/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201002.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, October 2, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 198
Headlines
AAR CORP: Gusinsky Trust Suit Challenges Adoption of Poison Pill
ABOFF'S INC: Filippone Alleges Discrimination, Abrupt Termination
ACER THERAPEUTICS: May Face Damages Under Securities Class Action
AFFINITY FEDERAL: Abramson Files Suit in New Jersey
AMERICAN AUTO: Carbonelli Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls
AUSTRALIA: Tasmania Faces Class Action Over Ashley Youth Abuse
BAKE ME A WISH: Romero Allges Violation under ADA
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Manipulates Metal Futures, Lamborn Alleges
BANNER BANK: Bowers Sues Over Improper Assessment of Bank Fees
BARNABAS HEALTH: McGowan Sues Over Breaches of Duties Under ERISA
BERKSHIRE HILLS: SI Financial Shareholder Withdraws Appeal
BLACKBERRY LTD: Class Certification Bid in SDNY Suit Pending
BLACKBERRY LTD: Discovery Ongoing in Ontario Class Suit
BLACKBERRY LTD: Employment Class Suit in Ontario Ongoing
BLACKBERRY LTD: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set on Oct. 20
CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid to Dismiss New Jersey Securities Suit Pending
CAPITA SNOWBOARDS: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Angeles Claims
CARIB INC: Pena Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
CAVENDER'S BOOT: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces NIS100MM Class Action Over Tariffs
CHHJ FRANCHISING: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Campbell Claims
CLEARVIEW AI: Opposes Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Stay Order
COLUMBIA COLLECTION: Faces Brown TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS: Romero Asserts Breach of ADA
CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Wellington Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
CURIO MANAGEMENT: Faces Smith Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
DANSKE BANK: Plumbers Fund Appeals Decisions in Securities Suit
DIAMONDPEAK HOLDINGS: Di Donato Sues Over Merger With Lordstown
DIME COMMUNITY: Parshall Balks at Proposed Sale to Bridge Bancorp
DIRECT CHECKS: Romero Suit Asserts Breach of ADA
DRAPER AND KRAMER: Vasquez Sues Over Loan Officers' Unpaid Wages
DREX CORP: Fails to Provide OT Pay & Wage Notices, Naranjo Claims
EAGLE BANCORP: Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Nix SDNY Class Suit
ENLIVANT MASTER: Underpays Nursing and Care Staff, Braxton Claims
EOG RESOURCES: Wake Energy LLC Files Suit in Wyoming
FACEBOOK INC: Locke Ford Discuss $650M BIPA Class Action Settlement
FIDELITONE LAST: Venegas Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
FIFTH SUN: Faces Jaquez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
FRENCH PARADOX: Rosado Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retained Tips
FRITO-LAY: Responds to Class Action Over Ruffles Flavor Labels
GLOBALSCAPE INC: Thompson Calls Merger Docs "Misleading"
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Smith Files Prisoner Rights Suit
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Cosinteno Appeals D.P.R. Ruling to 1st Circuit
HIRE DYNAMICS: Madera Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
HONDA CANADA: Settles Takata Airbag Inflator Class Action
HUEGAR LLC: Faces Nunez Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in E.D. New York
INOVIO PHARMA: Plaintiff in McDermid Suit Files Amended Complaint
INTEL CORP: Faces Class Action Over 7nm Processor Delay
IWC HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Hernandez-Conde Claims
J2 GLOBAL: Bid for Class Notice Pending in Davis Neurology Suit
J2 GLOBAL: Garcia's Securities Class Action in California Underway
KILWINS CHOCOLATES: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA
LOUISIANA: Bar Owners Mull Class Action Over Second Shutdown
M&M WINES CORP: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Wash. Nationals Catcher Files Class Action
MARRIOTT INT'L: 2008 Data Breach Suits Underway in U.S. and Canada
MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Class Action in London Over Data Breach
MATTHEWS INTERNATIONAL: Beinbrech Suit Removed to C.D. California
MDL 2971: Transfer of 10 Class Suits to E.D. New York Sought
MEDMARK SERVICES: Walsh Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MIDWAY ARMS: Graciano Alleges Violation under ADA
MINNEAPOLIS: Police Sued Over Use of Force Against Protesters
MOSES H. CONE: Ellis Winters Atty. Discusses Ruling in "Chambers"
MYOS RENS TECHNOLOGY: Faasse Balks at $173-Mil. MedAvail Merger
NEW YORK: Bill & Ted's Suit Challenges COVID-19 Executive Orders
NORTON HEALTHCARE: Class Certification for 15K Participants Sought
NPC INTERNATIONAL: Faces Marshall Suit Over Unfair Minimum Wages
NUTANIX INC: Must Defend Against Consolidated Putative Class Suit
ONE GROUP: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Romero Claims
ORACLE: Faces Class Action in Netherlands Over Privacy Violations
PAPERLESS INC: West Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
PEEL ACCESSORIES: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Nisbett Says
PELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS: Potential Class Action Withdrawn
PENN MUTUAL: 11th Cir. Appeal Filed in Cochran Securities Suit
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Must Face Expanded Fishermen's Class Action
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Still Defends Lawsuits over Line 901 Incident
PRINCESS CRUISES: Ruby Princess Passengers File Class Action
PROASSURANCE CORP: Faces Suit over Specialty Property Statements
PURDUE PHARMA: City of Vermilion to Join Opioid Class Action
QUANTA SERVICES: Faces $8.8MM Damages in Suit vs Former Unit
RECON OILFIELD: McDaniel Seeks Unpaid Wages for Machine Operators
REVERB.COM LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Graciano Says
REWALK ROBOTICS: 1st Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Yan Class Action
ROMEO'S: Faces Underpayments Class Action
ROOMSTOGO.COM INC: Graciano Sues Over Denied Access to Web Site
SAGINAW PRODUCTS: Denies Rights to Paid Leave, Stevens Suit Says
SARTON PUERTO RICO: Fiorentine Suit Transferred to Puerto Rico
SASOL LTD: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
SCRIBD INC: Licea Sues Over Inconspicuous Automatic Renewal Offer
SIRAB IMPORTS: Lalousis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Moshen Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls
STG INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Alleges
STIHL SOUTHWEST: Stigger Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TARGET CORP: Seiller Sues Over False Up&Up Acetaminophen Labels
TREVCO INC: Nisbett Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
TU CASA RESTAURANT: Chumil Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
U.S. XPRESS: Ayala Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit to 9th Circuit
UNITED STATES: Class Action Over DEA Cash Grabs Amended
UNITED STATES: Medrano Files Suit in Court of Federal Claims
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INC: 7th Cir. Appeal Filed in Meinders TCPA Suit
UTAH: Ringgold Files Suit v. System of Higher Educ.
UTICA FIRST: Kite & Key Seeks Payment for Losses Due to COVID-19
VARA CORP: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
VAXART INC: Bernstein Liebhard Investigates Shareholder Claims
VI DEVELOPMENT: Cuaya Action Granted Collective Status
VICOSOFT INC: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
VIKI INC: Martinez Sues Over Violation of Automatic Renewal Law
VIKING RIVER CRUISES: Winegard Alleges ADA Violation
VIRGIN SCENT: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
WASHINGTON, DC: Faces Class Action Over Speed Camera
WEST MARINE: Faces Graciano Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
WILCO LIFE: Anderson Appeals Order in Insurance Suit to 11th Cir.
WISE CHOICE: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Ramirez Says
WOOD GROUP: Iannotti Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
[*] Australians Must Not Bow to US Lobbyists Against Class Action
[*] Litigation Funding Reforms in Aus. Must Strike Right Balance
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Still Defends Exposure Claims at July 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Ct. Affirms Summary Judgment for Sikorsky
*********
AAR CORP: Gusinsky Trust Suit Challenges Adoption of Poison Pill
----------------------------------------------------------------
VLADIMIR GUSINSKY REVOCABLE TRUST, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated holders of AAR CORP. v. ANTHONY K.
ANDERSON; MICHAEL R. BOYCE; H. JOHN GILBERTSON; JAMES E. GOODWIN;
JOHN M. HOLMES; PATRICK J. KELLY; ROBERT F. LEDUC; DUNCAN J.
MCNABB; PETER PACE; DAVID P. STORCH; JENNIFER L. VOGEL; MARC J.
WALFISH; RONALD B. WOODARD; AAR CORP.; and COMPUTERSHARE TRUST
COMPANY, N.A., Case No. 2020-0714 (Del. Ch., Aug. 28, 2020), is an
action against the AAR board of directors for breaches of their
fiduciary duties in connection with their adoption of an unusually
onerous poison pill or shareholder rights plan.
On March 30, 2020, the Board announced that it had unilaterally
adopted a highly aggressive version of a "Poison Pill" shareholder
rights plan. The Plaintiff contends that the combination of a low
10% trigger and a vague and grossly overbroad definition of
"Acting-in-Concert" in AAR's Poison Pill exceeds any prior notion
of permissible exercise of director power.
According to the complaint, the Poison Pill is particularly
aggressive for two reasons. First, the Pill utilizes a 10%
triggering threshold (the "10% Trigger"), which, is a lower
threshold than is typical for poison pills and is likely to itself
chill proxy contests. Second, the Pill also contains broad and
facially unmanageable "aggregation" and "acting in concert"
provisions (the "Wolfpack" provisions), which go far beyond the
aggregation provisions previously approved in the context of rights
plans. In concert with the aggressive 10% Trigger, these Wolfpack
provisions are so draconian as to be highly coercive and even
effectively preclusive as the provisions severely hobble or shut
down the ability of any stockholder or group of shareholders to
seek to influence the direction of the Company.
AAR Corp. supplies aftermarket products and services to the global
aviation and aerospace industry. The Company purchases, sells, and
leases new and used commercial jet aircraft, as well as leases a
variety of new, overhauled, and repaired engines and engine
products for the aviation aftermarket.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 364-3601
- and -
Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
Thomas G. James, Esq.
Jacqueline Ma, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
- and -
Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
David F.E. Tejtel, Esq.
FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
Bedford Hills, NY 10507
Telephone: (888) 529-1108
- and -
Richard Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (484) 324-6800
ABOFF'S INC: Filippone Alleges Discrimination, Abrupt Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL FILIPPONE, on behalf of himself, individually, and all
other persons similarly situated v. ABOFF'S, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-04393 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged discrimination and retaliation in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York
State Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly paid
manual worker in the position of a driver from in March 2017 until
his termination on October 23, 2019.
According to the complaint, while he was employed with the
Defendant in April 2019, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with and
suffered from colon cancer, which constitutes a disability under
the ADA an NYSHRL. Consequently, he began his medical leave on May
7, 2019, to undergo treatment. Although he kept updating the
Defendant about the status of his disability, however, the General
Manager criticized him for his certain absences despite knowing
that his absences are directly related to his disability and
medical treatment. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff was terminated by
the Defendant on October 23, 2019, an hour later when he remind the
Defendant about his return to work date on November 4, 2019.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has committed
discrimination and retaliation against him and terminated his
employment due to his disability in violation of the ADA and
NYSHRL, thereby, causing him to suffer damages for monetary and/or
economic harm, loss of past and future income, and the loss of
employment-related benefits that he would have otherwise received.
Aboff's, Inc., is a retailer of paint and painting supplies for
commercial and residential properties with more than 30 stores in
Nassau and Suffolk counties in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Barnhorn, Esq.
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
825 Veterans Highway, Suite B
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Tel: (631) 257-5588
ACER THERAPEUTICS: May Face Damages Under Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP disclosed that Acer
Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ: ACER) may face damages caused by a
pending securities class action. Acer Therapeutics is a
pharmaceutical company that focuses on the acquisition,
development, and commercialization of therapies for rare and
life-threatening diseases.
Shareholder Class Action Against Acer Therapeutics Inc. (ACER)
Survives Motion to Dismiss
According to the complaint, Acer misrepresented that a conversation
it had with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regarding its
drug candidate EDVISO. Acer claimed publicly that "the FDA agreed
that additional clinical development is not needed" for the drug.
Acer went on to raise almost $59 million in two offerings based on
this information. However, contrary to Acer's public comments, the
FDA had not approved the new drug application for EDVISO. In June
2019, when Acer revealed that the FDA needed it to "conduct an
adequate and well-controlled trial" to determine EDVISO's effects
in patients, Acer's stock price fell $15.16 per share, or over 75%,
to close at $4.12 per share. On June 16, 2020, U.S. District Court
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied in part Acer's motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims, stating that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged
securities fraud claims. On July 21, 202, Judge Woods subsequently
denied Defendants' motion to reconsider his decision, paving the
way for litigation to proceed.
Acer Therapeutics Inc. (ACER) Shareholders Have Legal Options
Contact us to learn more:
Lauren Levi
(800) 350-6003
llevi@robbinsllp.com
Robbins LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights
law. To be notified if a class action against Acer settles or to
receive free alerts about companies engaged in wrongdoing, sign up
for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
AFFINITY FEDERAL: Abramson Files Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Affinity Federal
Credit Union. The case is styled as Jenny Abramson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Affinity Federal Credit Union, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-13104-MAS-ZNQ (D.N.J., Sept. 23, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed pursuant to the Diversity-Other Contract.
Affinity Federal Credit Union is a financial institution.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Peter Roddy, Esq.
Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, PA
90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
Box 10
Woodbridge, NJ 07095
Tel: (732) 855-6402
Email: kroddy@wilentz.com
AMERICAN AUTO: Carbonelli Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER CARBONELLI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERICAN AUTO REPAIR COVERAGE, LLC d/b/a
AMERICAN AUTO REPAIR, Case No. 0:20-cv-61760-RS (S.D. Fla., Aug.
28, 2020), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls.
American Auto Repair Coverage, LLC, d/b/a American Auto Repair,
provides automobile warranty services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 524-2820
Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
E-mail: seth@epllc.com
AUSTRALIA: Tasmania Faces Class Action Over Ashley Youth Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------
Loretta Lohberger, writing for ABC, reports that Nick* was 17 years
old when he was detained at the Ashley Youth Detention Centre
(AYDC) in the early 2000s.
He said he had "a night on the piss" that went wrong.
"It was a robbery where I probably shouldn't have been and I just
got nabbed for it and put in Ashley," he said.
Nick, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was detained on remand
at the AYDC for two months.
When he was sentenced, the judge asked why Nick was even taken to
the AYDC. His sentence was non-custodial.
Nick said the two months he spent at the AYDC had a "massive
impact" on his life.
"I don't even like to go into it. It's just stuff I'd prefer not to
remember. I don't wish it on my worst enemy," Nick said.
Nick was on a very different path before he went to the AYDC. He
was working full-time, playing football and said he was looking
forward to a good life and a good career.
"When I got out, shit went bad. I turned to drugs, I've been in and
out of jail still to this day," he said.
"[I] turned to pills, ice, whatever I could get my hands on -- just
to stop me thinking about things that happened [at the AYDC].
Nick will join a class action being prepared against the Tasmanian
Government alleging abuse of detainees at the AYDC -- formerly
Ashley Home for Boys -- near Deloraine, in the state's north.
Lawyer Sebastian Buscemi from Angela Sdrinis Legal is preparing the
claims.
He said he decided to launch a class action after interviews with
more than 100 former AYDC detainees, and children who were housed
there because foster homes could not be found for them. Most were
at the centre sometime between 1980 and 2010.
The action will focus on three main allegations: excessive use of
isolation, excessive strip searching, and the use of what is
thought to be a scabies cream being applied to children's genitals,
when the cream was not suitable for such an application.
"The volume of people we're hearing these allegations from would
suggest that a lot of these practices were extremely widespread
especially over those periods of time," Mr Buscemi said.
It will be alleged the government breached its duty of care because
the practices were allegedly taking place despite policies, laws
and regulations put in place to stop them.
"We've seen early government reports from 1925, 1953 highlighting
problems [at the AYDC] that were repeatedly highlighted right up
until 2016."
Human Services Minister Roger Jaensch said the Government would let
the potential legal matter run its course.
"What I can be clear about, is that that's dealing with a period of
history up to about 10 years ago," Mr Jaensch said.
"These days the Ashley Youth Detention Centre is part of a
statewide therapeutic youth justice system, and we are taking a lot
of trouble in investing considerable resources in converting it
into a fit-for-purpose therapeutic youth justice facility."
Isolation, strip searching leading to 'further crime'
Mr Buscemi said isolation was meant to be used as a last resort and
for as short a time as possible.
"We've found that children were placed in isolation for weeks, in
some instances months," he said.
"Isolation is something that will really damage even an adult with
a very good history of mental health.
"So a protracted period of isolation for a vulnerable child is
going to cause significant psychological long-term problems and
trauma — same as being strip searched, which can be very
humiliating, especially the way it's been alleged they were often
carried out."
Mr Buscemi alleged the use of isolation and strip searching had led
to a variety of psychological problems for former detainees.
Mr Buscemi said it was difficult to know how many people might join
the class action.
He said he expects to file the action in the Supreme Court in
Hobart this year. [GN]
BAKE ME A WISH: Romero Allges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------
Bake Me a Wish LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Josue
Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Bake Me a Wish LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07860
(S.D. N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020).
Bake Me a Wish LLC is an online retailer for gourmet gifts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Manipulates Metal Futures, Lamborn Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR H. LAMBORN, JR., on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA; SCOTIA CAPITAL (USA)
INC.; SCOTIA HOLDINGS (US) INC.; THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA TRUST
COMPANY OF NEW YORK; COREY FLAUM; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No.
3:20-cv-13035-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., Sept. 22, 2020), arises from the
illegal conduct of the Defendants in manipulating gold, silver,
platinum, and palladium futures and options contracts in violation
of the Commodity Exchange Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants manipulated the prices
of precious metals derivatives that are traded on the New York
Mercantile Exchange and the Commodity Exchange, Inc. by "spoofing,"
wherein the trader Defendants placed orders for a contract and then
quickly removed those orders in an effort to infect the market with
false information about supply and demand. The Defendants' spoofing
created artificial prices that benefitted their own positions at
the expense of the Plaintiff and the Class.
The unlawful conduct and manipulation drew the attention of the
U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission ("CFTC"). On August 19, 2020, Bank of Nova
Scotia entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the DOJ
and a settlement with the CFTC, agreeing to pay a combined $60.4
million in criminal fines as it acknowledged that its traders
spoofed the precious metals derivatives markets thousands of times
during the Class Period.
The Plaintiff says he transacted in COMEX Gold Futures, COMEX
Silver Futures, and options on those futures contracts throughout
the Class Period at artificial prices proximately caused by the
Defendants' unlawful manipulation.
Bank of Nova Scotia is a Canadian banking company with its
headquarters in Toronto, Ontario. Scotia Capital (USA) Inc. is a
New York corporation and a registered broker and dealer in
securities with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Scotia Holdings (US) Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of BNS
Investments Inc. based in Atlanta, Georgia. The Bank of Nova Scotia
Trust Company of New York is a trust company regulated by the New
York State Department of Financial Services and the Federal Reserve
Bank of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
ltaylor@carellabyrne.com
- and -
George A. Zelcs, Esq.
Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
Ryan Z. Cortazar, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY LLC
205 North Michigan Plaza, Suite 1950
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 641-9750
Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
rewing@koreintillery.com
rcortazar@koreintillery.com
- and -
Jamie L. Boyer, Esq.
Carol L. O'Keefe, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY LLC
505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-4844
Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
E-mail: jboyer@koreintillery.com
cokeefe@koreintillery.com
- and -
Louis F. Burke, Esq.
LOUIS F. BURKE PC
460 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 682-1700
E-mail: lburke@lfblaw.com
BANNER BANK: Bowers Sues Over Improper Assessment of Bank Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARY ELLEN BOWERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BANNER BANK, Case No. 4:20-cv-05151-AB (E.D.
Wash., Aug. 28, 2020), is an action over the Defendant's improper
assessment and collection of two or more $30 fees on a single item
returned for insufficient funds in breach of contracts and its duty
of good faith and fair dealing, and the Washington Consumer
Protection Act.
Unbeknownst to consumers, each time the Defendant reprocesses an
electronic payment transaction, ACH transaction, or check for
payment after it was initially rejected for insufficient funds, the
Defendant chooses to treat it as a new and unique item that is
subject to yet another fee, according to the complaint. But the
Defendant's Account Documents never disclose that this
counterintuitive and deceptive result could be possible and, in
fact, promise the opposite.
Banner Bank provides commercial banking services. The Bank offers
savings account, debit and credit cards, loans, mobile banking, and
other related products and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
James Bulthuis, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
jbulthuis@tousley.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Martin F. Schubert, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
martys@bsjfirm.com
- and -
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
THE JOHNSON FIRM
610 President Clinton Ave., Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 372-1300
E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com
BARNABAS HEALTH: McGowan Sues Over Breaches of Duties Under ERISA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCIA L. MCGOWAN and TRACI M. SINGER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. BARNABAS HEALTH, INC., THE
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF RWJBARNABAS HEALTH, INC., THE DEFINED
CONTRIBUTION PLANS AND ERISA ADMINISTRATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF RWJBARNABAS HEALTH, INC., SYSTEM and JOHN
DOES 1-30, Case No. 2:20-cv-13119-KM-ESK (D.N.J., Sept. 23, 2020),
is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 against the Defendants for breaches of their fiduciary
duties.
The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative class period, the
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plans, namely the RWJBarnabas
Health 401(k) Savings Plan and the RWJBarnabas Health 403(b)
Savings Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA, breached the
duties they owed to the Plans, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other
participants of the Plans by, inter alia, (1) failing to
objectively and adequately review the Plans' investment portfolio
with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in
terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain funds in the Plans
despite the availability of identical or materially similar
investment options with lower costs and/or better performance
histories.
The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plans, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of 29 U.S.C.
Section 1104, the suit says.
Barnabas Health, Inc. describes itself as "New Jersey's largest
integrated health care delivery system, providing treatment and
services to more than three million patients each year."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
- and -
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com
BERKSHIRE HILLS: SI Financial Shareholder Withdraws Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the class action suit filed against SI Financial
Group, Inc., has withdrawn his appeal, with prejudice, from the
trial court's dismissal of his claims. According to Berkshire
Hills Bancorp, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020,
this effectively terminates the litigation.
On February 9, 2019, the Company received notice of a lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
by a purported SI Financial Group, Inc. ("SI Financial")
shareholder.
On June 26, 2019, the Company received notice of a verified
consolidated amended complaint in this action, which was filed
after consolidation and elimination of two additional suits filed
in the same Court by other former shareholders of SI Financial.
The lawsuit purports to be filed as a putative class action lawsuit
against SI Financial, the individual former members of the SI
Financial board of directors, and the Company, in connection with
the Company's announced intention to acquire and merge with SI
Financial. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly
situated SI Financial shareholders, generally alleges that the
registration statement filed with the SEC on February 4, 2019
contains materially misleading omissions or misrepresentations in
violation of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and that the individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to SI Financial
shareholders and were unjustly enriched by the subject merger
transaction. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, unspecified
damages, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Of note, SI
Financial merged with and into the Company on May 17, 2019, and
ceased to have any further independent legal existence at that
time. The Company and the individual Defendants deny the
allegations contained in the verified consolidated amended
complaint and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit.
On July 26, 2019, the Company and the individual Defendants jointly
filed a motion to dismiss all claims in this litigation, which is
still pending before the court.
On April 16, 2020, the court issued a ruling granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss all counts of the Complaint. The
Plaintiff's claims under federal law, including Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder,
were dismissed with prejudice, while certain state court claims
under Connecticut law were dismissed without prejudice.
On May 21, 2020, the Plaintiff filed notice of his intention to
appeal the trial court's dismissal of his claims to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, but then
subsequently withdrew his appeal with prejudice on June 8, 2020,
thereby effectively terminating this litigation.
Berkshire Hills said, "There are no other active cases proceeding
against the Company or the individual Defendants in regard to the
SI Financial merger."
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. operates as a bank holding company
for Berkshire Bank that provides various banking products and
services. It offers various deposit accounts, including demand
deposit, NOW, regular savings, money market savings, time
certificates of deposit, and retirement deposit accounts; and
loans, such as commercial real estate, commercial and industrial,
consumer, and residential mortgage loans. Berkshire Hills Bancorp,
Inc. was founded in 1846 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.
BLACKBERRY LTD: Class Certification Bid in SDNY Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 24, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2020, that plaintiffs' motion for
class certification is pending.
On March 14, 2014, the four putative U.S. class actions were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, and on May 27, 2014, a consolidated amended class
action complaint was filed.
On March 13, 2015, the Court issued an order granting the Company's
motion to dismiss. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration and for leave to file an amended complaint on
November 13, 2015.
On August 24, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the District Court order dismissing the complaint,
but vacated the order denying leave to amend and remanded to the
District Court for further proceedings in connection with the
plaintiffs' request for leave to amend. The Court granted the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend on September 13, 2017.
On September 29, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended class action complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"),
which added the Company's former Chief Legal Officer as a
defendant. The Court denied the motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint on March 19, 2018.
On January 4, 2019, the Court issued an order placing the case on
its suspense calendar but allowed fact and expert discovery to
continue.
On August 2, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation that the Court grant the defendants' motion for
judgment on the pleadings dismissing the claims of additional
plaintiffs Yong M. Cho and Batuhan Ulug.
On September 24, 2019, the District Court Judge accepted the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation and dismissed the claims of Cho
and Ulug against all defendants.
On October 17, 2019, Cho and Ulug filed a Notice of Appeal. Cho and
Ulug filed their opening brief on February 20, 2020, the Company
filed its opposition brief on May 21, 2020, and Cho and Ulug filed
their reply brief on June 11, 2020.
Fact discovery was completed on January 31, 2020, and expert
discovery is scheduled to be completed by November 13, 2020.
The Court removed the case from its suspense calendar on May 29,
2020. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on June 8,
2020, the defendants filed oppositions on August 10, 2020, and the
plaintiffs' reply was due September 28, 2020.
No other dates have been set.
BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments around the world. The
company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150
million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages
artificial intelligence ("AI") and machine learning to deliver
innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data
privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security
management, encryption, and embedded systems.
BLACKBERRY LTD: Discovery Ongoing in Ontario Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 24, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing
in the class action suit pending before an Ontario Court.
On July 23, 2014, the plaintiffs in the putative Ontario class
action filed a motion for certification and leave to pursue
statutory misrepresentation claims.
On November 16, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued
an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a
statutory claim for misrepresentation. On December 2, 2015, the
Company filed a notice of motion seeking leave to appeal this
ruling.
On January 22, 2016, the Court postponed the hearing on the
plaintiffs' certification motion to an undetermined date after
asking the Company to file a motion to dismiss the claims of the
U.S. plaintiffs for forum non conveniens. Before that motion was
heard, the parties agreed to limit the class to purchasers who
reside in Canada or purchased on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
On November 15, 2018, the Court denied the Company's motion for
leave to appeal the order granting the plaintiffs leave to file a
statutory claim for misrepresentation.
On February 5, 2019, the Court entered an order certifying a class
comprised persons (a) who purchased BlackBerry common shares
between March 28, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and still held at
least some of those shares as of September 20, 2013, and (b) who
acquired those shares on a Canadian stock exchange or acquired
those shares on any other stock exchange and were a resident of
Canada when the shares were acquired. Notice of class certification
was published on March 6, 2019.
The Company filed its Statement of Defence on April 1, 2019, and
discovery is proceeding.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments around the world. The
company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150
million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages
artificial intelligence ("AI") and machine learning to deliver
innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data
privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security
management, encryption, and embedded systems.
BLACKBERRY LTD: Employment Class Suit in Ontario Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 24, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend an employment class action suit filed before the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice.
On February 15, 2017, a putative employment class action was filed
against the Company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
The Statement of Claim alleges that actions the Company took when
certain of its employees decided to accept offers of employment
from Ford Motor Company of Canada amounted to a wrongful
termination of the employees' employment with the Company.
The claim seeks (i) an unspecified quantum of statutory,
contractual, or common law termination entitlements; (ii) punitive
or breach of duty of good faith damages of CAD$20,000,000, or such
other amount as the Court finds appropriate, (iii) pre- and post-
judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) such
other relief as the Court deems just.
The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class
action on May 27, 2019. The Company commenced a motion for leave to
appeal the certification order on June 11, 2019.
The Court denied the motion for leave to appeal on September 17,
2019.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments around the world. The
company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150
million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages
artificial intelligence ("AI") and machine learning to deliver
innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data
privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security
management, encryption, and embedded systems.
BLACKBERRY LTD: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set on Oct. 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 24, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2020, that a final settlement
approval hearing is scheduled for October 20, 2020.
On February 4, 2019, a putative employment class action and
California Private Attorney General Act claim was filed against the
Company in the San Joaquin County Superior Court alleging the
Company (i) failed to provide itemized wage statements in violation
of California Labor Code Section 226(a); and (ii) failed to pay all
wages due at termination in violation of California Labor Code
Section 201.
The complaint seeks statutory penalties, injunctive relief,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.
The Company filed its answer denying the allegations in the
complaint on March 18, 2019. On August 22, 2019, the Company filed
a Motion for Summary Adjudication of the named plaintiff's wage
statement claims.
The Court denied the motion on January 21, 2020.
The parties entered into a settlement agreement on June 4, 2020.
The Court granted preliminary settlement approval and certified the
proposed class on July 16, 2020.
The final settlement approval hearing is scheduled for October 20,
2020.
BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments around the world. The
company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150
million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages
artificial intelligence ("AI") and machine learning to deliver
innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data
privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security
management, encryption, and embedded systems.
CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid to Dismiss New Jersey Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Campbell Soup Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 24, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended August 2, 2020, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss the class action suit entitled, In re Campbell Soup
Company Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS, is
still pending.
On January 7, 2019, three purported shareholder class action
lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey were consolidated under the caption, In re
Campbell Soup Company Securities Litigation, Civ. No.
1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS (the Action).
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System was appointed
lead plaintiff in the Action and, on March 1, 2019, filed an
amended consolidated complaint.
The company, Denise Morrison (the company's former President and
Chief Executive Officer), and Anthony DiSilvestro (the company's
former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer) are
defendants in the Action.
The consolidated complaint alleges that, in public statements
between July 19, 2017 and May 17, 2018, the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted material
information about the company's business, operations, customer
relationships, and prospects, specifically with regard to the
Campbell Fresh segment.
The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.
On April 30, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.
Campbell said, "We are vigorously defending against the Action."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Campbell Soup Company, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures
and markets branded food and beverage products. It operates through
three segments: Americas Simple Meals and Beverages, Global
Biscuits and Snacks, and Campbell Fresh. Campbell Soup Company was
founded in 1869 and is headquartered in Camden, New Jersey.
CAPITA SNOWBOARDS: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Angeles Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CAPITA SNOWBOARDS LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07690-GBD
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendant under
the Americans with Disabilities Act for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff claims that when she visited the Defendant's website,
http://www.capitasnowboarding.com/,on multiple occasions to make a
purchase, she encountered a multiple access barriers which denied
her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual.
The Defendant's website allegedly lack of a variety of features and
accommodations which effectively barred the Plaintiff from being
able to determine what specific products were offered for sale.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
is dependent of screen-reading software to read website content
using her computer.
Capita Snowboards LLC is an outdoor sports gear company that owns
and operates the Web site.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David P. Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: dforce@steinsacklegal.com
CARIB INC: Pena Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE PENA, LUIS HERNANDEZ, VICTORINO MENDEZ DELA CRUZ, VANESA
LARGO, MIGUEL HERNANDEZ, LUIS ALMONTE, RUFINO PERALTO, PABLO
GONZALEZ, RICARDO GARCIA, ALEJANDRO VALERJO, ESDRAS MORALES, ANIBAL
SIGARAN and KARLA CALDERON, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. CARIB INC. d/b/a HAVANA NY RESTAURANT & BAR,
HNY INC. d/b/a HAVANA NY RESTAURANT & BAR, and ABBAI TAGHAVITALAB,
Case No. 1:20-cv-07810 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2020), seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants knowingly and willfully
failed to pay them and other restaurant employees their lawfully
earned minimum wages, overtime compensation, and "spread of hours"
premium, in direct contravention of the FLSA and the NYLL. The
Defendants also fail to provide the Plaintiffs with a written wage
notice setting forth, among other things, their regular hourly rate
of pay, any tip credits taken against the statutory minimum wage,
and their corresponding overtime rate of pay.
Plaintiff Pena was employed by the Defendants to work as a
non-exempt cook and food preparer from 2012 until March 6, 2020.
Plaintiff Luis Hernandez was employed by the Defendants to work as
a non-exempt food runner from September 2016 until March 7, 2020.
Plaintiff Dela Cruz was employed by the Defendants to work as a
non-exempt food preparer/kitchen helper from 2009 until March 13,
2020.
Plaintiff Largo was employed by the Defendants to work as a
non-exempt bartender from December 2018 until March 2019. Plaintiff
Miguel Hernandez was employed by the Defendants to work as a
non-exempt busboy for their closed restaurant from 2009 until
February 2015; and as a non-exempt food runner for the Defendants'
current restaurant from September 2016 until March 15, 2020.
Plaintiff Almonte was employed by the Defendants to work as a
nonexempt cook from October 29, 2016, until December 27, 2018.
Plaintiff Peralto was employed by the Defendants to work as a
nonexempt food preparer/kitchen helper from February 2013 until
February 2015, and again from September 2016 until April 2019.
Plaintiff Gonzalez was employed by the Defendants to work as a
nonexempt food runner from March 2017 until March 2019.
Plaintiff Garcia was employed by the Defendants to work as a
nonexempt bartender and waiter from September 2016 until February
2019; and again from August 2019 through September 2019; and again
from November 2019 through January 2020. Plaintiff Valerio was
employed by the Defendants to work as a non-exempt cook from 2011
through February 2015, and again from November 2016 until December
2018.
Plaintiff Morales was employed by the Defendants to work as a
nonexempt busboy, food runner, and bar back from February 2017
until February 2019. Plaintiff Sigaran was employed by the
Defendants to work as a nonexempt bartender from December 2016
until June 2019. Plaintiff Calderon was employed by the Defendants
to work as a nonexempt bartender from September 2016 through
September 2017.
Carib Inc. owns and operates a Cuban restaurant, doing business as
"Havana NY Restaurant & Bar" in New York City. HNY Inc. formerly
owned and operated a Cuban restaurant, doing business as "Havana NY
Restaurant & Bar" in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
10 Grand Central
155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com
CAVENDER'S BOOT: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
DILENIA PAGUADA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CAVENDER'S BOOT CITY OF TEXARKANA INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-07699-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought against
the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act relating to its blind-inaccessible Web site,
http://www.cavenders.com/.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and
a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA.
According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff used a
screen-reading software when she visited the Defendant's website in
September 2020 to browse and potentially make a purchase, she was
denied a user experience similar to that of a sighted individual.
The Defendant's website allegedly lack of a variety of features and
accommodations, which effectively barred the Plaintiff from being
able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of Defendant's public
accommodation.
Because the Defendant allegedly failed to comply with the WCAG2.1
Guidelines, which provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired
consumers with equal access to the Website, the Defendant has
engaged in acts of intentional discrimination.
Cavender's Boot City of Texarkana, Inc. is a clothing and apparel
company that owns and operates the website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (929) 324-0717
E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces NIS100MM Class Action Over Tariffs
--------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. (NYSE: CEL) (TASE: CEL) (hereinafter: the
"Company") disclosed that a purported class action was filed
against the Company, alleging that the Company unlawfully raised
tariffs and therefore charged its customers for its services, in
violation of its license, applicable law and the agreement with its
customers. The amount claimed from the Company, if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action, was estimated by the plaintiff to be
approximately NIS100 million. At this preliminary stage, the
Company is unable to assess the lawsuit's chances of success.
About Cellcom Israel
Cellcom Israel Ltd., established in 1994, is a leading Israeli
communications group, providing a wide range of communications
services. Cellcom Israel is the largest Israeli cellular provider,
providing its approximately 2.747 million cellular subscribers (as
at March 31, 2020) with a broad range of services including
cellular telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for
its subscribers abroad, text and multimedia messaging, advanced
cellular content and data services and other value-added services
in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based on Cellcom
Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure. The Company
operates an LTE 4 generation network and an HSPA 3.5 Generation
network enabling advanced high speed broadband multimedia services,
in addition to GSM/GPRS/EDGE networks. Cellcom Israel offers
Israel's broadest and largest customer service infrastructure
including telephone customer service centers, retail stores, and
service and sale centers, distributed nationwide. Cellcom Israel
further provides OTT TV services, internet infrastructure and
connectivity services and international calling services, as well
as landline telephone services in Israel. Cellcom Israel's shares
are traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel
Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL). [GN]
CHHJ FRANCHISING: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Campbell Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LANDON CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CHHJ FRANCHISING L.L.C., Case No. 8:20-cv-02208 (M.D.
Fla., Sept. 18, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful
pay practice, including improper payment of overtime wages, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff began his employment with the Defendant on December
22, 2019, as a Sales Agent.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked more
than 40 hours in a workweek without being compensated for the time
performed in excess 40 hours at one and one-half times his regular
pay. Allegedly, the Defendant failed to include the Plaintiff's
commission in the calculation of his regular rate and regularly
adjusted Plaintiff's earned commissions to reduce the amount paid
to him.
CHHJ Franchising L.L.C. provides junk removal, local and long
distance full service moving and office relocation services,
including in home donation pickup services for non-profit partner
organizations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
Lutz, FL 33558
Tel: (727) 254-5255
Fax: (727) 483-7942
E-mail: wolfgang@fgbolaw.com
chris@fgbolaw.com
CLEARVIEW AI: Opposes Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Stay Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Street reports that Clearview AI, its founder Hoan Ton-That,
and Richard Schwartz filed a memorandum on Aug. 28 in the Northern
District of Illinois before Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman and
Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez in opposition to the plaintiff's
motion to reconsider a stay order. The defendants stated that the
court's decision to grant the stay was reasonable and consistent
with other cases.
Clearview AI was originally sued by David Mutnick in January, who
claimed that the company violated his and similarly situated
individuals' privacy through their facial recognition database.
They were accused of collecting images online without obtaining the
subject's permission to use their image in the database.
The court granted Clearview's motion to stay on August 21, waiting
for a decision from the Judicial Panel on the Multidistrict
Litigation (JPML) regarding the defendants' motion to transfer the
consolidated class-action to the Southern District of New York.
Afterward, the plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider, which
alleged that the defendants' motion to stay "did not include two
'critical facts.'" However, the defendants have challenged this
assertion, stating that the plaintiff "mischaracterizes both
'facts.'"
The plaintiffs argued that the motion to stay "omits that
Defendants' transfer motion before the JPML is not included on the
Panel's docket for its upcoming September 24, 2020 hearing session"
and that the "JPML will not address the motion until December 3,
2020 -- at the earliest." The defendants claimed that the
plaintiff's "prediction . . . is speculative and assumes the Panel
will elect to hold oral argument," however, the panel could address
the motion without an oral argument with adequate facts and
presented legal arguments. Moreover, an oral argument could be
added before the December hearing.
Clearview also pointed out that the plaintiff could submit a
statement to the Panel sharing these concerns, but the plaintiff
has not done so. The defendants added that "a stay of a few months
in order to avoid potentially inconsistent rulings as well as a
waste of party and judicial resources is entirely appropriate in
the context of a complex class action that may last for years."
The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants' motion "omits that they
have not sought a parallel stay of the New York Litigation and that
they do not intend to do so." The defendants stated that this is
false and they intend to ask Chief Judge McMahon to continue the
stay at an upcoming teleconference, as the parallel suits in New
York have already been held for three months.
Clearview argued that the plaintiffs in this litigation are "not
subject to any alleged ongoing harm." They claimed that the
plaintiff "has not and cannot credibly allege that his image is
even included in Clearview's database." Furthermore, Clearview
stated that even if the plaintiff's image is in the database he
"suffers no legally cognizable ongoing harm from this."
Additionally, Clearview argued that it is exempt from the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) because it is working with
law enforcement and other government agencies. Again, Clearview
claimed this illustrates that the plaintiff has not been harmed
like in Terkel. While the plaintiffs critiqued the defendants for
not pursuing a stay in the Thornley case, where a motion to remand
is fully briefed, Clearview noted that in the suit the plaintiff
did not seek a stay because it would raise an Article III standing
issue. Clearview claimed that it did not think the law supported a
stay in that specific suit.
Clearview also stated that a stay on the preliminary injunction
would "preserve judicial resources." Furthermore, Clearview claimed
that the parties' disagreement about BIPA highlighted the
complexity of the suit and why it would benefit from a stay. As a
result, Clearview stated that the court should deny the plaintiff's
motion to reconsider.
This is the latest activity in litigation against Clearview AI.
Previously, Clearview's motion to dismiss and motion to transfer in
this case were denied.
Clearview is represented by Jenner & Block LLP. The plaintiff is
represented by Loevy & Loevy. [GN]
COLUMBIA COLLECTION: Faces Brown TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EVITA BROWN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
COLUMBIA COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05575 (N.D.
Ill., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff began receiving calls to
her cellular telephone number from the Defendant sometime in 2019
in an attempt to contact a third party unknown to the Plaintiff for
the purpose of attempting to collect a debt in default. Despite the
fact that she did not provide the Defendant prior express consent
to place calls to her cellular telephone number by using an
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
voice, yet the Plaintiff received over 30 calls from the Defendant
and at least two materially identical voice messages on her
cellular telephone voicemail.
As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited calls, the Plaintiff
contends that she suffered actual harm, including invasion of
privacy, an intrusion into her life, and a private nuisance.
Columbia Collection Service, Inc. is a debt collector.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
Alexander Kruzyk, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
400 Congress Ave., Suite 1540
Austin, TX 78701
Tel: (561) 826-5477
E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com
akryuzyk@gdrlawfirm.com
COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS: Romero Asserts Breach of ADA
--------------------------------------------------
Commemorative Brands, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Commemorative Brands, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-07862 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020).
Commemorative Brands, Inc. manufactures and sells commemorative
jewelry and memorabilia. The Company offers class rings,
championship rings, consumer sports, family jewelry, diplomas, and
graduation announcements. Commemorative Brands serves customers
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Wellington Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELLEN WELLINGTON, individually, and on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated current and former employees v. CORECIVIC OF
TENNESSEE, LLC and CORECIVIC, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00815 (M.D.
Tenn., Sept. 22, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, including failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and other correctional officers overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid
correctional officer at the West Tennessee Detention Center in
Mason, Tennessee.
CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC, provides facilities support management
and consulting services, with its headquarters located at 5501
Virginia Way, in Brentwood, Tennessee. CoreCivic, Inc., owns and
manages private prisons and detention centers, with its
headquarters located in Brentwood.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
CURIO MANAGEMENT: Faces Smith Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE SMITH, on behalf of the State of California and aggrieved
employees v. CURIO MANAGEMENT, LLC and CURIO EMPLOYER, LLC, and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CV370665 (Cal. Super.,
Santa Clara Cty., Sept. 22, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for denial of proper payment of gratuities.
The Plaintiff also accuses the Defendants of failure to provide
timely and accurate wage statements, failure to pay all wages owed
during employment, and denial of payment for all wages owed
following separation from employment in violation of the Private
Attorneys General Act of California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff was employed as a service worker by the Defendants at
Juniper Hotel Cupertino from August 2019 to February 2020.
Curio Management, LLC, operates hotels and resorts in California,
with its principal place of business located in Virginia. Curio
Employer, LLC, operates hotels and resorts in California, with its
principal place of business located in Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
Kristabel Sandoval, 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
DANSKE BANK: Plumbers Fund Appeals Decisions in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 773 Pension Fund, et al.,
filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and
Order dated August 24, 2020, and Judgment dated August 24, 2020,
entered in the lawsuit entitled Plumbers & Steamfitters Local v.
Danske Bank A/S, Case No. 19-cv-235, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (New York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
The case is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers
of Danske Bank American Depositary Receipts between January 9,
2014, and October 23, 2018, inclusive. During the Class Period, the
Company was the largest financial institution in Denmark. It
conducted a large volume of financial business, including
transactions in the fields of asset management, investment,
pensions, mortgage finance, insurance, and real estate brokerage
and leasing, including with customers who reside or are domiciled
outside Denmark.
Between at least 2012 and March 2016, due to its lax controls and
its new Chief Executive Officer's drive to report outsized profits
at all costs, Danske Bank was facilitating money laundering through
its Estonian bank branch, according to the complaint. All the
while, its senior executives were ignoring the outcry of Estonian
financial regulators who stormed its Estonian Branch in 2014 and
sent Danske Bank a scathing 340-page report that listed a multitude
of violations--which the Company did not even bother to translate
for three years. Though a whistleblower brought the illegal
Estonian money laundering to the attention of the Company's senior
executives in December 2013, and Danish financial regulators had
been investigating the misconduct since at least 2014, Danske Bank
was intentionally less than forthcoming with the Danish financial
regulators investigating its misconduct and throughout the Class
Period was actively concealing the extent and severity of its
culpability from investors.
The appellate case is captioned as Plumbers & Steamfitters Local v.
Danske Bank A/S, Case No. 20-3231, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Boston Retirement System, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; and Teamsters Local 237
Additional Security Benefit Fund and Teamsters Local 237
Supplemental Fund for Housing Authority Employees, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com
Defendants-Appellees Thomas F. Borgen, Henrik Ramlau-Hansen, Jacob
Aarup-Andersen, Ole Andersen, and Danske Banks, A/S are represented
by:
Edmund Polubinski, III, Esq.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 450-4695
E-mail: edmund.polubinski@davispolk.com
- and -
Daniel J. Kramer, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 373-3000
E-mail: dkramer@paulweiss.com
- and -
Brian T. Frawley, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 558-4000
E-mail: frawleyb@sullcrom.com
- and -
Jonathan R. Tuttle, Esq.
DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 383-8124
E-mail: jrtuttle@debevoise.com
- and -
Bruce E. Yannett, Esq.
DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
919 3rd Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 909-6495
E-mail: beyannett@debevoise.com
DIAMONDPEAK HOLDINGS: Di Donato Sues Over Merger With Lordstown
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY DI DONATO, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. DIAMONDPEAK HOLDINGS CORP.; DAVID T.
HAMAMOTO; MARK A. WALSH; ANDREW RICHARDSON; STEVEN R. HASH; and
JUDITH A. HANNAWAY, Case No. 654151/2020 (N.Y., Sup., Aug. 28,
2020), is brought for breaches of fiduciary duty as a result of the
Defendants' efforts to sell the Company to Lordstown Motors Corp.,
through its wholly-owned subsidiary DPL Merger Sub Corp., as a
result of an unfair process for an unfair price.
DiamondPeak is a special purpose acquisition company, or "SPAC," an
entity that is formed strictly to raise capital through an initial
public offering ("IPO") for the purpose of acquiring an existing
company, and merging with it to take that entity public. Lordstown
will merge with the Company, via a reverse merger where, when
completed, existing Lordstown shareholders will own the vast
majority, or 78%, of the go-forward company, by raising $675
million of gross proceeds from DiamondPeak shareholders to finance
a portion of the purchase price, totaling a combined company
valuation of approximately $1.6 billion (the "Proposed
Transaction"). DiamondPeak public stockholders will own only
approximately 14.5% of the surviving entity.
The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in an
August 3, 2020 filing with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") on Form 8-K attaching the definitive
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Under the
terms of the Merger Agreement, DiamondPeak will merge into
Lordstown and cease to exist, forming one publicly traded entity
combined with the investors in Lordstown, significantly diluting
DiamondPeak investors' share of the combined company, the Plaintiff
asserts.
According to the complaint, the Defendants caused to be filed with
the SEC the materially deficient Preliminary Proxy on August 24,
2020, in an effort to solicit stockholders to vote their
DiamondPeak shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction. The
Preliminary Proxy is materially deficient and deprives DiamondPeak
stockholders of the information they need to make an intelligent,
informed and rational decision of whether to vote their shares in
favor of the Proposed Transaction. The Preliminary Proxy omits and
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(a) the sales process leading up to the Proposed Transaction; (b)
the financial projections for Lordstown, which should have been
provided to the Company's financial advisor the Goldman Sachs & Co.
LLC ("Goldman") for use in its respective financial valuations; and
(c) financial valuation analyses, if any, that were provided by the
Company's financial advisor, Goldman.
DiamondPeak Holdings Corp. operates as a special purpose
acquisition company. The Company specializes in effecting a merger,
stock exchange, acquisition, and reorganization. DiamondPeak
Holdings serves clients in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan J. Smith, Esq.
BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
240 Mineola Boulevard
Mineola, NY 11501
Telephone: (516)741-4977
Facsimile (561)741-0626
DIME COMMUNITY: Parshall Balks at Proposed Sale to Bridge Bancorp
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. DIME COMMUNITY BANCSHARES, INC., VINCENT F. PALAGIANO,
MICHAEL P. DEVINE, KENNETH J. MAHON, ROSEMARIE CHEN, STEVEN D.
COHN, PATRICK E. CURTIN, KATHLEEN M. NELSON, JOSEPH J. PERRY, KEVIN
STEIN, and BARBARA G. KOSTER, Case No. 1:20-cv-01279-UNA (D. Del.,
Sept. 23, 2020), is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of
Dime alleging that the Defendants issued misleading statement in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Dime will be acquired by
Bridge Bancorp, Inc.
According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a Form S-4
Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on September 14, 2020, in connection with the proposed transaction
announced on July 1, 2020, pursuant to which Dime Community
Bancshares, Inc. will be acquired by Bridge Bancorp, Inc.
The Registration Statement allegedly omits material information
regarding the analyses performed by Dime's financial advisor,
Raymond James & Associates, Inc., where it fails to disclose (i)
total assets; (ii) gross loans; (iii) total deposits; (iv)
non-interest bearing deposits; (v) tangible common equity; (vi)
last twelve months core net income; (vii) estimated 2020 net
income; and (viii) estimated 2021 net income. The Registration
Statement also fails to disclose the amount of compensation Raymond
James has received or will receive for: (i) serving as joint
book-running manager for Dime's public offering of preferred stock
in January 2020 and sole book-running manager for Dime's public
offering of preferred stock in June 2020; (ii) serving as agent for
a share purchase program of Dime; and (iii) engaging in fixed
income trading activity with BNB Bank.
Dime Community Bancshares, Inc. is the holding company for Dime
Community Bank, a community-oriented financial institution
providing financial services and loans for multi-family housing
within its market areas, in addition to loans to mid-size and small
businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
E-mail: rm@maniskas.com
DIRECT CHECKS: Romero Suit Asserts Breach of ADA
------------------------------------------------
Direct Checks Unlimited Sales, Inc. is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Direct Checks Unlimited Sales,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07857 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 23,
2020).
Direct Checks Unlimited, LLC was founded in 1997. The Company's
line of business includes the manufacturing of blankbooks and
looseleaf binders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
DRAPER AND KRAMER: Vasquez Sues Over Loan Officers' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. DRAPER AND KRAMER MORTGAGE CORP., Case No.
3:20-cv-06635 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 22, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
California Labor Code provisions, Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders, and the Unfair Business Practices Act.
The lawsuit is brought for labor-related claims, including denial
of proper payment of all wages and commissions to the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated loan officers, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, and failure to reimburse them for all
necessary business expenses incurred in performing their job
duties.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a loan officer in
California from September 4, 2018, through July 23, 2020.
Draper and Kramer Mortgage Corp. is the residential mortgage
division of full-service real estate and financial firm Draper and
Kramer, with its principal executive offices located in Chicago,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy P. Rumberger, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY P. RUMBERGER
1339 Bay Street
Alameda, CA 94501
Telephone: (510) 841-5500
Facsimile: (510) 521-9700
E-mail: tim@rumbergerlaw.com
- and –
Kevin R. Allen, Esq.
ALLEN ATTORNEY GROUP
3172 Camino Colorados
Lafayette, CA 94549
Telephone: (925) 695-4913
Facsimile: (925) 334-7477
E-mail: Kevin@allenattorneygroup.com
DREX CORP: Fails to Provide OT Pay & Wage Notices, Naranjo Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CARLOS NARANJO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. DREX CORPORATION, MARCUS HANNICK and MICHAEL
DURCAN, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:20-cv-04462 (E.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 22, 2020), arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor
practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' failed to pay the
Plaintiff overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 each week, and
to provide the Plaintiff with an annual wage notice or when his
wage rate(s) changed, or wage statements along with his weekly wage
payments.
The Plaintiff was employed as a laborer at the Defendants'
construction company from January 1, 2017, through August 27,
2020.
Drex Corporation, which initially started in 2005 as Nua LLC and
has since expanded, provides specialized construction services,
including but not limited to support of excavation, pile drilling,
dewatering and foundation work, throughout the New York City
area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 385-9700
E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com
graham@peltongraham.com
EAGLE BANCORP: Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Nix SDNY Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on a motion to dismiss the class action suit filed against
Eagle Bancorp, Inc. before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York has been completed and the motion is under
consideration by the court, according to Eagle Bancorp, Inc.'s Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.
On July 24, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, its current and former President and Chief
Executive Officer and its current and former Chief Financial
Officer, on behalf of persons similarly situated, who purchased or
otherwise acquired Company securities between March 2, 2015 and
July 17, 2019.
On November 7, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel in that matter, and on January 21, 2020, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint on behalf of the same class against the
same defendants as well as the Company's former General Counsel.
The plaintiff alleges that certain of the Company's 10-K reports
and other public statements and disclosures contained materially
false or misleading statements about, among other things, the
effectiveness of its internal controls and related party loans, in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 20 (a) of that act, resulting
in injury to the purported class members as a result of the decline
in the value of the Company's common stock following the disclosure
of increased legal expenses associated with certain government
investigations involving the Company. The Company intends to
defend vigorously against the claims asserted.
On April 2, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
On May 15, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
defendants' motion to dismiss, and on June 15, 2020, the defendants
filed their reply brief.
Briefing on the defendants' motion is now complete, and the motion
is under consideration by the court.
Eagle Bancorp, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for
EagleBank that provides commercial and consumer banking services
primarily in the United States. It accepts business and personal
checking, NOW, tiered savings, and money market accounts, as well
as individual retirement, certificate of deposit, and investment
sweep accounts; and time deposits. Eagle Bancorp, Inc. was founded
in 1997 and is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.
ENLIVANT MASTER: Underpays Nursing and Care Staff, Braxton Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KANIKA BRAXTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ENLIVANT MASTER MANAGEMENT CO. LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-02111-SO (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 18, 2020), is brought against
the Defendant to challenge its alleged unlawful pay practice and
policies, including underpayment of overtime compensation, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a licensed
practical nurse (LPN) between November 2019 and April 2020, alleges
that the Defendant classified her and other similarly situated
nursing and care staff employees as non-exempt employees. Moreover,
the Defendant failed to provide meal periods to its nursing and
care staff employees, including the Plaintiff, because they were
required to perform work during meal periods on average 4 to 5
times each week. As a result, they were denied significant amounts
of overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all of the hours they worked over 40 in a
workweek, the Plaintiff alleges.
The Defendant has also allegedly failed to keep records of all the
hours worked each workday and the total hours worked each workweek
by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated nursing and care
staff employees.
Enlivant Master Management Co. LLC operates over 230 senior living
facilities throughout the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
920 Rockefeller Building
614 W. Superior Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113
Tel: 216-696-5000
Fax: 216-696-7005
E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
EOG RESOURCES: Wake Energy LLC Files Suit in Wyoming
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EOG Resources Inc.
The case is styled as Wake Energy LLC, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EOG Resources Inc,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00183-KHR (D. Wyo., Sept. 23, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed over Diversity-Contract Default.
EOG Resources, Inc. is a company engaged in hydrocarbon
exploration. It is organized in Delaware and headquartered in the
Heritage Plaza building in Houston, Texas. The company is ranked
181st on the Fortune 500. The company was named Enron Oil & Gas
Company before its separation from Enron in 1999.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard A Erb , Jr, Esq.
222 South Gillette Avenue, Suite 310
P.O. Box 36
Gillette, WY 82717
Tel: (307) 682-0215
Fax: (307) 682-1339
Email: Rick@rickerb.com
FACEBOOK INC: Locke Ford Discuss $650M BIPA Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Perdew, Esq., and Tara Trifon, Esq., of Locke Lord LLP, in
an article for JDSupra, report that on July 23, 2020, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California signaled
that a $650 million settlement of claims against Facebook, Inc. for
alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act ("BIPA") would likely be approved. This came a month after the
judge strongly rejected a proposed $550 million settlement as
insufficient. The settlement -- estimated to pay each class member
between $200 and $400 -- is record-breaking in amount even though
it is still significantly below the statutory damages of $1,000 and
$5,000 provided by BIPA. In addition to the settlement amount, the
Facebook litigation, and the court's anticipated decision, will
likely provide a roadmap for other consumer-privacy class actions
in the future, whether under BIPA, the California Consumer Privacy
Act ("CCPA"), or other similar statutes.
Plaintiffs claimed Facebook violated BIPA by creating facial
templates from scanned photos.
The plaintiffs' claims arose from Facebook's use of the "Tag
Suggestions" feature, which used facial recognition software to
scan uploaded photos and create a template of people's faces.
Facebook used the templates to identify individuals in other photos
and suggest that a user "tag" that person, i.e., create a link to
their Facebook profile.
The complaint, filed in 2015, alleged that the "Tag Suggestions"
program violated BIPA's notice-and-consent requirement. See 740
ILCS 14/15(a) and (b) (prohibiting private entities from obtaining
or using an individual's biometric information without providing
notice and obtaining written consent). The plaintiffs did not
allege any actual harm, like the theft or misuse of their personal
information by a third-party, but instead claimed that they were
entitled to BIPA's statutory damages of $1,000 or $5,000. See 740
ILCS 14/20.
The parties exhaustively litigated, leaving few legal questions
unresolved.
Multiple class actions against Facebook were eventually
consolidated in the Northern District of California, where the
parties vigorously litigated the case for over five years. In that
time, the district court denied Facebook's motions to dismiss and
for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, specifically finding that a statutory violation is
an invasion of privacy sufficient to create standing to sue under
both Article III and BIPA.
Facebook appealed the class certification decision to the Ninth
Circuit under Rule 23(f), and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's finding of standing and order certifying a class.
Patel v. Facebook, Inc., 932 F.3d 1264, 1267 (9th Cir. 2019), cert.
denied, 140 S. Ct. 937, 205 L. Ed. 2d 524 (2020). The Ninth Circuit
agreed that BIPA did not require a plaintiff or class member to
show any concrete injury beyond a statutory violation, either to
establish Article-III standing or to recover under the statute.
Facebook, 932 F.3d at 1274–75.
Facebook petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of
certiorari, but the Supreme Court denied the petition on January
21, 2020. Eight days later, on January 29, 2020, the New York Times
reported that the parties entered into a settlement that requires
Facebook to pay $550 million to eligible Illinois users as well as
for the plaintiffs' legal fees. See Natasha Singer and Mike Isaac,
Facebook to Pay $550 Million to Settle Facial Recognition Suit,
N.Y. Times, Jan. 29, 2020.
The court rejected the initial settlement, leading to an extra $100
million.
On June 4, 2020, the court held the first hearing on preliminary
approval of the $550 million settlement, which would have resulted
in a payout of $150 and $300 per class member. While the parties
praised the agreement at the time, the court plainly stated that
the settlement amount was insufficient as it would only give class
member 1.25% of the maximum damages prescribed by BIPA. The court
also focused on other elements of the settlement, like the form of
the notice, the scope of the release, and the contemplated conduct
remedy.
The court scheduled a second hearing for July 23, 2020 so that a
Facebook employee could testify on some of the technical aspects of
the settlement. On the night before the hearing, the parties filed
a notice of an amended settlement. In addition to addressing the
court's concerns on the non-monetary elements of the agreement, the
parties stated that the settlement fund would be increased by $100
million to a total of $650 million. The settlement fund was also
augmented by the plaintiffs' counsel agreement to reduce their
attorney fees from 25% to 20% of the $550 million settlement fund
and 0% of the additional $100 million. As a result, the parties
anticipate that each class member would receive between $200 and
$400.
The court's reaction to the amended settlement agreement was
positive. The court noted that most of its initial concerns were
addressed by the changes, including the monetary component of the
agreement. The court spent most of the hearing asking questions
about another outstanding concern: the claims rate or the number of
people who ask for money from the settlement. Most class
settlements have a claims rate of less than 5% of the total class.
The court specifically stated that he wanted the parties to get to
a "record-breaking" claims rate, through "splashy,"
attention-grabbing notices.
The Facebook settlement will likely lead to increased scrutiny of
data privacy settlements.
Although the Facebook litigation is unique in several respects
(high statutory damages; exhaustive litigation and appeals before
settlement), the court's initial rejection of a half-billion dollar
settlement and demand for a "record-breaking" claims rate will
almost certainly lead to increased scrutiny in data-privacy class
action settlements, as well any class action involving claims for
statutory damages. For instance, it may signify an upward trend of
settlement values and insistence on higher claims rates.
Class-action claims processes are often cumbersome, often asking
for a claimant to respond to a confusing and lengthy questionnaire
and provide information that may be entirely irrelevant. The
Facebook litigants came up with a new process that can be completed
in a matter of seconds instead of minutes.
Parties and courts will likely try different and more
attention-grabbing class-settlement notices than have historically
been used. While the Facebook notice is unique due to Facebook's
ability to use its own platform in order to reach potential
claimants, class-action notices in other cases will likely continue
the trend towards more electronic notice.
Regardless of the court's ultimate decision on the motion for
preliminary or final approval, future litigants will likely look to
the Facebook litigation for guidance before filing their own motion
for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. [GN]
FIDELITONE LAST: Venegas Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as LUIS VENEGAS, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v.
FIDELITONE LAST MILE, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No. C20-01469, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Contra Costa, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on September 22, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-06637 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and/or Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Order, including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide
meal periods and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and waiting time penalties.
Fidelitone Last Mile, Inc., is a transportation and logistics
company based in Bensenville, Illinois.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Seth L. Neulight, Esq.
NIXON PEABODY LLP
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 984-8200
Facsimile: (415) 984-8300
E-mail: sneulight@nixonpeabody.com
- and –
Erin Holyoke, Esq.
NIXON PEABODY LLP
300 South Grand Ave., Suite 4100
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 629-6000
Facsimile: (855) 803-1806
E-mail: eholyoke@nixonpeabody.com
FIFTH SUN: Faces Jaquez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON JAQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FIFTH SUN, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07728-AT (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 18, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff, who is blind and visually impaired, alleges that the
Defendant has failed to maintain and operate its website,
http://www.fifthsun.com/,in a way to make it fully accessible for
himself and for other blind or visually-impaired people. When he
visited the Defendant's website using a popular screen reading
software called NonVisual Desktop Access in July 2020 with the
intent of browsing and potentially making a purchase, the Plaintiff
has encountered multiple access barriers which denied him access
similar to that of a sighted individual.
The Defendant's website lack of a variety of features and
accommodations, which effectively barred him from being able to
enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public
accommodation, the Plaintiff contends.
Fifth Sun, LLC is a clothing company that owns and operates the
website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Tel: (732) 695-3282
Fax: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com
FRENCH PARADOX: Rosado Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retained Tips
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA M. ROSADO, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. THE FRENCH PARADOX INC. d/b/a OCabanon, ARMEL
JOLY and ALEXANDRE MUR, jointly and severally, Case No.
1:20-cv-07788 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law, including failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
other restaurant servers minimum wages and overtime pay.
The Plaintiff was employed as a server at the Defendants' French
restaurant in New York from September 2016 to December 11, 2019.
The Plaintiff also asserts claims for failure to pay
spread-of-hours pay, unlawful retainment of gratuities, failure to
timely provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.
The French Paradox Inc., d/b/a OCabanon, operates a French
restaurant located at 245 W. 29th Street, in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10017-6705
Telephone: (212) 392-4772
E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
milana@lipskylowe.com
FRITO-LAY: Responds to Class Action Over Ruffles Flavor Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that class action
lawyers griping about bags of potato chips forgot to include
evidence to support their lawsuit, the maker of Ruffles says.
Frito-Lay on July 24 filed a motion to dismiss a proposed class
action lawsuit that claims the company should put the words
"artificially flavored" on the front of bags of Cheddar & Sour
Cream Ruffles.
"This case is a textbook example of a complaint unsupported by
reasonable investigation . . . " the motion says. "(T)he complaint
does not allege any factual support for Plaintiff's claim that an
'artificially flavored' statement is required."
Tami Svensrud, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint in the Orange County Superior Court
against Frito-Lay earlier this year, alleging violation of the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law,
and the California Unfair Advertising Law. The defendant removed
the case to federal court on April 10.
Svensrud alleges in her complaint that Frito-Lay is misleading
consumers because it does not properly label its Ruffles Cheddar &
Sour Cream potato chips in such a way so that consumers can clearly
see the product contains artificial flavoring, coloring and
chemical preservatives.
Svensrud claims Frito-Lay hides its artificial flavoring by
alluding to the wording "artificial flavors" in the ingredient list
and buries the word "flavor" in an "inconspicuous location" on the
front label.
"In high-level conclusory terms, Plaintiff alleges only that the
Product uses an 'artificial butter flavor' and 'cheddar cheese
flavor,'" Frito-Lay says.
"But the complaint does not identify what the allegedly artificial
ingredients are, much less why these unnamed ingredients require an
artificially flavored label under federal regulations."
Frito-Lay also says the lawsuit is preempted by the Food, Drug &
Cosmetic Act because the Food and Drug Administration has already
regulated when a product must disclose it has artificial flavors on
the front of the package.
The disclosure is required when artificial flavors stimulate the
characterizing flavors, like cheddar and sour cream on the chips.
The lawsuit does not allege what artificial flavors are associated
with cheddar or sour cream, Frito-Lay says.
"Plaintiff must do at least some work before imposing the heavy
burdens of litigation on Frito-Lay. The complaint shows that she
did not," the company says.
The plaintiff is represented by Aashish Desai and Adrianne De
Castro of The Desai Law Firm in Costa Mesa, California. [GN]
GLOBALSCAPE INC: Thompson Calls Merger Docs "Misleading"
--------------------------------------------------------
John Thompson's putative class action complaint filed in Delaware
related to GlobalSCAPE, Inc.'s merger plan with Help/Systems, LLC,
is underway, according to GlobalSCAPE'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, John Thompson, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action complaint in the United
States District Court of Delaware, captioned John Thompson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GlobalSCAPE, Inc., Robert Alpert, Thomas E. Hicks, David L. Mann,
C. Clark Webb, Help/Systems, LLC and Grail Merger Sub, Inc., Civil
Action No. 1:20-cv-01039-UNA (the "Thompson Complaint") against the
Company, all members of the Board of Directors, Help/Systems, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company ("Parent") and Grail Merger
Sub, Inc. a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent ("Merger Sub").
Among other things, the Thompson Complaint alleges that the
Company, Merger Sub and the members of the Board of Directors and
Parent in their capacity as controlling persons, caused a
materially incomplete and misleading Solicitation Statement,
concerning, among other things, (i) the Company's financial
projections relied upon by the Company's financial advisor, B.
Riley, in its financial analyses, (ii) the data and inputs
underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinion provided by B. Riley, filed on July 31, 2020 with
the SEC and disseminated to Company stockholders, (iii) the
engagement of past services of B. Riley and Stephens Inc., the
Company's financial advisors and (iv) non-disclosure agreements
prior to and during the "go-shop" process, rendering the
Solicitation Statement false and misleading and in violation of the
Exchange Act and related regulations.
The Thompson Complaint seeks, among other things, (i) an order
enjoining proceeding with the tender offer, (ii) in the event the
Offer is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the alleged
violations of the Exchange Act by the Company, the members of the
Board of Directors, Parent and Merger Sub and (iii) an order
directing the Board of Directors to file a Solicitation Statement
that does not contain any untrue statements of material fact and
that states all material facts required in it or necessary to make
the statements contained therein not misleading.
GlobalSCAPE, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops and
distributes software, delivers managed and hosted solutions, and
provides associated services for secure information exchange, and
data transfer and sharing for enterprises and consumers worldwide.
GlobalSCAPE, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in San Antonio,
Texas.
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Smith Files Prisoner Rights Suit
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against officers of the
Harris County Prison. The case is styled as Bobby Smith and
Clifford Fairfax, on their own and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Ed Gonzales, Sheriff of Harris
County, John Doe, I, Chief of Harris County, Texas Jail, Harris
County Texas Officials and Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Parole Division, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-03312 (S.D., Tex.,
Sept. 23, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Prisoner: Civil
Rights filed pursuant to the Prisoner Civil Rights.
The Defendants are government representatives in the performance of
their official duties.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Cosinteno Appeals D.P.R. Ruling to 1st Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Brandon Cosinteno filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in his lawsuit entitled Cosinteno v. Hilton Worldwide
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-01858-SCC, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, San Juan.
The nature of the suit is stated as Recovery of Overpayment &
Enforcement of Judgment.
The appellate case is captioned as Cosinteno v. Hilton Worldwide
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-1908, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Appearance
form and Docketing Statement are due on October 7, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant BRANDON COSINTENO, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Jane A. Becker Whitaker, Esq.
Jean Paul Vissepo Garriga, Esq.
BECKER VISSEPO PSC
1225 Ponce de Leon, Ste. 1102
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (787) 585-3824
E-mail: info@beckervissepo.com
- and -
Brandon McCaull Bohlman, Esq.
John Barton Goplerud, Esq.
Brian O. Marty, Esq.
SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE PC
5015 Grand Ridge Dr., Ste. 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Telephone: (515) 223-4567
- and -
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market St., Ste. 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000
Telephone: (800) 424-6690
E-mail: scarson@bm.net
mdellangelo@bm.net
- and -
Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
Katherine W. Van Dyck, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Ste. 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com
kvandyck@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Ave. S, Ste. 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
Defendants-Appellees HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC. and ESJ
RESORT, LLC are represented by:
Ana Maria Cristina Perez Soto, Esq.
JONES DAY
600 Brickell Ave., Ste. 3300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 714-9700
E-mail: cperezsoto@jonesday.com
- and -
Manuel A. Pietrantoni, Esq.
MARINI PIETRANTONI MUNIZ LLC
250 Ponce de Leon Ave., Ste. 900
San Juan, PR 00918
Telephone: (787) 705-2174
E-mail: mpietrantoni@mpmlawpr.com
- and -
Leslie Yvette Flores-Rodriguez, Esq.
MCCONNELL VALDES LLC
270 Munoz Rivera Ave.
PO Box 364225
San Juan, PR 00936-4225
Telephone: (787) 250-5628
E-mail: lfr@mcvpr.com
HIRE DYNAMICS: Madera Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIA MADERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HIRE DYNAMICS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03749-JPB (N.D.
Ga., Sept. 10, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and other workers like her
regularly worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week.
Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant
improperly classified the Plaintiff and those similarly situated
workers as exempt employees and paid them a salary with no overtime
compensation, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a staffing specialist
from April 2015 to March 2020.
Based in Duluth, Georgia, Hire Dynamics, LLC provides human
resource management services throughout the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin T. Holcombe, Esq.
Kris Skaar, Esq.
SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
133 Mirramont Lake Drive
Woodstock, GA 30189
Telephone: (770) 427-5600
Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com
- and -
James M. Feagle, Esq.
SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
2374 Main Street Suite B
Tucker, GA 30084
Telephone: (404) 373-1970
Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
cfitz@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
HONDA CANADA: Settles Takata Airbag Inflator Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Auto Remarketing Canada reports that on Aug. 31, Honda Canada
announced that it reached an agreement to resolve Takata airbag
inflator class action litigation in Canada.
The automaker said the settlement will further enhance Honda
Canada's "significant" efforts to reach and encourage customers to
bring their vehicles to authorized dealers for a free airbag
inflator replacement.
As part of the settlement mentioned in a news release, Honda Canada
said it will continue its comprehensive recall efforts.
"Honda Canada has taken unprecedented steps to reach owners, in
order to expedite the replacement of recalled Takata airbag
inflators," the company said. "Honda Canada will continue to take
steps to replace recalled inflators in every vehicle on the road
that is affected by a Takata airbag inflator recall in an ongoing
effort to better assure the safety of vehicle operators and
passengers."
The OEM emphasized that an ample supply of replacement airbag
inflators is readily available to service the remaining affected
vehicles.
Honda Canada went on to mention the proposed class action
settlement also makes provision for the reimbursement of certain
out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Honda Canada customers as a
result of the recall.
Furthermore, the automaker noted the agreement also sets out
continued activities by Honda Canada to recover recalled airbag
inflators from scrap sellers through its Takata airbag inflator
re-purchase program.
Officials added the proposed settlement agreement covers recalled
Honda and Acura vehicles (automobiles and Goldwing motorcycles)
with Takata airbag inflators. The proposed class action settlement
also provides additional service/repair coverage for defective
materials or workmanship in non-Takata replacement airbag inflators
installed in recalled vehicles.
"Honda continues to urge owners of Honda and Acura vehicles
affected by the Takata airbag inflator recalls to bring their
vehicles to authorized dealers for the recall service as soon as
possible," officials said.
Honda vehicle owners can check their vehicles' recall status at
www.honda.ca/recalls or www.motorcycle.honda.ca/safety/recalls or
by calling Honda Canada Customer Relations at (888) 946-6329.
Acura vehicle owners can check their vehicles' recall status at
www.acura.ca/recalls or by calling or Acura Canada Client Services
at (888) 922-8729.
For more information on the class action settlement, visit
www.hondaairbagsettlement.ca. [GN]
HUEGAR LLC: Faces Nunez Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. HUEGAR LLC (D/B/A SILVER RICE), HIDEKI KATO, and SONNY
DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-04482 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020), arises from
the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he
worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium. In addition, the
Defendants maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully
appropriating the Plaintiff's and other tipped employees' tips and
made unlawful wage deductions.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at Silver Rice
restaurant as a delivery worker and food preparer from March 15,
2017, until March 22, 2020.
Huegar LLC owns, operates, or controls two Japanese Restaurants in
Brooklyn, New York, under the name "Silver Rice."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: michael@faillacelaw.com
INOVIO PHARMA: Plaintiff in McDermid Suit Files Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the purported shareholder class action styled,
McDermid v. Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and J. Joseph Kim, has
filed an amended complaint, according to Inovio Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.
The Company said, "On March 12, 2020, a purported shareholder class
action complaint, McDermid v. Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and J.
Joseph Kim, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, naming us and J. Joseph Kim, our
Chief Executive Officer, as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that
we made materially false and misleading statements regarding our
development of a vaccine for COVID-19 in our public disclosures in
violation of certain federal securities laws. The plaintiff seeks
unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an
award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
On June 18, 2020, the court appointed Manuel Williams to serve as
lead plaintiff. On August 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, naming us and three of our officers as defendants."
Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. researches and develops
pharmaceuticals. The Company develops cancer DNA and infectious DNA
vaccines, anti-inflammatory drugs, and animal health products.
Inovio Pharmaceuticals serves the healthcare sector in the United
States. The company is based in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania.
INTEL CORP: Faces Class Action Over 7nm Processor Delay
-------------------------------------------------------
Rob Thubron, writing for Techspot, reports that Intel's year isn't
getting any better after revealing its 7nm process would be delayed
by six months, knocking around 16 percent off its share price and
wiping $43 billion off the company's market cap. Now, Chipzilla is
facing a class-action lawsuit for investors fraud.
Intel's revenue was up 20 percent in its Q2 2020 earnings report,
but its 7nm processors have been delayed by at least six months
because production has fallen a year behind. The subsequent decline
in share price resulted in AMD's stock jumping above its rival's
for the first time in around 15 years.
On July 24, the Hagens Berman law firm put out a call to Intel
investors who suffered significant losses to contact the company
for a possible class-action suit. It also seeks people who may be
able to assist in its investigation of possible securities fraud.
"Beginning at the Company's 2019 annual investor conference, Intel
continuously represented that it would start shipping its first 7nm
chips in 2021. The news was well-received since the Company claimed
the 7nm chip would deliver double the area efficiency of its 10nm
chips. Moreover, in the wake of severe delays derailing its 10nm
chips, Intel assuaged concerns by stating, "We've made
time-to-market the priority," and repeatedly affirmed the 7nm
chip's timetable," states Hagens Berman.
But in its recent earnings call, Intel CEO Bob Swan said the
company had identified a "defect mode" in its 7nm process that
caused yield degradation issues. As a result, Intel has invested in
"contingency plans," which Swan later defined as including using
third-party foundries, all of which means its 7nm chips won't hit
the market until 2021 or 2022.
The law firm is now investigating whether Intel misrepresented and
concealed manufacturing and performance issues with its 7nm chips.
It's also asking whistleblowers with non-public information on
Intel to get in touch. "Under the new program, whistleblowers who
provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30
percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC," it states.
Like all billion (and trillion) dollar companies, Intel constantly
faces a slew of lawsuits. In addition to alleged patent
infringements, the company is dealing with several related to the
Spectre/Meltdown vulnerabilities. Misleading investors is a serious
allegation, just ask Nvidia, which has been battling against a
similar lawsuit -- which relates to misreporting mining GPU sales
-- since 2017. [GN]
IWC HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Hernandez-Conde Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER HERNANDEZ-CONDE and FRANCISCO DELGADO, et al. v. IWC
HOLDINGS OF TEXAS, LLC, d/b/a BUILDER'S INSULATION, Case No.
5:20-cv-01118 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought by the
Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
employees against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant to work manual
labor, allege that the Defendant willfully and regularly denied
them and their co-workers overtime for the hours they worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek and the applicable minimum wage for
every compensable hour labor they performed. The Defendant also
failed to establish and pay them a set hourly rate, and failed to
timely pay them for their work performed, the Plaintiffs assert.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs have suffered actual
damages and liquidated damages because of the unlawful pay practice
of the Defendant.
IWC Holdings of Texas, LLC, d/b/a Builder's Insulation, provides
installing insulation services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Evan B. Lange, Esq.
EVAN LANGE LAW, PLLC
14015 Southwest Fwy., #14
Sugar Land, TX 77478
Tel: (713) 909-4558
E-mail: evan@evanlangelaw.com
J2 GLOBAL: Bid for Class Notice Pending in Davis Neurology Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The j2 Global, Inc. affiliates in the class action suit initiated
by Davis Neurology, P.A. have opposed the Plaintiff's bid for
approval of class notice, 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 January 21, 2016, Davis Neurology, P.A. filed a putative class
action lawsuit against two J2 Global affiliates in the Circuit
Court for the County of Pope, State of Arkansas (58-cv-2016-40),
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").
The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas (No. 4:16-cv-00682).
On March 20, 2017, the District Court granted a motion for judgment
on the pleadings filed by the J2 Global affiliates and dismissed
all claims against the J2 Global affiliates.
On July 23, 2018, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the
judgment and remanded to district court with instructions to return
the case to state court.
On January 29, 2019, after further appeals were exhausted, the case
was remanded to the Arkansas state court.
On April 1, 2019, the state court granted a motion for class
certification filed by the plaintiff in 2016. Because the prior
removal to federal court had deprived the state court of
jurisdiction, the J2 Global affiliates had not yet filed an
opposition brief to the 2016 motion when the state court granted
the motion. The J2 Global affiliates appealed the order.
On July 15, 2019, the J2 Global affiliates removed the case to
federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
On November 26, 2019 the court denied the Plaintiff's motion to
remand.
On December 20, 2019, the court granted the Plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend its complaint.
On May 21, 2020, the court denied J2 Global affiliates' motion to
dismiss.
Plaintiff has filed a notice for approval of class notice, which
the J2 Global affiliates have opposed.
j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides Internet
services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fax and
Email Marketing; Voice, Backup, and Security; and Digital Media.
The company was formerly known as j2 Global Communications, Inc.
and changed its name to j2 Global, Inc. in December 2011. j2
Global, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Los
Angeles, California.
J2 GLOBAL: Garcia's Securities Class Action in California Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, Inc. is facing a putative class action lawsuit initiated
by Jeffrey Garcia alleging violations of federal securities laws,
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 July 8, 2020, Jeffrey Garcia filed a putative class action
lawsuit against J2 Global in the Central District of California
(20-cv-06906), alleging violations of federal securities laws. J2
Global intends to defend against the lawsuit.
j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides Internet
services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fax and
Email Marketing; Voice, Backup, and Security; and Digital Media.
The company was formerly known as j2 Global Communications, Inc.
and changed its name to j2 Global, Inc. in December 2011. j2
Global, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Los
Angeles, California.
KILWINS CHOCOLATES: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------------
Kilwins Chocolates Franchise, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kilwins Chocolates Franchise,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07850 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 23,
2020).
Kilwins Chocolates Franchise, Inc. is a candy and ice cream
franchise.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
LOUISIANA: Bar Owners Mull Class Action Over Second Shutdown
------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia Parish Today reports that Louisiana bar owners are planning
to file a class-action law suit against the state.
The suit stems from Governor John Bel Edwards requiring all bars to
shut down a second time.
A number of bar owners from across Acadiana recently met with
lawyers at Quarter Tavern Bar in New Iberia to discuss the
lawsuit.
Ty Boudoin, the owner of Quarter Tavern, has been quoted as saying,
"We're having as many local bar owners as we can get together. We
have people here from Terrebonne parish, Lafayette parish, Iberia
parish."
According to Boudoin, he and other bar owners met with Governor
Edwards' attorneys about re-opening bars, but the meeting was not
productive.
"We tried working with them. They don't want to work with us, so we
feel like this is our next step- the only step we can take," he
said.
Boudoin says he started working on the class action suit the Monday
after Governor Edwards said all bars had to shut down again.
"He said on TV the good wouldn't have to suffer for the bad, so why
are we shut down? As you can see, 90% of my business is outside and
yet he couldn't give me an answer about why we're closed," Boudoin
added.
The bar owners say all they want out of the lawsuit is to be
allowed to open.
Boudoin stated, "We're not taking money or anything out of this.
All we want to do is open back up and be on the same playing field
as everybody else. I can go to a restaurant right now. I can go to
a casino. I can go to a bowling alley and sit at a bar and drink,
yet you can't come to a bar and sit outside and drink."
Anyone interested in joining the lawsuit can contact Boudoin at
337-578-5298. [GN]
M&M WINES CORP: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA
--------------------------------------------------
M&M Wines Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Josue
Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. M&M Wines Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07859
(S.D. N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020).
M&M Wines Corp. is engaged in the winery industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Wash. Nationals Catcher Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that major League
Baseball was hit with a proposed class action on July 27 by
Washington Nationals catcher Felipe "Tres" Barrera III who alleges
he was suspended after falsely testing positive for the steroid
Oral Turinabol.
Barrera asserts he was wrongfully suspended for 80 games after
testing positive for the substance, also known as
Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone or DHCMT.
The lawsuit seeks certification of a class of major and minor
league baseball players who were suspended based on a positive test
for DHCMT -- a test the complaint alleges to be "junk science."
The league violated the rights of each class member by wrongfully
and knowingly misrepresenting the accuracy and reliability of the
DHCMT test, "even though objective evidence proves those tests to
be unreliable," the complaint alleges.
The complaint seeks to set aside and vacate the July 24 arbitration
ruling suspending Barrera, and it asks for an injunction
prohibiting the league from carrying out the suspension.
The arbitrator "wholly ignored, and did not properly consider, the
irrefutable evidence in the record," that the test is clearly
unreliable -- even to a casual observer, the complaint alleges.
The complaint alleges that other non-prohibited substances can
mimic the same metabolite created by DHCMT and that the league
disregarded this.
Causes of Action: Fraud, negligence.
Relief: Injunctive relief, damages, attorneys fees, and costs.
Potential Class Size: The complaint doesn't specify the number of
proposed class members suspended for testing positive to DHCMT.
Response: MLB didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Attorneys: Kennard Law PC represents Barrera.
The case is Barrera v. Major League Baseball, S.D. Tex., No.
20-cv-00198, 7/27/20. [GN]
MARRIOTT INT'L: 2008 Data Breach Suits Underway in U.S. and Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott International, Inc. continues to face lawsuits in the U.S.
and in Canada regarding a 2018 data security incident involving
unauthorized access to the Starwood reservations database,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020.
The Company said, "Following our announcement of the Data Security
Incident, approximately 100 lawsuits were filed by consumers and
others against us in U.S. federal, U.S. state and Canadian courts
related to the incident. All but one of the U.S. cases were
consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, pursuant to orders of the U.S. Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL"). The plaintiffs in the
U.S. and Canadian cases, who generally purport to represent various
classes of consumers, generally claim to have been harmed by
alleged actions and/or omissions by the Company in connection with
the Data Security Incident and assert a variety of common law and
statutory claims seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs
and attorneys' fees, and other related relief.
"Among the U.S. cases consolidated in the MDL proceeding is a
putative class action lawsuit that was filed against us and certain
of our current officers and directors on December 1, 2018, alleging
violations of the federal securities laws in connection with
statements regarding our cybersecurity systems and controls, and
seeking certification of a class of affected persons, unspecified
monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and other related
relief.
"The MDL proceeding also includes two shareholder derivative
complaints that were filed on February 26, 2019 and March 15, 2019,
respectively, against the Company, certain of its officers and
certain current and former members of our Board of Directors,
alleging, among other claims, breach of fiduciary duty, corporate
waste, unjust enrichment, mismanagement and violations of the
federal securities laws, and seeking unspecified monetary damages
and restitution, changes to the Company's corporate governance and
internal procedures, costs and attorneys' fees, and other related
relief.
"A third shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery on December 3, 2019 against the Company and
certain of its officers and certain current and former members of
our Board of Directors, alleging claims and seeking relief
generally similar to the claims made and relief sought in the other
two derivative cases. This case will not be consolidated with the
MDL proceeding. We dispute the allegations in the lawsuits and are
vigorously defending against such claims. We have filed motions to
dismiss several of these cases, some of which have been denied, but
the cases generally remain at an early stage.
"There has been some consolidation of the Canadian cases, with five
cases now pending across five provinces, and we expect there could
be further consolidation in the future.
"In addition, in April 2019, we received a letter purportedly on
behalf of a shareholder of the Company (also one of the named
plaintiffs in the putative securities class action) demanding that
our Board of Directors take action against the Company's current
and certain former officers and directors to recover damages for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and related claims arising
from the Data Security Incident. The Board of Directors has
constituted a demand review committee to investigate the claims
made in the demand letter, and the committee has retained
independent counsel to assist with the investigation. The
committee's investigation is ongoing.
"In addition, numerous U.S. federal, U.S. state and foreign
governmental authorities are investigating, or otherwise seeking
information and/or documents related to, the Data Security Incident
and related matters, including Attorneys General offices from all
50 states and the District of Columbia, the Federal Trade
Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, certain
committees of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, the
Information Commissioner's Office in the United Kingdom (the "ICO")
as lead supervisory authority in the European Economic Area, and
regulatory authorities in various other jurisdictions.
"In July 2019, the ICO issued a formal notice of intent under the
U.K. Data Protection Act 2018 proposing a fine in the amount of
GBP99 million against the Company in relation to the Data Security
Incident (the "Proposed ICO Fine"). In late August 2019, we
submitted a written response to the ICO vigorously defending our
position, and we have continued to engage with the ICO regarding
the Data Security Incident and Proposed ICO Fine. We mutually
agreed with the ICO to an extension of the regulatory process until
September 30, 2020 and the ICO proceeding is ongoing. Our accrual
for this loss contingency, which we present in the "Accrued
expenses and other" caption of our Balance Sheets, of US$65 million
at December 31, 2019, remained unchanged at June 30, 2020.
"While we believe it is reasonably possible that we may incur
additional losses associated with the proceedings and
investigations related to the Data Security Incident, it is not
possible to estimate the amount of loss or range of loss, if any,
in excess of the amounts already incurred that might result from
adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, or other
resolution of these proceedings and investigations based on the
current stage of these proceedings and investigations, the absence
of specific allegations as to alleged damages, the uncertainty as
to the certification of a class or classes and the size of any
certified class, if applicable, and/or the lack of resolution of
significant factual and legal issues."
MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Class Action in London Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Travel Weekly reports that Marriott International is set to face a
lawsuit in London by millions of former guests who had their
personal records hacked between 2014 and 2018.
Martin Bryant, who is the founder of technology and media
consultancy Big Revolution, is leading the claim for British and
Welsh-based guests who made a reservation for one of the former
Starwood brand hotels.
He believes there should be "recompense" for the breach which,
according to Reuters, saw more than 300 million customer records --
which potentially included their passport and credit card details
-- from Marriott's global database hacked between 2014 and 2018.
"If a major corporation suffers a breach because it didn't do
everything it could to protect your data, and the worst it suffers
is a fine for breaking data protection rules, there's little
incentive for anything to really change," Bryant wrote in a blog
post.
"But if the company becomes accountable to the customers whose data
they lost, it's a different matter."
Reuters reported that around seven million British guest records
were compromised by the hack, according to the UK Information
Commissioner's Office (ICO), which last year reportedly proposed to
fine Marriott £99.2 million (more than $179 million).
The action, which is backed by law firm Hausfeld and funded by
litigation funder Harbour, seeks compensation on behalf of hotel
guests who made reservations at hotel brands within the Starwood
group, including Sheraton Hotels & Resorts and St. Regis hotels,
before 10 September 2018.
Like millions of others, Bryant said he only received a
notification in late 2018 informing him that Marriott believed his
data was part of the breach.
"As our lives become increasingly digital, our personal data will
only become more important," he said.
"It's time we all as a society valued it more. That's what I hope
this case will achieve. I look forward to updating you as it
progresses."
Travel Weekly has contacted Marriott International for comment.
[GN]
MATTHEWS INTERNATIONAL: Beinbrech Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as JASON BEINBRECH, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated and on
behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California
Private Attorneys General Act v. MATTHEWS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS2016242, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on September 23, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-01971 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code,
including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal and rest period premiums,
unpaid minimum wages, not timely paid final wages, not timely paid
wages during employment, non-compliant wage statements, failure to
keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed business expenses, and
unfair business practices.
Matthews International Corporation is a provider of brand
solutions, memorialization products and industrial technologies,
with its principal place of business located in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jennifer C. Terry, Esq.
Mona A. Razani, Esq.
Corrie J. Buck, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
355 South Grand Ave., Suite 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 457-8000
Facsimile: (213) 457-8080
E-mail: jterry@reedsmith.com
mrazani@reedsmith.com
cbuck@reedsmith.com
MDL 2971: Transfer of 10 Class Suits to E.D. New York Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the multidistrict litigation styled In re: Bank of Nova Scotia
Precious Metals Futures Litigation, MDL No. 2971, Plaintiff Mark
Serri, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, asks
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer 10
actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The actions have been filed against the Defendants, Bank of Nova
Scotia and certain of its subsidiaries and employees, for
manipulating the prices of precious metals futures contracts
through a practice known as "spoofing." All of these related
actions allege that the Defendants manipulated the prices of NYMEX
and COMEX precious metals futures contracts from at least January
2008 through at least July 2016.
The Plaintiff contends that the centralization of the related
actions will promote the goals of 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 by
conserving judicial resources, reducing litigation costs,
preventing potentially inconsistent pretrial rulings, eliminating
duplicative discovery, and permitting the cases to proceed more
efficiently.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hollis Salzman, Esq.
Kellie Lerner, Esq.
David Rochelson, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 980-7400
Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com
DRochelson@RobinsKaplan.com
MEDMARK SERVICES: Walsh Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jimmy Walsh, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MedMark Services, Inc.,
Defendant, was transferred from the Superior Court of California,
Contra Costa County with the assigned Case No. C20-01535 to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
September 23, 2020, and assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-06682.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as P.I.: Other.
Medmark Services, Inc. provides addiction treatment and primary
healthcare services. The Company offers outpatient
medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction utilizing
methadone and buprenorphine, as well as primary care and internal
medicine services. Medmark Services serves patients in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
The Defendant is represented by:
Benjamin Hansel Kleine, Esq.
Cooley LLP
101 California Street, 5th Fl
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 693-2000
Fax: (415) 693-2222
Email: bkleine@cooley.com
MIDWAY ARMS: Graciano Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------
Midway Arms, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Sandy
Graciano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Midway Arms, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-07869 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020).
Midway Arms, Inc. operates as a catalog and internet retailer. The
Company retails shooting, hunting, and outdoor products. Midway
Arms offers ammunition, archery, auto, books, videos and software,
camping and survival, clothing, footwear, gifts, gun parts, hunting
gears, knives and tools, military gears, optics, reloading
supplies, self defense, and police products.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
MINNEAPOLIS: Police Sued Over Use of Force Against Protesters
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Thomsen, writing for Law.com, reports that the ACLU of
Minnesota and attorneys with Fish & Richardson are teaming up for a
class action lawsuit against Minneapolis and city police officials
over injuries suffered by protesters demonstrating in the wake of
the police killing of George Floyd.
"This unnecessarily forceful treatment of protesters, at the
expense of proper constitutional protections, casts a pall over
future protests and cannot continue," the lawsuit reads. [GN]
MOSES H. CONE: Ellis Winters Atty. Discusses Ruling in "Chambers"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph D. Hammond, Esq., of Ellis Winters, reports that in
baseball's version of the "pick-off," a baserunner is caught
standing too far from base and tagged out. In the legal world,
defendants sometimes "pick off" a class action by mooting the named
plaintiff's individual claim before a class has been certified. A
recent opinion from the North Carolina Supreme Court has
restricted--but not eliminated--one of these maneuvers. Read on to
find out which.
The case is Chambers v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, 372 N.C.
100, 824 S.E.2d 404 (N.C. 2020). The plaintiff asserted claims on
behalf of himself and others whom a hospital allegedly overcharged.
After the class complaint was filed, the hospital dismissed its
claims for unpaid bills against the plaintiff with prejudice.
Since the plaintiff owed nothing -- and had not paid on the alleged
overcharges -- the hospital moved to dismiss the class complaint,
arguing the case was moot. The trial court and the Court of
Appeals agreed, and the plaintiff was called "out."
The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed [the call]. Over a
dissent from Justice Newby, the Supreme Court ruled that the
plaintiff could continue with the case. Looking to federal cases,
especially Richardson v. Bledsoe, 829 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 2016), the
Court held that a plaintiff whose individual claim is mooted by the
defendant's action may continue to represent a putative class where
1) the mooting event occurred before the plaintiff had a fair
opportunity to seek class certification and 2) the plaintiff has
not "unduly delayed" litigating class certification. Where these
conditions apply, the normal rule -- that a plaintiff who lacks a
personal stake in the outcome may not pursue a case -- does not
apply, and the plaintiff may seek class certification and a ruling
on the merits.
The Chambers exception operates by "relating back" the plaintiff's
claim, for mootness purposes, to the filing of the complaint.
Thus, the exception does not change the requirement that the
plaintiff have a personal stake in the outcome -- i.e., be on base
-- when the complaint is filed.
Following Chambers, class action defendants in North Carolina can
only pick off a class action where the named plaintiff has had the
fair opportunity to seek class certification and unduly delayed
that process.
It remains to be seen, however, just how much time "fair
opportunity" requires, and what the plaintiff must do to avoid a
finding of undue delay. The Court remanded the case to the trial
court for adjudication of these questions, but provided the
following insight:
"[t]he question of what constitutes a fair opportunity in this
context naturally will vary from case to case based on
considerations such as the complexity of the case, the nature of
discovery required to determine class certification, the stage at
which the named plaintiff's individual claims become moot, and
other relevant factors." op. at 19.
"[t]o act diligently, a named plaintiff need not file a
class-certification motion with the complaint or prematurely; it is
enough that the named plaintiff diligently takes any necessary
discovery, complies with any applicable local rules and scheduling
orders, and acts without undue delay." op. at 20 (citing Stein v.
Buccaneers Ltd. P'ship, 772 F.3d 698, 707 (11th Cir. 2014)).
It also remains to be seen whether -- and how -- plaintiffs who
lack a personal stake in the outcome of a case can satisfy the
requirement that the class representative adequately represent the
interests of the class. As the dissent notes, the North Carolina
Supreme Court has previously directed that class representatives
must "have a genuine personal interest, not a mere technical
interest, in the outcome of the case." Faulkenbury v. Teachers and
State Emps.' Ret. Sys. of N.C., 345 N.C. 683, 697, 483 S.E.2d 422,
431 (1997). And the majority opinion recognizes that "obtaining
class certification still requires [the named plaintiff] to meet
the stringent requirements of Rule 23" and cites Faulkenbury for
those prerequisites. Thus, the question remains: could potential
class representatives whose claims are moot be ruled safe at first
base and called out at second?
It will be interesting to watch how courts apply this exception to
mootness and whether plaintiffs delay moving for class
certification in reliance upon it. It will also be interesting to
see whether courts will apply similar principles outside mootness
to the requirements for class certification. Stay tuned for more
developments. [GN]
MYOS RENS TECHNOLOGY: Faasse Balks at $173-Mil. MedAvail Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Faasse, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MYOS RENS TECHNOLOGY INC., JOSEPH MANNELLO, REN REN,
ROBERT J. HARIRI, LOUIS ARONNE, CHRISTOPHER PECHOCK, VICTOR MANDEL,
ERIC ZALTAS, CHRISTOPHER C. DEWEY, ANDREW PONTE, MEDAVAIL, INC.,
MATRIX MERGER SUB, INC., Case No. 654644/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York
Cty., Sept. 23, 2020), alleges that MYOS's Board of Directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with a definitive
merger agreement between MYOS and MedAvail in a transaction valued
at approximately $173 million.
The Defendants entered into the Merger Agreement on June 30, 2020,
and filed on Form 8-K with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission also on June 30. The Proposed Transaction is
expected to close December 31, 2020.
Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, substantially all of the
assets and liabilities of MYOS (except as specifically excluded)
will be contributed to a subsidiary of MYOS prior to the closing of
the Proposed Transaction and the shares of the subsidiary will be
distributed as a dividend immediately subsequent to the closing of
the Proposed Transaction to those MYOS shareholders of record as of
prior to the closing of the Proposed Transaction. The combined
company will focus on advancing MedAvail's network of in-clinic
pharmacies within Medicare sites across the U.S., while the current
MYOS muscle health business will be spun off as a private
unaffiliated company. MedAvail will pay the spun-out business $2
million in cash upon the closing of the Merger and issue a
promissory note for an additional $3 million, payable in
installments within one year of the closing of the Merger.
Despite this description, the Plaintiff asserts, it is in fact
impossible to glean from the any publicly released documentation
related to the Proposed Transaction, an estimate of the value, in
U.S. Dollars, of the consideration that the Plaintiff or other
public stockholders of MYOS are set to receive Thereafter, on
September 3, 2020, MYOS filed a Registration Statement on Form S-4
with the SEC in support of the Proposed Transaction.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Individual the Defendants have
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Proposed
Transaction based on a flawed process which will result in grossly
inadequate compensation for shareholders. As such, the Plaintiff
and the other public shareholders of MYOS common stock are entitled
to enjoin the Proposed Transaction or, alternatively, to recover
damages in the event that the transaction is consummated.
In further violation of their fiduciary duties, the Defendants
caused to be filed the materially deficient Registration Statement
on September 3, 2020, with the SEC in an effort to solicit
stockholders to vote their MYOS shares in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, according to the complaint. The Registration Statement
is materially deficient, deprives MYOS stockholders of the
information they need to make an intelligent, informed and rational
decision of whether to vote their shares in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, and is, thus, in breach of the Defendants' fiduciary
duties. The Registration Statement omits and/or misrepresents
material information concerning, among other things: (a) the sales
process and in particular certain conflicts of interest for
management; (b) the financial projections for MYOS and MedAvail,
utilized in any financial analyses purporting to support the
Proposed Transaction, if any; and (c) the data and inputs
underlying the financial analyses purporting to support the
Proposed Transaction, if any, performed by MYOS, MYOS's financial
advisor H.C. Wainwright & Co., MedAvail, or some other third
party.
In approving the Proposed Transaction, the Individual Defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due
care and disclosure by, inter alia, (i) agreeing to sell MYOS
without first taking steps to ensure that Plaintiff and Class
members would obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration under
the circumstances; and (ii) engineering the Proposed Transaction to
benefit themselves and/or MedAvail without regard for MYOS public
stockholders, says the complaint. Accordingly, this action seeks to
enjoin the Proposed Transaction and compel the Individual
Defendants to properly exercise their fiduciary duties to MYOS
stockholders.
The Plaintiff owns shares of MYOS common stock.
MYOS focuses on the discovery, development, and commercialization
of nutritional ingredients, functional foods, and other
technologies that enhance muscle health and performance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan J. Smith, Esq.
BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
240 Mineola Boulevard, First Floor
Mineola, NY 11501
Phone: (516)741-4977
Facsimile (561)741-0626
Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com
NEW YORK: Bill & Ted's Suit Challenges COVID-19 Executive Orders
----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL & TED'S RIVIERA, INC.; and PARTITION STREET PROJECT, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v.
ANDREW M. CUOMO; LETITIA JAMES; GREELEY T. FORD; EMPIRE STATE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; NEW YORK STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY, Case No.
1:20-cv-01991-FJS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2020), is a civil rights
action for legal and equitable remedies challenging certain
executive orders issued in connection with the COVID-19 crisis.
The executive orders were issued by Defendant New York State
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo and enforced by him and Defendants New
York State Attorney General Letitia James, New York State Liquor
Authority Commissioner Greeley T. Ford and the New York State
Liquor Authority. The lawsuit also challenges certain rules and
regulations promulgated by Defendant Empire State Development
Corporation in connection with the executive orders.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants have
imposed and selectively enforce orders in pursuit of the State's
stated goal of "social distancing" and have caused a "lockdown" and
unprecedented interruption of virtually every aspect of the social,
political, religious and economic life of New York State's over 19
million residents. Under the pretext of public health, the
restrictions are imposed widely and ostensibly universally.
However, upon scrutiny, it is revealed that the executive orders
leak like a sieve, and Defendants have carved out numerous
exceptions in an arbitrary and capricious manner according to their
own political preferences and value judgments, the Plaintiffs
allege.
The Defendants have enforced their "lockdown" by threat of criminal
prosecution and administrative punishment, including $1,000 per-day
fines for the novel offense of violating Cuomo's "Social Distancing
Protocol" ("SDP"), the Plaintiffs note. Further, restaurants and
food service establishments are subject to summary suspension or
revocation of their liquor licenses and exorbitant fines of up to
$10,000 per violation.
Empire State Development is the umbrella organization for New
York's two principal economic development public-benefit
corporations, the New York State Urban Development Corporation and
the New York Job Development Authority.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Anthony Rupp III, Esq.
Phillip A. Oswald, Esq.
RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM
25 Walton Street
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
Telephone: (518) 886-1902
E-mail: oswald@ruppbaase.com
rupp@ruppbaase.com
NORTON HEALTHCARE: Class Certification for 15K Participants Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that participants
in Norton Healthcare Inc.'s retirement plan want their lawsuit
challenging the plan's fees and investment options certified as a
class action covering 15,000 people, according to a court filing in
the Western District of Kentucky.
Donna Disselkamp's July 24 class certification motion comes one
year after a federal judge allowed her to move forward with nearly
all claims in her seven-count lawsuit alleging retirement plan
mismanagement under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Disselkamp now wants to represent a class of more than 15,000
people who invested in Norton's $900 million retirement plan since
2012. [GN]
NPC INTERNATIONAL: Faces Marshall Suit Over Unfair Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIN MARSHALL, for herself and all others similarly situated v.
JONATHAN WEBER, DAVID WAHLERT, and LAVONNE WALBERT, Case No.
4:20-cv-00757-NKL (W.D. Mo., Sept. 23, 2020), seeks to redress the
Defendants' systematic policy and practice of paying delivery
drivers hourly wages well below the minimum required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act.
Defendants Jonathan Weber, David Wahlert, and Lavonne Walbert are
officers of NPC International, Inc., a Pizza Hut franchisee,
directly responsible for that Company's practices and policies
related to its reimbursement of Pizza Hut delivery drivers for
their vehicle-related expenses.
The FLSA and state minimum wage laws require employers to provide
their employees with sufficient reimbursements for
employment-related expenses to ensure that employees' hourly wages
equal or exceed the required minimum wage after such expenses are
counted against the hourly wages, according to the complaint.
However, the Defendants, through the policies and practices they
promulgated and controlled at NPC International, Inc.,
under-reimbursed the Plaintiff and her colleagues for vehicular
wear and tear, gas, and other driving-related expenses, thereby,
effectively paying her well below the minimum wage, with NPC
pocketing excess profits rather than fairly paying Defendants'
employees.
The Plaintiff worked as a full-time delivery driver from January
2010 to January 2015 for the Defendants at their NPC Pizza Hut
store located in Belleville, Illinois. The multi-state claim is
asserted by the Plaintiff on behalf of all persons employed as
delivery drivers at any store owned by NPC in Arkansas, Colorado,
Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Virginia, and
Washington during the maximum allowable limitations periods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Kinsman, Esq.
KRAUSE & KINSMAN, LLC
4717 Grand Ave., #300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 760-2700
Facsimile: (816) 760-2800
E-mail: robert@krauseandkinsman.com
- and -
Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
Andrew C. White, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3281
- and -
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
Michael Marrese, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 North Orange Avenue, 14th Floor
Orlando, FL 32802
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
- and -
Ashley Keller, Esq.
Seth A. Meyer, Esq.
KELLER LENKNER LLC
150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-5200
- and -
Warren Postman, Esq.
1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 400E
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 749-8334
- and -
Nicholas F. Kajon, Esq.
STEVENS & LEE, P.C.
485 Madison Ave., 20th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 537-0403
NUTANIX INC: Must Defend Against Consolidated Putative Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nutanix, Inc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 23, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended July 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss a
consolidated putative class action suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California has been
denied.
Beginning on March 29, 2019, several purported securities class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the company and two of its
officers.
The initial complaints generally alleged that the defendants made
false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.
In July 2019, the court consolidated the actions into a single
action, and appointed a lead plaintiff, who then filed a
consolidated amended complaint (the "Original Complaint"). The
action was brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired the company's stock between November 30, 2017 and May 30,
2019, inclusive.
The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the Original
Complaint, and the court granted that motion on March 9, 2020,
while providing the lead plaintiff leave to amend.
On April 17, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint (the "Current Complaint"), again naming the company and
two of its officers as defendants. The Current Complaint alleges
the same class period, includes many of the same factual
allegations as the Original Complaint, and again alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
as well as SEC Rule 10b-5.
The Current Complaint seeks monetary damages in an unspecified
amount.
On May 22, 2020, the Company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Current Complaint, which was denied on
September 11, 2020.
Nutanix said, "The litigation is still in early stages, and we plan
to continue to vigorously defend against the allegations and we are
not able to determine what, if any, liabilities will attach to the
Current Complaint."
Nutanix, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops and
provides an enterprise cloud platform in North America, Europe, the
Asia Pacific, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. The
company was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.
ONE GROUP: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Romero Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THE ONE GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07864-GBD
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to
design, construct, and operate its Web site to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff contends that during his visits to the Web site,
http://www.stksteakhouse.com/,the last occurring in September
2020, he encountered multiple access barriers that denied him full
and equal access to the facilities, goods and services offered to
the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff asserts
that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional
discrimination due to access barriers on the Web site that have
deterred him from learning about various steaks for purchase and
delivery, and enjoying them equal to sighted individuals.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The One Group, LLC, is a steakhouse and retail company, and owns
and operates the Web site, offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services and which the Company
ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States,
including New York State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
ORACLE: Faces Class Action in Netherlands Over Privacy Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Haim Ravia, Esq., Dotan Hammer, Esq., and Adi Shoval, Esq., of
Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz, in an article for Mondaq, report
that the Privacy Collective, a Dutch consumer privacy non-profit
organization, brought a class-action lawsuit in the Netherlands
against tech giants Oracle and Salesforce, alleging that their
practices in placing third party cookies to help track and target
internet users breach privacy laws. The lawsuit seeks EUR500 in
compensatory damages for each user who did not consent to use of
their sensitive personal data. The total aggregate value of the
lawsuit may amount to EUR10 billion due to the large volume of
potentially affected data subjects.
A similar case is expected to be filed in the United Kingdom. Both
Oracle and Salesforce denied the allegations and said that they
implemented a GDPR compliance policy to protect users' personal
data. [GN]
PAPERLESS INC: West Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paperless Inc. The
case is captioned as Mary West, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Paperless Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07366-ER
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. The case is assigned to Judge Edgardo
Ramos.
Paperless Inc. is a New York-based company, which is part of the
office supply and paper wholesalers industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
PEEL ACCESSORIES: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Nisbett Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KAREEM NISBETT, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. PEEL ACCESSORIES, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-07796-ER (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's failure to design and operate its Web site to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans
With Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff asserts that during his visits to the Defendant's Web
site at http://www.buypeel.com/,the last occurring on August 11,
2020, he encountered multiple access barriers that denied him the
full enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and services of the Web
site, as well as to the facilities, goods, and services of the
Defendant's retail operations. Due to the inaccessibility of the
Web site, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in
acts of intentional discrimination as access barriers have deterred
him from taking advantage of the Defendant's services and enjoying
it equal to sighted individuals.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause the Defendant
to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Peel Accessories LLC is an online retailer of cell phone cases and
accessories. Through the Web site, customers can purchase items,
such as iPhone and Android phone cases, iPad cases, wallets, and
similar items.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10017-6705
Telephone: (212) 392-4772
E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
chris@lipskylowe.com
PELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS: Potential Class Action Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------
B Communications Ltd. in its Form 6-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission disclosed that on July 27, 2020,
Bezeq The Israel Telecommunication Corporation Ltd. ("Bezeq"), a
26.34% subsidiary of B Communications Ltd. (the "Company"),
reported to the Israel Securities Authority (the "ISA") and Tel
Aviv Stock Exchange (the "TASE") that a motion for approval of a
class action lawsuit against Bezeq's subsidiary, Pelephone
Communications Ltd. ("Pelephone") has been withdrawn, and the
personal claim of the relevant plaintiffs has been dismissed.
The lawsuit had alleged that Pelephone and other companies had
marketed and / or provided cellular service to cellular devices
manufactured by Xiaomi from which it was not possible to call the
emergency numbers in Israel.
Bezeq hereby updates Section 3.16.1(L) in the chapter describing
Bezeq's business in Bezeq's annual report for 2019.
Bezeq reports that on July 26, 2020 a ruling was given in the
Central District Court approving a motion by agreement to withdraw
a motion for approval of a class action against Bezeq's subsidiary,
Pelephone Communications Ltd. ("Pelephone"), and to dismiss the
plaintiffs' personal claim against Pelephone.
The claim had alleged that Pelephone and other companies had
marketed and/or provided cellular service to cellular devices
manufactured by Xiaomi from which it was not possible to call the
emergency numbers in Israel. [GN]
PENN MUTUAL: 11th Cir. Appeal Filed in Cochran Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jeffrey A. Cochran filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in his lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Cochran v. The Penn Mutual
Life Insurance, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00564-JPB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
The lawsuit is a putative securities class action alleging breach
of fiduciary duty against the Defendant.
The appellate case is captioned as Jeffrey Cochran v. The Penn
Mutual Life Insurance, et al., Case No. 20-13477, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before
October 9, 2020, as to Appellee The Penn Mutual Life Insurance
Company.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JEFFREY A. COCHRAN, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:
David Andrew Bain, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC
1230 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 1050
Atlanta, GA
Telephone: (404) 724-9990
E-mail: dbain@bain-law.com
- and -
Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta St.
Marietta, GA 30060
Telephone: (770) 227-6375
E-mail: roy@barneslawgroup.com
- and -
James M. Evangelista, Esq.
Kristi Stahnke McGregor, Esq.
David J. Worley, Esq.
EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
500 Sugar Mill Rd., Ste. 245A
Atlanta, GA 30350
Telephone: (404) 205-8400
E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com
- and -
Jay Forbes Hirsch, Esq.
Kimberly J. Johnson, Esq.
Michael L. McGlamry, Esq.
POPE MCGLAMRY
3391 Peachtree Rd. NE, Ste. 300
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 523-7706
E-mail: efile@pmkm.com
kimjohnson@pmkm.com
efile@pmkm.com
- and -
Wade H. Tomlinson, III, Esq.
POPE MCGLAMRY
1200 6th Ave.
Columbus, GA 31901
Telephone: (706) 324-0050
E-mail: efile@pmkm.com
Defendants-Appellees THE PENN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and
HORNOR TOWNSEND & KENT, LLC are represented by:
Stephen D. Councill, Esq.
Joshua P. Gunnemann, Esq.
COUNCILL & GUNNEMANN LLC
1201 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 100
Atlanta, GA 30361
Telephone: (404) 522-4700
E-mail: sdc@rh-law.com
jgunnemann@rh-law.com
- and -
Laura Hughes McNally, Esq.
John P. Lavelle, Jr., Esq.
Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
1701 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
Telephone: (215) 963-5387
E-mail: laura.mcnally@morganlewis.com
john.lavelle@morganlewis.com
marc.sonnenfeld@morganlewis.com
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Must Face Expanded Fishermen's Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sebastien Malo, writing for Reuters, reports that a pipeline
operator must face an expanded class action lawsuit by fishermen
who blame the company for losses following its role in a 2015 oil
spill in California after a federal appeals court canned the
operator's bid to reverse the class' widening.
A two-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Plains
denied Plains All American Pipeline's challenge of a lower court
order acquiescing to include plaintiffs from a broader geographical
area, who are looking at a sixfold increase in damages, up to
$185.6 million. [GN]
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Still Defends Lawsuits over Line 901 Incident
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. continues to defend lawsuits
related to a crude oil release in May 2015 from its Las Flores to
Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County, California,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020.
The Company said, "Shortly following the Line 901 incident, we
established a claims line and encouraged any parties that were
damaged by the release to contact us to discuss their damage
claims. We have received a number of claims through the claims
line and we have been processing those claims and making payments
as appropriate. In addition, we have also had nine class action
lawsuits filed against us, six of which have been administratively
consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. In general, the
plaintiffs are seeking to establish different classes of claimants
that have allegedly been damaged by the release.
"The court originally certified three sub-classes of claimants and
denied certification of the other proposed sub-class. On appeal,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the certification of
one of the three sub-classes, the oil-industry sub-class, and the
District Court subsequently dismissed the oil-industry sub-class
representatives' claims. The two remaining sub-classes include (i)
commercial fishermen who landed fish in certain specified fishing
blocks in the waters off the coast of Southern California or
persons or businesses who resold commercial seafood landed in such
areas; and (ii) residential beachfront properties on a beach and
residential properties with a private easement to a beach where oil
from the spill washed up. The court has set a trial date of
September 1, 2020 for those two sub-classes, but the trial is
unlikely to proceed on that date due to COVID-19 related trial
suspensions.
"We are also defending a separate class action lawsuit proceeding
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California brought on behalf of the Line 901 and Line 903 easement
holders seeking injunctive relief as well as compensatory
damages."
PRINCESS CRUISES: Ruby Princess Passengers File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Ali Coulton, writing for Travel Weekly, reports that passengers
involved in the Ruby Princess debacle have filed a class action
against princess cruises, claiming the line breached Australian
consumer law.
The action was filed by Shine Lawyers through the Federal Court on
behalf of passengers and their families.
The firm said all 2,700 passengers who disembarked the ship in
Circular Quay on 19 March 2020 are eligible to join the class
action, as well as relatives who have suffered mentally from the
cruise's aftermath and executors and administrators of deceased
passengers' estates.
Class actions practice leader Vicky Antzoulatos said it is alleged
the cruise line broke Australian consumer laws by breaching
consumer guarantees and by engaging in conduct that was misleading
and deceptive.
It is also alleged the line was negligent and failed in its duty of
care to provide passengers with a safe cruise.
"We say the owner and operator knew of the risks that passengers
may contract coronavirus before the ship left and they failed to
take steps to ensure their passengers were safe and protected,"
Antzoulatos said.
"People on board the ship trusted Carnival to do the right thing
but they were not told about the risk of coronavirus and some paid
the ultimate price for it.
"More than 20 people have died, many remain gravely ill, while
others struggle daily with the grief of having lost a loved one or
having to care for a very sick relative."
Class action group member Graeme Lake, whose wife Karla died from
coronavirus 10-days after returning home from the cruise, called on
Princess Cruises to take responsibility.
"It broke me, it broke the kids, and she didn't deserve it," Lake
said.
"Karla went on that cruise to celebrate her 75th birthday and what
happened to her has destroyed us. I am doing everything I can to
get justice."
Princess Cruises told Travel Weekly that it does not intend to
comment on "the assertions of class action lawyers".
"The NSW Special Commission of Inquiry, in which we are
participating, is in the process of establishing the facts in
relation to Ruby Princess," the line said.
At least 22 deaths and hundreds of cases of COVID-19 can be linked
to the ship.
A Special Commission of Inquiry into Ruby Princess was expected to
deliver its findings last August. [GN]
PROASSURANCE CORP: Faces Suit over Specialty Property Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
ProAssurance Corporation is facing a putative class action in
Alabama related to allegedly false and misleading statements the
Company made regarding its Specialty Property and Casualty segment,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020.
The lawsuit was filed in June 2020 in the Northern District of
Alabama, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
ProAssurance said, "The Company believes the lawsuit is without
merit and intends to defend it vigorously; however, there can be no
assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of the matter."
PURDUE PHARMA: City of Vermilion to Join Opioid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Rodges, writing for WOIO, reports that the City of Vermilion
is expected to join a class-action lawsuit against Purdue Pharma.
The city's Mayor, Jim Forthofer, brought the issue up in a city
council meeting on Aug. 3.
According to city officials, the lawsuit takes into account the
cost of past and future damages.
The lawsuit is estimated to be around $6 million.
Mayor Forthofer said that he believes the opioids sold by Purdue
Pharma directly negatively affected the community impacting the way
the ongoing opioid crisis impacted the city's residents.
He also stated that marketing improperly sheds light on opioids,
and they, directly and indirectly, impacted the community.
Purdue Pharma had to deal out over $250 million in a federal
lawsuit filed last year. [GN]
QUANTA SERVICES: Faces $8.8MM Damages in Suit vs Former Unit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled, Lorenzo Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists,
Inc., et al., the trial court has determined the amount of
liability for TNS to be approximately US$8.8 million, according to
Quanta Services, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020.
In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom
Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta. Quanta
retained liability associated with this matter pursuant to the
terms of Quanta's sale of TNS in December 2012.
Benton represents a class of workers that includes all persons who
worked on certain TNS projects, including individuals that TNS
retained through numerous staffing agencies. The plaintiff class
in this matter is seeking damages for unpaid wages, penalties
associated with the failure to provide meal and rest periods and
overtime wages, interest and attorneys' fees.
In January 2017, the trial court granted a summary judgment motion
filed by the plaintiff class and found that TNS was a joint
employer of the class members and that it failed to provide
adequate meal and rest breaks and failed to pay overtime wages.
During 2019 and 2020, the parties filed additional summary judgment
and other motions and a bench trial on liability and damages was
held.
The Company said, "As of July 2020, liability and damages for
significantly all claims had been determined by the trial court,
with the amount of liability for TNS determined to be approximately
US$8.8 million. This amount includes damages and interest though
the date of the trial court's orders, but does not include
attorneys' fees or costs, which are yet to be determined. Quanta
believes the court's decisions on liability and damages are not
supported by controlling law and continues to contest its liability
and the damage calculation asserted by the plaintiff class in this
matter."
Quanta Services, Inc. provides specialty contracting services in
the United States, Canada, Australia, Latin America, and
internationally. The company serves electric power, energy, and
communications companies, as well as commercial, industrial, and
governmental entities. Quanta Services, Inc. was founded in 1997
and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.
RECON OILFIELD: McDaniel Seeks Unpaid Wages for Machine Operators
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CORY MCDANIEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RECON OILFIELD SERVICES, INC.; and TRIPLE J OILFIELD
SERVICES LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-04497-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 31,
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 McDaniel was employed by the Defendants as machine
operator.
Recon Oilfield Services, Inc. is a full service pressure testing
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: 614-949-1181
Facsimile: 614-386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
REVERB.COM LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Graciano Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SANDY GRACIANO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. REVERB.COM LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07813-MKV
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to
design and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans With
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that during his visits to the Defendant's Web
site at https://reverb.com/, the last occurring in August 2020, he
encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal
access to the goods and services offered to the public and made
available to the public; and that denied him the full enjoyment of
the goods, and services of the Web site by being unable to purchase
music instruments and accessories.
The Defendant's actions constitute willful intentional
discrimination against the Plaintiff and the class on the basis of
a disability in violation of the state laws, according to the
complaint.
Reverb.com LLC operates the Reverb online retail store across the
United States. The Company's Web site provides consumers with
access to an array of goods including information about purchasing
music instruments and accessories such as guitars, drums,
keyboards, speaker systems, headphones and other products available
online for purchase, and to ascertain information relating to
pricing, shipping, creating an online account, ordering merchandise
and return and privacy policies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
danalgottlieb@aol.com
REWALK ROBOTICS: 1st Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Yan Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
August 25, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative securities fraud class
action asserting violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") as well as Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 against a medical robotics company
(the "Company") as well as certain of its officers. Yan v. ReWalk
RoboticsLtd., et al., No. 19-1614, 2020 WL 5014858 (1st Cir. Aug.
25, 2020). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made false or
misleading statements and omissions in its IPO registration
statement (the "Registration Statement") and subsequent quarterly
and annual disclosures concerning its dealings with the Food and
Drug Administration (the "FDA") regarding one of the Company's
devices. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal
of the Securities Act claims, finding that plaintiffs failed to
allege a material misstatement or omission. Although it disagreed
with the district court's reasoning in dismissing the Exchange Act
claims for lack of standing, the First Circuit nevertheless found
that the Exchange Act claims were properly dismissed because
plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege a material misstatement or
scienter.
The Company designs and manufactures robotic exoskeletons that
offer greater mobility to individuals with spinal cord injuries,
including an exoskeleton that is intended for use in a home or
general community setting ("the device"). The device is subject to
regulation by the FDA, which approved the device so long as the
Company conducted a post-market surveillance study of the safety of
the device outside institutional settings. Although the safety of
the device had been demonstrated in institutional settings, such as
hospitals and rehabilitation centers, there was limited data on its
safety in the home or community settings—the intended environment
for the device. The FDA ordered the Company to submit the proposed
study plan for approval and begin the study within fifteen months.
Upon submitting the proposed study plan for approval, but before
receiving FDA approval of that plan, the Company issued its
Registration Statement and a month later went public. The
Registration Statement allegedly touted the device as, among other
things, a "breakthrough product" with "compelling clinical data,"
but noted that the FDA had ordered the performance of a post-market
surveillance study and failure to comply may result in the device's
removal from the market.
According to plaintiffs, the Company missed certain deadlines for
submitting plans for its post-market surveillance study, and, when
it did submit such plans, the FDA deemed them inadequate. As a
result, one year after its IPO, the FDA issued a warning letter to
the Company, stating (1) that the Company had not made satisfactory
progress towards commencing an approved post-market surveillance
study, (2) the device was "misbranded" under the Food Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, and (3) the Company would be sanctioned if it did not
take corrective action. In the year between the IPO and its receipt
of the warning letter, the Company allegedly did not disclose that
the FDA was dissatisfied with the Company's progress towards
commencing the study. And in subsequent quarterly and annual
disclosures, the Company allegedly continued to tout the device and
assure investors it was making progress in commencing the
post-market study. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company waited six
months after receiving the warning letter to disclose it to the
public, doing so just days before the FDA was scheduled to make the
letter public.
In January 2017, plaintiffs filed the proposed class action
complaint focusing only on alleged misrepresentations in the
Registration Statement. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company failed
to disclose sufficient information concerning the reasoning for the
FDA's order mandating a post-market surveillance study. In August
2017, plaintiffs amended the complaint to include claims under
Section 10b and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, further alleging
that the Company failed to disclose the FDA's dissatisfaction with
its progress towards commencing its study.
The district court dismissed the Securities Act claims, holding
that plaintiffs failed to allege any false or misleading statements
or omissions. The district court similarly dismissed the Exchange
Act claims, holding that (1) lead plaintiff purchased his
securities well before the Company made the alleged misstatements
or omissions, and (2) lead plaintiff, after the supplemental
briefing, had not plausibly alleged that a common fraudulent scheme
united the alleged misrepresentations in the Registration Statement
and those made in public filings and on investor calls after the
Company's IPO. The district court further held that, because lead
plaintiff's Exchange Act claims failed, he lacked standing to move
to amend the complaint to add another lead plaintiff to pursue
these claims.
The First Circuit initially considered the alleged
misrepresentations in the Registration Statement and affirmed the
district court's decision that lead plaintiff failed to allege any
actionable misstatement or omission. According to lead plaintiff's
principal theory of liability, the Company's description of the
FDA's evaluation of the device's safety was misleading because "the
FDA specifically determined . . . that the device's failure to
prevent a fall would be reasonably likely to cause serious injury
or death" and, thus, any "boilerplate recitation of the potential
adverse regulatory consequences was rendered meaningless." The
First Circuit disagreed, finding the cautionary language
sufficient, noting that no reasonable investor would conclude that
the FDA was concerned with "mere bumps and bruises" when the
Registration Statement disclosed that a "user could experience
death or serious injury" if the device were to malfunction and
that, as a result, the Company needed to "demonstrate reasonable
assurance of safety" to the FDA in the device's post-market study.
The Court similarly held that other alleged misstatements, such as
the Company touting its "compelling clinical data" or "breakthrough
device," were inactionable statements of mere puffery. Further, the
Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of any potential
claims under Regulation S-K, holding that regardless of whether
these claims were adequately pleaded, they failed for the same
reason plaintiffs' Section 11 claims failed—the Registration
Statement's risk disclosures were adequate. Finally, the Court
rejected plaintiff's procedural objection that the district court
had improperly dismissed some of the alleged misstatements "sua
sponte" relying on the statutory safe harbor for forward-looking
statements. The Court held that while "it is sometimes
inappropriate for a district court to advance on its own a reason
to dismiss a claim," the issue the district court addressed posed a
"pure issue of law," plaintiff "lost no chance to marshal any
supporting arguments" on appeal, and plaintiff failed to point to
anything that he would have added to the appellate record had the
Company raised the argument itself.
Turning to the Exchange Act claims and the alleged
misrepresentations on investor calls after the IPO, the Court held
that lead plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the alleged
misstatements that occurred months after his purchases of the
Company's stock. Agreeing with the district court, the Court held
that lead plaintiff had not sufficiently alleged that the Company
had "engaged in a 'common scheme' that tied together claimants who
purchased in the IPO with claimants who purchased after the IPO."
According to the Court, lead plaintiff failed to adequately allege
any misstatement or omission in the Registration Statement and,
therefore, the Company's repetition of the same alleged
misstatements on investor calls after the Company's IPO cannot
establish a "common scheme." Accordingly, "even if fraud occurred
after the IPO, there is no basis for claiming that it commenced
before the IPO." As such, the Court found that the Exchange Act
claims "rise or fall . . . on consideration of [the Company's]
decision not to disclose the difficulties it was having after the
IPO in seeking approval by the FDA for it study plan"—which
occurred after lead plaintiff purchased the Company's stock. The
Court, therefore, concluded that "it would hardly serve the
interests of class members who may have valid claims based on their
facts to be represented by a person whose facts dictate he or she
will lose the case even if the class members might have won."
The Court did, however, disagree with the district court's
reasoning in dismissing the Exchange Act claims, which the district
court dismissed because lead plaintiff "had no standing to ask the
court to do anything at all, including adding a party." While the
First Circuit acknowledged that certain cases support this
"formalistic approach," it noted that the First Circuit
"matter-of-factly" follows the Supreme Court's approach in Sierra
Club v. Morton, where the Supreme Court held that although Sierra
Club lacked standing, it could amend its complaint to plead new
facts that would support standing. 405 U.S. 727, 735, 741 (1972).
Citing to cases in the First Circuit "reversing the denial of a
motion to amend where the amended pleading established Article III
standing by adding facts not contained in prior complaints" and
Congress' endorsement of this approach, the First Circuit
determined that it "[saw] no reason why this permissiveness does
not extend to motions seeking to add a named party asserting the
exact same claims that is already pleaded in the complaint."
Although the Court disagreed with the district court's standing
analysis as it pertained to the Exchange Act claims, the First
Circuit nevertheless held that such claims were properly dismissed.
In so holding, the Court noted that it has the discretion to affirm
a district court's decision on alternative grounds and that the
parties had anticipated such a possibility in their briefing. In
particular, the Court held that the amended complaint had not
adequately pled scienter because (1) the majority of the alleged
misstatements or omissions concern "run-of-the-mill regulatory back
and forths"; (2) the Company has no affirmative obligation to
disclose "each detail of every communication with the FDA" (quoting
In re Bos. Sci. Corp. Sec. Litig., 686 F.3d 21, 31 (1st Cir.
2012)); and (3) as the Court had previously made clear, the
Company's risk disclosures were adequate. The Court noted that
while the Company's receipt of the FDA warning letter might be the
exception to the Company's "run-of-the-mill" exchanges with the
FDA, the FDA took no action against the Company at the time it
issued the warning letter and merely stated that the failure to
take corrective action "may" result in sanctions. The Court further
held that even if the Company failed to demonstrate a "sense of
urgency" after receiving the FDA warning letter, such "lack of
urgency might amount to poor management, [but] such a failing does
not amount to securities fraud."
Having found that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead a
material misstatement or scienter, the First Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of the amended complaint. [GN]
ROMEO'S: Faces Underpayments Class Action
-----------------------------------------
Lawyerly reports that supermarket chain Romeo's has become the
latest retailer to face a class action alleging it failed to pay
staff for all hours worked. [GN]
ROOMSTOGO.COM INC: Graciano Sues Over Denied Access to Web Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
SANDY GRACIANO, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. ROOMSTOGO.COM, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07811
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State
Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has denied the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated blind or visually-impaired users
equal and full access to its website, https://www.roomstogo.com/.
The Defendant's website contains access barriers that hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to browse and enjoy the goods and
services offered by the Defendant to the public. These barriers
include: (1) lack of alternative text (alt-text) which prevents
blind or visually-impaired users to determine what is on the
website, browse, or make any purchases; (2) empty links that
contain no text which causes the function or purpose of the link to
not be presented to blind users; (3) redundant links where adjacent
links go to the same Uniform Resource Locator (URL) address which
results in additional navigation and repetition for keyboard and
screen-reader users; and (4) linked images missing alt-text, which
causes problems if an image within a link contains no text and that
image does not provide alt-text.
As a result of the Defendant's failure and refusal to remove the
access barriers to its website, the Plaintiff says he and
visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied
equal access to the Defendant's numerous goods, services and
benefits offered to the public through the website.
Roomstogo.Com, Inc., operates the Rooms To Go online retail store
across the United States, with its principal executive office
located at 11540 US Highway 92 East, in Seffner, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
danalgottlieb@aol.com
SAGINAW PRODUCTS: Denies Rights to Paid Leave, Stevens Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Stevens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SAGINAW PRODUCTS CORPORATION d/b/a CIGNYS, Case No.
2:20-cv-12604-MAG-PTM (E.D. Mich., Sept. 23, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant to redress violations caused by its
interference with the Plaintiff's rights to take paid sick leave,
and to seek all available relief under the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act and its divisions the Emergency Family and
Medical Leave Expansion Act and the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant deprived the Plaintiff
and others of their rights under the FFCRA when it failed to
provide them legally-required notice of their right to take leave
and subsequently denied them of a right to paid leave, knowing that
these employees had medical conditions or caregiver
responsibilities due to COVID-19.
On April 2, 2020, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed Executive Order
2020-35, suspending face-to-face learning at K-12 schools for the
remainder of the school year. The Plaintiff has two school-aged
children. The Plaintiff is the sole caretaker for his children
during the workweek. The Plaintiff has been diagnosed with
diabetes, and the Defendant is aware of this diagnosis. The
Plaintiff says the Defendant was aware that he required leave for
reasons related to COVID-19.
Although it was on actual notice of the Plaintiff's rights and need
for leave, the Defendant taxed the Plaintiff's "PTO" pay to
exhaustion before placing the Plaintiff on unpaid leave, according
to the complaint. The Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of his
right to leave under the FFCRA and never offered the Plaintiff paid
leave under the FFCRA.
Mr. Stevens began his employment with the Defendant as a welder in
January 2005.
Saginaw Products Corporation, d/b/a Cignys, is a Michigan
for-profit corporation with its corporate headquarters located in
Saginaw, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Blanchard, Esq.
Frances J. Hollander, Esq.
BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
221 North Main Street, Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Phone: (734) 929.4313
Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
hollander@bwlawonline.com
SARTON PUERTO RICO: Fiorentine Suit Transferred to Puerto Rico
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as John Fiorentine and Kim Kravitz, On behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Sarton
Puerto Rico, LLC, doing business as: Ikea Puerto Rico, a Puerto
Rico limited liability company, Defendant, was transferred from the
District of Columbia with the assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-03424 to
the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
(San Juan) on September 23, 2020, and assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-01491-GAG.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Statutory
Actions filed over Personal Injury.
Sarton Puerto Rico, LLC provide Market Analysis, Trading Partners,
Peers, Port Statistics, B/Ls, Contacts (including Contact, Email,
URL).[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP
1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202) 973-0900
Fax: (202) 973-0950
Email: agold@tzlegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Pedro R Vazquez , III, Esq.
PEDRO R. VAZQUEZ LAW OFFICES
73 Jaguas Street
Milaville
San Juan, PR 00926
Tel: (787) 925-4669
Email: prvazquez3@gmail.com
SASOL LTD: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge greenlighted a securities fraud class-action
lawsuit against South African-based energy company Sasol Limited
(NYSE: SSL) and five of its former executives, for
misrepresentations and omissions about rising costs and
construction delays at a mega-chemicals facility Sasol was building
in Louisiana, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman.
Class Period:
Mar. 10, 2015 - Jan. 13, 2020
Submit Losses:
https://www.hbsslaw.com/ssl
Contact Hagens Berman:
www.hbsslaw.com/cases/ssl
SSL@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York Hon. Jed
S. Rakoff denied in large part the defendants' motion to dismiss.
The opinion held that the lead plaintiff's complaint sufficiently
pleads that the alleged misconduct violates Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit was
originally filed on Feb. 5, 2020.
The suit calls into scrutiny the actions of Sasol, along with
former CEO David Edward Constable, former joint CEOs Bongani
Nqwababa and Stephen Cornell, CFO Paul Victor and former executive
vice president Stephan Schoeman. These defendants must now file an
answer, admitting or denying each of the complaint's allegations.
The court also subsequently entered an order paving the way for the
suit's lead plaintiff and class members -- investors who purchased
Sasol American Depository Receipts (ADRs) between Mar. 10, 2015 and
Jan. 13, 2020, inclusive -- to be ready for trial on May 3, 2021.
In the 26-page motion to dismiss opinion, Judge Rakoff upheld
investors' claims based on defendants' misrepresentations about the
cost and construction for the Lake Charles Chemicals Project
(LCCP). Specifically, the court rejected defendants' argument that
their statements were protected by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act's safe harbor provision, finding that the
complaint adequately alleges that defendants' cautionary language
of potential cost overruns and delays was not meaningful and that
defendants had actual knowledge of the falsity of their
statements.
"Defendants' argument utterly fails with respect to the alleged
misrepresentations concerning the cost and schedule of the LCCP
because . . . the complaint alleges with particularity that Sasol's
public cost estimates and projected schedules hugely failed to
account for already existing cost overruns and delays the day they
were announced," Judge Rakoff wrote.
On May 4, 2020, Hagens Berman was appointed lead counsel in the
case, with Steve Berman, managing partner and co-founder of firm,
serving as the lead trial counsel.
"We are pleased with this pro investor decision, which rejects the
notion that corporate fraudsters can be immunized from knowingly
making false projections to investors by merely including
boilerplate cautionary language warning of risks that have already
transpired," Berman said. "This ruling also clears the way for us
to begin obtaining discovery and prepare for trial in May 2021,
during which we look forward to holding Sasol and its executives
accountable for the significant losses they caused their
investors."
The lawsuit alleges that Sasol's ADRs were artificially inflated
because of misrepresentations and omissions about the estimated
end-of-job cost and development of the LCCP. When the truth emerged
over a series of disclosures, shareholders learned that: (i) the
LCCP's true cost was nearly $13 billion (or more than 60 percent
than initially represented); (ii) beneficial operation at the LCCP
would not occur until years after Sasol promised; (iii) according
to Sasol's board's own account, "errors, omissions, and
inaccuracies in the project cost estimate" stemmed from "inadequate
control procedures," "inappropriate conduct" and "an improper tone
at the top;" (iv) a multitude of Sasol senior executives were fired
or otherwise forced to leave; and (v) safety violations and risks
materialized with a devastating explosion at the LCCP.
If you purchased Sasol ADRs and suffered significant losses,
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Sasol
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or
email SSL@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and 88 attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. [GN]
SCRIBD INC: Licea Sues Over Inconspicuous Automatic Renewal Offer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS LICEA, an individual v. SCRIBD, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV34766 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Sept. 10, 2020), is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated arising from the
Defendant's offer of "free" services and products that violate the
California's Automatic Renewal Law and the Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiff is a blind California consumer, who accepted a "free"
trial online book and audio book service/subscription and related
products from the Defendants.
According to the complaint, the Company (a) fails to include in the
free trial offer a "clear and conspicuous" explanation of the price
that will be charged after the trial ends; (b) charges consumer
credit or debit cards without first obtaining "affirmative consent"
to automatically renewing charges; and (c) fails to provide an
acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous
service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding
how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the
consumer. As a result, the product or service provided by the
Defendants to the Plaintiff is an unconditional gift and must be
refunded.
Scribd, Inc., is a San Francisco, California-based company that
operates a website, which markets online book and audio book
services/subscriptions and related products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
SIRAB IMPORTS: Lalousis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
IOANNIS LALOUSIS, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. SIRAB IMPORTS, INC., and NIKOLAOS BOBORIS,
Case No. 1:20-cv-04399 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that despite regularly working more than 10
hours per day and/or 40 hours per week during his employment with
the Defendants, he was not paid by the Defendant spread-of-hours
pay and his lawfully earned overtime pay at one and one-half times
his regular rate of pay for all the hours he worked in excess of
40. Moreover, the Defendant failed to provide the following: any
notices or information regarding the "wage and employment;" a time
clock, sign in sheet, or any other method for employees to track
their time worked; and paystubs or wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt driver
or a delivery person from March 9, 2018, through April 10, 2020.
Sirab Imports, Inc., owns and operates an import/export business
for food products. Nikolaos Boboris is an owner or part owner and
has the power to hire and fire employees, set wages and schedules,
and maintain records.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patricia Rose Lynch, Esq.
SACCO & FILLAS, LLP
31-19 Newtown Avenue, Seventh Floor
Astoria, NY 11102
Tel: 718-269-2240
E-mail: Plynch@saccofillas.com
SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Moshen Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
MORDECHAI MOSHEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, Case No. 1:20-cv-04053
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2020), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of making unsolicited calls.
SmileDirectClub, LLC, designs and manufactures dental equipment.
The Company supplies invisible aligners and braces to get straight
teeth.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com
STG INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. STG INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case 3:20-cv-01701-AJB-LL
(S.D. Cal., Aug. 31, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as staff.
STG International, Inc., operates as a staffing company. The
Company offers medical staffing and human resources services,
systems solutions, and data resource consulting and administrative
services for government and military clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lauren N. Vega, Esq.
Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq.
FERRARO EMPLOYMENT LAW, INC.
2305 Historic Decatur Road, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92106
Telephone: (619) 693-7727
Facsimile: (619) 350-6855
E-mail: lauren@ferraroemploymentlaw.com
nick@ferraroemploymentlaw.com
STIHL SOUTHWEST: Stigger Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
LATRICE STIGGER and MICHELLE BROWN, each individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. STIHL SOUTHWEST, INC., Case No.
6:20-cv-06107-SOH (W.D. Ark., Sept. 22, 2020), is brought against
the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, including failure to compensate the
Plaintiffs and other employees overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as hourly-paid
employees at its facilities located within the Hot Springs Division
of the Western District of Arkansas from 2015 until March 2020.
STIHL Southwest, Inc., is a branch distributor of yard and
construction equipment and tools manufacturer STIHL, Inc., with a
principal place of business in Malvern, Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
April Rheaume, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (800) 615-4946
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: april@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
TARGET CORP: Seiller Sues Over False Up&Up Acetaminophen Labels
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW SEILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-07818-VEC
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
unjust enrichment and fraud, and for deceptive acts or practices
and false advertising under New York General Business Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is engaged in deceptive
and misleading advertising, labeling and marketing of Target's
Up&Up acetaminophen brand for infants in the United States. The
Defendant purposely packages Infants' Dye-Free Acetaminophen Fever
Reducer/Pain Reliever Liquid with distinctive pink lettering of the
word "Infants'" on the product's front-label, while packaging
Children's Dye-Free Acetaminophen Fever Reducer/Pain Reliever
Liquid with distinctive pink lettering of the word "Children's" on
the product's front-label.
According to the complaint, the Defendant distributes, markets, and
sells the products in a manner, which deceives reasonable consumers
into thinking that infants cannot safely take children's products.
Furthermore, despite the fact that the products contain the same
exact amount of acetaminophen in the same dosage amounts, the
Defendant markets and sells infants' products to consumers, such as
the Plaintiff, at a substantially higher price than children's
products.
The Plaintiff contends that he and Class members were injured as a
result of the Defendant's deceptive acts because (a) they would not
have purchased the Products if they had known that the because the
infants' products and children's products are identical, and thus
are interchangeable, and (b) they overpaid for the product on
account of the misrepresentation and omission that the children's
products are in fact suitable and safe for infants.
Target Corporation is an American retail company headquartered in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and –
Blair E. Reed, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: breed@bursor.com
TREVCO INC: Nisbett Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Trevco, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Kareem
Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Trevco, Inc. doing business as: MaskClub,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07814 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 22, 2020).
Trevco Inc. retails sportswear. The Company offers licensed and
non-licensed tees for men, women, kids, and babies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
Lipsky Lowe LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Tel: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
TU CASA RESTAURANT: Chumil Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARCELLINO CHUMIL; and JOSE CHUMIL, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. TU CASA RESTAURANT (d/b/a TU CASA);
WILLY ALBA SR.; WILLY ALBA JR.; MARITZA DOE; CARLOS DOE; and
RODOLFO DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-06990 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2020),
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as delivery
workers.
Tu Casa Restaurant operates a Latin restaurant located in Astoria,
Queens, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
U.S. XPRESS: Ayala Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit to 9th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Anthony Ayala filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled Anthony Ayala v. U.S. Xpress Enterprises,
Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00137-GW-KK, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Riverside.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
asserts claims for violations of the California Labor Code and
California Industrial Commission Wage Orders, including failure to
provide meal and rest periods and failure to compensate for all
hours of work performed.
The appellate case is captioned as Anthony Ayala v. U.S. Xpress
Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-55981, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant Anthony Ayala's opening brief is due on
November 25, 2020;
-- Appellees U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. and U.S. Xpress,
Inc.'s answering brief is due on December 28, 2020; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ANTHONY AYALA, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
David Borgen, Esq.
James Kan, Esq.
Raymond A. Wendell, Esq.
GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
300 Lakeside Drive
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 763-980
E-mail: dborgen@gbdhlegal.com
jkan@gbdhlegal.com
rwendell@gbdhlegal.com
- and -
James M. Sitkin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES M. SITKIN
1 Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 318-1048
E-mail: jsitkin@sitkinlegal.com
- and -
Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
Justin Lee Swidler, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
1101 North Kings Highway
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
Telephone: (856) 685-7420
E-mail: rswartz@swartz-legal.com
jswidler@swartz-legal.com
Defendants-Appellees U.S. XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC. and U.S. XPRESS,
INC. are represented by:
James Anthony Eckhart, Esq.
James Harold Hanson, Esq.
Elizabeth Ashley Paynter, Esq.
R. Jay Taylor, Jr., Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
10 West Market Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 637-1777
E-mail: jeckhart@scopelitis.com
jhanson@scopelitis.com
apaynter@scopelitis.com
jtaylor@scopelitis.com
- and -
Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
2 North Lake Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 795-4700
E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com
- and -
Adam Carl Smedstad, Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, PC
30 West Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 255-7181
E-mail: asmedstad@scopelitis.com
UNITED STATES: Class Action Over DEA Cash Grabs Amended
-------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Sullum, writing for Reason, reports that after flying from
Tampa to North Carolina for a casino reopening last May, Stacy
Jones and her husband had dinner with friends, who were interested
in buying a car the couple owned. They paid for it in cash. When
the couple had to cut their trip short because of a death in the
family, Jones put that money, along with cash she had for gambling,
in a carry-on bag and headed for the airport in Wilmington, never
considering the possibility that she was about to be robbed of
$43,000 by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
A local sheriff's deputy, alerted to the presence of seizable cash
by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners, grilled
Jones and her husband about the money and deemed their explanation
fishy, even after he called their friend, who confirmed the car
purchase but was unable to say exactly how many miles were on the
odometer. The deputy called in two DEA agents, who interrogated the
couple some more and then announced that they were seizing the
money based on their suspicion that it was related to drug
trafficking.
Jones is the latest named plaintiff in a federal class action
lawsuit that the Institute for Justice filed in January, arguing
that the DEA's practice of seizing money from travelers without any
evidence of criminal activity violates the Fourth Amendment. The
lawsuit also argues that the TSA's participation in this racket is
unconstitutional and exceeds the agency's statutory authority.
"I've traveled with cash in the past," Jones told WFLA, the NBC
station in Tampa. "We are recreational gamblers, so it's just
something that we've done and never thought twice about."
There is nothing illegal about traveling with large amounts of
cash. But given the legalized larceny authorized by civil asset
forfeiture laws, Jones was always taking a risk by thinking she
could safely travel with her own money, unmolested by avaricious
drug warriors.
"Civil forfeiture allows the government to seize and permanently
keep your property, even if you've never been charged with a
crime," Institute for Justice senior attorney Dan Alban explained
to WFLA. "DEA has a policy of seizing large amounts of cash at
airports, regardless if it has any proof the money is connected to
drug trafficking. And unfortunately, that sweeps up a whole bunch
of innocent people who have perfectly legitimate reasons for
traveling with cash."
According to the Institute for Justice lawsuit, the DEA seized more
than $2 billion in cash from 2009 through 2013. During that period,
it was responsible for more than 4,000 cash seizures at airports
and other transportation facilities, which netted a total of $163
million.
The named plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Terrence Rolin, a
79-year-old retired railroad engineer, who lost his life saving --
$82,373 -- to a DEA seizure after his daughter, Rebecca Brown, whom
he had charged with depositing the money in a joint bank account,
took it with her while flying from Pittsburgh, where she was
visiting him, to her home in Massachusetts. Two months later, after
the case attracted national publicity, the DEA agreed to return the
money.
Rolin and Brown are still participating in the lawsuit. In the
amended complaint, they say their fear of DEA seizures has
prevented them from handling money the way they would otherwise
prefer.
"Terry's and Rebecca's case made headlines across the country and
even overseas, but that still didn't stop the TSA and DEA from
doing the same thing to Stacy," notes Institute for Justice
attorney Jaba Tsitsuashvili. "The government shouldn't be able to
take someone's savings unless they are convicted of a crime. But
because federal law enforcement gets to spend the money it keeps
through civil forfeiture, agencies like the DEA are incentivized to
take cash without justification."
Jones thinks Americans traveling in the United States should not
have to live in fear of money-grabbing law enforcement officials,
as if they were visiting a Third World country where corruption is
endemic and cops routinely act like robbers. "I worked hard for
this money and was intending to use it for a down payment on a
house," she says. "It's wrong that the government treats people
like criminals even though they are doing something perfectly
legal. It needs to stop." [GN]
UNITED STATES: Medrano Files Suit in Court of Federal Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Medrano, et al. has filed a class action lawsuit against the
U.S. government in the United States Court of Federal Claims on
Sept. 22, 2020. The case is styled as Laura Medrano, Michael
McQueary, Demarcus Taylor, Deon Scott, Marlen Rodriguez,
Christopher Palomares, Jerry Motley, Jr., Marquis Mosley, Lucas
Meyer and Jason McDonald, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. USA, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01245-MHS.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civilian Pay -
FLSA filed pursuant to the Tucker Act.
The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation’s presence into the Pacific Ocean. Major Atlantic Coast
cities are New York, a global finance and culture center, and
capital Washington, DC. Midwestern metropolis Chicago is known for
influential architecture and on the west coast, Los Angeles'
Hollywood is famed for filmmaking.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
Hodges & Foty, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 523-0001
Fax: (713) 523-1116
Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INC: 7th Cir. Appeal Filed in Meinders TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Dr. Robert L. Meinders D.C., Ltd. filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit styled Dr. Robert L. Meinders, D.C. v.
UnitedHealthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00548-SMY, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Dr. Robert L.
Meinders D.C., LTD. filed a two-count class action complaint,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons,
against Emery Wilson Corporation d/b/a Sterling Management Systems
and John Does 1-12 alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and common law conversion.
The appellate case is captioned as Dr. Robert L. Meinders, D.C. v.
UnitedHealthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-2832, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT L. MEINDERS, Doctor, D.C., LTD.,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, is represented by:
Phillip Andrew Bock, Esq.
BOCK & HATCH, LLC
134 N. LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 658-5500
E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com
Defendants-Appellees UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC., JOHN DOES 1-12,
UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF ARIZONA, INC., UHC OF CALIFORNIA, doing
business as UnitedHealthCare of California, and UNITED HEALTHCARE
OF ILLINOIS, INC. are represented by:
Adam K. Levin, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
555 Thirteenth Street N.W. Columbia Square
Washington, DC 20004-1109
Telephone: (202) 637-6846
E-mail: adam.levin@hoganlovells.com
UTAH: Ringgold Files Suit v. System of Higher Educ.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Utah System of Higher
Education. The case is styled as Ariiyana Ringgold, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Utah System
of Higher Education, Harris H. Simmons, Jesselie B. Anderson, Mike
Angus, Jera L. Bailey, Nina Barnes, Stacey K. Bettridge,
Lisa-Michele Church, Wilford Clyde, Candyce Damron, Sanchaita
Datta, Alan E. Hall, Patricia Jones, Crystal Maggelet, Arther E.
Newell, Aaron V. Osmond, Glen Rivera and Scott L. Theurer,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00671-RJS (D. Utah, Sept. 23, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights:
Education filed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard A. Kaplan, Esq.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
50 W BROADWAY STE 700
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101
Tel: (801) 534-1700
Email: rkaplan@aklawfirm.com
- and -
Andrew R. Hale, Esq.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
50 W BROADWAY STE 700
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101
Tel: (801) 534-1700
Email: ahale@aklawfirm.com
UTICA FIRST: Kite & Key Seeks Payment for Losses Due to COVID-19
----------------------------------------------------------------
KITE AND KEY GASTRO PUB, INC. d/b/a KITE & KEY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. UTICA FIRST INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-04264-MMB (E.D. Pa., Aug. 31, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay insurance for losses due
to COVID-19.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the proposed Class
purchased and paid for an "all-risk" Commercial Property Coverage
insurance policy from the Defendant, which provides broad property
insurance coverage for all non-excluded, lost business income,
including the losses asserted here. The Plaintiff's insurance
policy with the Defendant expressly includes "Business Income"
coverage which promises to pay for loss due to the necessary
suspension of operations following loss to property and "Civil
Authority" coverage which promises to pay for losses caused by a
civil or governmental authority that prohibits access to the
covered property.
Upon claim, the Defendant has refused to honor that policy and has
failed to provide the coverage purchased by the Plaintiff, despite
the Plaintiff's timely submission of notice of claim, according to
the complaint. The Defendant has similarly refused to, or will
refuse to, honor its obligations under the "all-risk" policy(ies)
purchased by the Plaintiff and the other members of the putative
Class of insureds.
Utica First Insurance Company offers property and casualty
insurance services. The Company provides small contractors,
restaurants, retail stores, offices, and homeowners insurance
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arkady "Eric" Rayz, Esq.
KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC
1051 County Line Road, Suite "A"
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
Telephone: (215) 364-5030
Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com
- and -
Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
Robert J. Gray, Esq.
CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
101 Lindenwood Drive, Suite 225
Malvern, PA 19355
Telephone: (610) 822-3700
Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com
rgray@cwglaw.com
VARA CORP: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Vara Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Josue
Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Vara Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07863
(S.D. N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020).
Vara Safety is a technology company focused on advanced biometric
access.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
VAXART INC: Bernstein Liebhard Investigates Shareholder Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, is investigating potential claims on behalf of shareholders
of Vaxart, Inc. ("Vaxart" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VXRT) arising
from allegations that Vaxart's Board of Directors may have breached
their fiduciary duties to Vaxart and its shareholders.
If you own Vaxart securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit Vaxart VXRT Shareholder
Investigation or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Vaxart is a clinical-stage biotechnology company primarily focused
on the development of oral recombinant vaccines based on its oral
vaccine platform.
On July 25, 2020, the New York Times published an article titled:
"Corporate Insiders Pocket $1 Billion in Rush for Coronavirus
Vaccine." That article described how Vaxart's "[c]ompany insiders,
who weeks earlier had received stock options worth a few million
dollars, saw the value of those awards increase sixfold" when the
Company announced that its COVID-19 vaccine had been selected by
the U.S. government to be part of Operation Warp Speed, the
flagship federal initiative to quickly develop drugs to combat
COVID-19.
If you own Vaxart securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/vaxartinc-vxrt-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-284/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein
Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212)
779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the
State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not
guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future
matter.
Contact Information
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
VI DEVELOPMENT: Cuaya Action Granted Collective Status
------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR COYOTL CUAYA, on behalf
of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class,
v. VI DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC d/b/a BREAD & BUTTER, et al. Case No.
1:19-cv-04290-JLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge James L. Cott entered
an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part Cuaya's motion for
conditional collective action certification:
The Court grants conditional collective action
certification but only as to kitchen employees, including
cooks, food preparers, porters, and dishwashers who worked
at defendants' Bread & Butter restaurants, finding that
Cuaya has made the factual showing required to infer that
these employees were subject to a common policy or plan
that violated the law.;
2. directing that notice and consent forms be sent to:
"all cooks, food preparers, porters, and dishwashers who
worked at the defendants' Bread & Butter restaurants
within three years of the date of the filing of the
complaint";
3. directing that the notice should instruct potential
plaintiffs to mail consent forms to Cuaya's counsel and
include contact information for both the plaintiff's and
defendants' counsel, as described in this Memorandum
Order.
4. requiring the Defendants to post the notice and consent
forms in a common, non-public employee space at their
Bread & Butter restaurants, and granting potential
plaintiffs 60 days to opt in to the collective action;
5. directing the defendants to disclose to Cuaya's counsel
the names, titles, compensation rates, last-known mailing
addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, and dates
of employment of all potential plaintiffs within the
conditionally certified collective action, to facilitate
notice to potential plaintiffs of this action and of their
opportunity to opt-in as represented plaintiff, and
directing the Defendants to provide this information
within 30 days of the date of this Order;
6. declining to require production at this time of the Social
Security numbers of potential collective action members;
7. denying Cuaya's request to equitably toll the statute of
limitations, without prejudice to renewal by opt-in
plaintiffs on an individualized basis;
8. directing Cuaya to revise the notice and consent form,
consistent with this Memorandum Order, to confer with
defendants in order to agree on a final version of each
form, and to submit final versions (as well any
translations) for the Court's approval no later than
September 24, 2020; and
9. directing the Clerk of the Court to close docket entry
number 64 and mark it as granted in part and denied in
part.
The Court said it agrees with the defendants' view that the
proposed collective is overboard. The Court held, "It is true that
courts in this Circuit 'routinely find employees similarly situated
despite not occupying the same positions or performing the same job
functions and in the same locations, provided that they are subject
to a common unlawful policy or practice.' Here, however, each of
the 10 employees Cuaya names as people with whom he has had
specific conversations about wage-and-hour policies is a kitchen
employee, except for one employee characterized as a
porter/delivery worker. Cuaya 'offers no specific conversations,
names, or other details to show that employees other than kitchen
staff were part of a common policy that violated the FLSA.'
Rather, the only statements Cuaya makes with respect to non-kitchen
staff are conclusory allegations that 'other employees were also
required to work for hours for which they were not paid' and that
'no employees were ever paid a spread of hours premium.'"
The Court found no basis upon which it can "fairly infer" that
employees outside of the kitchen, who did not serve in roles
similar to Cuaya's, worked similar shifts or hours as he did.
Therefore, the Court cannot "draw the inference" that any employees
in those roles "suffer[ed] the same violations of the FLSA." At
this stage, Cuaya has not met his burden of "show[ing] that there
is at least some common question of law or fact that justifies
including" non-kitchen employees, such as cashiers, counter
persons, or cleaning persons. His conclusory allegations fail to
make even a modest showing that any employees -- other than kitchen
employees -- were subject to similar conditions. Accordingly, the
Court granted the collective action only insofar as kitchen
employees, including cooks, food preparers, porters, and
dishwashers] are concerned.
The Plaintiff Victor Coyotl Cuaya, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, brings this action for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law against the
defendants Terence Park, Byung Il Park, and seven corporate
defendants that allegedly operate a chain of deli restaurants in
Manhattan under the shared trade name "Bread & Butter". Cuaya
alleges that the defendants willfully engaged in various unlawful
employment practices, including by failing to pay required minimum
and overtime wages and spread of hours compensation.
A copy of the Court's Order on Cuaya's motion for conditional
collective action certification is available from PacerMonitor.com
at https://bit.ly/2ZIupJ3 at no extra charge.[CC]
VICOSOFT INC: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Vicosoft Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Josue
Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Vicosoft Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07866 (S.D.
N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020).
VicoSoft is a mobile app developer company. They have developed
various applications like VFX Studio Pro and Baby
Sleep:Lullabies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
VIKI INC: Martinez Sues Over Violation of Automatic Renewal Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABELARDO MARTINEZ, JR., an individual v. VIKI, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV34628 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 10, 2020), is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and others similarly situated arising from the
Defendants' offer of "free" services and products that violate the
California's Automatic Renewal Law and the Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiff is a blind California consumer, who accepted a "free"
trial subscription of Asian-themed streaming and related products
from the Defendants.
According to the complaint, the Company (a) fails to present the
automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms, in
a "clear and conspicuous" manner and in "visual proximity" to the
request for consent to the offer before the subscription or
purchasing agreement was fulfilled; (b) fails to include in the
free trial offer a "clear and conspicuous" explanation of the price
that will be charged after the trial ends; (c) charges consumer
credit or debit cards without first obtaining "affirmative consent"
to automatically renewing charges; and (d) fails to provide an
acknowledgment that includes the full cancellation policy in a
manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. As a
result, the product or service provided by the Defendants to the
Plaintiff is an unconditional gift and must be refunded.
Viki, Inc., is a San Mateo, California-based company that operates
a website, which markets Asian-themed streaming and related
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
VIKING RIVER CRUISES: Winegard Alleges ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Viking River Cruises, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Viking River Cruises, Inc. doing business
as: www.viking.tv doing business as: www.vikingcruises.com doing
business as: www.vikingrivercruises.com, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-04504 (E.D. N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020).
Viking is a cruise line providing river, ocean, and expedition
cruises. Its operating headquarters are in Basel, Switzerland, and
its marketing headquarters are in Los Angeles, California. The
company has three divisions, Viking River Cruises, Viking Ocean
Cruises, and Viking Expeditions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Segal, Esq.
Law Offices of Mitchell Segal P.C.
1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
Great Neck, NY 11021
Tel: (516) 415-0100
Fax: (516) 706-6631
Email: msegal@segallegal.com
VIRGIN SCENT: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Virgin Scent Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Josue
Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Virgin Scent Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07856
(S.D. N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020).
VIRGIN SCENT INC is in the Perfumes, Cosmetics, and Other Toilet
Preparations industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
WASHINGTON, DC: Faces Class Action Over Speed Camera
----------------------------------------------------
ABC7 reports that the District of Columbia is notorious for its use
of traffic enforcement cameras and is often accused of setting
speed-traps that generate millions in revenue but do little for
traffic safety.
Lisa Fletcher, writing for WJLA, reports that last fall, the 7 On
Your Side investigative team exposed one camera that's raked-in
more than $34 million under very questionable circumstances. That
camera is now the subject of a class action lawsuit.
And if plaintiffs prevail, it could bring relief to thousands.
Reggie Matthews and his wife Teresa were both ticketed by the same
speed camera on the same day, an hour apart.
Each fined $200 for going 55 and 52 in a 50 mph zone.
Or, at least it was a 50 mph zone until the District lowered the
limit to 40, declared it a work zone and doubled the fine even
though there was no evidence of work and only one sign, so small it
could be obstructed by a passing vehicle.
"After I got the ticket I happened to be watching TV and I came
across the ABC7 story about that particular speed camera and I
decided I wanted to see what we could do to make this right for all
the people who've been victimized by this," said Matthews.
Those guidelines say there should be multiple signs alerting
drivers to a work zone and when the work is over, signs should come
down and regular speed limits resumed.
"The work in the construction zone ended in May of 2019 and our
clients were ticketed in November," said Mason. "So we're talking
about May 2019 to late 2019, early 2020 when that area was
designated a work zone where no work was taking place and the
tickets were doing nothing but generating revenue for the city."
Not only that, but we discovered the act of lowering of the speed
limit may have been done illegally, according to the District's own
laws.
According to Title 18 2200.2, a decision to raise or lower the
speed limit is made on the basis of an engineering and traffic
investigation.
Through the Freedom of Information Act, we requested a copy of that
investigation and were told by the FOIA Administrator that it does
not exist. We followed up with a phone call to make certain we
weren't missing anything. We were assured our FOIA request was
properly filed and written and while it was clearly understood what
we were seeking, there was no such report.
We made inquiries of several attorneys to get their reading of
Title 18 2200.2. All agreed that the traffic and engineering
investigation the law requires would not have been optional and its
absence raises legal questions.
We asked the Deputy Mayor of Operations and Infrastructure, Lucinda
Babers, to sit down and talk with us about Title 18 as well as
allegations made in the lawsuit. Her office declined, stating that
"District government does not comment on active litigation
matters."
It didn't take long for the Matthews to decide to anchor a
class-action lawsuit against the District.
"Once the Deputy Mayor, in my view had done that God-awful
interview with you, Lisa, she was being extremely arrogant to me,
had no compassion for working folks out here going to work, talking
their kids to school, or what have you," said Matthews. "The sheer
arrogance. This is about me speaking truth to power."
And as for those "working folks" Matthews says deserve better, he
says he and Teresa are willing to take the lead, and hope others
join. [GN]
WEST MARINE: Faces Graciano Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WEST MARINE PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07870
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website,
https://www.westmarine.com/, and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the
complaint. Because the Defendant's website is not equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the
complaint.
The Defendant operates the West Marine online retail store as well
as the West Marine website and advertises, markets, and operates in
the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
WILCO LIFE: Anderson Appeals Order in Insurance Suit to 11th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Vanessa Anderson filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in her lawsuit entitled Vanessa Anderson v. Wilco Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 1:19-cv-00008-JRH-BKE, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.
The appellate case is captioned as Vanessa Anderson v. Wilco Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 20-13482, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 23,
2020, Judge J. Randal Hall of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Georgia, Augusta Division, reopened the case
styled as VANESSA ANDERSON, Individually and on Behalf of a Class
of Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiff, v. WILCO LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. CV 119-008 (S.D. Ga.).
Under the case, Plaintiff Anderson, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, alleged that the Defendant improperly
raised her insurance premiums to a level that caused her policy to
lapse. She originally filed the lawsuit in Columbia County,
Georgia, but the Defendant removed the case to the Georgia District
Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The
Plaintiff then moved to remand the case, arguing that the Defendant
could not meet CAFA's amount in controversy requirement.
The District Court granted the motion to remand which the Defendant
appealed, arguing that the face value of the putative class'
insurance policies totalled more than $5 million, satisfying the
amount in controversy requirement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit reversed and vacated the District Court's
remand Order, reasoning that because the Plaintiff and the class
seek to reinstate their now-lapsed insurance policies, the face
value of the policies should be included in the amount in
controversy. The Eleventh Circuit remanded the case to the District
Court for further proceedings.
Accordingly, Judge Hall made the Mandate of the Eleventh Circuit
the Order of the District Court. The Judge directed the Clerk of
the Court to vacate the stay of July 17, 2019 and reopen the case.
The parties are directed to file a Rule 26(f) report in accordance
with the District Court's Jan. 14, 2019 Order without delay.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- The appellant's brief is due on or before October 21, 2020;
-- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
the appellant's brief; and
-- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before October 9, 2020 as to Appellee Wilco Life Insurance
Company.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant VANESSA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated persons, is represented by:
Lee W. Brigham, Esq.
BELL & BRIGHAM
457 Greene St. PO Box 1547
Augusta, GA 30903-1547
Telephone: (706) 722-2014
E-mail: lee@bellbrigham.com
- and -
Robert Brent Irby, Esq.
Charles A. McCallum, III, Esq.
MCCALLUM HOAGLUND COOK & IRBY, LLP
905 Montgomery Hwy., Ste. 201
Vestavia Hills, AL 35216
Telephone: (205) 545-8334
E-mail: birby@mhcilaw.com
cmccallum@mhcilaw.com
Defendant-Appellee WILCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by:
Taylor F. Brinkman, Esq.
Anna K. Finger, Esq.
Carl C. Scherz, Esq.
LOCKE LORD, LLP
2200 Ross Ave., Ste. 2800
Dallas, TX 75201-2748
Telephone: (214) 740-8000
E-mail: tbrinkman@lockelord.com
anna.k.finger@lockelord.com
cscherz@lockelord.com
- and -
Elizabeth Joy Campbell, Esq.
LOCKE LORD, LLP
3333 Piedmont Rd. NE, Ste. 1200
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 870-4679
E-mail: ecampbell@lockelord.com
WISE CHOICE: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Ramirez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zaira Ramirez v. Wise Choice Trans Corp., a California corporation,
DOES 1-50 inclusive, Case No. ZOCV370571 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara
Cty., Sept. 11, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated individuals due to the Defendants'
unlawful labor practices resulting to violations of the California
Labor Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants fail to pay minimum wage
for each hour she worked in excess of eight in a workday and 40 in
a workweek, fail to pay overtime compensation for all overtime
hours worked, fail to pay all wages that were due to them within
the time she was discharged from employment, and fail to provide
timely, accurate itemized wage statements showing, among other
things, total hours worked, all applicable hourly rates during the
pay period, and the corresponding number of hours worked at each
rate. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful and unfair business
practices, the Plaintiff further seeks restitution, and other
appropriate relief available under Business Professions Code
Section 17203, on her own behalf, and on behalf of others similarly
situated.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in an office
administrator position from July 2017 through November 2019.
Wise Choice Transportation Corp, Inc., is a California corporation
that provides "final mile delivery" services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Drew Lewis, Esq.
DREW LEWIS, PC
2998 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 375
Roseville, CA 95661
Telephone: (833) 600-7400
E-mail: drew@drewlewis.law
WOOD GROUP: Iannotti Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS IANNOTTI, individually and for others similarly situated v.
WOOD GROUP MUSTANG, Case No. 3:20-cv-00958 (S.D. Ill., Sept. 18,
2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act by failing to pay overtime wages.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Land Agent from
January 2015 until March 2020.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant denied him of overtime
compensation for all the hours he worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek at the proper overtime rate pursuant to the FLSA. Despite
frequently working more than 60 hours in a workweek, the Defendant
only paid him his flat rate for the number of days he worked.
Wood Group Mustang is a for-profit company that delivers project
management, construction management, engineering and procurement
services to the offshore, onshore, oil sands, pipeline, refining,
chemicals, industrial and automation sectors, operating in
countries throughout Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, Latin
America and North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and –
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 West Washington, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312) 419-1008
[*] Australians Must Not Bow to US Lobbyists Against Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oksana Patron, writing for Money Management, reports that an advice
firm which allegedly gave conflicted advice has been ordered by a
court to pay back the lost SMSF monies.
Class Action Australia has warned that if Australian leading class
action law firms bow to the US Chamber of Commerce's lobbying
against class actions, this may end up depriving regular
Australians of access to justice.
The representatives of law firms, who appeared before a
parliamentary inquiry, included Maurice Blackburn, Slater and
Gordon, and Shine, and according to Class Actions Australia, all
these firms were members of the Keep Corporations Honest campaign.
Class Actions Australia spokesperson, Ben Hardwick, described how
the interference of the US lobby was concerning after MP Jason
Falinski challenged the suggestion that Treasurer Josh Frydenberg
had met with the US Chamber of Commerce just days before announcing
draconian new regulation of class action funding.
"We know the US Chamber of Commerce is lobbying furiously to reduce
the impact of Australian class actions because they don't like
their multinational members, like Johnson and Johnson, being sued
by regular Australians. It is important to recognise this and fight
it. The pernicious influence of big money American-style business
lobbying should have no place in Australian politics," Hardwick
said.
Shine Lawyers head of litigation and loss recovery, Jan Saddler,
told the inquiry that litigation funding was a crucial part of the
class action system and stressed that class actions litigation was
expensive to conduct both for the plaintiffs and the defendants for
many reasons.
"The disputes are almost always contested and involve all parties
expending many millions of dollars in legal costs prosecuting and
defending the issues in dispute," Saddler said.
"There is the risk that if unsuccessful, the other parties costs,
are payable. Quite simply, without the support of litigation
funders, Shine would not be able to act for as many well deserving
Australians as it does." [GN]
[*] Litigation Funding Reforms in Aus. Must Strike Right Balance
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Global Legal Post reports that Andrew Saker, of Omni Bridgeway,
speaks out for balance and understanding as Australia debates
litigation funding.
The role of litigation funders in the Australian class action
system is currently under assault from a number of vocal
pro-business advocates. Their motive is clear: remove the funders
and you remove class actions against large companies.
Developments in the class action space this year have provided a
platform for these wilfully ill-informed campaigns and, in the
process, have obscured the benefits litigation funders can bring to
businesses, particularly in this challenging economic environment.
As previously reported by the Global Legal Post, in March this year
the Australian government announced a parliamentary inquiry into
litigation funding and the class action system. Two months later,
the Government expanded the scope of the inquiry and signalled
important changes to the sector by introducing a requirement for
litigation funders to hold an Australian Financial Services Licence
(AFSL) and comply with the managed investment scheme (MIS) regime.
Omni Bridgeway welcomes improvements to the 30-year-old Australian
class action system and appropriate regulation of the litigation
funding industry. As the pioneer of litigation funding in
Australia, we support the introduction of a licensing regime for
funders that sets minimum onshore capital adequacy requirements,
disclosure obligations and reporting standards. Having previously
held an AFSL, we have reapplied for a licence in the context of
these reforms.
We are also consulting with the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission about appropriate modifications to the MIS
regime to ensure it is fit for the purpose of applying to funded
class actions.
However, any additional reform measures adopted must strike the
right balance and must not have the consequence -- unintended or
otherwise -- of pushing funders out of the market.
This would not only compromise the viability of the class actions
regime, but it might also cut off a potential source of liquidity
for Australian businesses struggling to survive and manage risks in
a Covid-19 world.
Class actions are invariably complex, notoriously expensive and
take years to resolve. They are usually brought against well-funded
defendants -- large corporates who are often insured -- or
governments. When a funder is involved in a class action, the
funder pays the representative claimant's costs on a non-recourse
basis—that is, if the case is lost, the funder is owed nothing;
the funder is only reimbursed its costs and receives a fee if the
case is successful.
As Australia is a loser-pays jurisdiction, the funder usually also
indemnifies the claimant for any adverse costs on an uncapped
basis. Litigation funding therefore provides protection to
defendants—usually large companies that know their costs will be
paid in the event the action is unsuccessful.
In addition to the financial protection they provide to corporate
defendants in class actions (if the case is lost), litigation
funding can provide other benefits for companies.
In the difficult economic environment caused by the Covid-19
pandemic, almost all businesses, large or small, need to conserve
cash and consider ways to access liquidity. And litigation funding
is one potential source of capital. While businesses are likely to
face a range of new commercial disputes, there will be little room
in budgets to pursue legal claims and seek recoveries that may
sustain them through the economic downturn.
Litigation outcomes lie in the future and are inherently uncertain.
Funders such as Omni Bridgeway are run by highly experienced former
dispute lawyers who undertake extensive due diligence to ensure
that only meritorious cases are pursued. They also assess the
estimated legal costs and strategies to ensure, as far as possible,
that they are proportionate to the sums at stake. Litigation
funding arrangements are flexible, depending on the circumstances,
and use an 'asset' that may otherwise be overlooked.
How does it work? By using external funding to finance the costs of
a dispute (including lawyer and expert fees, and court costs),
legal claims are leveraged as assets. This means the funder pays
some or all of these costs in return for a share of the outcome. In
this way, businesses can improve liquidity, transfer all or a
portion of the legal expenses to the funder, and maintain cash on
the balance sheet.
Businesses are also able to leverage the value in their contingent
litigation assets by seeking funding in the form of a capital
advance, with no corresponding balance sheet liability. And some
legal claims can also be monetised by selling them, in whole or in
part, to a funder.
Any reforms made to the class action system in Australia as a
result of the Federal parliamentary inquiry must be necessary and
of clear benefit to all stakeholders. Reforms that stifle the
litigation funding industry will not be in anyone's best interests.
Andrew Saker is chief executive officer and managing director of
Omni Bridgeway. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Still Defends Exposure Claims at July 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation still defends itself against
asbestos claims related to its facilities and older vehicle models,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2020.
The Company states, "Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we
have been subject to a number of asbestos-related claims. In
general, these claims relate to illnesses alleged to have resulted
from asbestos exposure from component parts found in older
vehicles, although some cases relate to the alleged presence of
asbestos in our facilities. In these claims, we are generally not
the sole defendant, and the claims name as defendants numerous
manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety of products allegedly
containing asbestos. We have strongly disputed these claims, and
it has been our policy to defend against them vigorously.
Historically, the actual damages paid out to claimants have not
been material in any year to our financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows. It is possible that the number of these
asbestos-related claims, and the costs for resolving them, could
become significant in the future."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/gccDTw
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Ct. Affirms Summary Judgment for Sikorsky
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Storace, writing for Law.com, reports that Sikorsky Aircraft
Corp. has achieved victory in asbestos case with issue of first
impression before Connecticut Supreme Court. The Connecticut
Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling in a case of first
impression dealing with asbestos in the workplace.
The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed a ruling from a lower court,
which granted summary judgment for Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.,
crushing a potential class action asbestos claim against the
Stratford-based company.
The class-action lawsuit seeked medical monitoring for workers
allegedly exposed to asbestos when its Connecticut facility was
renovated.
*********
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 ***