARBO v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY;
CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE PRODUCTS GP HOLDING, LLC;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-03287-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 15,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for negligence, battery,
inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent
concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and
wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants designed, marketed,
developed, distributed, sold, manufactured, released, trained users
on, produced instructional materials for, and/or otherwise handled
and/or used aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds
to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and
remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique
chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were
used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant
change in the products' condition.
The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the
Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, according
to the complaint. As a result of the Defendants' omissions and
misconduct, the Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and
complications due to his consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from the Defendants' AFFF products.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. 3M is located at 3M Center, in St. Paul,
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer
of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma
Management, LLC is a global color and specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Reinach, Switzerland. Arkema, Inc. is a
diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King
of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, in Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of
fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with
principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, in
Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of
titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based
in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security
and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical
and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater
Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine
derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a
company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based
in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider
of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of
business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Fire Products GP Holding, LLC is a manufacturer of fire protection
products based in Bismarck, North Dakota. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a
manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland,
Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a
manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill,
South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a
manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of
business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire
Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a
manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and
ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of
AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, in Marinette,
Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. United
merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
A.T. CROSS COMPANY: Romero Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A.T. Cross Company,
LLC. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. A.T. Cross Company, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-07659 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
A.T. Cross Company, LLC is an American manufacturing company of
writing implements, based in Providence, Rhode Island, and is one
of the oldest pen manufacturers in the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
AETNA RESOURCES: Faces Munoz Suit Over Unpaid Wages for CSRs
------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. AETNA RESOURCES, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-01392 (D. Conn.,
Sept. 16, 2020), alleges that the Defendants fails to pay the
Plaintiff and other customer service representatives for certain
work performed "off-the-clock" at the beginning of each workday,
during meal periods, and at the end of each workday, in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, the
California Industrial Welfare Commission, and the California
Business & Professions Code.
The Defendant's illegal compensation practices and policies result
in customer service representatives not being paid for all time
worked, including overtime, according to the complaint. The
Defendant also fails to pay customer service representatives for
all time worked during periods when they experience technical
disconnection issues.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a customer
service representative since July 2017, and signed a consent form
to join this collective action lawsuit.
Aetna Resources, LLC offers call center services to its patients
and insured members throughout the U.S. and employs customer
service representatives to receive and respond to patient phone
calls, among other duties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew C. Sorokin, Esq.
THE SOROKIN LAW FIRM
9 Grand Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Telephone: (860) 776-6017
E-mail: mat@sorokinlaw.com
- and -
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
ALLIANCE TRI-STATE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Duka Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
RILIND DUKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALLIANCE TRI-STATE CONSTRUCTION, INC.; ALLIANCE
TRI-STATE MAINTENANCE CORP.; ARGJENT DUKA; and MERIMA MESIK DUKA,
Case No. 1:20-cv-06648 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2020), seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Duka was employed by the Defendants as truck driver.
Alliance Tri-State Construction, Inc. provides infrastructure
construction services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Brown, Esq.
BROWN, KWON & LAM LLP
275 7th Avenue, Suite 701
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (718) 971-0326
Facsimile: (718) 795-1642
E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com
ALTERYX INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Alteryx, Inc. Stockholders
have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as
lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be
found at the link provided.
Alteryx, Inc. (NYSE: AYX)
Class Period: March 6, 2020 to August 6, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020
On August 6, 2020, the Company announced in a press release its
second quarter 2020 financial results, and disappointing growth
projections for the third quarter and full year 2020. Therein,
Alteryx stated that, for the third quarter, it expected revenue "to
be in the range of $111.0 million to $115.0 million, an increase of
7% to 11% year-over-year." Moreover, for fiscal year 2020, the
Company expected revenue "to be in the range of $460.0 million to
$465.0 million, an increase of 10% to 11% year-over-year."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $47.62, or over 28%,
to close at $121.38 per share on August 7, 2020, thereby injuring
investors. The stock price continued to decline over the next
trading session by $12.15, or 10%, to close at $109.23 per share on
August 10, 2020, representing a cumulative decline of $59.77, or
35%.
The complaint, filed on August 20, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company was unable to close large deals within the quarter and
deals were pushed out to subsequent quarters or downsized; (2)
that, as a result, Alteryx increasingly relied on adoption licenses
to attract new customers; (3) that, as a result and due to the
nature of adoption licenses, the Company's revenue was reasonably
likely to decline; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Alteryx securities class action case go
to: https://bespc.com/AYX-2
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]
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of American Electric Power
Company, Inc. ("AEP) (NYSE: AEP). Stockholders have until the
deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.
Additional information about each case can be found at the link
provided.
American Electric Power Company, Inc. ("AEP") (NYSE: AEP)
Class Period: November 2, 2016 and July 24, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020
On July 25, 2020, the Columbus Dispatch published an article titled
"Columbus utility giant AEP funded dark money spending in HB 6
campaign," reporting on the Company's actions in connection with
"campaigns now at the center of a racketeering and bribery case . .
. ."
On this news, shares of AEP shares fell $4.79 per share, or over
5%, to close at $83.26 per share on July 27, 2020, the next trading
day.
The complaint, filed on August 20, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company covertly
participated in the "the largest public corruption case in Ohio
history"; (2) the Company secretly funneled substantial funds to
Ohio political organizations and politicians to bribe politicians
to pass Ohio House Bill 6, which benefitted the Company and its
coal-fired generation assets; (3) the Company partially funded a
massive, misleading advertising campaign in support of HB6 and in
opposition to a ballot initiative to repeal HB6 by passing
substantial sums through a web of dark money entities and front
companies in order to conceal the Company's involvement; (4) the
Company aided in subverting a citizens' ballot initiative to repeal
HB6; (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' Class Period
statements regarding the Company's regulatory and legislative
efforts were materially false and misleading; (6) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company would face increased scrutiny; (7) the
Company was subject to undisclosed risk of reputational, legal and
financial harm; (8) the bribery scheme would jeopardize the
benefits the Company sought by HB6; (9) as opposed to the Company's
repeated public statements regarding a move to clean energy, it
sought a dirty energy bailout; (10) as opposed to the Company's
repeated public statements regarding protection of its customers'
interests, the Company sought an extra and state-mandated surcharge
on its customers' bills; and (11) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
For more information on the AEP securities class action case go to:
https://bespc.com/AEP
OneSpan, Inc. (NASDAQ: OSPN)
Class Period: May 9, 2018 and August 11, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020
On August 4, 2020, OneSpan postponed its second-quarter 2020
earnings release and conference call by one week, attributing the
delay to prior period revenue recognition problems relating to
certain software license contracts spread out over the quarters
from the first quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of 2020.
OneSpan further stated that "[t]he net contract assets that
originated from a portion of these contracts in prior periods were
not properly accounted for in subsequent periods, which caused
overstatements of revenue."
On this news, the Company's common share price fell $0.46 per
share, or 1.40%, to close at $32.50 per share on August 4, 2020.
Then, on August 11, 2020, OneSpan disclosed that it would not
timely file its quarterly report for the quarter ended June 30,
2020, with the SEC; reported that same quarter year-over-year
revenues had declined; and withdrew its full-year 2020 earnings
guidance, which the Company had affirmed one quarter earlier.
On this news, the Company's common share price fell $12.36 per
share, or 39.62%, to close at $18.84 per share on August 12, 2020.
The complaint, filed on August 20, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) OneSpan had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting; (ii) as a result, OneSpan overstated its
revenue relating to certain contracts with customers involving
software licenses in its financial statements spread out over the
quarters from the first quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of
2020; (iii) as a result, it was foreseeably likely that the Company
would eventually have to delay one or more scheduled earnings
releases, conference calls, and/or financial filings with the SEC;
(iv) OneSpan downplayed the negative impacts of errors in its
financial statements; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was
foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's financial results and reputation; and (vi) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the OneSpan securities class action go to:
https://bespc.com/OSPN
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]
AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL: Olivares Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL OLIVARES, on behalf of himself and all others aggrieved
employees v. AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL AMBULANCE, CORP. and DOES 150,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV35111 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Sept. 15, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations
of the Private Attorneys General Act of California Labor Code,
including failure to pay overtime wages and minimum wages.
The Defendants have also failed to provide meal and rest periods;
to provide complete and accurate wage statements; to timely pay
wages during employment; and to pay all wages due to discharged and
quitting employees, according to the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an emergency
medical technician or other like positions in California from
January 2019 and until December 17, 2019.
American Professional Ambulance, Corp., offers private ambulance
and critical care transportation services based in Van Nuys,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Lo, Esq.
WORK LAWYERS, PC
22939 Hawthorne Blvd., #202
Torrance, CA 90505
Telephone: (866) 496-7552
Facsimile: (424) 355-8535
E-mail: Justin@WorkLawyers.com
APOLLO GLOBAL: Blair Suit over Classic Party Rentals Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, Inc. (AGM Inc.) and its managed
investment funds are still defending themselves against Zachary
Blair's class action on behalf of certain hourly employees of
Classic Party Rentals, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020.
On March 12, 2020, AGM Inc. and several investment funds managed by
subsidiaries of AGM Inc. (the "Apollo Funds") were added as
defendants in a class action filed by plaintiff Zachary Blair on
December 7, 2017, in the Superior Court of California. Plaintiff
alleges he is a former employee of Classic Party Rentals, a party
equipment rental company previously owned by the Apollo Funds.
Plaintiff alleges that Classic Party Rentals failed to comply with
California wage and hour and related laws, and also has asserted
claims based on various provisions of the California labor code and
California's unfair competition laws.
On October 11, 2019, the court certified a class of current and
former non-exempt drivers, assistant drivers, and organizer
employees of Classic Party Rentals who were paid on an hourly basis
and who worked at Classic Party Rentals in California at any time
from December 7, 2013, through the date of the class certification
order. AGM Inc.'s response to the complaint was due on August 24,
2020.
The Company said, "Apollo believes the claims in this action are
without merit. Because this action is in the early stages, no
reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this
time."
Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client focused portfolios. The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.
APOLLO GLOBAL: Combined Appraisal Proceeding and Funds Suit Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, Inc. (AGM Inc.) said in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that a group of former MPM
Holdings shareholders seeking appraisal of their MPM shares in a
consolidated appraisal proceeding are seeking to consolidate their
appraisal proceeding with the Frank Funds action.
On June 3, 2020, a group of former MPM shareholders seeking
appraisal of their MPM shares in a consolidated appraisal
proceeding, In re Appraisal of MPM Holdings, Inc., C.A. No.
2019-0519 (Del. Ch.), moved for leave to file a verified amended
appraisal petition and class-action complaint. In that motion, the
petitioners stated that they seek leave to assert claims for breach
of fiduciary duty and/or aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary
duty against AGM Inc., an affiliated Apollo fund, certain former
MPM directors (including three Apollo officers and employees), and
members of the consortium that acquired MPM, based on alleged
actions related to the May 2019 merger. The petitioners also seek
to consolidate their appraisal proceeding with the Frank Funds
action. The Delaware Court of Chancery has not yet ruled on the
motion. Apollo believes the claims in this action are without
merit. Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable
estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.
Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client focused portfolios. The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.
APOLLO GLOBAL: Faces Securities Suit over PlayAGS Disclosures
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, Inc. (AGM Inc.) has been named as
defendant in a putative class action complaint filed in Nevada
against PlayAGS Inc., according to Apollo Global's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020.
On August 4, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against
PlayAGS Inc. ("PlayAGS"), all of the members of PlayAGS's board of
directors (including three directors who are affiliated with
Apollo), certain underwriters of AGS (including Apollo Global
Securities, LLC), as well as AGM Inc., Apollo Investment Fund VIII,
L.P., Apollo Gaming Holdings, L.P., and Apollo Gaming Voteco, LLC
(these last four parties, together, the "Apollo Defendants").
The complaint asserts claims arising under the Securities Act of
1933 in connection with certain secondary offerings of PlayAGS
stock conducted in August 2018 and March 2019, alleging that the
registration statements issued in connection with those offerings
did not fully disclose certain business challenges facing PlayAGS.
Such claims are asserted against all defendants, including Apollo
Global Securities, LLC and the Apollo Defendants, as well as all
directors (including the directors affiliated with Apollo).
The complaint further asserts a control person claim under Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Apollo
Defendants and the director defendants (including the directors
affiliated with Apollo), alleging that the Apollo Defendants and
the director defendants were responsible for certain misstatements
and omissions by PlayAGS about its business during a putative class
period from May 3, 2018 through August 7, 2019.
The Company said, "Apollo believes the claims in this action are
without merit. Because this action is in the early stages, no
reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this
time."
Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client focused portfolios. The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.
BAIDU INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Baidu, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDU).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.
Baidu, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDU)
Class Period: April 8, 2016 to August 13, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020
Baidu is the majority owner of iQIYI, Inc. ("iQIYI"). On April 7,
2020, Wolfpack Research released a report detailing, among other
things, how iQIYI had misled investors and failed to disclose
pertinent information generally and in its Registration Statement,
including: (i) iQIYI overstating its user numbers; (ii) iQIYI
inflating its revenues; (iii) iQIYI inflating expenses and prices
of assets to conceal its revenue inflation; and (iv) iQIYI
misleading financial reporting creating the appearance of a cash
generative company.
On this news, Baidu's ADS price fell $4.46 per ADS, or 4%, to close
at $97.33 per ADS on April 8, 2020.
On August 13, 2020, iQIYI announced that the U.S. Securities &
Exchange Commission sought "the production of certain financial and
operating records dating from January 1, 2018, as well as documents
related to certain acquisitions and investments that were
identified in a report issued by short-seller firm Wolfpack
Research in April 2020."
On this news, Baidu's ADS price fell $7.83 per ADS, or 6%, to close
at $116.74 per ADS on August 14, 2020.
The complaint, filed on August 19, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Baidu misrepresented the
financial and business condition of iQIYI; (2) iQIYI had inadequate
controls; and (3) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Baidu securities class action case go
to: https://bespc.com/BIDU
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]
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Manipulates Metals Futures, Alishaev Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
YURI ALISHAEV; ABRAHAM JEREMIAS; and MORRIS JEREMIAS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE BANK OF NOVA
SCOTIA; and COREY FLAUM, Case No. 3:20-cv-11329 (D.N.J., Aug. 25,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for their unlawful and
intentional manipulation of precious metals futures contracts
through unlawful spoofing.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants engaged
in a long running illicit scheme to "spoof" the market for futures
contracts--contracts to enter into a future transaction at a
predetermined price. They did so by first placing legitimate buy
and sell orders which were then immediately followed by the placing
of manipulative orders to artificially drive the price in a
favorable direction for the Defendants.
After the legitimate order was executed, the Defendants would
cancel the manipulative orders before the manipulative orders could
be executed.
The spoof orders were designed to, and did, artificially move the
prices of NYMEX and COMEX precious metals futures and options
contracts during the Class Period in a direction that was favorable
to the Defendants, but injurious to the Plaintiffs, according to
the complaint. The Defendants' deliberate acts distorted price
signals and manipulated the prices of NYMEX and COMEX precious
metals futures and options contracts during the Class Period. The
Defendants' actions were intended to, and did, induce other market
participants, such as the Plaintiffs, to trade against the
Defendants' genuine orders.
The Bank of Nova Scotia provides retail, commercial, international,
corporate, investment and private banking services and
products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark D. Smilow, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
1500 Broadway, Suite 1601
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 682-3025
Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
E-mail: msmilow@weisslawllp.com
BARNES & NOBLE: Aliperto Suit Moved From D.N.J. to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled TYLER ALIPERTO, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated v. BARNES & NOBLE COLLEGE
BOOKSELLERS, LLC; BARNES & NOBLE EDUCATION, INC.; CENGAGE LEARNING,
INC.; FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP; MCGRAW HILL LLC; AND PEARSON
EDUCATION, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-06840-DLC, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 25,
2020.
The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-06840-DLC to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Denise L. Cote.
Barnes & Noble College Booksellers LLC offers retail sale of new
books and magazines. The Company provides trade books, collegiate
clothing, and emblematic merchandise. Barnes & Noble operates
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stanley O. King
KING & KING LLC
213 South Broad Street
Woodbury, NJ 08096
Telephone: (856) 845-3001
E-mail: stan@kingslaw.com
Sharon@kingslaw.com
- and –
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
Brant D. Penney, Esq.
REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
W-1050 First National Bank Building
332 Minnesota Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone No: (651) 287-2100
E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
b.penney@rwblawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephanie D. Edelson, Esq.
RIKER DANZIG SCHERER HYLAND AND PERRETTI
One Speedwell Avenue
Morristown, NJ 07960
Telephone: (973) 451-8756
E-mail: sedelson@riker.com
BARNES & NOBLE: Lopez Suit Moved to Northern District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JULIO LOPEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. BARNES & NOBLE COLLEGE
BOOKSELLERS, LLC; BARNES & NOBLE EDUCATION, INC.; CENGAGE LEARNING,
INC.; FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP; MCGRAW HILL LLC; and PEARSON
EDUCATION, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-01406, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida on August 25,
2020.
The Northern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00215-MW-GRJ to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the
Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Walker, and referred to Magistrate Judge
Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones.
Barnes & Noble College Booksellers LLC offers retail sale of new
books and magazines. The Company provides trade books, collegiate
clothing, and emblematic merchandise. Barnes & Noble operates
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Shah, Esq.
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
475 White Horse Pike
Collingswood, NJ 08107
Telephone: (856) 858-1770
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
- and -
Eric L. Young, Esq.
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (610) 891-9880
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: eyoung@sfmslaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephanie D. Edelson, Esq.
RIKER DANZIG SCHERER HYLAND AND PERRETTI
One Speedwell Avenue
Morristown, NJ 07960
Telephone: (973) 451-8756
E-mail: sedelson@riker.com
BARNES & NOBLE: McGee Suit Moved to Southern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DONOVAN MCGEE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. BARNES & NOBLE COLLEGE
BOOKSELLERS, LLC; BARNES & NOBLE EDUCATION, INC.; CENGAGE LEARNING,
INC.; FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP; MCGRAWHILL LLC; and PEARSON
EDUCATION, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-06152, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 25,
2020.
The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-06842-DLC to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the
Hon. Denise L. Cote. The McGee suit is a member case in the
multi-district litigation proceeding, IN RE: Inclusive Access
Course Materials Antitrust Litigation, Lead Case No.
1:20-md-02946-DLC.
Barnes & Noble College Booksellers LLC offers retail sale of new
books and magazines. The Company provides trade books, collegiate
clothing, and emblematic merchandise. Barnes & Noble operates
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Simon B. Paris, Esq.
Patrick Howard, Esq.
Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY, P.C.
1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-8282
Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
phoward@smbb.com
ckocher@smbb.com
- and -
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
Mickey L. Stevens, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
mstevens@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Brett Cebulash, Esq.
Kevin Landau, Esq.
TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (646) 873-7654
Facsimile: (212) 931-0703
E-mail: bcebulash@tcllaw.com
klandau@tcllaw.com
- and -
Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
Daniel N. Gallucci, Esq.
Joseph N. Roda, Esq.
NASTLAW LLC
11001 Market Street, Suite 2801
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 923 9300
Facsimile: (215) 923 9302
E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
dgallucci@nastlaw.com
jnroda@nastlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephanie D. Edelson, Esq.
RIKER DANZIG SCHERER HYLAND AND PERRETTI
One Speedwell Avenue
Morristown, NJ 07960
Telephone: (973) 451-8756
E-mail: sedelson@riker.com
BEST BUY: Adibzadeh Files Breach of Contract Suit in N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Best Buy, Co. Inc.
The case is styled as Kambiz Adibzadeh, on behalf of himself and a
class of all others similarly situated v. Best Buy, Co. Inc., a
Minnesota corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-06257-DMR (N.D. Cal., Sept.
3, 2020).
The lawsuit arises from issue related to breach of contract. The
case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.
Best Buy, Co. Inc. is an American multinational retailer of
consumer electronics headquartered in Richfield, Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Taylor Alexander Marks, Esq.
Daryoosh Khashayar, Esq.
KHASHAYAR LAW GROUP
12636 High Bluff Drive, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 509-1550
Facsimile: (858) 509-1551
E-mail: taylor@mysdlawyers.com
daryoosh@mysdlawyers.com
BUNGA BUNGA: Court Dismisses With Prejudice Ponce's Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUIS PONCE, an individual, and ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. BUNGA BUNGA LLC, a domestic
limited-liability company, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-02002-KJD-VCF (D. Nev.), Judge Kent J. Dawson of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada (i) dismissed with
prejudice the named Plaintiff's individual claims, and (ii)
dismissed without prejudice the collective action claims and class
action claims.
The Court has granted the parties' Joint Motion for Court Approval
of Settlement. Therefore, the parties have stipulated that the
case be dismissed in its entirety as ordered. Each party bears its
own attorneys' fees and costs.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 16, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/6WiXVa from Leagle.com.
Deverie J. Christensen -- Deverie.Christensen@jacksonlewis.com --
Daniel I. Aquino -- Daniel.Aquino@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS
P.C., Las Vegas, Nevada, Attorneys for Defendant, Bunga Bunga LLC.
CALADANSIX-CM LLC: Faces Chapman Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT V. CHAPMAN, III, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. CALADANSIX-CM, LLC d/b/a CHAPMAN MARINE
SUPPLY, STUART LAWN & GARDEN, LLC, and THOMAS W. O'BRIEN, JR., Case
No. 2:20-cv-14325-DMM (S.D. Fla., Sept. 16, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' failure to compensate the Plaintiff and other employees
overtime pay for all hours worked more than 40 hours per week in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt employee at the Defendants'
marine supply store in Florida from November 6, 2018, to April 10,
2020.
Caladansix-CM, LLC, d/b/a Chapman Marine Supply, is a marine supply
store operator based in Stuart, Florida. Stuart Lawn & Garden, LLC
is a lawn mower store operator based in Stuart, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esq.
SCHWARZBERG & ASSOCIATES
2751 South Dixie Highway, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33405
Telephone: (561) 659-3300
Facsimile: (561) 693-4540
E-mail: steve@schwarzberglaw.com
CAMPOR INC: Graciano Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Campmor, Inc. The
case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Campmor, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-07655 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Campmor is an outdoor recreation equipment retailer established in
Bogota, New Jersey, in 1978. The Company sells outdoor camping gear
and camping equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
CARDONE CAPITAL: Pino Sues Over Misleading Info on Equity Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS PINO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. CARDONE CAPITAL, LLC and GRANT CARDONE, Case No. 2:20-cv-08499
(C.D. Cal., Sept. 15, 2020), is brought on behalf of all persons
and entities, who purchased interests in Cardone Equity Fund V, LLC
and Cardone Equity Fund VI, LLC, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Act of 1933.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants are responsible for false
and misleading statements and omitting material facts in connection
with Cardone Capital, LLC's public offerings of interests in Fund V
and Fund VI. The Defendants targeted what they called the "everyday
investor," soliciting investors to purchase interests in Fund V and
Fund VI through social media. These statements are considered "test
the waters" communications, which are considered offers of
securities and are subject to the anti-fraud provisions of the
securities laws.
In addition to the "test the waters" communications, the Plaintiff
alleges, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding (1) whether investors would obtain a 15%
internal rate of return on their investments; (2) the amounts of
monthly distributions they would receive; and (3) investors' debt
obligations. The Defendants also made materially false and
misleading statements in the offering documents and omitted to
state material facts relating to how the acquisition of properties
to be owned by Fund V and Fund VI would be financed and the
interest Cardone would charge the funds for loaning "the aggregate
principal balance" to acquire those properties.
Cardone Capital, LLC provides real estate investment opportunities
to the so-called "everyday investor" through real estate
crowdfunding. According to Cardone Capital's website, Cardone
Capital "finds the deals, negotiates the purchase and financing,
and closes the deal" and generates rental payments from
creditworthy tenants to pay monthly cash distributions to
investors. Investors invest in Cardone Capital's equity funds,
which have been formed to acquire interests in income earning real
estate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
Steven Sklaver, Esq.
Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: mselzer@susmangodfrey.com
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
kpachman@susmangodfrey.com
CIGNA HEALTH: Avila Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ADRIAN AVILA, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. CIGNA
HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 283609, was removed from the Superior Court in the State
of California for the County of Tulare to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California on September 11, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:20-at-00687 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code,
including unfair competition, failure to pay overtime and minimum
wages, failure to provide required meal and rest periods, failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse
business-related expenses, failure to timely pay wages, and for
wrongful termination.
Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company is a health insurance
company based in Bloomfield, Connecticut.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Carlos Jimenez, Esq.
Linda Bollinger, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 443-4300
Facsimile: (213) 443-4299
CIRCLE K STORES: James Suit Moved to Northern District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled SAMUEL JAMES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CIRCLE K STORES INC.,
Case No. 8:20-cv-01406, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Florida on August 25, 2020.
The Northern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00215-MW-GRJ to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the
Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Walker, and referred to Magistrate Judge
Gary R. Jones.
Circle K Stores Inc. owns and operates convenience stores. The
Company offers coffee, fountain drinks, beer, snacks, candy, ATM
services, gift cards, and general merchandise. Circle K Stores
serves customers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com
CITY PARK CLEARWATER: Hollis TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as AARON HOLLIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CITY PARK CLEARWATER, LLC d/b/a
CITY PARK CLEARWATER APARTMENTS, Case No. CACE-20-012559, was
removed from the Florida Circuit Court for Broward County to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
September 15, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:20-cv-61870-WPD to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text
messages to the Plaintiff's cellular phone number using an
automatic telephone dialing system.
City Park Clearwater, LLC d/b/a City Park Clearwater Apartments, is
a limited liability company based in Clearwater, Florida, that
operates apartments.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jacqueline Simms-Petredis, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN LLP
201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 3200
Tampa, FL 36601
Telephone: (813) 221-2626
Facsimile: (813) 221-7335
E-mail: jsimms-petredis@burr.com
dmorales@burr.com
anolting@burr.com
- and –
Zachary D. Miller, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN, LLP
222 Second Avenue South, Suite 2000
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 724-3216
Facsimile: (615) 724-3316
E-mail: zmiller@burr.com
agosnell@burr.com
CLEANING COMPANY: Faces Martinez Wage and Hour Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ZULEMA MARTINEZ, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. THE CLEANING COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
California corporation; CHARLES HOWATT, an individual, ISAAC
ESPINOZA, an individual, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 37-2020-00031155-CU-0E-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Sept.
4, 2020), seeks recovery for the Defendants' wage and hour
violations of California's Labor Code, Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders and Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiff challenges the Defendants' policy of willfully and
unlawfully misclassifying subcontractors as "independent
contractors" and thereby refusing to indemnify them for
employment-related expenses and losses, taking wrongful deductions
from their wages, coercing them to purchase necessary services and
items, failing to provide off-duty meal periods, failing to
authorize and permit paid rest periods, failing to document actual
hours worked (among other things) on pay statements as required by
California law, and failing to pay state and federal overtime
premium pay.
The Defendants also allegedly attempt to pass along business losses
to their subcontractors by unlawfully deducting from their wages
when the Defendants' clients fail to pay their bills on time and
requiring subcontractors to carry independent insurance for any
damages caused by their work. In addition to denying these workers
core benefits, the Defendants' misclassification scheme also robs
the state of important employee tax revenue and gives the
Defendants an undue advantage over law-abiding competitors, who
bear the necessary expense associated with employing similar
workers.
The Plaintiff has been an employee and subcontractor of the
Defendants since 2018.
The Cleaning Company of California, Inc. provides commercial
cleaning and janitorial services to a wide array of properties in
southern California, including schools, warehouse facilities,
medical offices, and local businesses, among others.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Shaun Markley, Esq.
Ethan T. Litney, Esq.
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
smarkley@nicholaslaw.org
elitney@nicholaslaw.org
COMENITY BANK: Moton Sues Over Auto-dialed Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Moton and Ashley Hancock, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Comenity Bank, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-01182, (E.D. Mo., August 31, 2018) seeks to recover
damages and obtain injunctive relief for injuries caused under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Defendant is a Delaware State FDIC-insured bank and a
limited-purpose credit card bank located in Delaware, offering
credit programs. Defendant placed unauthorized telemarketing calls
to Plaintiffs' cellular telephone number using an automatic
telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice in
an attempt to solicit credit card applications. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony LaCroix, Esq.
LACROIX LAW FIRM, LLC
406 W 34th St #810,
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone/Fax: (816) 399-4380
Email: Tony@lacroixlawkc.com
- and -
Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Tel: (561) 826-5477
Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
COMPASS GROUP: Meola Labor Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as JAMES MEOLA and OSCAR SANCHEZ, individuals,
on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC. and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-00025850-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from
the Superior Court of California in and for the County of San Diego
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
on September 16, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-01829-WQH-AHG to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
California Labor Code, including (1) unfair competition; (2)
failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to pay minimum wages;
(4) failure to provide required meal periods; (5) failure to
provide required rest periods; (6) failure to provide accurate
itemized statements; (7) failure to reimburse employees for
required expenses; and (8) failure to provide wages when due.
Compass Group USA, Inc., is foodservice and support services
company based in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Lonnie D. Giamela, Esq.
Justin P. Hall, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 330-4500
Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
E-mail: lgiamela@fisherphillips.com
jhall@fisherphillips.com
CONESTOGA SETTLEMENT: Lane Sues Over Fraudulent Sale of Contracts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH LANE, LUIS MARTINEZ, THOMAS DURLIAT, BENITA LUKE, DAVID
KENNEY, ADINA LAWSON, ALLEN FORD, WILLIAM DOUBEK, MARY KAY DOUBEK,
EDWIN P. CARTER AND MARY R. CARTER 1998 REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST,
MICHI SATO, PHILIP STARK, STARKBAUMGARTNER TRUST, PATRICK
AMORIELLO, LOUANN SPIEGEL, JODIE BAEDEKER, EBERLE FAMILY TRUST, REN
BEVELL, KAREN MILES, GARY MUSACCO, ROSALYN MUSACCO, OLIPHANT FAMILY
CHARITABLE REMAINDER TRUST 11-11-14, STEPHEN RAGSDALE, LESLIE REED,
CHET REILLY, WILLIAM SPAAK, ROBERT SPAAK, WHALE PLANET MEDIA INC.
DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN, HALLIE ALDRIDGE, NORMAN CHRISTIANSON, ELLEN
CHRISTIANSON, MARGARET COWENS, JOHN DANCASTER, DAVID GREENFIELD,
LAURIE GREENFIELD, RICHARD GUIRY, LYNN CORWINHERNANDEZ, KEITH
JAROSLOW, LISA JAROSLOW, DEATRA LANE, JILL MCGOVERN, GARNETT S.
WILLIAMS TRUST, LOWELL ORREN, JED FIREBAUGH, KAREN WILEY, BARBARA
CARRILLO, LINDA MACTAGGART, DENNIS BLOUGH, CAROLYN DEMERY, ROBERT
AND KAREN ZEITZER TRUST, GREGORY WEISS, STEVEN BLAUVELT, GAY SATO,
TURNER FAMILY CHARITABLE REMAINDER TRUST, TURNER PROPERTY
INVESTMENTS, LLC, ECONOMICS AND POLITICS INC. RETIREMENT 401K PLAN,
JAMES F. TRICE REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 1 AND 2, THE ESTATE OF
MICHAEL HICKEY, CHARLES ANDERSON, JOHN ANKER, KATHY ANKER, BARBARA
OGILVIE, KAREN HUNT, LARRY LYCETT, HELGA BAKER, JAMES SLATER,
MICHAEL C. JACKSON, INGRID JACKSON, ROGER MACLEOD, DEBORAH KIRBY,
BRIAN CRAVEN, MICHAEL RICCATONE, JULIE RICCATONE, BLACK HAWK
FUNDING, INC., W. DAVID BLACKBURN, KARLENE BLACKBURN, LAWSON FAMILY
BYPASS TRUST, PAMELA CHERRY, JANET CHEEK, and DOUGLAS CHEEK,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons
v. CONESTOGA SETTLEMENT SERVICES, LLC; CONESTOGA INTERNATIONAL,
LLC; CONESTOGA TRUST SERVICES, LLC; L.L. BRADFORD AND COMPANY, LLC;
PROVIDENT TRUST GROUP, LLC; STRATEGIX SOLUTIONS, LTD.; MICHAEL
MCDERMOTT; and JAMES SETTLEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-01716-APG-BNW (D. Nev., Sept. 16, 2020), arises from
alleged fraudulent sale of life settlement contracts marketed,
sourced, and serviced by the Defendants in violation of the Texas
Securities Act and Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The Plaintiffs are dozens of the over 1,000 investors that were
fraudulently induced to purchase Conestoga life settlement
contracts on the false pretense that the investments were safe and
secure retirement investments. The lawsuit alleges that the
Defendants misrepresented key aspects of the investments and failed
to disclose the magnitude, severity, and likelihood of the
associated risks. The Defendants also failed to disclose that
several of them had been tainted by prior criminal and civil
actions related to similar fraudulent schemes involving the sale of
life settlement contracts.
According to the complaint, the fraudulent scheme started when the
Defendants offered retirees the opportunity to invest in a suite of
life insurance contracts for individuals that they claimed had
short life expectancies. The investors were told that a portion of
their purchase money would be used to pay premiums due on the
policies for the life expectancy of the insured person, plus an
additional period of at least a year. The integrity of the
investments would be protected by a system of "checks and balances"
involving purportedly "independent" entities, including Provident,
as escrow agent and Bradford as escrow auditor.
Due to this structure and the inevitability of death, the
investments were sold as low-risk retirement investments that would
"always win," the suit added. As a result of this fraud, the
Plaintiffs have been harmed, and many continue to be harmed through
ongoing demands to pay excessive, unexpected premiums.
Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC is a San Juan, Puerto Rico-based
company involves in the business of selling fractional investments
in life settlement contracts. Conestoga acquired the life
settlement contracts from James Settlement Services, LLC and then
held the contracts in the Conestoga Trust Services, LLC.
Provident Trust Group, LLC, Strategix Solutions Ltd., and Bradford
and Company LLC have each been involved in marketing and managing
Conestoga's business in regards to the sale of life settlements to
investors.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam Sanderson, Esq.
Brett S. Rosenthal, Esq.
REESE MARKETOS LLP
750 N. Saint Paul St., Suite 600
Dallas, TX 75201-3201
Telephone: (214) 382-9810
Facsimile: (214) 501-0731
E-mail: adam.sanderson@rm-firm.com
brett.rosenthal@rm-firm.com
- and -
Gregory H. King, Esq.
Matthew L. Durham, Esq.
KING & DURHAM PLLC
6385 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 220
Las Vegas, NV 89118
Telephone: (702) 833-1100
Facsimile: (702) 833-1107
E-mail: gking@kingdurham.com
mdurham@kingdurham.com
CONTAINER STORE: Irving Files Civil Rights Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against THE CONTAINER STORE,
INC. The case is styled as Lisa Irving, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. THE CONTAINER STORE, INC., Case
No. CGC20586616 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 17, 2020).
The case type is stated as "CIVIL RIGHTS."
The Container Store Group, Inc. is an American specialty retail
chain company that operates The Container Store, which offers
storage and organization products.
The Plaintiff is represented by Timothy Elder, Esq.[BN]
CONTINENTAL 406 FUND: Hollis TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as AARON HOLLIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CONTINENTAL 406 FUND LLC d/b/a
SPRINGS AT PORT CHARLOTTE, Case No. CACE-20-012677, was removed
from the Florida Circuit Court for Broward County to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on September
15, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:20-cv-61875-RS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text
messages to the Plaintiff's cellular phone number using an
automatic telephone dialing system.
Continental 406 Fund LLC, d/b/a Springs at Port Charlotte, is a
limited liability company based in Florida that operates
apartments.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jacqueline Simms-Petredis, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN LLP
201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 3200
Tampa, FL 36601
Telephone: (813) 221-2626
Facsimile: (813) 221-7335
E-mail: jsimms-petredis@burr.com
dmorales@burr.com
anolting@burr.com
- and –
Zachary D. Miller, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN, LLP
222 Second Avenue South, Suite 2000
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 724-3216
Facsimile: (615) 724-3316
E-mail: zmiller@burr.com
agosnell@burr.com
CONTINENTAL 409 FUND: Hollis TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as AARON HOLLIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CONTINENTAL 409 FUND LLC d/b/a
SPRINGS AT TRADITION, Case No. CACE-20-012457, was removed from the
Florida Circuit Court for Broward County to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida on September 15, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:20-cv-61877-KMW to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text
messages to the Plaintiff's cellular phone number using an
automatic telephone dialing system.
Continental 409 Fund LLC, d/b/a Springs at Tradition, is a limited
liability company based in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, that
operates apartments.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jacqueline Simms-Petredis, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN LLP
201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 3200
Tampa, FL 36601
Telephone: (813) 221-2626
Facsimile: (813) 221-7335
E-mail: jsimms-petredis@burr.com
dmorales@burr.com
anolting@burr.com
- and –
Zachary D. Miller, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN, LLP
222 Second Avenue South, Suite 2000
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 724-3216
Facsimile: (615) 724-3316
E-mail: zmiller@burr.com
agosnell@burr.com
CONTINENTAL 422 FUND: Hollis TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as AARON HOLLIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CONTINENTAL 422 FUND LLC d/b/a
SPRINGS AT HAMMOCK COVE APARTMENTS, Case No. CACE-20-013375, was
removed from the Florida Circuit Court for Broward County to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
September 15, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:20-cv-61878-RAR to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text
messages to the Plaintiff's cellular phone number using an
automatic telephone dialing system.
Continental 422 Fund LLC, d/b/a Springs at Hammock Cove Apartments,
is a limited liability company based in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin
that operates apartments.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jacqueline Simms-Petredis, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN LLP
201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 3200
Tampa, FL 36601
Telephone: (813) 221-2626
Facsimile: (813) 221-7335
E-mail: jsimms-petredis@burr.com
dmorales@burr.com
anolting@burr.com
- and –
Zachary D. Miller, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN, LLP
222 Second Avenue South, Suite 2000
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 724-3216
Facsimile: (615) 724-3316
E-mail: zmiller@burr.com
agosnell@burr.com
CONTINENTAL 425 FUND: Hollis TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as AARON HOLLIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CONTINENTAL 425 FUND LLC d/b/a
SPRINGS AT PORT ORANGE, Case No. CACE-20-013372, was removed from
the Florida Circuit Court for Broward County to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on September 15, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:20-cv-61874 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text
messages to the Plaintiff's cellular phone number using an
automatic telephone dialing system.
Continental 425 Fund LLC, d/b/a Springs at Port Orange, is a
limited liability company based in Wisconsin that operates
apartments.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jacqueline Simms-Petredis, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN LLP
201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 3200
Tampa, FL 36601
Telephone: (813) 221-2626
Facsimile: (813) 221-7335
E-mail: jsimms-petredis@burr.com
dmorales@burr.com
anolting@burr.com
- and –
Zachary D. Miller, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN, LLP
222 Second Avenue South, Suite 2000
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 724-3216
Facsimile: (615) 724-3316
E-mail: zmiller@burr.com
agosnell@burr.com
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Sieving Sues Over Unfair Premium Hikes
------------------------------------------------------------
David Sieving, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Continental Casualty Company, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-05127, (N.D. Ill., August 31, 2020), seeks
rescission of Plaintiff's insurance contracts and restoration of
premiums paid or, in the alternative, declaratory and injunctive
relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages resulting from fraud, breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract
and for violation the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Practices Act.
Sieving purchased a long-term care insurance offered to those
covered by the Employees Long Term Care Insurance Trust's long-term
care group policy. Continental has allegedly imposed rate increases
at different times and in different amounts from one state to the
next resulting in insureds within the same age group paying
completely different premiums. Said rates have increased by as much
as 95.5%, misstating the terms of inflation protection, failing to
disclose that even if the insured purchases inflation protection in
the form of an automatic benefit increase, said feature can cost
2.5 times the standard premium yet could still face premium
increases in the future. Sieving was allegedly promised in
policies, policy certificates, and/or marketing materials that his
premiums would not be increased unless they were increased for all
members of the same age group. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
Chicago, IL 60611
Tel: (708) 628-4949
Fax: (708) 628-4950
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Robert B. Carey, Esq.
John M. DeStefano, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Telephone: (602) 840-5900
Email: rob@hbsslaw.com
johnd@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Sean K. Collins, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SEAN K. COLLINS
184 High Street, Suite 503
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (855) 693-9256
Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
Email: sean@neinsurancelaw.com
CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Certification of Settlement Subclass Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as CASEY CUNNINGHAM, et al., v.
CORNELL UNIVERSITY, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-06525-PKC-JLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs Casey Cunningham, Charles E. Lance,
Stanley T. Marcus, Lydia Pettis, and Joy Veronneau will move the
Court for an order certifying a settlement sub-class consisting
of:
"all participants who invested in the TIAA-CREF Lifecycle
Funds between August 17, 2010 and April 17, 2012 under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(A) or (B)".
Cornell University is a private research university that provides
an exceptional education for undergraduates and graduate and
professional students.
Notice of plaintiffs' unopposed motion for certification of a
settlement only sub-class dated Sept. 21, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2G6SySq at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joel D. Rohlf, Esq.
Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq.
Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
Heather Lea, Esq.
Joel D. Rohlf, Esq.
Scott Apking, Esq.
SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP
100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
St. Louis, MO 63102
Facsimile: (314) 621-6115
(314) 621-5934
E-mail: aschlichter@uselaws.com
jschlichter@uselaws.com
hlea@uselaws.com
jrohlf@uselaws.com
sapking@uselaws.com
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Dunn Sues Over Arabica Coffee's Deceptive Label
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HOPE DUNN, an individual v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, MASSIMO
ZANETTI BEVERAGE USA, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 2:20-cv-08489 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 16, 2020), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated class members, who
have been deceived and suffered economic injury, due to the
Defendants' false and misleading representations about their
Kirkland Signature Dark Roast Fine Ground Decaffeinated Arabica
Coffee.
The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for common law fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, and violations of Consumers
Legal Remedies Act and California Business & Professions Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants intentionally make false
and misleading representations about their Kirkland Signature Dark
Roast Fine Ground Decaffeinated Arabica Coffee. The Defendants
consistently label and advertise the Product as 100% Arabica
Coffee, but it is not actually 100%, nor is it comprised solely and
entirely of arabica beans. In reality, approximately 10% of the
Product's composition is robusta beans. The Plaintiff and other
consumers purchased the Product because they reasonable believed,
based on the Defendants' packaging and advertising that the Product
was made solely and entirely from arabica beans. Had they known the
Product actually contained robusta beans, and was not 100% arabica
coffee, they would not have purchased the Product or would have
paid significantly less for them.
Costco Wholesale Corporation is an American multinational
corporation which operates a chain of membership-only warehouse
clubs, with its principal place of business at 999 Lake Drive, in
Issaquah, Washington.
Massimo Zanetti Beverage USA, Inc. is an Italian coffee company
with its principal place of business at 1370 Progress Road, in
Suffolk, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Lanier, Esq.
Jonathan Wilkerson, Esq.
Alex Brown, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy. N, Ste. 100
Houston, TX 77064
Telephone: (713) 659-5200
Facsimile: (713) 659-2204
- and –
Shalini Dogra, Esq.
DOGRA LAW GROUP PC
4065 Glencoe Avenue, Ste. 107
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Telephone: (747) 234-6673
Facsimile: (310) 868-0170
COVANTA PLYMOUTH: Facility Releases Noxious Odors, Lloyd Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
HOLLY LLOYD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. COVANTA PLYMOUTH RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-04330
(E.D. Pa., Sept. 3, 2020), alleges that the Defendant's facility
releases noxious odors that enter the Plaintiffs' private
properties and caused property damage through nuisance and
negligence.
The Defendant owns and operates a commercial municipal waste
incinerator that processes municipal solid waste, which it converts
into energy and sells for a profit.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to properly
construct, operate, and maintain its processing facility to prevent
causing offensive offsite odor impacts, despite knowledge that
their facility has repeatedly emitted fugitive emissions into the
ambient air. The foul odors emitted from the facility are
offensive, would be offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary
health and sensibilities and have caused physical property
damages.
The invasion of the Plaintiff's property and that of the Class by
noxious odors has deprived the Plaintiff of the full value of her
property and/or reduced the value of that property, resulting in
damages, says the lawsuit.
Covanta Plymouth Renewable Energy, LLC is a Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania-based waste management service company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Riechelson, Esq.
KAMENSKY COHEN & RIECHELSON
194 South Broad Street
Trenton, NJ 08608
Telephone: (609) 394-8585
E-mail: KRiechelson@kcrlawfirm.com
- and -
Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
Matthew Z. Robb, Esq.
LIDDLE & DUBIN PC
975 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207-3101
Telephone: (313) 392-0015
E-mail: sliddle@ldclassaction.com
ncoulson@ldclassaction.com
mrobb@ldclassaction.com
CURLMIX INC: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Curlmix Inc. The case
is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Curlmix Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07664
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
CurlMix, founded by Kimberly Lewis, is a monthly subscription
service that sends customers five to seven all-natural ingredients,
along with step-by-step instructions, to mix their own hair
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
DREAMLAND BABY: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dreamland Baby Co.
The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Dreamland Baby Co., Case No.
1:20-cv-07665 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dreamland Baby sells a line of Wearable Weighted Blankets designed
to naturally reduce stress and increase relaxation through deep
touch stimulation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
FAMILY DOLLAR: Bynum Sues Over Mislabeled Smoked Almond Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNNIE BYNUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-06878
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2020), alleges that the Defendant mislabeled
its almond products.
According to the complaint, the label of the almond products makes
direct representations that the almond products' primary
recognizable flavor is "smoke," through the statement "Smoked
Almonds" and the red color scheme evocative of fire used in actual
smoking, such that smoke is reasonably understood by consumers to
be its characterizing flavor. However, the almond products is
misrepresented as "smoked almonds," because the listing of "Natural
Smoke Flavor" on the ingredient list means their flavor is not from
actual smoking but from added flavor.
As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is
sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $1.00 per bags
of 7 OZ (198g), excluding tax, compared to other similar products
represented in a non-misleading way and higher than the Plaintiff
and consumers would pay in the absence of the challenged
representations, according to the complaint.
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., operates as a national discount store.
The Company offers merchandise that includes consumables, apparel,
accessories, seasonal, electronics, and home products. Family
Dollar Stores serves customers in the State of North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Sept. 1 announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against
FirstEnergy Corp. ("FirstEnergy" or "the Company") (NYSE:FE) for
violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission."
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
21, 2017 and July 21, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 28, 2020.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. FirstEnergy and associated organizations
and individuals were the architects of a $60 million scheme
involving bribery and the corruption of the political process with
the goal of securing legislation favorable to the Company. The
Company secretly bribed Ohio politicians with tens of millions of
dollars to secure votes for Ohio House Bill 6 ("HB 6"), a $1.3
billion ratepayer bailout of the Company's unprofitable nuclear
generation plants. The Company funneled millions of dollars through
"dark money" organizations to conduct a misleading advertising
campaign in favor of the bill while concealing its involvement. The
Company hired 15 signature-gathering firms and bribed others
involved in a ballot initiative to repeal HB6 in order to thwart
the effort, among other unscrupulous tactics. Based on these facts,
the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about FirstEnergy, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
Cell: 424-303-1964 [GN]
FOREST CITY: Rapp Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
MARK A. RAPP, SR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FOREST CITY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., TECHNIFAB, INC., and
JOHN CLOUD, Case No. 1:20-cv-02059 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 14, 2020),
challenges the Defendants' alleged unlawful pay policies and
practices, including failure to pay overtime wages, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly
non-exempt technician from approximately 2014 until October 2019.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant shortchanged their hourly
employees and avoided paying overtime compensation through unlawful
time rounding policies. As a result, despite working more than 40
hours in a single workweek, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees were consistently not paid by the Defendant for
all hours they worked, including overtime at one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay as required by the FLSA. Moreover, the
Defendant intentionally and willfully failed to keep accurate
records of hours and overtime worked by the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff asserts.
Forest City Technologies, Inc. and Technifab, Inc. are a
"diversified manufacturer" converting specialty materials into
components for customers around the world in the fields of
automotive, industrial transportation & equipment, aerospace,
electronics & lighting, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
The Caxton Building
812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
Cleveland, OH 44115
Tel: (216) 912-2221
Fax: (216) 350-6313
Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
FORTIFI FINANCIAL: Portaluppi Slams Green-Energy Home Upgrade Scam
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Portaluppi and Carmen Portaluppi, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FortiFi Financial,
Inc. and the County of Los Angeles, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-07959, (C.D. Cal., August 31, 2020), seeks financial,
injunctive and declaratory relief for violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
FortiFi Financial known as "Energy Efficient Equity, Inc." is the
"program administrator" under contract with the County of Los
Angeles and other municipal entities throughout California for its
Property Assessed Clean Energy Program, a statutory scheme that
allows qualifying homeowners to finance green-energy upgrades to
their homes through financing that the homeowners must pay through
high-interest property tax assessments.
The Portaluppis is a married couple in their seventies who had
their home "upgraded." They were made to believe that these
green-energy upgrades were free of charge and the government would
shoulder the cost, asserts the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Harris, Jr., Esq.
501 West Broadway, Suite 1260
San Diego, CA 92101
Fax: (619) 238-5425
Phone: (619) 238-1333
Email: djh@classactionlaw.com
FUBOTV INC: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FuboTV Inc. The case
is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. FuboTV Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07662
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
FuboTV is an American streaming television service that focuses
primarily on channels that distribute live sports, including NFL,
MLB, NBA, NHL, MLS and international soccer, plus news, network
television series and movies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Mislabels Fiber Products, Angeles Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANJELIKA ANGELES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE L.L.C.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-06883-ER (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2020), alleges that
the Defendant mislabeled its fiber supplement products under its
Benefiber brand.
According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures,
distributes, markets, labels and sells fiber supplement products
under its Benefiber brand ("Product"). The Product is available to
consumers from retail and online stores of third-parties and is
sold in various sizes, which is a powder that is dissolved into a
drink.
The representations--on the labels and on accompanying advertising
materials--include "100% Natural," "Prebiotic Fiber Supplement,"
"Helps You Feel Fuller Longer-Clinically Proven" and "Nourishes
Good Bacteria."
The claims that the Product "nourishes good bacteria" are false,
deceptive and misleading because the fiber powder is unable to
nourish any bacteria after it is absorbed into the body, according
to the complaint. Further, the Product is unable to specifically
target "good bacteria"--understood as bacteria that will have a
salutary effect on a person's health or well-being.
The Defendant's branding and packaging of the Product is designed
to--and does--deceive, mislead, and defraud the Plaintiff and
consumers, according to the complaint.
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare LP produces healthcare
products. The Company offers analgesics, dermatological,
gastrointestinal, respiratory tract, smoking control, natural
wellness support, oral care, and nutritional healthcare
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
Great Neck NY 11021-3104
Telephone: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Romero Sues in New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greenlane Holdings,
Inc. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Greenlane Holdings, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-07668-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Greenlane Holdings, Inc., operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, supplies vaporization products
and accessories to dispensaries and smoke shops.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Law Association Holds Forum on Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle G. Kurilla, writing for The Harvard Crimson, reports that
the Plaintiffs' Law Association at Harvard Law School hosted a
forum Sept. 9 discussing a class action lawsuit filed against
Harvard in late June over partial reimbursement of tuition for the
online spring semester.
Law School student Abraham Barkhordar filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court of Massachusetts on June 22, demanding the
University proportionally refund tuition to all students for the
online spring semester and for any future online academic terms.
The suit argues the damages caused by a virtual semester exceed $5
million.
The lawsuit alleges the online semester's lack of in-person access
and collaborative learning environment did not meet the quality of
education students when they agreed to pay for their education.
The forum, which was titled "Suing Harvard: A Look at Plaintiff's
Side Class Action Litigation," featured Barkhordar and two lawyers
from the firm representing him, Warren T. Burns and LeElle B.
Slifer. William A. Greenlaw '17, the co-founder and co-president of
the Plaintiffs' Law Association, moderated the forum.
Barkhordar said students missed "small interactions" -- such as
meeting a friend in a study room or interacting with Harvard
professors -- and the "wonderful in-person experience that
generations of Harvard lawyers" have had when classes were moved
online.
Slifer questioned Harvard's decision not to use its endowment to
level unforeseen financial challenges the University faces instead
of maintaining its tuition price.
"They are sitting on a very sizable endowment," she said. "That
should be the thing that they use on a rainy day, and if a global
pandemic isn't a rainy day to dip into and help out students, I'm
not sure what is."
Law School Dean of Administration Matt Gruber wrote in a June
statement on the school's website that the Law school's "financial
picture will only become more dire" in the next fiscal year.
Tuition makes up 42 percent of the Law School's revenue.
"We expect that projected tuition revenues will fall as a result,
in part, of our decision to forgo the planned rate increase," the
statement reads. "This coming year will again produce other
significant shortfalls in revenue, including, among other things,
substantial reductions in the University's payout on the endowment
and in dormitory revenue, as public health concerns will require us
to keep more than three-quarters of our rooms unoccupied."
"We will offset some of these revenue shortfalls by continuing to
reduce operating expenses and travel, and by taking other actions
such as eliminating salary increases for faculty and exempt staff.
Among major categories of spending, only financial aid and LIPP are
expected to increase next year," Gruber wrote in the statement.
At the event, Barkhordar called the decision to freeze tuition
instead of increasing it by the annual designated percentage
"garbage."
"Other schools like Princeton are doing 10 percent off in addition
to not raising tuition," he said. "It's the absolute bare
minimum."
Law School spokesperson Jeff Neal and University spokesperson Jason
A. Newton declined to comment on pending litigation.
Though the event was hosted by the Plaintiffs' Law Association and
Barkhordar is the co-founder and co-president of the association,
Greenlaw noted the speakers' viewers are their own. He framed the
event as a "robust discussion" about the experience of filing a
class action lawsuit and for "what it's like handling this
litigation."
Burns, who is one of Barkhordar's attorneys, described class action
lawsuits as rooted in pursuing goals broader than one individual.
"Fundamentally, it comes down to class representatives, plaintiffs,
and attorneys who are willing to take the risk of trying to get
something done for a broader group than just themselves," Burns
said. "I think it's more than appropriate to congratulate,
celebrate Abe a little bit today because he is someone who has
stepped into that role." [GN]
HILLBILLY BRAND: Romero Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hillbilly Brand Inc.
The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Hillbilly Brand Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-07663-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
HillBilly Brand Inc. retails men's and women's apparels. The
Company offers hats, t-shirts, tops, caps, and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
HOLABIRD SPORTS: Graciano Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Holabird Sports, LLC.
The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Holabird Sports, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-07646 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Holabird Sports, LLC, manufactures sporting equipment. The Company
offers tennis, hiking, squash, pickleball, walking shoes, paddles,
and racquets headwear, socks, clothing, and gym bags including
headphones, water bottles, sunglasses, watches, sweatbands, towels,
gloves, and belts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
HOUSTON ASTROS: Files Permissive Appeal From Wallach Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Houston Astros, LLC and Houston Astros Management, Inc.,
filed a permissive appeal and/or a petition for permissive appeal
from a ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ADAM WALLACH, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HOUSTON
ASTROS, LLC and HOUSTON ASTROS MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No.
2020-10637, in the Texas District Court, Harris County, 152nd
Judicial District.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Adam Wallach,
who is an Astros season-ticket holder, filed the lawsuit on behalf
of 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 full or partial season ticket holders for
"deceptively overcharging them for season tickets while defendants
and their employees and representatives knowingly and
surreptitiously engaged in a sign-stealing scheme in violation of
Major League Baseball Rules and Regulations, and secretly put a
deficient product on the field that could result (and now has
resulted) in severe penalties instituted by MLB," according to
court documents.
The appellate case is captioned as Houston Astros, LLC and Houston
Astros Management, Inc. v. Adam Wallach Roger Contreras, Kenneth
Young, and All others similarly situated, Case No. 14-20-00634-CV,
in the Texas Court of Appeals, Fourteenth Court of Appeals.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees Adam Wallach, Roger Contreras, Kenneth Young,
and All others similarly situated, are represented by:
Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
Marion Reilly, Esq.
John Duff, Esq.
HILLIARD MARTINEZ GONZALES LLP
719 S. Shoreline Boulevard
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 882-1612
Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
E-mail: bobh@hmglawfirm.com
marion@hmglawfirm.com
- and -
Richard L. Coffman, Esq.
THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM
Edison Plaza 350 Pine Street, Suite 700
Beaumont, TX 77701
Telephone: (409) 833-7700
Facsimile: (866) 835-8250
E-mail: rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com
- and -
Mitchell A. Toups, Esq.
MITCHELL A. TOUPS, LTD.
2615 Calder Ave., Suite 400
Beaumont, TX 77702
Telephone: (409) 838-0101
Facsimile: (409) 838-6780
E-mail: matoups@wgttlaw.com
Defendants-Appellants Houston Astros, LLC and Houston Astros
Management, Inc. are represented by:
Reagan W. Simpson, Esq.
Bryce Callahan, Esq.
April Lynn Farris, Esq.
Grant Martinez, Esq.
YETTER COLEMAN LLP
811 Main Street, Suite 4100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 632-8000
Facsimile: (713) 632-8002
E-mail: rsimpson@yettercoleman.com
bcallahan@yettercoleman.com
afarris@yettercoleman.com
gmartinez@yettercoleman.com
HUNT GUILLOT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Griffin Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN GRIFFIN, individually and for others similarly situated v.
HUNT, GUILLOT, & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-01189 (W.D. La.,
Sept. 14, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay
overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and the
Ohio Rev. Code Section 4113.15.
The Plaintiff was staffed by the Defendant to U.S. Steel in
Leipsic, Ohio, as a Project Construction Manager from September
2019 until February 2020.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely worked 50 or
more hours in a week, but he was only paid his same hourly rate for
all 120 hours. Although his hours worked are reflected in the
Defendant's payroll records, the Defendant still refused to pay his
overtime at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all
hours he worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.
Hunt, Guillot & Associates, LLC is a staffing company that provides
recruitment services to the oil and gas, power, and construction
industries, among others.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
W. David Hammett, Esq.
Joseph W. Wright, Esq.
DAVENPORT, FILES, and KELLY
1509 Lamy Lane
Monroe, LA 71211
Email: wdh@dfklaw.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew 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, PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
HZ OPS HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Bush Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BREYONNA BUSH; INDIA ROBERSON; and JAYLA HOWARD., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HZ OPS HOLDINGS, INC
dba POPEYES CHICKEN AND BISCUITS, Case No. 4:20-cv-01098 (E.D. Mo.,
Aug. 19, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
minimum wages, to pay overtime compensation, and to provide
accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Bush was employed by the Defendant as a cook. Plaintiff
Roberson was employed as shift manager. Plaintiff Howard was
employed as staff.
HZ OPS Holdings, Inc., dba Popeyes Chicken and Biscuits, is in the
fast-food restaurant, chain business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Russell C. Riggan, Esq.
Samuel Moore, Esq.
RIGGAN LAW FIRM, LLC
130 West Monroe Avenue
Kirkwood, MO 63122
Telephone: (314) 835-9100
Facsimile: (314) 735-1054
E-mail: russ@rigganlawfirm.com
smoore@rigganlawfirm.com
-and-
Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE
WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
250 East Broad Street, 10th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
E-mail: jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com
bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
-and-
Ryan K. Hymore, Esq.
MANGANO LAW OFFICES CO., L.P.A.
3805 Edwards Road, Suite 550
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Telephone: (513) 255-5888
Facsimile: (216) 397-5845
E-mail: rkhymore@bmanganolaw.com
IC SYSTEM: Brown Sues in Delaware Alleging Violation of FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. System Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Mannie Brown, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. I.C. System Inc., John Does
1-25, Case No. 1:20-cv-01245-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
I. C. System, Inc. was founded in 1941. The Company's line of
business includes collection and adjustment services on claims and
other insurance related issues.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antranig N. Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1010 Bancroft Parkway, Suite 22
Wilmington, DE 19805
Phone: (215) 326-9179
Email: ag@garibianlaw.com
INTEL CORP: Hallandale Beach Trust Sues Over Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF HALLANDALE BEACH POLICE OFFICERS' AND FIREFIGHTERS'
PERSONNEL RETIREMENT TRUST, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. INTEL CORPORATION, ROBERT H. SWAN, GEORGE S.
DAVIS, and VENKATA S.M. RENDUCHINTALA, Case No. 3:20-cv-06493 (N.D.
Cal., Sept. 16, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading
statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's securities.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements about Intel's business, operations and
prospects in order to lure investors and trade common stocks at
artificially inflated prices between October 25, 2019, and July 23,
2020. The Defendants failed to disclose the following material
information to the investors: (i) a material defect in Intel's
seven-nanometer manufacturing process caused yield
degradation--meaning that Intel is producing too many defective
chips and cannot currently manufacture its seven-nanometer
technology in an economically sustainable way; (ii) due to that
manufacturing defect, Intel could not launch its seven-nanometer
chips on schedule; (iii) as a result of the manufacturing problems,
Intel had to develop a plan to outsource production of its
seven-nanometer chips; and (iv) as a result, the Defendants'
positive statements about Intel's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.
When the truth about the Company's real business condition emerged,
along with the announcement of the resignation of Intel's Chief
Engineering Officer Venkata Renduchintala and Senior Vice President
Jim Keller, Intel's stock price declined by $9.81 per share, or
16.2%, from $60.40 per share to $50.59 per share.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
stock, the Plaintiff says it and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Intel Corporation is a global technology company with its corporate
headquarters located at 2200 Mission College Boulevard, in Santa
Clara, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 819-3470
E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com
- and –
Hannah Ross, Esq.
Avi Josefson, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com
avi@blbglaw.com
IZ CASH INC: Faces Aboin FLSA Suit Over Unlawful Wage Deductions
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAYANNA ABOIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. IZ CASH INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-03188 (S.D. Tex., Sept.
14, 2020), is a collective action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
and non-exempt cashier, alleges that the Defendant routinely
subjected cashiers similarly situated to her to improper deductions
for cash shortages regardless of whose fault or any individual
responsibility.
As a result of unlawful wage deduction, the Plaintiff's pay dropped
below the minimum wage and her overtime pay at one and one-half
times her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
was not paid by the Defendant, despite regularly working more than
40 hours during the workweeks, the Plaintiff contends. She adds
that the Defendant failed to maintain any records regarding the
number of hours worked each workweek by the cashiers.
IZ Cash Inc. offers check-cashing, money transfer and installment
loans services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Genevieve B. Estrada, Esq.
ALONSO & DE LEEF, PLLC
1201 Telephone Rd., Suite A
Houston, TX 77023
Tel: (832) 831-8283
Fax: (832) 831-8247
J.B. HUNT: Williams Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled WILLIE WILLIAMS, LaDON CLINE, AND PAUL CONTRERAS,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. J.B.
HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., an Arkansas corporation; and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01152248-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 September 3, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:20-cv-01701-JLS-JDE to the proceeding.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated California Labor
Code by: (1) failing to pay all wages for non-driving time in
violation of California Labor Code; (2) failing to provide meal
breaks; (3) failing to provide rest breaks; (4) failing to
reimburse for work expenses; (5) failing to issue accurate itemized
wage statements; (6) failing to pay all wages upon termination; and
(7) engaging in unfair business practices in violation of the
California Business and Professions Code.
J.B. Hunt Transport is a transportation and logistics company based
in Lowell, Arkansas.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 795-4700
Facsimile: (626) 795-4790
E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com
J.M.W. INC: Kincaid Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------
Roxanne Kincaid, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. J.M.W., Inc. and Juliet Wright,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00257 (W.D. Pa., September 1, 2020),
seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest,
civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act of 1968 and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.
Defendants operate as Juliet's Gentlemen's Club an adult-oriented
entertainment facility located in in Erie, Pennsylvania where
Kincaid worked as an exotic dancer. According to the complaint, she
was compensated exclusively through tips from customers and did not
receive payment for any hours worked at their establishment. She
also claims to pay fines, fees and charges to Juliet's, including a
mandatory "tip-in" and/or "tip out." [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Max B. Roesch, Esq.
LINDSAY LAW FIRM, PC
110 E Diamond Street
Butler, PA 16001
Phone: (724) 282-6600
Email: max@lindsaylawfirm.com
- and -
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: (301) 587-9373
Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com
JELD-WEN INC: Settles Molded Door Price-Fixing Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Drew Vass, writing for Door and Window Market, reports that in
filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, door
manufacturers Jeld-Wen Inc. and Masonite Corp. announced they've
entered agreements to settle class-action lawsuits.
On August 31, both companies reached an agreement with Grubb Lumber
Company and Philadelphia Reserve Supply Company, on their behalf
and a class of direct purchasers of interior molded doors, agreeing
to pay $28 million each to the plaintiffs and the settlement class.
The suit was filed in 2018 alleging that, together, Jeld-Wen and
Masonite conspired to fix prices by holding approximately 85% of
the market for certain interior doors. Plaintiffs that bought
interior molded doors indirectly through distributors sought relief
under the Sherman Act, as well as under various state antitrust and
consumer protection laws.
According to the terms of the settlement, Jeld-Wen and Masonite
report they are to receive a full release of claims through the
date of preliminary court approval.
In a separate settlement agreement made September 4, both companies
report they agreed to pay $9.75 million each to the named
plaintiffs of a separate, pending consolidated antitrust class
action, the filing says, also for a full release of claims through
the date of the settlement agreement.
Both agreements are subject to preliminary and final court
approval, as well as other conditions.
In entering into settlements, officials for Jeld-Wen and Masonite
say their companies continue "to believe that the claims lack merit
and has denied any liability or wrongdoing for the claims made"
against both companies. [GN]
JOE'S SPORTING: Graciano Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joe's Sporting
Goods-Ski Shop, Inc. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Joe's
Sporting Goods-Ski Shop, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07657 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Joe's Sporting Goods-Ski Shop, Inc., provides sporting goods and
equipment. The Company offers snowboard helmets, fishing rods,
jigs, underwater cameras, hooks, baits, shooting glasses, bags, and
other sporting accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
KIND GROUP: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Kind Group LLC.
The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. The Kind Group LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-07660 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Kind Group is a CPG holding company that develops and operates
proprietary mass-market businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Budnick Wage Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as DUANE BUDNICK, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. and
KOHL'S CORPORATION, Case No. HHD-CV20-6131646-S, was removed from
the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on
September 16, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Connecticut assigned Case
No. 3:20-cv-01395 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Connecticut Wage Act by misclassifying the Plaintiff as exempt from
overtime pay and failing to pay him overtime premiums for hours
worked beyond 40 in a workweek.
Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. is an American department store
retail chain with its headquarters and principal place of business
located in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin. Kohl's Corporation is a
company that operates a chain of family-oriented department stores
with its headquarters and principal place of business in Menomonee
Falls, Wisconsin.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Saima Z. Sheikh, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
45 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10111-0100
Telephone: (212) 589-4243
E-mail: ssheikh@bakerlaw.com
- and –
Joel Griswold, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300
Orlando, FL 32801-3432
Telephone: (407) 649-4088
E-mail: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com
- and –
Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60606-1901
Telephone: (312) 416-8185
E-mail: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com
LABORATORY CORP: Faces Peterson Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY PETERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, as Collective and Class representative v.
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS d/b/a LABCORP
DIAGNOSTICS, Case No. 1:20-cv-01056-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Sept. 4,
2020), seeks to remedy the Defendant's violations of the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act that have deprived the
Plaintiff and others of their lawfully earned wages.
The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was not paid for
approximately 5 to 10 overtime hours he worked each week as a
service representatives/couriers while performing pre-shift duties
off-the-clock, working through unpaid meal breaks, performing
unpaid work to complete required training, and attending to vehicle
maintenance issues for the Defendant's vehicle.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in Kingston, New York,
as an SR from January 2014 to June 2019.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, d/b/a LabCorp
Diagnostics, is an independent clinical laboratory business based
in North Carolina, which employs about 39,000 employees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
KESSLER MATURA P.C.
534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 499-9100
E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
- and -
Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
800 3rd Avenue, Suite 2800
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (800) 616-4000
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Tamra Givens, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
tgivens@shavitzlaw.com
LEE HECHT: Latham Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as KATHLEEN B. LATHAM, an individual, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated current and former
employees v. LEE HECHT HARRISON, LLC, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01142377-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 September 16, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:20-cv-01769 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
California Labor Code, including (1) failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages for all hours worked; (2) failure to provide
accurate itemized statements; (3) failure to provide rest periods
(or compensation therefor); (4) failure to timely pay wages; (5)
failure to pay all wages upon termination; (6) failure to pay
business expenses; and (7) unfair competition.
Lee Hecht Harrison, LLC, is a talent mobility company based in
Maitland, Florida.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Steve L. Hernandez, Esq.
Ryan M. Estes, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
2000 Avenue of the Stars
North Tower, Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704
Telephone: (310) 595-3000
Facsimile: (310) 595-3300
E-mail: steve.hernandez@us.dlapiper.com
ryan.estes@dlapiper.com
LIFE GENERATIONS: Dardi Seeks Penalties for Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HARINDER DARDI, an individual v. LIFE GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE, LLC
DBA VISTA MANOR, a California limited liability company; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Case No. ZOCV370307 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara
Cty., Sept. 3, 2020), is a representative action brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and similarly situated aggrieved employees against
the Defendants to recover civil penalties under the Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act.
The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' failure to pay wages,
including overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failing
to pay all wages due upon termination or separation of employment
to the Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as nurse from June 12,
2018, through December 5, 2019.
Life Generations Healthcare, LLC is a California-based health care
services provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Kol Blue, Esq.
George A. Aloupas, Esq.
THE BLUE LAW GROUP
8599 Haven Avenue, Suite 201
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Telephone: (909) 945-0121
Facsimile: (909) 945-2051
E-mail: intake@bluelawgroup.com
george.aloupas@bluelawgroup.com
LYFT INC: Smith, et al. Seek to Certify Class of WAVs Users
-----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as INDEPENDENT LIVING RESOURCE
CENTER SAN FRANCISCO, a California non-profit corporation, JUDITH
SMITH, an individual, JULIE FULLER, an individual, TARA AYRES, an
individual, SASCHA BITTNER, an individual, and COMMUNITY RESOURCES
FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING, a California non-profit corporation, v.
LYFT, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-01438-WHA
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs Judith Smith, Julie Fuller, Tara Ayres,
and Sascha Bittner, Independent Living Resource Center San
Francisco, and Community Resources for Independent Living will move
the Court on October 29, 2020, for an order:
1. certifying Plaintiffs' claims as a class action and
granting their renewed motion to certify a class
consisting of:
"individuals who use wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs)
due to their mobility disability and have been or will be
denied access to Lyft's on demand transportation service
in San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties due to
the lack of available WAVs through Lyft's service.
2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and
3. appointing Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(g).
The Plaintiffs bring a renewed motion to certify a class of
individuals who use mobility devices and cannot access Lyft's
on-demand transportation service because of Lyft's failure to make
that service available in wheelchair accessible vehicles. In its
Order on Plaintiffs' previous motion for class certification, the
Court expressed concerns that the class definition would require
too much analysis of class members' mental state, and that it would
be difficult to determine who would be bound by any judgments 1n
the case. In this motion, the Plaintiffs propose a new class
definition to address these concerns. Of course, the Court has the
authority to modify the class definition if it believes this is
necessary, the lawsuit says.
Lyft develops, markets, and operates a mobile app, offering
vehicles for hire, motorized scooters, a bicycle-sharing system,
and food delivery. The company is based in San Francisco,
California and operates in 644 cities in the United States and 12
cities in Canada.
A copy of Plaintiffs' notice of motion and renewed motion for class
certification dated Sept. 3, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3c0K9Ml at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stuart Seaborn, Esq.
Melissa Riess, Esq.
Rebecca Serbin, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704-1204
Telephone: (510) 665-8644
Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
E-mail: sseaborn@dralegal.org
mriess@dralegal.org
rserbin@dralegal.org
MAA WWARRS LLC: Hollis TCPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as AARON HOLLIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MAA WWARRS, LLC d/b/a POST SOHO
SQUARE, Case No. CACE-20-012534, was removed from the Florida
Circuit Court for Broward County to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on September 15, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:20-cv-61869-RKA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text
messages to the Plaintiff's cellular phone number using an
automatic telephone dialing system.
MAA WWARRS, LLC, d/b/a Post Soho Square, is a limited liability
company based in Plantation, Florida, that operates
apartments.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jacqueline Simms-Petredis, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN LLP
201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 3200
Tampa, FL 36601
Telephone: (813) 221-2626
Facsimile: (813) 221-7335
E-mail: jsimms-petredis@burr.com
dmorales@burr.com
anolting@burr.com
- and –
Zachary D. Miller, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN, LLP
222 Second Avenue South, Suite 2000
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 724-3216
Facsimile: (615) 724-3316
E-mail: zmiller@burr.com
agosnell@burr.com
MARRIOTT INT'L: Kraft Class Suit Moved From S.D. to W.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KRISTINA KRAFT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. and NFNY
HOTEL MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-02789, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York on
September 15, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-01302-JLS-JJM to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the New
York General Business Laws by: (1) failing to remit all service fee
surcharges to the Plaintiff and Class members; (2) instituting
deceptive and unfair business practices; (3) instituting false
advertising efforts; (4) unjust enrichment for failure to remit the
entirety of the service fee surcharges to non-managerial service
workers; (5) failing to provide accurate, itemized wage statements;
and (6) failing to provide accurate and proper written notice.
Marriott International, Inc., is an American multinational
diversified hospitality company that manages and franchises a broad
portfolio of hotels and related lodging facilities, with its
principal place of business located in Bethesda, Maryland.
NFNY Hotel Management LLC is a company that operates public hotels
and motels, with its principal place of business located in Niagara
Falls, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nestico, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200
Charlotte, NC 28210
Telephone: (510) 740-2946
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com
- and –
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
Kristabel Sanchez, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
ksandoval@schneiderwallace.com
- and –
William M. Hogg, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 338-2560
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: whogg@schneiderwallace.com
MARYLAND: Emergency Bid for Relief in Duvall Prisoners Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEROME DUVALL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LAWRENCE HOGAN,
JR., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. ELH-94-2541 (D. Md.),
Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland denied the Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion For
Relief From Risk Of Injury And Death From COVID-19.
The litigation, which has endured for nearly six decades, concerns
the health, welfare, and safety of pretrial detainees held at the
Baltimore City Detention ("BCDC"), challenging the conditions of
their confinement. The Plaintiffs consist of a class of
individuals detained at a portion of BCDC known as the Baltimore
City Booking and Intake Center ("BCBIC"). The current Defendants
are Lawrence J. Hogan, Jr., the Governor of Maryland; Robert L.
Green, the Secretary of the Maryland Department of Public Safety
and Correctional Services ("DPSCS"); and Michael Resnick, Esquire,
the Commissioner of the Maryland Division of Pretrial Detention and
Services ("DPDS").
Over the years, the case has resulted in numerous consent decrees,
settlement agreements, and orders. It has been closed and reopened
on various occasions, too frequent to recount. The most recent
Settlement Agreement dates from November 2015. And, the
modification to it, titled "First Amendment to Settlement
Agreement," was signed in June 2016. In general, the Court's
orders provide for continued monitoring of certain aspects of the
operation of BCDC and the conditions of confinement at the
facility.
The Memorandum Opinion addresses the Plaintiffs' "Emergency Motion
For Relief From Risk Of Injury And Death From COVID-19," filed on
April 9, 2020. The motion is supported by a memorandum of law and
eight exhibits. In the Motion, the Plaintiffs assert that the
Defendants have failed to implement adequate measures at BCBIC to
mitigate the risk posed by the COVID-19 virus, a highly contagious
and sometimes fatal illness. According to them, the measures
implemented at BCBIC fail to comply with the Settlement Agreement
and violate their constitutional rights. The Plaintiffs seek
various forms of relief including, inter alia, an order compelling
the release of detainees from BCBIC, with priority given to those
at heightened risk of experiencing severe complications from
COVID-19.
On April 10, 2020, the parties agreed to hold the Motion in
abeyance pending mediation with Magistrate Judge Timothy Sullivan.
Judge Sullivan held a telephone conference with the parties on
April 13 and again on May 19, 2019. Ultimately, however, the
parties were unable to reach an agreement.
Thereafter, on May 20, 2020, the Plaintiffs renewed their emergency
Motion. It is supported by a memorandum and four exhibits. The
Court lifted the stay on May 21, 2020, and ordered the Defendants
to respond by May 28, 2020. The Defendants did. On June 2, 2020,
the Defendants supplemented their response. They also submitted
nine exhibits with their Opposition. The Plaintiffs replied on
June 4, 2020 and submitted four additional exhibits.
The Court scheduled a hearing for June 8, 2020. However, it was
postponed to allow further settlement discussions among the
parties. Because those discussions were not successful in
resolving the case, the Court scheduled a video hearing for June
16, 2020.
Notwithstanding the briefing schedule set forth in an Order of May
21, 2020, both sides submitted exhibits on the eve of the hearing.
The Defendants submitted a response to the Plaintiffs' Supplemental
Motion, which appears similar to an earlier submission, along with
50 exhibits totaling more than 150 pages. And, the Plaintiffs
filed 10 more exhibits.
The Court held a lengthy video hearing on June 16, 2020, as
scheduled, at which argument was presented. After the hearing, the
Defendants submitted another exhibit.
Without a doubt, the COVID-19 pandemic is the worst public health
crisis the country has experienced since 1918. Currently, there is
no vaccine and no known cure for COVID-19. Therefore, the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention recommends preventative measures
to decrease transmission, such as social distancing and mask
wearing. In recognition of the threat posed by this highly
infectious and dangerous virus, the World Health Organization
declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. As of June 12, 2020, COVID-19
has infected over 2 million Americans and caused more than 113,000
deaths in the country. In Baltimore, nearly 300 people have died
and over 6,000 have become sick.
Given the difficulty of practicing social distancing in jails and
prisons, the COVID-19 pandemic poses an acute challenge for
incarcerated persons. The WHO has recognized that incarcerated
people are likely to be more vulnerable to the COVID-19 outbreak
than the general population because of the confined conditions in
which they live together for prolonged periods of time. Similarly,
the CDC has observed that because incarcerated people live, work,
eat, study, and recreate within congregate environments, it will be
difficult to stop the spread of COVID-19 once it enters a
facility.
Other features common to correctional facilities, besides the
inability to social distance, heighten the risk of viral outbreaks,
including insufficient ventilation; shared toilet, shower, and
eating environments; and limits on the opportunity to maintain
personal hygiene. In addition, facilities such as BCBIC frequently
have high rates of population turnover, which increases the risk
that, if a person infected with COVID-19 is not identified during
the intake process, the disease may spread silently within the
population, resulting in multiple new infections. To mitigate
these risks, on March 23, 2020, the CDC issued guidance for
officials operating detention facilities to help stop the spread of
COVID-19.
BCBIC consists of three towers located at 300 East Madison Street
in Baltimore. The number of detainees has varied considerably over
the past several months. Universal COVID-19 testing was not
available at BCBIC prior to June 15, 2020. Nonetheless, the
Defendants maintain that neither medical nor societal standards
presently require universal testing for COVID-19. In any event,
the Defendants' counsel advised the Court that all BCBIC detainees
were tested for COVID-19 on June 15, 2020. And, according to
Resnick, the DPDS Commissioner, prevalence testing for asymptomatic
detainees began at BCBIC on June 15 and continued through June 18,
2020. He also asserts that the testing of symptomatic detainees
has been "ongoing."
In accordance with recommendations by Dr. Puisis, on June 1, 2020,
DPDS established the Health Monitoring Facility ("HMF"), a 30-bed
dormitory for housing detainees who are positive for COVID-19 but
who are medically stable. According to a DPDS policy issued on
June 15, 2020, detainees isolated at the HMF receive education on
the virus and PPE usage; have access to video family visitation;
and are checked twice daily. All detainees who spend time at HMF
receive a virtual medical appointment within ten business days of
discharge. The beds are not double-bunked and are placed more than
6 feet apart. The HMF is monitored by sixty correctional staff in
three shifts, with 8 medical employees per shift.
The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants have failed to take
adequate measures to prevent and control an outbreak of COVID-19,
in violation of the Settlement Agreement and the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. They acknowledge
that defendants have "taken some steps" to protect BCBIC detainees
from COVID-19, but the Plaintiffs maintain that these measures are
ineffective and in some cases counterproductive.
In response, the Defendants insist that the Plaintiffs' requested
relief is foreclosed by State and federal law. First, they argue
that neither the Governor nor the DPDS Commissioner has authority
under State law to release individuals who have been ordered
detained by judges of Maryland courts. Second, with respect to
federal law, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs' Motion is
not ripe for review because they have not exhausted their
administrative remedies, as required by the PLRA.
At the hearing on June 16, 2020, the Plaintiffs acknowledged that
the Defendants had implemented many of measures that they
originally requested in their Proposed Order, filed on April 9,
2020, including monitoring vulnerable detainees, sanitizing public
areas regularly, and providing detainees with soap and towels.
However, they maintained that the Defendants needed to do more to
satisfy the Settlement Agreement and the Constitution.
Specifically, they urged the Court to order the Defendants to
ensure detainees could practice social distancing at all times,
formulate a plan to release detainees, conduct universal testing
regularly, and produce a written plan concerning the monitoring and
treatment of vulnerable detainees.
Judge Hollander concludes that it is impossible to put in words the
myriad ways that COVID-19 has deeply affected lives. For those
confined against their will, the pandemic presents serious if not
severe hardships over which the detainees have no control. At the
hearing, the Plaintiffs' counsel urged the Court to rememberthat a
society's worth can be judged by taking stock of its prisons,
particularly in times of crisis. The Judge could not agree more.
Indeed, when the government takes a person into its custody and
holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes upon him
a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety
and general well-being. That constitutional obligation does not
yield in times of crisis.
Ultimately, the evidence presented to the Court demonstrates a
concerted, deliberate effort on the part of the Defendants to
safeguard the health and welfare of the Maryland citizens in their
charge. Certainly, the Defendants can -- indeed, they should -- do
more to facilitate social distancing at BCBIC, including reducing
the detainee population. But, at this juncture, the Plaintiffs
have not established that the Defendants' response to the pandemic
violates either the Settlement Agreement or the Constitution, the
Court opined. Accordingly, Judge Hollanderdenied the Motion.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 19, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://bit.ly/3j7pKIf from Leagle.com.
MCGRAW-HILL LLC: Miller Suit Moved From D.N.J. to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled KIYANA MILLER, individually and as
a representative of all others similarly situated v. MCGRAW-HILL
LLC; PEARSON EDUCATION, INC.; CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.; BARNES &
NOBLE EDUCATION, INC.; BARNES & NOBLE COLLEGE BOOKSELLERS, LLC;
FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP, INC.; and EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHERS
ENFORCEMENT GROUP, Case No. 3:20-cv-07281, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 25,
2020.
The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-06847-DLC to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Denise L. Cote. The Miller suit is a member case in the
multi-district litigation proceeding, IN RE: Inclusive Access
Course Materials Antitrust Litigation, Lead Case No.
1:20-md-02946-DLC.
McGraw-Hill LLC operates as a holding company. The Company, through
its subsidiary, provides books, subscription, and training
materials, as well as preschools, child care, tuition program
management, advisory, and other educational services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William G. Caldes, Esq.
Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19131
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
E-mail: espector@srkattorneys.com
bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
dzinser@srkattorneys.com
- and -
Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
Jessica N. Servais, Esq.
Craig S. Davis, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com
jnservais@locklaw.com
csdavis@locklaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephanie D. Edelson, Esq.
RIKER DANZIG SCHERER HYLAND AND PERRETTI
One Speedwell Avenue
Morristown, NJ 07960
Telephone: (973) 451-8756
E-mail: sedelson@riker.com
MONDELEZ INT'L: Coleman Asserts Fraud Claims in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mondelez
International, Inc. The case is styled as Elena Coleman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Mondelez International, Inc., a Virginia Corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-08100-FMO-AFM (C.D. Cal., Sept. 3, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The case is assigned
to Judge Fernando M. Olguin.
Mondelez International, Inc., is an American multinational
confectionery, food, holding and beverage and snack food company
consisting of former Kraft Foods Inc. brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Matthew Thomas Theriault, Esq.
Zachary Chrzan, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM PC
9255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 804
Los Angeles, CA 90069
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
mtheriault@clarksonlawfirm.com
zchrzan@clarksonlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alexander M. Smith, Esq.
Kate Spelman, Esq.
JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
633 West Fifth Street Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-5100
Facsimile: (213) 239-5199
E-mail: asmith@jenner.com
kspelman@jenner.com
MUSIC123 INC: Graciano Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Music123, Inc. The
case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Music123, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-07620 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Music123, Inc., was founded in 2011. The Company's line of business
includes the retail sale of musical instruments, sheet music, and
similar supplies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
NANO: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Fabian Suit
---------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES FABIAN, Plaintiff, v. COLIN LEMAHIEU, ET. AL.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00054-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (1) granted Fabian's motion for leave to
effect alternative service; (2) granted in part and denied in part
Fabian's motion to strike affirmative defenses raised in the Nano
Defendants' answer; and (3) denied the Nano Defendants' motion to
dismiss for forum non conveniens.
James Fabian commenced the putative class action against Dfendants
Nano, formerly known as RaiBlocks, formerly known as Hieusys, LLC,
Colin LeMahieu, Mica Busch, Zack Shapiro, and Troy Retzer ("Nano
Defendants") as well as B.G. Services SRL, formerly known as
BitGrail SRL, formerly known as Webcoin Solutions, and Francesco
"The Bomber" Firano ("BitGrail Defendants") for securities fraud
and related claims in connection with the Defendants' promotion of
and statements regarding a cryptocurrency or digital asset referred
to as NANO, formerly known as RaiBlocks.
Now before the Court are: (1) Fabian's motion for leave to effect
alternative service; (2) Fabian's motion to strike affirmative
defenses raised in the Nano Defendants' answer; and (3) the Nano
Defendants' motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.
In his motion for leave to effect alternative service, Fabian
requests service on the BitGrail Defendants, Firano's counsel, and
the BitGrail Defendants' bankruptcy trustee via mail, email, and
social media. Judge Rogers addresses the three issues raised by
Fabian, namely that: (1) service on the BitGrail Defendants'
bankruptcy trustee and Firano's counsel in Italy -- in addition to
service on the BitGrail Defendants themselves -- is appropriate;
(2) the proposed methods of service -- by mail, by electronic mail,
and social media — are not prohibited by international agreement;
and (3) the proposed methods of alternative service are reasonably
calculated to provide the BitGrail Defendants with notice of the
action and afford them the opportunity to present their objections
to the charges against them. The Nano Defendants filed no response
to the motion.
The Judge grants the motion for leave to effect alternative service
as requested in the motion. First, the Judge finds that the
service on the BitGrail Defendants by providing the service
documents to Ballati and the Bankruptcy Trustees and requesting
that the documents be forwarded to Firano is appropriate, because
additional service on the BitGrail's bankruptcy trustee and
Firano's counsel in Italy is appropriate in the matter. Second,
service via mail, electronic mail, and social media are
appropriate, because the service is not prohibited by international
agreement. Finally, the proposed methods of service are reasonably
calculated to provide notice to the BitGrail Defendants and afford
them an opportunity to present their objections.
In his motion to strike affirmative defenses raised in the Nano
Defendants' answer, Fabian moves to strike all of the affirmative
defenses raised in the Nano Defendants' answer, including the
reservation to add further affirmative defenses. Given the breadth
of the motion, the Judge considered sanctioning Fabian for the
filing of a frivolous motion which did not meet the basic standards
of such a disfavored motion.
Not surprisingly, the Nano Defendants oppose the request to strike
the defenses. Fabian is warned that the Court will deal with any
such similar filings in the future summarily and may sua sponte
inquire on the appropriateness of sanctions. The Counsel should
know better than to overburden courts without cause. All of this
could have been easily accomplished through written discovery.
Similarly, the Nano Defendants should not haphazardly include
affirmative defenses without a legitimate legal basis.
Judge Rogers grants in part and denies in part the motion to strike
affirmative defenses raised in the Nano Defendants' answer. Among
other things, the Judge finds that (i) failure to state a claim is
not a proper affirmative defense but, rather, asserts a defect in
the Plaintiff's prima facie case; (ii) Current Law Prohibits
Plaintiff's Claims are affirmative defense that appears to be
another way of stating that Fabian has failed to state a claim,
which has been concluded as not technically an affirmative defense;
(iii) the "supervening cause" affirmative defense lacks sufficient
allegations to place Fabian on notice; and (iv) the indemnification
is not an affirmative defense, but rather a claim that must be
pleaded and proved.
Finally, in Nano Defendants' motion to dismiss for forum
non-conveniens, the Nano Defendants aver that the complaint should
be dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens. Specifically,
they contend that the appropriate forum is Italy, and not the
Northern District of California. Based on the foregoing authority,
the Judge first determines the adequacy of the alternative forum,
Italy, before reviewing the private and public interest factors,
and, finally, balancing these factors to determine whether the
complaint should be dismissed. The Judge concludes that, on
balance, a dismissal on the doctrine of forum non conveniens is not
warranted.
Judge Rogers concludes that the balance of factors is close, but
that the balance does not warrant a dismissal of the case on the
grounds of forum non conveniens. Indeed, the Court remarks that
the case only demonstrates the global interconnectedness of the
cryptocurrency market: where cryptocurrency programmers, operators,
and consumers on both sides of the transactions can be from
numerous and different countries. Despite the close balancing, the
Judge notes that even if some factors were shifted in favor of
Italy, it would not be enough to disturb Fabian's choice of forum
in his home forum, which here is entitled to some deference.
In other words, the Nano Defendants have failed to demonstrate the
continued litigation in the district results in "oppressiveness and
vexation" that is "out of proportion" to the Fabian's convenience
to his choice of forum. Accordingly, the Judge denies the motion
to dismiss for forum non conveniens.
Further, the Nano Defendants request leave to amend to remedy any
dismissed affirmative defense. In light of the foregoing, the
Judge granted the request for leave to amend the answer solely to
the ninth affirmative defense.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 19, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3cwekeC from Leagle.com.
NATIONAL RETAIL: Sawall Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Sawall, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. National Retail Merchandising, LLC and Christopher M.
Desantis, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-14304, (S.D. Fla., August 31,
2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the fair Labor Standards
Act.
National Retail Merchandising operates as Atlantic Coast
Merchandising where Sawall works as a full-time assembler. He
claims to be misclassified as an "independent contractor" thus
denied statutory benefits of being employed, including overtime for
hours rendered in excess of forty hours per work week. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Angeli Murthy, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Tel: (954) 318-0268
Fax: (954) 327-3016
Email: amurthy@forthepeople.com
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Leo Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the
District Court's dismissal of the case, EDWARD LEO, as executor of
the Estate of Dawn L. Leo; CLIFFORD J. MARCHION; DONNA MARCHION, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants,
v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC OF DELAWARE, d/b/a Champion Mortgage Co
Inc; GREAT AMERICAN ASSURANCE CO; WILLIS OF OHIO INC, d/b/a Loan
Protector Insurance Services, Case No. 19-3111 (3d Cir.).
The case is about force-placed insurance, sometimes called
lender-placed insurance. When a property owner takes out a
mortgage -- or, as here, a reverse mortgage -- that person conveys
an interest in real property as security for a loan. To safeguard
that security, lenders often require borrowers to maintain hazard
insurance that protects the property against natural disasters. If
the borrower fails to maintain adequate coverage, the lender may
itself buy insurance and then force the borrower to cover the cost.
That's what is meant by "force-placed" insurance.
The case is also about the filed-rate doctrine. States regulate
the insurance market to see that insurers don't charge too much
(lest they earn exorbitant profits), nor too little (lest they be
rendered insolvent because of unanticipated claims), nor
discriminate unfairly against certain consumers. So states
generally require insurers issuing policies in their states to file
rates they will charge with an administrative agency. And the
filed-rate doctrine "forbids" an insurer from charging rates other
than those properly filed with the appropriate regulatory
authority. The flipside of the filed-rate doctrine "provides that
a rate filed with a governing regulatory agency is unassailable in
judicial proceedings brought by ratepayers."
In the matter before the Court, borrowers from New Jersey and North
Carolina ask the Third Circuit to review the force-placed-insurance
rate charged by their reverse-mortgage lender, Nationstar. They
allege Nationstar colluded with a hazard insurance company, Great
American Assurance Co., and a hazard insurance agent, Willis of
Ohio, Inc., to pocket kickbacks on force-placed insurance policies.
Specifically, the borrowers say Great American inflated the rate
filed with state regulators so it and Willis could return a portion
of the profits to Nationstar to induce Nationstar's continued
business. The upshot is that even though the borrowers concede
they paid the rate on file with the appropriate state regulatory
authorities, they claim they paid Nationstar more than Nationstar
paid Great American and Willis.
That, the borrowers contend, violates (i) the terms of their
mortgages (or in the alternative, New Jersey law prohibiting unjust
enrichment); (ii) New Jersey's implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing; (iii) the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; (iv) New
Jersey law preventing tortious interference with a business
relationship; (v) the federal Truth in Lending Act; and (vi) the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
The Third Circuit must decide whether the filed-rate doctrine
blocks these claims. The District Court held that it did, and
dismissed the suit. The borrowers timely appealed.
The borrowers argue the Third Circuit's decision in Alston v.
Countrywide Financial Corporation distinguished between challenges
to a lender's allegedly wrongful conduct and challenges to the
reasonableness or propriety of the rate that triggered that
conduct, further concluding that it is absolutely clear that the
filed rate doctrine simply does not apply to the former.
The Third Circuit reiterate that the filed-rate doctrine brooks no
distinction between, on one hand, challenging a filed rate as
unreasonable and, on the other hand, challenging an overcharge
fraudulently included in a filed rate. The Court noted as much in
In re New Jersey Title Insurance Litigation and its companion,
McCray v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co., and in AT&T
Corporation v. JMC Telecommunications, LLC.
In the first two cases, the filed-rate doctrine stymied allegations
that insurance companies collectively set and charged uniform and
supra-competitive rates, and embedded within those rates payoffs,
kickbacks, and other charges that are unrelated to the issuance of
insurance. In AT&T, the filed-rate doctrine prevented a
prepaid-telephone-card seller from bringing breach-of-contract and
state-law fraud claims against AT&T after AT&T allegedly
overcharged the seller based on a service agreement filed with
regulators. At bottom, each case stands for the proposition that
there is no fraud exception to the filed rate doctrine.
These facts show why. The filed-rate doctrine seeks to preserve
the exclusive role of agencies in approving rates by keeping courts
out of the rate-making process. And the borrowers' suit confronts
an even more formidable obstacle in the filed-rate doctrine's other
goal: "preventing" insurers from engaging in price discrimination
as between ratepayers. If the Court forced Nationstar to pay
damages, it would be giving these borrowers a better price for
force-placed insurance than other New Jersey and North Carolina
borrowers using a different lender but still obtaining force-placed
insurance from Great American.
The Third Circuit concludes that once an insurance rate is filed
with the appropriate regulatory body, the Court has no ability to
effectively reduce it by awarding damages for an alleged
overcharge: the filed-rate doctrine prevents courts from deciding
whether the rate is unreasonable or fraudulently inflated. Because
Great American filed the force-placed hazard insurance rate with
the appropriate state agencies, the District Court properly
dismissed claims alleging the rate was fraudulently inflated and
seeking damages tied to the purported overcharge. Accordingly, the
Third Circuit affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's July 1, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://bit.ly/3kUteht from Leagle.com.
Lawrence E. Bathgate, II -- lbathgate@bathweg.com -- Kyle R. Tognan
-- ktognan@bathweg.com -- Bathgate Wegener & Wolf, Lakewood, NJ.
Howard M. Bushman, Joseph M. Kaye, Adam M. Moskowitz --
amm@kttlaw.com -- Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Moskowitz Law Firm, Coral
Gables, FL, Counsel for Appellants.
Jan T. Chilton, Erik W. Kemp, Severson & Werson, San Francisco,
CA.
Kevin M. Haas -- khaas@cozen.com -- Clyde & Co US, Florham Park,
NJ.
Alexander E. Potente, Clyde & Co US San Francisco, CA.
Edward J. Fanning, Jr. -- efanning@mccarter.com -- Gregory J. Hindy
-- ghindy@mccarter.com -- Robert A. Mintz -- rmintz@mccarter.com --
Scott M. Weingart -- sweingart@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English,
Newark, NJ, Counsel for Appellees.
NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Godwin Sues Over Denied Auto Insurance Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER GODWIN, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons v. NATIONWIDE PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 200900743 (Pa. Com. Pleas, Philadelphia
Cty., Sept. 16, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial
Responsibility Law.
On November 26, 2018, the Plaintiff was involved in an automobile
accident in which he sustained serious and permanent injuries. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant denied his claim for recovery
of underinsured motorist benefits under the Nationwide Personal
Automobile Policy by reason of a regular use exclusion.
According to the complaint, the regular use exclusion in the
Nationwide Policy is void and unenforceable since the Plaintiff was
not a regular operator of the 2016 Ford F-550, which he was
operating at the time of the accident and since it is violative of
the coverage of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.
Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Company is an insurance
provider based Columbus, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Haggerty, Esq.
HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH, P.C.
1835 Market Street, Suite 2700
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 350-6600
Facsimile: (215) 665-8197
- and –
Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
SCHMIDT KRAMER P.C.
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Telephone: (717) 232-6300
NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Illegally Sells Viewing Data, Breault Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN BREAULT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-11594 (D.
Mass., Aug. 25, 2020), seeks to redress and put a stop to the
Defendant's practices of intentionally disclosing its customers'
Personal Viewing Information in knowing violation of the federal
Video Privacy Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant sells,
rents, transmits, and otherwise discloses, to various third
parties, records containing the personal information, including
names and addresses, of each of its customers, along with detailed
transactional information revealing the title and subject matter of
the audiovisual material and service (i.e., the Golf Channel)
purchased by each customer (collectively "Personal Viewing
Information").
After the Defendant discloses its customers' Personal Viewing
Information, the various third-party recipients of this data then
append to it a myriad of other categories of personal and
demographic data pertaining to those customers, only to then
re-sell that Personal Viewing Information, enhanced with the
appended demographic information, to other third parties on the
open market without the consent of the Plaintiff and the Class.
NBCUniversal Media, LLC operates as a media and entertainment
company. The Company develops, produces, and markets entertainment,
news, and media information. NBCUniversal Media serves customers
worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
REARDON SCANON LLP
45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 955-9455
Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
- and -
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
- and -
David W. Hall, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 766-3534
Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com
- and -
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
NEW YORK CITY: Corwin Files Request for Judicial Intervention
-------------------------------------------------------------
A request for judicial intervention was filed on September 10,
2020, in the case styled as SHANNON CORWIN, UMANG DESAI, ERIC
SEVERSON, TAMDEKA HUGHES-CARROLL AND WANDA CAIN, ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. CITY OF NEW YORK;
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; AND RICHARD CARRANZA,
CHANCELLOR OF NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; FOR AN ORDER
AND JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 78 OF THE CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND
RULES, Case No. 157166/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Sept. 4,
2020).
The case type is stated as an Article 78 Proceeding. The case is
assigned to Judge Dakota D. Ramseur.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
GLASS & HOGRORIAN LLP
85 Broad St., 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 537-6859
The Defendants are represented by:
CORPORATION COUNSEL
100 Church St, RM 4-313
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 788-0303
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 14 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed 14 appeals from the District Court's rulings
in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).
The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on
November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.
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 the Plaintiffs to pass
certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to
obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.
The appellate cases brought before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit are:
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-896;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-898;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-899;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-894;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-900;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-901;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-902;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-903;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-904;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-906;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-912;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-913;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-914; and
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-917.
Plaintiffs-Appellees Theresa Smith; Wilma Simmons; Rosa Tavarez;
Myra Fernandez; Mansoor Najee-Ullah; Shelly Thomas; Joyce Bigby;
Janet Thomas; Lourdes Allende; Keesha Sistrunk; Jose Santos;
Fortune Aupont; Arley Pelaez; and Angela Mashack are 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 New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:
James Edward Johnson, Esq.
CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-2500
NS8 INC: Faces Rosenberg Suit Alleging Violation of WARN Act
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA ROSENBERG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NS8 INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01238-UNA (D. Del., Sept.
16, 2020), arises from the Defendant's unlawful termination of the
Plaintiff and most of its workforce in violation of the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, and other
similarly situated former employees, who worked for the Defendant
and who were terminated without cause, as part of, or as the
foreseeable result of, a plant closing or mass layoff ordered by
the Defendant and who were not provided 60 days advance written
notice of their terminations by Defendant, as required by the WARN
Act. The Plaintiff was not told the reason for the mass layoff when
he was terminated, despite having attended two company meetings on
the subject prior to the termination.
The Plaintiff worked as a paid media manager for the Defendant in
Las Vegas, Nevada, until his termination on September 11, 2020.
NS8 Inc. is a Las Vegas, Nevada-based fraud detection technology
company that employed more than 200 employees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher D. Loizides, Esq.
LOIZIDES, P.A.
1225 King Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 654-0248
Facsimile: (302) 654-0728
E-mail: loizides@loizides.com
- and -
Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 221-1747
E-mail: jar@raisnerroupinian.com
rsr@raisnerroupinian.com
ONESPAN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of OneSpan, Inc. (NASDAQ:
OSPN). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each
case can be found at the link provided.
OneSpan, Inc. (NASDAQ: OSPN)
Class Period: May 9, 2018 and August 11, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020
On August 4, 2020, OneSpan postponed its second-quarter 2020
earnings release and conference call by one week, attributing the
delay to prior period revenue recognition problems relating to
certain software license contracts spread out over the quarters
from the first quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of 2020.
OneSpan further stated that "[t]he net contract assets that
originated from a portion of these contracts in prior periods were
not properly accounted for in subsequent periods, which caused
overstatements of revenue."
On this news, the Company's common share price fell $0.46 per
share, or 1.40%, to close at $32.50 per share on August 4, 2020.
Then, on August 11, 2020, OneSpan disclosed that it would not
timely file its quarterly report for the quarter ended June 30,
2020, with the SEC; reported that same quarter year-over-year
revenues had declined; and withdrew its full-year 2020 earnings
guidance, which the Company had affirmed one quarter earlier.
On this news, the Company's common share price fell $12.36 per
share, or 39.62%, to close at $18.84 per share on August 12, 2020.
The complaint, filed on August 20, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) OneSpan had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting; (ii) as a result, OneSpan overstated its
revenue relating to certain contracts with customers involving
software licenses in its financial statements spread out over the
quarters from the first quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of
2020; (iii) as a result, it was foreseeably likely that the Company
would eventually have to delay one or more scheduled earnings
releases, conference calls, and/or financial filings with the SEC;
(iv) OneSpan downplayed the negative impacts of errors in its
financial statements; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was
foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's financial results and reputation; and (vi) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the OneSpan securities class action go to:
https://bespc.com/OSPN
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]
ONTEL PRODUCTS: Faces Martin Fraud Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ontel Products
Corporation. The case is styled as Paul Martin, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ontel Products
Corporation, a New Jersey corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-08158-DSF-PVC (C.D. Cal., Sept. 4, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The case is assigned
to Judge Dale S. Fischer.
Ontel Products Corporation is a New Jersey-based company that
manufactures, markets, and distributes consumer products. The
Company offers fitness, health and beauty, household, cleaning,
kitchen products, toys, and kid's products, as well as provides
home fitness equipment, electric floor sweepers, and swivel
sweepers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Matthew Thomas Theriault, Esq.
Zachary Chrzan, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM PC
9255 Sunset Boulevard Suite 804
Los Angeles, CA 90069
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
mtheriault@clarksonlawfirm.com
zchrzan@clarksonlawfirm.com
ORION GROUP: Court Junks Amended Heck Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN HECK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Lead Plaintiff, v. ORION GROUP HOLDINGS, INC.,
MARK R. STAUFFER, CHRISTOPHER J. DEALMEIDA, and ROBERT L. TABB,
Defendants, Civil Action No. H-19-1337 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Sim Lake
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, (i) granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Amended Complaint or in the Alternative, Motion for More Definite
Statement; and (ii) denied the Plaintiff's Request to Amend.
The action, initiated on April 11, 2019, is brought against Orion;
Orion's CEO, Mark Stauffer; Orion's former CFO, Christopher
DeAlmeida; and Orion's current CFO, Robert Tabb, for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, during a
proposed class period beginning on March 13, 2018 and ending on
March 26, 2019.
On July 15, 2019, the Court appointed John Heck as Lead Plaintiff;
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Lead Counsel for the class; and
Kendall Law Group PLLC as the Liaison Counsel for the class.
On Nov. 4, 2019, the Lead Plaintiff filed the Amended Class Action
Complaint.
The Amended Complaint alleges that Orion is a specialty
construction company with two segments, marine and concrete,
operating in the United States, Canada, and the Caribbean Basin,
that Orion's marine segment services include marine transportation
facility construction, marine pipeline construction, and dredging
of waterways, channels, and ports, and that the Company's concrete
segment provides turnkey concrete construction services across the
light commercial, structural, and other associated business areas.
The Amended Complaint alleges that Orion is incorporated under the
laws of Delaware with its principal executive offices located in
Houston, Texas, and that its common stock trades on the New York
Stock Exchange. The Amended Complaint alleges that Stauffer served
as Orion's CEO at all relevant times, DeAlmeida served as Orion's
CFO from February 2014 until his resignation on Nov. 2, 2018, and
that Tabb is the CFO of the Company, having previously served as
interim CFO since Nov. 2, 2018.
The Amended Complaint alleges that the Individual Defendants,
because of their positions with the Company, possessed the power
and authority to control the contents of the Company's reports to
the SEC, i.e., the Securities Exchange Commission, press releases
and presentations to securities analysts, money and portfolio
managers and institutional investors, i.e., the market. The
Individual Defendants were provided with copies of the Company's
reports and press releases alleged to be misleading prior to, or
shortly after, their issuance and had the ability and opportunity
to prevent their issuance or cause them to be corrected. Because
of their positions and access to material nonpublic information
available to them, the Individual Defendants knew that the adverse
facts specified had not been disclosed to, and were being concealed
from, the public, and that the positive representations which were
being made were then materially false and/or misleading. The
Individual Defendants are liable for the false statements pleaded.
The Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because the
Lead Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the pleading requirements for
stating either a primary claim under Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, or a secondary claim for
control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The Defendants argue that the Lead Plaintiff has failed to allege
facts capable of establishing (1) that they made an actionable
misrepresentation either by making a false statement or by failing
to state a fact needed to prevent a statement from being
misleading; (2) that they made any actionable misrepresentation
with scienter; or (3) that any actionable misrepresentation caused
the loss for which the Plaintiff class seeks relief. The
Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' control-person claims under
Section 20(a) asserted against the Individual Defendants fail
because the Plaintiffs have failed to state a primary claim for
securities fraud under Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5.
Judge Lake holds that the Amended Complaint is subject to dismissal
for failure to allege an actionable misrepresentation because
neither the allegations of the Defendants' admissions nor the
allegations of information provided by confidential witnesses
contain facts capable of establishing that any of Orion's financial
reports for 2017 or 2018, Orion's alleged public statements about
its goodwill, doubtful accounts, construction project estimates,
disputed customer accounts receivable, ICFR, or Orion's SOX
certifications were false or misleading when made.
Judge Lake also holds that the PSLRA requires the Lead Plaintiff to
allege facts sufficient to raise a strong inference of scienter
with respect to each Defendant. A complaint will survive a motion
to dismiss only if a reasonable person would deem the inference of
scienter cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing
inference one could draw from the facts alleged. The Lead
Plaintiff argues that the Amended Complaint's allegations regarding
the Defendants' admissions, SOX certifications, and desire to
comply with Orion's debt covenants, together with the accounts of
the two confidential witnesses and the announcement of CFO
DeAlmeida's resignation on the same day as the truth began to
emerge, all support a strong inference of scienter.
Taken together, all of the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint
fail to support a strong inference of scienter because Lead
Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts regarding defendants'
admissions, SOX certifications, desire to comply with Orion's debt
covenants, confidential witness statements, or DeAlmeida's
resignation that are capable of establishing that any of the
alleged misrepresentations were made with scienter. Moreover, the
Lead Plaintiff has failed either to allege or to argue that an
inference of scienter is cogent and at least as compelling as any
opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged.
Because the Lead Plaintiff has already filed an amended complaint,
and has argued strenuously that his amended complaint states claims
for which relief may be granted, and because the Lead Plaintiff has
failed either to submit a proposed second amended complaint or
described any additional facts that could be alleged in a second
amended complaint that could not have been alleged in the Amended
Complaint, the Court is persuaded that the Lead Plaintiff has
pleaded his best case, and that any additional attempt to amend
would be futile. Accordingly, the Lead Plaintiff's request for
leave to amend will be denied.
For these reasons, Judge Lake concludes that the Lead Plaintiff has
failed to state claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Accordingly, the Judge granted the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss Amended Complaint. The Judge also concludes that the
Lead Plaintiff should not be allowed an additional opportunity to
amend. Accordingly, the Judge denied the Lead Plaintiff's Request
to Amend stated at the end of the Plaintiff's Opposition to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 19, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://bit.ly/2S2xj76 from
Leagle.com.
PEARSON EDUCATION: Pelletier Class Suit Moved to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ALEXANDRA PELLETIER; JOAN PADDEN;
and M. SAMANTHA PAK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PEARSON EDUCATION, INC.; CENGAGE LEARNING,
INC.; MCGRAW-HILL GLOBAL EDUCATION HOLDINGS, LLC; EDUCATIONAL
PUBLISHERS ENFORCEMENT GROUP; BARNES & NOBLE EDUCATION, INC.;
BARNES & NOBLE COLLEGE BOOKSELLERS, LLC; and FOLLETT HIGHER
EDUCATION GROUP, Case No. 3:20-cv-09315, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 25,
2020.
The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-06848-DLC to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Denise L. Cote. The Pelletier suit is a member case in
the multi-district litigation proceeding, IN RE: Inclusive Access
Course Materials Antitrust Litigation, Lead Case No.
1:20-md-02946-DLC.
Pearson Education, Inc. provides education services. The Company
publishes educational, technical, and professional materials,
textbooks, digital on-line and educator professional development
courses. Pearson Education offers its services to teachers and
students worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith J. Verrier, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: kverrier@lfsblaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephanie D. Edelson, Esq.
RIKER DANZIG SCHERER HYLAND AND PERRETTI
One Speedwell Avenue
Morristown, NJ 07960
Telephone: (973) 451-8756
E-mail: sedelson@riker.com
PENTEGRA RETIREMENT: Breaches Fiduciary Duties to Plan, Khan Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IMRAN KHAN and JOAN BULLOCK, individually and as representatives of
a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Pentegra
Defined Contribution Plan for Financial Institutions v. BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF PENTEGRA DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN, PENTEGRA
RETIREMENT SERVICES, INC., JOHN E. PINTO, SANDRA L. MCGOLDRICK,
LISA A. SCHLEHUBER, MICHAEL N. LUSSIER, WILLIAM E. HAWKINS, JR.,
BRAD ELLIOTT, GEORGE W. HERMANN, and JOHN DOES 1-12, Case No.
7:20-cv-07561 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties and for engaging in
prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties and engaged in prohibited transactions by (1) failing to
monitor and control the Plan's administrative fees and causing the
Plan to pay excessive fees, (2) unlawfully causing payments to
Pentegra from Plan assets, and (3) including Plan investments with
excessive and unreasonable investment management fees. The Plan's
investment options charged unreasonable fees for the services
provided to the Plan compared to alternatives that were readily
available to the Plan, including lower cost share classes of
otherwise identical mutual funds, separately managed accounts,
and/or collective trust investments.
The Plaintiffs also allege that the Board breached its fiduciary
monitoring duties by, among other things: (1) failing to monitor
their appointees, (2) failing to monitor their appointees'
fiduciary process, (3) failing to ensure that the monitored
fiduciaries had a prudent process in place for evaluating the
Plan's administrative fees and ensuring that the fees were
competitive, and (4) failing to remove appointees whose performance
was inadequate in that they continued to allow excessive
administrative fees.
Had the Defendants performed their fiduciary duties, the Plan would
not have suffered over $70 million in losses from September 2014
through September 2020, the Plaintiffs contend.
Pentegra Retirement Services, Inc. is a provider of financial
retirement planning, fiduciary outsourcing and financial planning
services, with its principal place of business in White Plains, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq.
Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
Troy A. Doles, Esq.
Alexander L. Braitberg, Esq.
SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP
100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 621-6115
Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
E-mail: aschlichter@uselaws.com
jschlichter@uselaws.com
tdoles@uselaws.com
abraitberg@uselaws.com
PFIZER INC: Faces Drogueria Suit Alleging Atorvastatin Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------------------
DROGUERIA BETANCES, LLC, individually an on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. PFIZER, INC.; PFIZER MANUFACTURING IRELAND;
WARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY; RANBAXY, INC.; RANBAXY PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC.; and RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED, Case No. 3:20-cv-10824
(D.N.J., Aug. 19, 2020), is a federal antitrust action brought on
behalf of a class of direct purchasers seeking recovery of
overcharges arising from the delayed entry of generic versions of
the brand name prescription drug Lipitor, atorvastatin calcium.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that although the original
compound patent for Lipitor provided the Pfizer Defendants with
exclusivity until March 24, 2010, generics were foreclosed from
entering the market until November 30, 2011, by the scheme of the
Pfizer Defendants and its would-be generic competitor Defendant
Ranbaxy's scheme to delay generic competition. The scheme included
(i) entering into, around June of 2008, an anticompetitive and
unlawful "reverse payment" patent settlement agreement under which
Ranbaxy received a large and unexplained payment from Pfizer in
exchange for Ranbaxy's agreement to delay its launch of generic
atorvastatin calcium, and (ii) using the Ranbaxy agreement to
thwart other generic companies' efforts to enter the market for
atorvastatin calcium.
According to the complaint, the scheme worked as planned. Generic
Lipitor was not sold until November 30, 2011, later than it would
have been sold absent the Defendants' illegal, anticompetitive
conduct. The Defendants' scheme to delay generic Lipitor
competition caused the Plaintiff and the members of the proposed
Direct Purchaser Class to pay billions of dollars more for
atorvastatin calcium than they would have paid absent such
conduct.
Pfizer Inc. operates as a pharmaceutical company. The Company
offers medicines, vaccines, medical devices, and consumer
healthcare products for oncology, inflammation, cardiovascular, and
other therapeutic areas. Pfizer serves customers worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
Park 80 Plaza West-One
250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
Telephone: (201) 845-9600
E-mail: psp@njlawfirm.com
- and -
Susan Segura, Esq.
David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq.
SMITH SEGURA RAPHAEL & LEGER, LLP
221 Ansley Blvd.
Alexandria, LA 71303
Telephone: (318) 445-4480
E-mail: ssegura@ssrllp.com
draphael@ssrllp.com
- and -
Russ Chorush, Esq.
HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP
1111 Bagby, Suite 2100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 221-2000
E-mail: rchorush@hpcllp.com
- and -
Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
Joseph Opper, Esq.
Kimberly Hennings, Esq.
GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 398-0055
E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
jopper@garwingerstein.com
khennings@garwingerstein.com
- and -
David F. Sorensen, Esq.
Ellen T. Noteware, Esq.
Daniel S. Simons, Esq.
Nick Urban, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
enoteware@bm.net
dsimons@bm.net
nurban@bm.net
- and -
Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq.
ODOM & DES ROCHES, LLC
650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 522-0077
E-mail: stuart@odrlaw.com
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Gibson Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Craig Gibson, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01682, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 17, 2020.
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-04543-CMR to the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, provides debt recovery and
collection services. The Company specializes in contingency
collections for national credit card issuers, consumer lenders,
telecommunications providers, retail credit stores, healthcare,
utilities, and commercial accounts receivables.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua P. Ward, Esq.
THE LAW FIRM OF FENTERS WARD
201 South Highland Avenue, Suite 201
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
Phone: (412) 545-3015
Email: jward@fentersward.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lauren M. Burnette, Esq.
MESSER STRICKLER LTD
12276 San Jose Blvd., Suite 718
Jacksonville, FL 32223
Phone: (904) 527-1172
Email: lburnette@messerstrickler.com
PROSHARES TRUST II: Appeal from Dismissed Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from the January 2020 Court order dismissing
their consolidated securities class action is still pending,
according to ProShares Trust II's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020.
ProShare Capital Management LLC (the "Sponsor") and ProShares Trust
II (the "Trust") are named as defendants in the following purported
class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on the following dates: (i) on
January 29, 2019 and captioned Ford v. ProShares Trust II et al.;
(ii) on February 27, 2019 and captioned Bittner v. ProShares Trust
II, et al.; and (iii) on March 1, 2019 and captioned Mareno v.
ProShares Trust II, et al.
The allegations in the complaints are substantially the same,
namely that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933
Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the 1934 Act, and
Items 303 and 105 of Regulation S-K, 17 C.F.R. Section
229.303(a)(3)(ii), 229.105 by issuing untrue statements of material
fact and omitting material facts in the prospectus for ProShares
Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF, and allegedly failing to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading.
Certain Principals of the Sponsor and Officers of the Trust are
also defendants in the actions, along with a number of others. The
Court consolidated the three actions and appointed lead plaintiffs
and lead counsel.
On January 3, 2020, the Court granted defendants’ motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action in its entirety and ordered
the case closed.
On January 31, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
ProShares Trust said, "The Trust and Sponsor will continue to
vigorously defend against this lawsuit. The Trust and the Sponsor
cannot predict the outcome of this action. ProShares Short VIX
Short-Term Futures ETF may incur expenses in defending against such
claims."
ProShares Trust II is a Delaware statutory trust formed on October
9, 2007 and is currently organized into separate series.
PROTON DIGITAL: Faces Jimenez Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO GONZALEZ JIMENEZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. PROTON
DIGITAL SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, PROTON FACILITIES
SOLUTIONS, LLC, California Limited Liability Company and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 200V370333 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., Sept. 4, 2020), arises from the Defendants' conduct of
not paying proper wages to the Plaintiff and other aggrieved
employees, in violation of the California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to pay the
Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees all final wages due at
termination or within 72 hours after separation, failed to provide
employees with accurately itemized wage statements, failed to pay
overtime wages at a rate of one and one half the regular rate of
pay, failed to pay in a timely manner pertaining to the waiting
time penalties, and failed to provide meal and rest periods, or
compensation in lieu thereof, as required by the Labor Code and
relevant wage orders.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt,
hourly employee in California, including in and around the city of
San Jose, County of Santa Clara.
Proton Digital Systems, Inc. is a U.S.-based developer of advanced
strategic intellectual property for the flash memory market. Proton
Facilities Solutions, LLC is a California-based company which is
part of the consulting services industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
28632 Roadside Dr., Suite 203
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Telephone: (818) 293-5623
Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com
RECEIVABLES: Abduganieva Files FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Receivables
Performance Management LLC. The case is styled as Shoira
Abduganieva, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Receivables Performance Management LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-04376-KAM-CLP (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
RPM provides accounts receivable management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (718) 705-8706
Fax: (718) 705-8705
Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com
RSCR CALIFORNIA: Espinosa Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Raylene Espinosa, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. RSCR California, Inc., RSCR Inland,
Inc., Res-Care, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV21959, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on September 3, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-08084-JFW-AS to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to Judge John F. Walter.
The nature of suit is stated as Labor/Management Relations.
RSCR California, Inc. is an intermediate care facility for the
mentally retarded in Louisville, Kentucky. RSCR Inland, Inc. is an
intermediate care facility mentally retarded in Riverside,
California.
Res-Care, Inc., provides services and support to seniors, people
with intellectual and developmental disabilities, children, and job
seekers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anwar Dillon-Thomas Burton, Esq.
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent Charles Granberry, Esq.
LAVI AND EBRAHIMIAN LLP
8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: aburton@lelawfirm.com
jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Phil J Montoya, Jr., Esq.
HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON AND YOUNG LLP
445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1651
Telephone: (213) 486-8000
Facsimile: (213) 486-8080
E-mail: pmontoya@hptylaw.com
SILVER FARM: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Jimenez Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA GUADALUPE GONZALEZ JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SILVER FARM LABOR INC., a California
Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2020-0007430 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., Sept. 4,
2020), arises from the failure of the Defendants to pay wages,
including overtime pay, provide meal periods and rest periods, pay
timely wages, and provide accurate itemized wage statements as
required by the California Labor Code.
The complaint further states that the Plaintiff and class members
are entitled to restitution of the wages withheld and retained by
the Defendants during a period that commences four years prior to
the filing of the complaint, pursuant to California Business and
Professions Code.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in June 2020 as a
non-exempt employee and worked during the liability period as a
packer until her separation from the Defendants' employ in July
2020.
Silver Farm Labor Inc. provides agricultural labor services to
various farms in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
Michael Calvo, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Counsel Supports Dismissal of Chardonnet Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit styled as LAURENT CHARDONNET,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STEWART BUTTERFIELD, ALLEN SHIM, BRANDON
ZELL, ANDREW BRACCIA, EDITH COOPER, SARAH FRIAR, JOHN O'FARRELL,
CHAMATH PALIHAPITIYA, and GRAHAM SMITH, Case No. CGC-19-579240, Ari
Y. Basser, Esq., filed with the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Francisco a declaration in support
of the Plaintiff's request for dismissal of the class action on
September 19, 2019.
Ari Y. Basser, Esq., is an associate of Pomerantz LLP and the
counsel for Plaintiff Laurent Chardonnet. He filed his declaration
concurrently with the Plaintiff's request for dismissal and
proposed order.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The Plaintiff and his counsel have
decided to voluntarily dismiss the Plaintiff's claims without
prejudice.
Slack Technologies, Inc., is an American international software
company with its headquarters located in San Francisco,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff represented by:
Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 432-8492
E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com
abasser@pomlaw.com
SMS SYSTEMS: Kelly Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Gerald Kelly filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in his lawsuit entitled Gerald Kelly v. SMS Systems Maintenance
Svcs., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01819-ODW-JC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 18,
2020, the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order certifying his
action to proceed as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
The proposed class definitions are:
A. Technician Class:
All persons Defendant employed in California as hourly
field technicians, at any time during the time period
beginning March 28, 2013 and ending when final judgment is
entered (the "Class Period");
B. 30-minute Monitoring Class:
All members of the Technician Class who Defendant expected
to act on (run) work "tickets" on the ClickMobile
application; and
C. 15-minute Acknowledgment Class:
All members of the Technician Class subject to the rule
requiring acknowledgments of repair tickets every 15
minutes (stated in the July 18, 2016 email from John
Marquez, Ex. 12).
Mr. Kelly alleges that during the relevant time period, Defendant
SMS had policies and practices that violated the rights of the
hourly field service technicians it employs in California (the
"Technicians," "Putative Class Members" or "PCMs") by: (1) failing
to pay them wages for all hours worked; (2) failing to provide them
with meal and rest periods according to California law; (3) failing
to pay them premium wages on workdays it failed to provide them
with meal and rest periods according to California law; (4) failing
to provide them with accurate written wage statements; and (5)
failing to timely pay them all of their earned and unpaid wages
during and after separation of employment. These statewide acts and
omissions were in violation of both the Labor Code and the
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4-2001, he contends.
The appellate case is captioned as Gerald Kelly v. SMS Systems
Maintenance Svcs., et al., Case No. 20-80130, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner GERALD KELLY, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Walter L. Haines, Esq.
UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
5500 Bolsa Ave.
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Telephone: (562) 256-1047
- and -
David Glenn Spivak, Esq.
Caroline Tahmassian, Esq.
THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
16530 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 203
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 582-3086
Defendant-Respondent SMS SYSTEMS MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC., a
Massachusetts corporation, is represented by:
Monte Kyle Grix, Esq.
Daniel H. Handman, Esq.
HIRSCHFELD KRAEMER LLP
233 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 255-0705
SOUTHERN CO: Settles Clean Coal Class Suit for $87.5 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Maya Earls, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that The Southern
Co. will pay $87.5 million to settle claims that it misled
investors about a plan to build a "clean coal" power plant in
Mississippi, according to a notice filed in a Georgia federal
court.
The company secured almost $1 billion in federal grants and tax
credits by the time the plant broke ground in 2010 in Kemper
County, Miss. The state also authorized the company to recoup
construction costs through rate increases passed onto customers.
The funding was linked to a requirement that construction be
completed by May 2014. [GN]
SPARTAN ENERGY: Bailey Hits Fisker Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------
Ryan Bailey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Spartan Energy Acquisition Corp., Geoffrey
Strong, Gregory A. Beard, John J. MacWilliams, Robert C. Reeves,
John M. Stice, Defendants, Case No. 654150/2020 (N.Y. Sup., August
31, 2020), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in
concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing
the merger of Spartan Energy Acquisition with Fisker, Inc. and
Spartan Merger Sub Inc., rescinding it and setting it aside or
awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the
merger, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for
attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Fisker's merger with Spartan is structured as a reverse merger
where existing Fisker shareholders will own the majority, or
approximately 60% of the go-forward company through its affiliates,
by raising $1 billion of gross proceeds, including $500 million
fully committed common stock private investment in public equity at
$10.00 per share from Spartan Energy shareholders and investors, to
finance a portion of the purchase price, totaling a combined
company valuation of approximately $2.9 billion. Spartan Energy
will merge into Fisker and cease to exist, forming one publicly
traded entity combined with the investors in Fisker, significantly
diluting Spartan Energy investor's share of the combined company.
Bailey claims that the transaction undervalues Spartan and is the
result of a flawed sales process saying that the Board failed to
create a disinterested committee of independent directors to
maximize public stockholder value. Moreover, the merger
consideration does not adequately take into consideration the
current and probable future financial success of Fisker.
Spartan Energy is a special purpose acquisition company, an entity
that is formed strictly to raise capital through an initial public
offering for the purpose of acquiring an existing company, and
merging with it to take that entity public.
Party Fisker, Inc. operates as a car manufacturing company. It
designs and market electric cars, zero-emission vehicles, and
electrification technologies. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan J. Smith, Esq.
BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
240 Mineola Blvd.
Mineola, NY 11501
Phone: (516) 741-4977
Facsimile: (516) 741-0626
Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com
STAAR SURGICAL: Faces Alwazzan Suit Over Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------
NAWAF ALWAZZAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. STAAR SURGICAL COMPANY; CAREN L. MASON; DEBORAH
ANDREWS, and PATRICK F. WILLIAMS, Case No. 8:20-cv-01533 (C.D.
Cal., Aug. 18, 2020), seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as a result of
their false and misleading statements that led to the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities.
The lawsuit is a federal securities class action brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and those who purchased or otherwise acquired
STAAR Surgical Company ("STAAR" or the "Company") common stock
between February 26, 2020, and August 10, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts to
investors. Specifically, the Defendants misrepresented and/or
failed to disclose to investors that the Company was overstating
and/or mischaracterizing: (1) its sales and growth in China; (2)
its marketing spend; (3) its research and development expenses; and
that as a result of the foregoing, (4) Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On August 5, 2020, after the markets closed, STAAR reported
disappointing financial results. On this news, shares of STAAR
common stock fell approximately 10%, down from the August 5, 2020
closing price of $61.81 to an August 6, 2020 close of $55.86.
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."
J Capital Research stated in reaching its conclusions, it "conduct
over 75 interviews, visited company sites in China and Switzerland,
and reviewed financial statements and other government documents
for STAAR's distributors and customers in China. We will show that
sales of STAAR's ICLs are dramatically overstated."
On this news, the stock continued its descent, closing at just
$48.25 per share on August 11, 2020.
STAAR Surgical Company develops, manufactures, and markets high
margin visual implants that improve a patient's quality of vision.
The Company manufactures implantable contact lenses to treat
refractive disorders such as myopia. STAAR also manufactures
products for cataract surgery and glaucoma surgery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin St., Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
E-mail: jake@blockleviton.com
- and -
Whitney E. Street, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 968-1852
Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
E-mail: whitney@blockleviton.com
SUTTER HEALTH: Bonicarlo Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA BONICARLO and NICOLE GARCIA, Individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf
of the SUTTER HEALTH 403(B) SAVINGS PLAN v. SUTTER HEALTH; the
SUTTER HEALTH 403(B) SAVINGS PLAN COMMITTEE; and DOES No. 1-10,
Whose Names Are Currently Unknown, Case No. 2:20-cv-01795-JAM-AC
(E.D. Cal., Sept. 4, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act arising from their breach
of fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty to the Plan.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties to the Plan by (1) choosing to select and retain
the risky Freedom funds or the Active suite, thus, causing plan
participants to miss out on greater investment returns for their
retirement savings; (2) failing to replace the underachieving
investment option with better performing alternatives; (3) failing
to recognize that the Plan and its participants were being charged
much higher fees than they should have been and/or failing to take
effective remedial actions; and (4) failing to ensure that the Plan
paid reasonable and appropriate expenses in terms of Total Plan
Cost.
Further, the Defendants also have: (1) failed to fully disclose the
expenses and risk of the Plan's investment options to participants;
(2) allowed unreasonable expenses to be charged to participants for
administration of the Plan; and (3) selected, retained, and/or
otherwise ratified high-cost and poorly-performing investments,
instead of offering more prudent alternative investments when such
prudent investments were readily available at the time that they
were chosen for inclusion within the Plan and throughout the class
period.
Sutter Health is a health services provider, operating a network of
hospitals and health programs throughout Northern California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James C. Shah, Esq.
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
San Francisco, CA 94133
Telephone: (415) 429-5272
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
- and -
James E. Miller, Esq.
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Telephone: (860) 526-1100
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
lrubinow@sfmslaw.com
- and -
Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
1401 Dove Street, Suite 510
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (323) 510-4060
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com
- and -
Michael P. Ols, Esq.
Alec J. Berin, Esq.
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (610) 891-9880
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: mols@sfmslaw.com
aberin@sfmslaw.com
SYNCHRONY BANK: Zevon Sues in S.D. New York Over TILA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Synchrony Bank. The case is
styled as Marcy Zevon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Synchrony Bank, Case No. 1:20-cv-07279-ER
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 2020).
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Truth in Lending Act. The case
is assigned to Judge Edgardo Ramos.
Synchrony Bank is an American consumer financial services
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian Lewis Bromberg
BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C
26 Broadway, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 248-7906
Facsimile: (212) 248-7908
E-mail: brian@bromberglawoffice.com
TEMESCAL WELLNESS: Barton Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIANE BARTON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
TEMESCAL WELLNESS, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-40114-TSH (D. Mass., Sept.
5, 2020), arises from the Defendant's illegal sending of automated
calls to the Plaintiff and the proposed classes, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received at least two
telemarketing text messages from the Defendant, including on
December 20, 2019, and January 23, 2020, with the use of an
automated dialing system. The text message received by the
Plaintiff demonstrates that the message was sent for the purpose of
encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property,
goods, or services as it seeks to have him sign up for Target's
loyalty program, which is a service.
The Plaintiff, whose telephone number has been listed on the
National Do Not Call List, says she did not provide her prior
express written consent to receive the telemarketing calls at
issue. The Plaintiff contends that she and all members of the class
have been harmed by the acts of the Defendant because their privacy
has been violated, they were annoyed and harassed, and, in some
instances, they were charged for incoming calls.
Temescal Wellness, LLC is a medical cannabis provider based in
Worcester, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (617) 485-0018
Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Faces Class Action Over Travel Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that Toronto-Dominion Bank is facing a
class-action lawsuit over its refusal to pay travel insurance
claims following trip cancellations triggered by the COVID-19
pandemic.
Lead plaintiff Kevin Lyons cancelled his family's flight to Italy
along with their Mediterranean cruise in early March after the
Canadian government advised against travel to the region, the
proposed class action says.
TD turned down a $6,700 claim by Lyons, citing the travel credit
available to him for the flights and cruise, according to the
statement of claim filed in Ontario Superior Court.
Lawyer Sivan Tumarkin, whose firm represents Lyons, says future
credit does not amount to cash reimbursement and that TD must pay
the Toronto resident's claims under the terms of its own travel
insurance policy.
"Nowhere does it say in the policy that if you're offered a credit
or voucher that the insurance company is off the hook for
reimbursing you that expense," he said.
Many Canadians are experiencing similar frustrations with travel
insurers, since vouchers make a poor replacement for refunds given
the uncertainty around travel and health over the next couple
years, Tumarkin said.
"They're just angry. One lady, she said, 'My elderly mother is not
going to be able to travel. This was going to be the last trip.'
For her it's principle. It's just not right,"' he said.
"How do we know that cruise line is going to be in business? It's
so speculative now. These airlines, are they going to be in
business?"
TD did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Few individual claims against insurance companies have emerged
since March due to the legal cost, Tumarkin said. But class-action
claims, which have sprouted up in parts of the U.S., could mushroom
north of the border as well.
Canadian airlines have also faced class-action lawsuits over their
refusal to refund most passengers for services that were never
rendered during the pandemic.
"I understand where they're coming from, whether I agree or not.
But insurance companies have specifically insured against the risk
of trip cancellation," Tumarkin said.
The lawsuit against TD Bank and TD Home and Auto Insurance must be
approved by a judge if it is to go ahead. [GN]
TREVENA INC: Bid to Drop Consolidated Amended Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trevena, Inc. is awaiting a decision from the Court on its motion
to dismiss a consolidated amended class action complaint, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.
In October and November 2018, the Company and certain current and
former officers and directors were sued in three purported class
actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania alleging violations of the federal securities
laws.
In January 2019, the three lawsuits were consolidated into one
action, and on May 29, 2019, the District Court appointed a group
of five individual investors as lead plaintiffs.
A consolidated amended complaint was filed on August 2, 2019,
alleging, among other things, that the Company and two former
officers made false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, including certain
statements made relating to the Company's End-of-Phase 2 meeting
with the FDA, and certain statements concerning top-line results
from the Company's Phase 3 studies.
The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and other costs, and unspecified equitable or
injunctive relief.
The Company believes that the claims are without merit, and the
Company intends to vigorously defend itself and its former officers
against the allegations.
On October 2, 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on the basis that there were no false statements
and no scienter as a matter of law. The motion is fully briefed,
and the Company is awaiting a decision from the Court.
Trevena, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the
development and commercialization of treatment options that target
and treat diseases affecting the central nervous system. The
company was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Chesterbrook,
Pennsylvania.
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Vagvala Named Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In Re: Tupperware Brands Corporation Securities
Litigation. BEN LAPIN, Plaintiff, v. TUPPERWARE BRANDS CORPORATION,
PATRICIA A. STITZEL, CHRISTOPHER D O'LEARY, CASSANDRA HARRIS and
MICHAEL POTESHMAN, Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-357-Orl-31GJK (M.D.
Fla.), Judge Gregory A. Presnell of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, granted in part
Srikalahasti M. Vagvala's Motion to Consolidate Related Actions,
Appoint Lead Plaintiff, and Approve Selection of Counsel.
The class action complaint was filed on Feb. 28, 2020 against
Tupperware Brands and multiple individual Defendants alleging
claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Srikalahasti M. Vagvala filed the Motion on April 27, 2020 pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"). Vagvala
has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the
class. Vagvala also sought approval of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as
lead counsel, and Saxena White, P.A. as liaison counsel.
Magistrate Judge David A. Baker issued, in May 2020, a report
recommending that Vagvala's Motion be granted. In his Report &
Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Baker recommended that (1)
Srikalahasti M. Vagvala be appointed the Lead Plaintiff in the
matter; (2) Attorney Jacob Goldberg (with assistance and support
from The Rosen Law Firm) be approved as the lead counsel; and (3)
Attorney Brandon Grzandziel (with assistance and support of Saxena
White) be approved as the local counsel. Judge Baker also
recommended that discovery be stayed pending disposition of any
motion to dismiss filed in response to the Amended Complaint or
other order of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's May 27,
2020 Report & Recommendation is available at https://bit.ly/2EzMr8M
from Leagle.com.
Accordingly, in a June 16, 2020 Order available at
https://bit.ly/30rVHDV from Leagle.com, Judge Presnell confirmed
and adopted the Report and Recommendation as part of his Order,
except that the jointly proposed schedule set for in a Response to
the Report will apply. Judge Presnell granted in part the Motion.
Subsequently, Lead Plaintiff Srikalahasti M. Vagvala filed an
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint against Tupperware
Brands, et al., for violations of the federal securities laws on
July 31, 2020. Tupperware Brands, et al., filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint on Sept. 23, 2020.
UNIFIN INC: Fisher Sues Over Unpaid Call Center Workers' OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK FISHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNIFIN, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05497 (N.D. Ill., Sept.
16, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and Illinois Wage Payment
and Collection Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and other
telephone-dedicated employees regular and overtime pay for all
hours worked beyond 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt, telephone-dedicated
employee in the Defendant's call center located in Niles, Illinois,
from September 2019 to February 2020.
Unifin, Inc. is a Niles, Illinois-based company that manages,
controls and operates customer service call centers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James X. Bormes, Esq.
Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 201-0575
- and –
Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 726-3400
US FUND: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. US FUND SOURCE LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 2:20-cv-08410 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 14, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that even without obtaining "prior express
consent" from her to receive calls via automatic telephone dialing
system (ATDS) or an artificial or prerecorded voice, the Defendants
contacted her multiple times by using an ATDS to her cellular
telephone number ending in -1083 beginning in or around November
2018 in an attempt to solicit her to purchase its services. As a
result of the Defendants' unsolicited calls, the Plaintiff was
harmed by causing her to incur certain charges or reduced telephone
time for which she had previously paid as well as invading her
privacy.
US Fund Source LLC provides small business funding to provide a
variety of working capital solutions to business owners across
America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: 323-306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
Emails: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
VIKING CLIENT: Ebanks Sues in S.D. Florida Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Viking Client
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Virginia Y. Ebanks,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Viking Client Services, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-14328-DMM (S.D. Fla.,
Sept. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Viking Client Services is a national provider of electronic payment
solutions, customer care, billing and collection and recovery
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander James Adducci Taylor, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
WALGREEN CO: President FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as KENNETH PRESIDENT, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated v. WALGREEN CO. and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 20CV368867, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
September 16, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-06474 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.
Walgreen Co. is an American company that operates a pharmacy store
chain in the United States, headquartered in Deerfield,
Illinois.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq.
Christopher J. Archibald, Esq.
Traci G. Choi, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1500
Irvine, CA 92612-4414
Telephone: (949) 223-7000
Facsimile: (949) 223-7100
E-mail: allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com
christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com
traci.choi@bclplaw.com
WARNER MUSIC: Fails to Secure Consumers' PII, Kuhn Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIE KUHN and SUSAN CAKL, individually, and on behalf of a
class of others similarly situated v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP, CORP., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-07608 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 16,
2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to maintain adequate
security measures to protect its consumers' personally identifiable
information.
Because of the Defendant's inadequate data security practices, from
April 25, 2020, to August 5, 2020, unauthorized third parties
compromised an undisclosed number of the Defendant's U.S.-based
e-commerce websites that are serviced through an external provider,
according to the complaint.
On September 2, 2020, the Defendant notified the California
Attorney General of the breach. The Defendant also began sending
notices consumers, including the Plaintiffs, who may have made
purchases on one of their e-commerce sites during the
aforementioned time period that their personally identifiable
information was potentially acquired by an authorized third party.
The PII includes name, email address, telephone number, billing and
shipping address, and payment card details. The Plaintiffs say they
and class members have suffered irreparable harm and are subject to
an increased risk of identity theft, due to the Defendant's
carelessness and inadequate security.
Warner Music Group Corp. is an American multinational entertainment
and record label conglomerate headquartered in New York City.
Warner is one of the "big three" recording companies and the third
largest in the global music industry, after Universal Music Group
and Sony Music Entertainment.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
747 Chestnut Ridge Road
Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
Telephone: (845) 356-2570
Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
memert@kgglaw.com
- and -
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
James M. Davis, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1811
Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com
jrobinson@cglaw.com
camille@cglaw.com
jdavis@cglaw.com
WELLS ENTERPRISES: Faces Martinez Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEGRIA MARTINEZ, individually, and on behalf of aggrieved
employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") v.
WELLS ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a WELLS DAIRY, INC., an Iowa
corporation; EDEN CREAMERY LLC, a California limited liability
company; HALO TOP SCOOP SHOP LLC, a California limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV34004
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 4, 2020), challenges the
Defendants' systemic illegal employment practices in violation of
the California Labor Code, including failure to properly calculate
and pay all minimum and overtime wages.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants jointly and severally
acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious
disregard to the rights of all employees in (1) failing to pay all
meal period wages and rest break wages, (2) failing to provide
accurate wage statements, (3) failing to pay all wages due and
owing during employment and upon termination of employment, and (4)
failing to reimburse all necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiff and the other hourly-paid or non-exempt employees are
"aggrieved employees" as defined by California Labor Code in that
they are all current or former employees (whether hired directly or
through a staffing agency or labor contractor) of the Defendants
who worked at any time during the period from June 26, 2019 to the
present, and one or more of the alleged violations was committed
against them.
Wells Enterprises, Inc. is an American food company and is the
largest family-owned and managed ice cream manufacturer in the
United States, based in LeMars, Iowa.
Eden Creamery LLC is the privately owned U.S. manufacturer of
low-calorie ice cream brand Halo Top.[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
WESTERN MILLING: $650,000 Deal in Benitez Suit Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California granted final approval of the
proposed settlement in a wage and hour class action omplaint
against Western Milling LLC, et al.
The case is AGUSTIN BENITEZ, CARLOS MORALES, and STEVEN VILLAREAL,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. WESTERN MILLING, LLC, KRUSE INVESTMENT COMPANY,
INC., and PERFECTION PET FOODS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01484-SKO (E.D. Cal.).
The complaint alleged violation of the California Labor Code,
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and Business
and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq. ("UCL"). The
Plaintiffs specifically allege six claims on behalf of themselves
and the class: (1) failure to provide meal periods; (2) failure to
provide rest periods; (3) failure to provide accurate wage
statements; (4) waiting time penalties; (5) violation of the UCL
for unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business acts or practices;
and (6) penalties pursuant to the California Private Attorney
General Act. Plaintiff Villarreal also asserts an individual claim
for interference under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
On Nov. 7, 2019, the parties executed a settlement agreement, where
the Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of all current and former
non-exempt hourly employees of Perfection Pet Foods, LLC (PPF) who
worked at least one shift of more than five hours at any of PPF's
Visalia, California pet food plants and/or warehouse, at any time
during the Class Period. The "Class Period" is defined as the
period beginning on Nov. 2, 2012 and ending on the date the Court
entered the order granting preliminary approval of the class
settlement, Jan. 21, 2020.
The Settlement contemplates that the Defendants would pay a maximum
settlement amount of $650,000 allocated as:
(1) $315,400 already paid to 194 putative class members as a
result of the Defendants' individual settlement program to
settle the claims of those putative class members;
(2) attorney's fees of up to $216,666.67 to be paid to the class
counsel, plus reasonable costs incurred, estimated at
$17,000;
(3) estimated settlement administration costs of $6,499 to be
paid to the settlement administrator, Simpluris, Inc.;
(4) penalties of $22,500 to be paid to the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency pursuant to California Labor Code Section
2699(i);
(5) incentive awards of $10,000 each to Plaintiffs Benitez and
Morales and $20,000 to Plaintiff Villarreal; and
(6) the remaining net settlement amount, estimated to be
$31,934.33, to be distributed to the class members.
The net settlement amount will be distributed to the class members
based on the number of weeks worked for each class member divided
by the total weeks worked by all class members during the class
period. The proposed settlement provides that the settlement
amount is non-reversionary: if any checks remain uncashed after 90
days, those amounts will be donated to the cy pres beneficiary
Valley Children's Hospital.
The Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement on Jan.
21, 2020. The settlement administrator, Simpluris, sent 234
settlement notices to putative class members identified by the
Defendants on Feb. 10, 2020. Only five notices were returned as
undeliverable, and no putative class member opted-out, objected, or
disputed their award.
Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Oberto granted the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement in June
2020. The Judge finds that the settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable, appears to be the product of arm's-length and informed
negotiations, and treats all members of the class fairly.
The Class Counsel fees and costs are approved, as well as the
proposed service payments to the Plaintiffs. Simpluris'
administration fee is also approved.
The action is dismissed with prejudice, with all parties to bear
their own fees and costs, except as set forth in the Final Order,
in the prior orders of the Court, or in the settlement agreement.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 19, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3hZIpnW from Leagle.com.
WORTH UNLIMITED: Aussieker Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK AUSSIEKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WORTH UNLIMITED LLC d/b/a UNITED FINANCIAL FREEDOM, a
Utah corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-01848 (E.D. Cal., Sept. 14,
2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received a call with a
pre-recorded message on his telephone number 916-705-XXXX that was
allegedly from the Defendant, who intentionally sells its services
to the Plaintiff even without obtaining prior express written
consent from the Plaintiff. As a result, the Plaintiff's privacy
has been invaded and intruded upon his right to seclusion.
Worth Unlimited, d/b/a United Financial Freedom, offers debt relief
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Tel: (305) 469-5881
Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
ZAYO GROUP: Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Dickerson Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DARRIN DICKERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ZAYO GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02490-NRN
(D. Col., Aug. 19, 2020), seeks to recover from the Defendant
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff Dickerson was employed by the Defendant as service
delivery coordinator.
Zayo Group, LLC provides bandwidth infrastructure solutions. The
Company offers dark fiber, mobile infrastructure, wavelengths,
private line, ethernet, carrier-neutral colocation,
interconnection, and custom solutions to internet and wireless
service providers, media enterprises, and other companies. Zayo
Group operates worldwide.[BN]
Zayo Group, LLC provides communications infrastructure solutions,
including fiber and bandwidth connectivity, colocation, and cloud
infrastructure to businesses across the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
Reena I. Desai, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4600 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: rdesai@nka.com
- and -
Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 277-7235
Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
E-mail: dbrome@nka.com
-and-
Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (410) 244-7005
E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***